Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 May

File:Holyfield vs Bowe.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I have no idea why this image was deleted let alone even brought up for deletion. Pretty much all our boxing, MMA, pro wrestling, etc pay-per view articles use the official poster as the main image. It has the correct fair use and it's not being used for any other article but Evander Holyfield vs. Riddick Bowe. I really don't see what the problem is. Beast from da East (talk) 02:38, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse It was quite appropriate to raise a discussion about whether the image was allowed under our policies[1][2] and guidelines[3] and the discussion was a whole lot better than most at FFD. It looks as if the close of "delete" was in line with the consensus there (and was also in accord with our usual implementation of policy). It is clearly lawful for Wikipedia to use the image under fair use law but the discussion considered its use would be contrary to our own policies. Thincat (talk) 08:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Like so much of Wikipedia, image use policy exists in tension between two points of view. The "pro-encyclopaedia" view has it that we're here to build an encyclopaedia and any image that (a) enhances the encyclopaedia in some way and (b) would be lawful to use, should be used. The "pro-free content" view has it that we're here to provide free content and unfree images shouldn't be used unless no free replacement could ever exist. The pendulum swings a bit from time to time, just as it does between inclusionism and deletionism, and the unfortunate fact is that right now we're in a deletionist, pro-free content phase. We'll return to a more balanced situation in due course (or else the encyclopaedia will run out of content contributors, leaving a bunch of increasingly militant deletionist/free content people wandering around deleting all the incomplete stuff). My advice is to accept it and do something else until the pendulum swings back...—S Marshall T/C 19:59, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yes. My "endorse" shouldn't be taken to mean I think it is anything other than highly unfortunate. Thincat (talk) 00:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So are you guys saying that we should indeed have the picture or are you saying that we keep the picture deleted? Beast from da East (talk) 00:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying (and I believe S Marshall is) that the the discussion was closed properly and so the image was correctly deleted. I am now pondering whether the FFD discussion was sufficiently faulty that the matter should again be referred to FFD. I might (or might not) comment later. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion was faulty. The

WP:NFCC#8. The matter is worth discussing again at FFD. Thincat (talk) 10:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, you can do if you like. The trouble is that in practice, fair use images presently default to delete. If we send it back, the onus won't be on the delete side to show why the image is inappropriate; it'll be on the keep side to show why it's appropriate, and it will be closed accordingly. And someone will probably say the Magic Image Deleting Word ("decorative") anyway. We probably should send it back but the outcome won't be different.—S Marshall T/C 12:43, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The matter should be brought up again, there were only two to three users discussing it last time and that just isn't enough in my opinion to warrant a deletion. If we could get more users to join the discussion, I think we'd be able to come to a better agreement on the situation.Beast from da East (talk) 21:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• As you wish. Relist per Thincat and Beast from da East.—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Conditions (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted three times about two years ago and salted (why permanently, I don't know, except insofar as "forever" seems to be the default salt decision; I wish the culture would change about this). It concerned a band which had released one album. This group has released a second album, which, like the previous one, reached an American album chart, and the band has been the subject of multiple third-party reviews in the wake of the new release (e.g., [4], [5], [6], [7]; the band was also featured in the April edition of

File:Eega_and_Naan_Ee_merged_film_poster.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

The article describes two original films,

• Closing admin here. We generally don't allow mashups of nonfree content as an extension of
  policies on nonfree galleries. Additionally, it's concerning whenever we directly modify "fair use" content and create new work based on it, hence my original close as "delete". I would further state that this doesn't seem that different from our frequent conversations disallowing album covers, DVD covers, movie posters, etc. for a second- or third-language release of a work. No matter how many languages a film is released in, we only "need" one image for identification. (ESkog)^(Talk) 16:57, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment there is no law which says infoboxes must have pictures, let alone they must represent everything in the article. If (and it is if) the use of images can be justified under NFCC, then put two separate images in place, if need be put no image in the infobox, but put the two images elsewhere in the article. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 18:19, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for feedback. IP, it's standard to use posters for films in infobox throughout all wikipedias. I would like to show an analogy to make the case clearer. Let's say a very notable film was made in Mandarin and Russian at the same time with identical content and persons. How would you handle this? Which poster(s) would make it into the infobox? When you choose Russian, the Chinese would probably declare war and vice versa. Infact we had a similar problem here, when I initially used only one picture for both films. I only see a merged poster/gallery as a solution here and it is legally possible as described above. -- Dravidian  Hero  18:51, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please point me to the policy, guideline etc. which says you *must* have a picture in an infobox. You won't be able to, because no such policy exists. In fact I've seen discussion of those wishing to remove the picture element from infoboxes to remove the common misconception that being there it must be used and uploading images which violate the NFC policy just to fill in the blank. If (and I'll repeat if) I could justify the two posters for the film, I'd put them in the body and remove any from the infobox, no dispute then as to which one appears since neither do. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:22, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Template:Infobox_film#Image -- Dravidian  Hero  19:47, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That isn't a policy or guideline, doesn't say you *must* and also points to the fact that they must meet the NFC criteria to be used, so no that isn't setting a standard. Out of interest I had a look around to see this standard throughout all wikipedias, I picked Mission: Impossible III, Mission: Impossible – Ghost Protocol and Live Free or Die Hard as examples of films of the past few years with broad distribution and an international audience, going through the interwiki links, ES, FR, ET, HU, NL, PL, SV at least don't have any picture in the infobox. Some have pictures within the body of the article. (Exception here for one where FR wiki has a free image of a behind the scenes shot showing the filming) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:59, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Set aside the infobox, which obviously is a settled matter in at least EN, your proposal of adding the two posters in the body doesn't solve the NFC problem. It would be equivalent to a gallery or a montage, if you use more than one NF image. So we have exactly the same problem we are discussing here.-- Dravidian  Hero  20:18, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • Using the word "obviously" doesn't make it so, the wasn't and still isn't any requirement to have an image in infoboxes. Yes you may still have NFC issues with two separate images which is why I was quite clear about the if the two could be justified. The gallery or montage part however is unlikely to be the issue, there would be no need to slap them side by side, you'd place them in the body as separate images, not a gallery and not a montage. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 06:21, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article

Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone (film) (a GA) has two posters, why can't this have? Kailash29792 (talk) 06:15, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment The best reason for showing both posters is if there are differences between them that are worth discussing in an encyclopedia. If that is so then the article should discuss the detail of the two posters and the cultural or other reasons for the two different versions. If this is not worth discussing I don't think we need two images. If it is then the "critical commentary" aspect might gain support for having both images. I rather agree a mash up of fair use images is probably not a good idea. Thincat (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. This discussion should be solely about the use of two film posters for the different releases of the same film in the same article, not at all about the number of image files involved. Just because the two posters are copied in the same image file doesn't mean they are a "mashup" or that the file constitutes a "new work". They were just placed one above the other, a completely unoriginal arrangement that is really just a mundane copy of the two posters, not a new work that rises to the level of a derivative work; inclusion in WP article layout is instead much closer to a derivative use than the combination image file here possibly could be. So it's irrelevant for copyright purposes (and should be for our NFC policies as well) whether those posters are in separate image files or combined in one. postdlf (talk) 17:31, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mister Saint Laurent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Admin asked for review Larsonrick25 (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It appears a mistake was made by deleting the Mister Saint Laurent entry. The page deleted was not a recreation of the pulled page from 2008, but was mistakenly assumed as such. I've helped monitor the page the last few years as there'd been some controversy, but it was ultimately decided by the appropriate Wikipedia authority figures that the new page was appropriate and should remain. So it would be a mistake to pull the page based on a different entry that was pulled five years ago. That entry was inappropriately created by the subject. Independent editors years later created a properly sourced page, which is the one mistakenly deleted this week. There had already been a discussion over whether to delete the page and the consensus was to keep it. I think the admin was just doing some routine house keeping and mistakenly assumed it was the same page from 2008. I talked to the admin and he told me to start a talk here. Sorry if I don't have this whole process correct. If there's already been a discussion and it's decided a page should not be deleted, I don't think it should suddenly vanish out of the blue years later. I think the admin simply made an error and once the facts are considered, I believe the page should be restored. I think it was a simple miscommunication.

• "but it was ultimately decided by the appropriate Wikipedia authority figures that the new page was appropriate and should remain" - can you link to such a discussion? (Note we don't decide on permanent inclusion or exclusion anywhere). "There had already been a discussion over whether to delete the page and the consensus was to keep it." - same question where is that discussion? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The page has been deleted, so I have no way of accessing the talk page from it. The admin did a G4 speedy deletion of the page ("A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion.[3] This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies, and content moved to user space for explicit improvement.").

But the page was not sufficiently identical and was not unimproved. The page was completely different from the 2008 deleted page and vastly improved. It was simply a housekeeping error on the part of the admin. He deleted the page without warning simply because he noticed there had been a deleted article five years earlier with the same name. Even a quick examination of the two articles would show the new article was not identical in any way, was tremendously improved, and had existed for years with proper citations and any discussion of deletion was ultimately denied. This page did not qualify for a G4 speedy deletion nor was there any reason for any deletion whatsoever.

The admin had no previous history with this article and there had been no recent issue calling for admin intervention. It appears the admin was simply in good faith looking to help clean up Wikipedia, but with over 100,000 edits, he's only human and simply made a mistake with this deletion. When the mistake was brought to his attention, it was clear he wasn't familiar with the article at all and asked for there to be further discussion here.

If the article were to be temporarily restored, we'd be able to compare it to the 2008 article as well as look at its talk page. You will see clearly this deletion was a mistake, not to mention it did not meet any criteria for speedy deletion. The article was not substantially identical to the deleted version, therefore it is to be excluded from G4 speedy deletion according to Wikipedia policy.

I'd be happy to help clarify any further confusion, but I'm unable to answer your questions at this point as the page was removed without warning and I have no access to the talk page. Like I said, even a brief overview of the article if it were temporarily restored would show it was not the same article deleted in 2008. The admin simply made an honest mistake and it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 12:18, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeating the same argument time and time again does not make it any more persuasive. I got your contention that it's not valid as a G4 the first time, your repeating it several times again isn't needed, I'm interested in your other assertions, which are extremely vague. As discussions about deletion etc. don't occur on the talk page, I can't see the significance in the talk page not being available should affect your ability to point me to those discussions. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 12:31, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I am new to this process and doing my best to contribute to the community. I sincerely apologize if my lack of experience has agitated you in any way. There was a Mister Saint Laurent page that was correctly deleted in 2008. It was poorly sourced and appeared to be biased so it was removed. Later on, a completely different, correctly sourced and unbiased article was created. There had been some discussion on the talk page as to whether the subject was notable enough to be included on Wikipedia. The consensus was that the subject was notable and it never went any further than that. Those discussions were on the talk page. If those discussions should have taken place elsewhere, so be it, but they did not and I was not involved in those discussions, was simply pointing out that the consensus on the page was that the new article, unlike the old article, was proper and should remain.

Please don't shoot the messenger. I noticed a page had been mistakenly deleted. I contacted the admin and the admin asked that it be addressed here. I apologize again if I've made in mistakes in protocol. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 14:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I've temp restored the article and its talk page. I see no evidence of a discussion there concluding this individual is notable—if anything, rather the opposite—and it wouldn't be binding anyway. —Cryptic 14:36, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I realize previous decisions are not necessarily binding, but believe strongly an assessment of the facts would determine the 2010 article was sufficiently different and vastly improved from the 2008 article and a G4 delete was made in error. Unfortunately even the 2010 article was the target of a lot of trolling and vandalism for a while. However, if you look at the edit history of the 2010 article, you will see on July 10, 2012 that administrator StephenBuxton, a member of Wikipedia's Counter-Vandalism Unit came to the following conclusion: "CSD Declined - notability asserted and referenced in article." The vandalism ceased after his decision and there had been no issues since. So until the sudden deletion of the article the other day, which came without warning and clearly was a mistake under the G4 criteria, the last time an admin looked into the matter, they concluded notability had been asserted and they declined to delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Larsonrick25 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The article was deleted (notability) after a 2008 AFD, recreated two years later in 2010 and given PROD (notability) in 2013 and then deleted by
  WP:CSD#G4. Even the expired PROD could have been overturned on request but not the speedy. G4 is excluded for "pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". Is the newly-deleted version here substantially identical to this? For a start it has eight references rather than four. The way G4 is sometimes handled seems utterly bizarre. Notability concerns should be handled at AFD. Thincat (talk) 21:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  So what is the next step? There is no question he is notable. He co-hosts MLW Radio with wrestling legend Konnan, which is one of the most popular and well known wrestling shows there is, with thousands and thousands of listeners. Not to mention he's been notable enough to have cover stories written about him in major international publications (which is how I discovered him). Larsonrick25 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The question here at DRV is not (primarily) whether the individual is notable but whether the speedy deletion was carried out within policy. In my view it quite definitely was not. If the deletion is overturned a quite separate matter will then be whether the article should be improved or sent to "Articles for Deletion". You were quite right to point out the "mistaken" deletion but this is not the time or place to discuss notability. Very many people unfamiliar with DRV find this way of deciding things difficult to take on board. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - nice of everyone to actually notify the deleting admin... GiantSnowman 09:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you requested that it should be taken to DRV[8] but it would indeed have been better if you had been told that this had actually occurred. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm new to the politics and protocols of Wiki. Doing my best to try to do the right thing. Could barely figure out how to do the DRV thing. Apologies to the admin for not making a notice. Larsonrick25 (talk) 00:17, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem! GiantSnowman 08:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as deleting admin - I am fine with the article being restored and then taken back to AFD, though I stand by my use of G4 as I believe the articles were similar enough to be eligible. GiantSnowman 08:02, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

After this AFD resulted in a decision of "keep", someone decided to challenge the decision by opening a new AFD, rather than by coming here. I've closed the AFD procedurally in favor of coming here. The nominator's rationale is as follows.

I have no opinion on the matter, so I'm neutral. Nyttend (talk) 22:12, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I completely realize that this article was recently taken to AfD. Heck, I realize that I voted Keep in that AfD. However, after comments by others about the sources, i've taken a closer look at them, which I didn't really do previously. And what I have found does seem to indicate a violation of

This source is used to reference the

This is a recent source about the Qworty incident. on Wikipediocracy, it states, "The Qworty fiasco came to Leonard’s attention, he writes, when members of Wikipediocracy, a site that details instances of Wikipedian fakery and bias, contacted him." Also a trivial mention, not even counting that it is referencing information from a different news article.

This article could actually be an issue of

This article is about somewhat recent discussions with Jimbo about Kazakh Wikipedia. Its comments on Wikipediocracy amount to, "Wales was responding from comments by Andreas Kolbe, a moderator at Wikipediocracy, an external forum whose members are often harshly critical of Wikimedia's management." This is, again, a trivial mention, and really, from what the rest of the article says, is a better reference to be used on Andreas than Wikipediocracy.

This source is about Gibraltarpedia. About Wikipediocracy, it states, "Kolbe wrote on Wikipediocracy, a site often critical of Wikimedia’s top brass." Again, this article has a fair amount to say on Andreas, but only half a sentence on Wikipediocracy. Even more trivial than trivial.

This source I could go on about its reliability, with it being The Register and about its author, Andrew Orlowski, but I have no need to. Because this article makes absolutely no mention of Wikipediocracy at all (other than in a screenshot of a Wikipedia conversation). Honestly, I have no idea why this source is in the article, other than for POV pushing.

This source, likewise, has no mention of Wikipediocracy and is merely being used to source the statement "co-founder of Wikipedia" for Larry Sanger, which doesn't really seem necessary, but that is irrelevant to this discussion. This source, like the previous, confers no notability to Wikipediocracy, not even through a trivial mention.

Now i'll go back to the source that I skipped and saved for last here, because it is the one we have to focus on, that offers slightly more to the subject. However, it is about the recent Qworty incident and is the only source of any real length on Wikipediocracy, so we also have to bring up the question on whether this single event adds much by itself.

The article that I am referring to is this one. Now you can read it yourself and it certainly has a lot of references to Wikipediocracy and the information the writer was given by members there. However, it also says pretty much nothing about the site itself. Really, other than the mentions of their involvement in giving this Wikipedia information to the author, the article has nothing to say about the Wikipediocracy site itself.

And that's it, in a fair bit of length. If there was a single source that discussed the site in any length, even a paragraph, then this might be a different discussion. If there was anything about the site's foundings, its origins, even more about its members. But there's nothing. There are references to the site and that's all.

And as is often noted in AfD discussions, a bunch of trivial mentions don't add up to much. Trivial mentions are still trivial. And, in most cases, these are even worse than trivial. Usually what we call "trivial mentions" have at least two sentences or something on a subject, but these are, apparently, the most trivial among the trivial.

I see no real argument for notability here, once you actually take a look at the sources. Silverseren^C 04:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist Due to the potential for !voters with a conflict of interest, the AfD should have been left open longer.
  AutomaticStrikeout  ?  22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Could you please describe this conflict of interest ? Is it not the case that every editor has an inherent conflict of interest in a topic like Wikipediocracy, given its symbiotic relationship with Wikimedia/Wikipedia. Nick (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Giving the AfD more time gives all points of view a greater opportunity to weigh in.

AutomaticStrikeout  ?  23:25, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn and delete (first preference) or relist (second preference). I'm not sure about the wisdom of not letting the new AfD play out, but here we are, anyway. Silver seren is right to point out the degree of
  WP:CRYSTAL etc). Silver and Steve's analysis is compelling and suggests that the first AfD was wrongly decided. Prioryman (talk) 22:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment If we decide to relist, could we unclose the second nomination instead of unclosing the first one? If we say that the first one was wrongly closed but that it needs more input, it would seem to me to be better to throw everything out and allow the start-from-the-ground-up that the second one provides. Nyttend (talk) 22:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• That seems very sensible to me. Prioryman (talk) 22:35, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• (copied from the second AFD, which was closed just as I was posting this) Keep (i.e., Endorse first AfD result). First of all, I question the value of renominating this or any article for deletion just four days after a prior AFD closed as Keep, in the absence of a supervening BLP issue or the like. (The DRV, while perhaps procedurally better, is its own timesink.) In any event, Wikipediocracy has become sufficiently notable to warrant an article here based on some of the sources that have been cited in the AFD. At this point, the site is at least as notable as its now-moribund predecessor Wikipedia Review, which has enjoyed (?) an article for several years. And although we don't rely on future events as the basis for notability, the notability of Wikipediocracy is almost sure to continue to increase: Wikipedia and Wikimedia, for all of their positive attributes that keep us contributing, will continue to have faults and foibles that Wikipediocracy will seek to expose and publicize, sometimes fairly and sometimes otherwise. If we delete this now, we'll be having an agonizing debate again about whether enough has changed to warrant inclusion some three or six months from now; let's not do that to ourselves. For what it's worth, I do not believe this article should be mainpaged—in general, including articles that the general public would perceive as navel-gazing on the main page should be avoided—but that is a different question from whether the article should exist at all. Finally, I hope that the community will devote only a reasonably proportionate amount of time to this entire discussion, recognizing that while this AFD/DRV may matter very much to our "inside baseball" crowd, the short-term fate of this article is of limited importance in the grander scheme of wikithings. In the past few days, a lot of Wikipedians (myself included) have looked back at the damage done by Qworty and asked "why wasn't this problem identified much sooner?" Part of the answer is that sometimes we collectively focus too much of the community's most precious resource, which is our contributors' time and attention, not on improving our articles and making sure that we treat our fellow editors and our article subjects fairly, but on digressions like this one. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:20, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at Wikipedia Review's sources, so I can't comment on whether they are adequate. However, comparing this article to another one seems nonsensical when we're talking about completely different sources. Can you please directly address the issues with the sources that I pointed out and how they generally have a sentence or less (a few not even that) about Wikipediocracy? How exactly does this work with our notability policies? Because if something this thin can be considered notable, then there are a huge number of other articles that have no reason to be deleted, even if they have thin references like this does. Silverseren^C 22:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps what makes this one different is that it's backed by a community who know how to troll and disrupt Wikipedia to get their own way. I can't help feeling that the article was created specifically to set editors at each others' throats. Prioryman (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think that is unfair, Prioryman. There does seem a legitimate belief among Wikipediocrats that several trivial mentions = significant coverage, but that is also a misunderstanding that other editors hold as well. I think the desire to create the article was legitimate and honest. It is, in my obvious opinion, also premature. Resolute 22:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• They knew, quite obviously, that creating the article was likely to cause controversy. Submitting it to DYK - a project they hold in contempt, by the way - was an even more drama-laden act. Everything about the way this was done suggests to me that they wanted to make the biggest splash they could. In that, sadly, they seem to have succeeded. Prioryman (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not intend to offer an opinion as to the DRV itself, but your personal attacks here, Prioryman, are quite out of line, especially considering your own considerable COI in the matter. Mangoe (talk) 00:34, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse first AfD result. Per NYB. Darkness Shines (talk) 22:40, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse first AfD result. Honestly, the second AfD was heading to the exact same result in spite of Seren's arguments. Time to stop the procedural nonsense and face facts: the article is staying.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-open second debate. The first AFD was done over a weekend when many editors would not have been aware, and was quickly propped up by Wikipediocrats defending their turf. That said, there were also several keep !votes from editors uninvolved with the site and on that basis, I cannot fault JayJay's decision to close the first one. However, the second AFD is based on a legitimate concern that was glossed over in the first AFD: the article subject simply has not been the subject of significant coverage from independent reliable sources. It does not pass
  WP:GNG. The site has earned a few mentions as part of articles dedicated to the topic of criticism of Wikipedia, but Wikipediocracy has not yet itself been the subject of such coverage. There is an evident desire to argue notability on the basis of numerous trivial mentions, but that is not supported by the notability guidelines. Moreover, accepting this argument basically renders any politician/candidate or athlete notable if they are given several trivial mentions in articles about elections or games. This is the extent to which GNG is being misapplied. And while that is more of an AFD argument than a DRV one, the simplest course of action would be to simply let the second AFD run its course. Becuase of the nature of Wikipediocracy and several of its users, this article had no hope but to become a drama magnet. The best way to deal with it is to just let the AfD run its course then allow an admin knowledgeable about policy to judge consensus. These silly venue shifting games don't help. Resolute 22:48, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Determining whether coverage is "trivial" is not about counting how many times something is mentioned or seeing if it is discussed in its own right, but whether the context of the mention indicates it is an important subject. As far as your comparison to articles about politicians in elections and athletes in games, that kind of coverage would be excluded by WP:ROUTINE. None of the mentions of WO that we are talking about are routine.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say it is. The articles are about Wikipedia and percieved or real abuses within. Wikipediocracy gets a momentary mention in some cases, simply as a hat tip, but it is undeniably not the subject of any of the sources any more than the examples I gave above. Resolute 23:14, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'll leave the notability issue for others to debate... it's probably not notable enough for an encyclopedia in my view of what notable would mean, but where I think the bar should be is much higher than it actually is.

  FWIW, as a participant on Wikipediocracy, my preference would be delete (as well as maybe have this debate on one page rather than 3). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 22:50, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Sorry ladies & gents & others, but as my dream girl once said, "it's all over but the crying". 1 snow keep + 1 bad-faith quick renomination that we all know would've wound up a keep as well == an article that is going to stick around. All we're here to do at DRV is evaluate the closing admin's actions. No fault can be found here at all. Tarc (talk) 22:59, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse first AfD result per (wikipediocracy member) NewYorkBrad.— alf laylah wa laylah (talk) 23:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen second AfD The first AfD was closed after 24 hours or so, the second lasted less than that. The first was closed with SNOW, but the second isn't snowing, so why not continue it so we have an actual full length AfD?
  talk) 23:13, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse I can't see anything procedurally wrong with the way that either AFD nomination was closed, the request to overturn seems to amount to "I disagree with the way people voted" rather than "I think the nomination was closed against procedure". DRV is not itself "AFD Part II" (or in this case Part III), rather we're supposed to look at the deletion process rather than the merits of the deletion argument itself. I don't see where the process was flawed in any way. This does not preclude a new AFD after sufficient time (say 6 months or so) to test the waters to see if consensus has changed, but as a matter of this AFD, I don't see where there's any evidence this needs to be overturned. --Jayron32 23:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• If no new sources of sufficient coverage exist by then, that is probably a good idea. Silverseren^C 05:17, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse first AfD result per my comments at the 2nd AfD. - MrX 23:57, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• This is going to be an "endorse" by sheer weight of numbers, even if we disregard all the AfD round 2 comments above, but it shouldn't be. We should let SilverSeren have his 7 days at AfD, after which the material will of course be kept, but we're not here to decide that. DRV's function is to see that the process is correctly followed, and the process is that discussions are left open for 7 days. There's no urgent or pressing reason to come to a decision earlier, is there?

  It's against all reason and logic to endorse a "procedural close" of this kind. There is nothing procedural about closing discussions early. Any kind of snow close is an IAR close, and it's inherently bold, and can be reverted per BRD. People snow close discussions like this in an attempt to bring the drama to an end, but of course it doesn't bring the drama to an end. It just brings it here. The correct decision here is to let editors have their say in the normal way. Relist for the whole seven days.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per my comments at the second afd. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think there is a rational IAR basis for keeping a piece of borderline notability here. As I commented at the first AfD if this closes a Delete, chances are there will be a redirect to Wikipedia Review (predecessor website) either coming out of the AfD process or established by editorial decision shortly thereafter. That will cause the other piece to grow an unseemly appendage for a time, before another hard source or two inevitably appears and the Wikipediocracy piece splits off again. I think there is a case to be made that it is a more rational way to build an encyclopedia to not attempt to bury a borderline piece at this juncture; we know with mathematical certainty that it will expand over time. I think the snow keep last time was reasonable. I'm a regular poster on the WPO message board so I will just leave this as a comment rather than as a bolded opinion, but hopefully the closing administrator will see the logic of my perspective. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per User:Jayron32. Begoon ^talk 01:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'd prefer delete but understand the concerns of NYB. It's already larger than the articles on entities that establish its notability. This article has thevery possibility of simply being a collection of past drama. and a Coatrack for any perceived slight or wrongdoing. The article needs serious trimming to limit the scope to what Wikipediocracy is rather than what it contains. --DHeyward (talk) 08:04, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. The next appropriate forum at which to shop would be St. Jude's. Kiefer.Wolfowitz 09:15, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but your comment does not seem to have any relevance to the discussion. Are you alleging that Silver Seren is somehow forum shopping because he started a second AfD?

talk) 10:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

It should be nice to use this discussion in future AfDs though, to show that linking to a website and one sentence mentions establish notability. I'm pretty sure I can get almost everything to be kept by using that. Silverseren^C 16:30, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think you'll find that this is a sui generis AfD, because the normal rules are apparently suspended where Wikipediocracy and its members are concerned. Prioryman (talk) 17:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn...Allow the Afd to run the full week. This will allow the proper vetting of the sources and full discussion.--MONGO 17:28, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Re-open second debate. The close on the first AfD was per
  WP:SNOW
  ". Sometimes things take a little time to work out. We're not on deadline here.

For goodness sakes,

WP:SNOW is intended to make things go faster and avoid wasted effort. Just the opposite effect was achieved here. Looking on the bright side, at least User:JayJay and User:Nyttend

have learned a valuable lesson which'll help them be better editors in future. No hard feelings guys, no permanent harm.

N.B: the person closing the re-opened 2nd nomination should take into account comments from the first one, though. Herostratus (talk) 17:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • Yes, I learned that it's definitely important to discuss things at the right place and to help people follow process (especially when discussing and helping are agreed at an outside forum, which my decision was), because disrupting things needless does result in permanent harm. Opening a second AFD almost immediately after the first one closes as keep is never a good idea; it's virtually always forum shopping, and the exceptions (like this one) are those that bring up things that belong somewhere other than AFD. I didn't pay attention to SNOW here because it was completely irrelevant; your statement could with equal validity say that I didn't read or I prefer a selective and expansive interpretation of WP:PROFESSOR, because both are 100% unrelated. Nyttend (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I see where you're coming from. If I understand correctly, you're saying the 2nd nominator should have gone to DRV instead of a 2nd AfD. Yes I guess so, but he didn't, and I think you should have noted the closing reason and been a little flexible. There's no need to be pedantic about these things. We pay you to think a little bit about these things, not just respond mechanistically. We could write a bot to automatically close AfDs that are opened N days after a Keep close, even if the close reason was "Non-admin close as Keep after one day, because I happen to like the article" (which this close was pretty close to) or whatever. I'd rather not operate like that. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Comment' The basis for SNOW is the policy that WP is not a bureaucracy, and if a result is inevitable, there's no point delaying getting to it. SNOW is an explanation of one frequently occurring instance. Herostratus, I think you are simultaneous arguing that SNOW is just an essay and of no binding force & that the closer did not follow the letter of it--those two arguments are incompatible. I personally would not have SNOWed this, because what was really inevitable is that it would come here. The rules do in fact get suspended when there is something we don't like, that directly affects us. We do what most PR firms try to do for their clients, pretend what we do not like isn't really there, or isn't really important. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that if a result is inevitable SNOW is fine. But "inevitable" should be defined narrowly, else we end up here, with MORE extra work to do. The original SNOW closer made an understandable mistake. We know that now, cos we're here. And I don't think my points are incompatible -- it's just an essay, but if one is going to invoke it, at least stick to the spirit of what it says it's for. I urge all and sundry to define SNOW narrowly for purely practical reasons, and to treat SNOW much like PROD in that any reasonable objection overrules it, for organizational health reasons.

Look at the comment directly below. It's not logical. But we're getting that a lot: "It was closed as a SNOW, end of story". That's not was SNOW is supposed to be about, at all. A lot of slopes aren't slippery, but

WP:SNOW, quick, before the other side has a chance to mobilize". It's a very dangerous essay and should be used with much caution. Herostratus (talk) 21:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Hunh. After seeing what Nyttend wrote, I get it. The user should have gone to DRV instead of opening a 2nd AfD. If I'm reading him right, this would be required even if the close had been "Non-admin close as Keep after one day, because I happen to like the article" (or even "Non-admin close as Keep after one day, because Martian insects are trying to sell my washing machine", I guess) because that's the rule, period. That does seem pretty pedantic to me, speaking of not being rule-bound. Herostratus (talk) 05:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I were rule-bound, I would have closed it without doing anything, rather than sending it over to here where it belongs and giving it a proper discussion. I did this to help, not to attract attacks from you for doing what was in line with consensus. Nyttend (talk) 06:12, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse  WP:SNOW may be listed as an essay but it is buttressed with policy.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As per DGG - WP is not a bureaucracy. The SNOW keep was obvious at the first AFD. Next step would be DRV. The second (aborted) out of process AFD was also well on the way to 'Keep'. At this point per 'not a bureaucracy' how about we put this waste of time of everyone's time to bed for a while. (Maybe a bit longer than 4 days this time.) Situations like this are why 'not a bureaucracy' exists. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:53, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the second AfD happened and it wasn't snowing. How is

talk) 11:13, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn and Delete, preferably, Overturn and reopen AfD otherwise. WP:SNOW is irrelevant when 90-95% of Keep voters didn't make any policy-based argument whatsoever - and the majority of that figure made arguments that violated
  WP:CRYSTAL (ie, this will be notable soon, so we should keep it) or made comments that deleting it appears like censorship (which is utterly irrelevant). Beyond that, WP:SNOW is for uncontroversial things. How on earth was this ever going to be a non-controversial close? Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lawrence Kaptein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page (about me, but not originally written by me) was deleted for being unsourced. I've prepared a sourced version (to the best of my ability) here: User:Larrycaptain/ Lawrence Kaptein that I believe complies with the sourcing and notability guidelines. I'd be grateful for input and would like to have the deletion overturned and my draft (or another revised version) reinstated. The original article was brought to my attention by a graduate student doing research on the multicultural choral music movement in the US - an important focus of my professional work. 70.151.3.10 (talk) 17:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Permit recreation but I think it is still borderline, and I urge the ed. to make it stronger, to avoid a second delete decision. I'm not sure whether it meets WP:PROF, but it might does meet WP:CREATIVE as a musician. In the effort to make sure that everything possibly relevant to notability was shown , the article is considerably over-detailed--local awards within a college do not contribute to notability, and a strong article does not need them. Similarly, I do not think that a college's own publications of local newspapers are usually accepted as showing notability, and they represent far too many of the references. What we really need are reviews of performances in major magazines or papers, especially the major nation ones on choral music and music education. DGG ( talk ) 20:12, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for the feedback. I very much appreciate everyone's assistance in creating an acceptable article. The university publications can certainly be deleted if needed. There are three major national publications (books) listed (Jordan, Garretson, and Noble) that reference contributions to the fields of multicultural programming, music education, choral performance. Larrycaptain (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2013 (UTC)LK[reply]

• Recreate with similar caveats to DGG. I'd be amenable to helping Larrycaptain do some editing and formatting work on the draft, to try and get it up to scratch. Yunshui 雲‍水 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse whether or not the article was originally added by the subject, it's still vanity / self-promotion, which we should avoid as much as possible. An impressive-looking wall of sources doesn't hold up to scrutiny, for example attempts to use Youtube as a source (!!!) several times. Simply put, I'm not convinced this person's notability has changed significantly since it was deleted in April. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:57, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Again, the feedback on what to list/not list is extremely helpful. It seems, as a novice editor to Wikipedia, I approached the revision of the deleted article with too wide a variety of sources. The original article had zero references. Yunshui's very kind offer to help me cull/focus the prose and citations was extremely generous. I am hoping to have the opportunity to see what can be recreated with her guidance - perhaps using just the book and national periodical citations? This article is honestly not intended to be self-promoting, but objectively reflect my contribution to the initiation of the multicultural choral music movement in the United States. I've also heard that Wikipedia has been very useful to my graduate students, as potential employers research mentor's names listed on resumes to gain further insight into an applicant's educational experiences and potential professional focuses. Thanks again for all the suggestions and direction. 98.245.92.62 (talk) 15:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)Larry Kaptein[reply]

• Endorse. The deletion was on grounds of notability and the draft presented doesn't address this in the way required by the
  strongly discouraged" (emphasis in the original). Dricherby (talk) 20:26, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment How can academics be notable except by doing what academic are supposed to do? Actors become notable by their acting, politicians by their political activities , writers by their writing, and researchers by their research. No scientist is likely to become notable as a scientist except by writing scholarly articles in journals, with other people linking and commenting to them. (there are other criteria in WP:PROF, but almost always the awards, distinguished professorships, membership, etc. come as a consequence of the scientific work. Notability comes from what you do, and is proven by how much reliable sources talk about you. (in the case of academic, by the articles discussing yours, which is the way people in the subject determine importance). If a scientist had RSs talking about him as a politician, he'd be notable asa politician, not a scientist. The only people whose private life gets talked about is people in certain performing arts, and the very famous in other fields. (I'm not arguing he's notable under WP:PROF--as I said, I don't think he is, but a general statement as wrong as the one above cannot go unchallenged). DGG ( talk ) 17:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, people become notable as a result of rising to the top of their profession. (Disclaimer: yes, we all know you become notable by having significant coverage in independent, reliable sources; this whole comment should be read through the filter of, "What do you have to do to get that coverage?") People are notable as a result of being exceptional, not just for doing the thing that people in their profession are supposed to do. Ordinary actors aren't notable: only the ones who are in major stage productions and movies. Ordinary politicians (e.g., town councillors) aren't notable: only the ones who are elected to regional or national government or the mayors of big cities. Ordinary authors and musicians aren't notable: only the ones who sign significant book/record deals and come to wide attention. You don't mention it but ordinary sportspeople aren't notable: only the ones who play in fully professional leagues or otherwise at the highest level. And, likewise, ordinary academics aren't notable: only the ones whose contribution to their field is significant enough to meet the sorts of criteria at

WP:PROF. It's not that academics are required to do something other than "academic stuff", just as politicians aren't required to do something other than "politician stuff": but they're required to do that and do it to a level that exceeds the average. Every academic has written scholarly papers. Every academic has had those papers referenced by other academics. If that was all that was required to establish notability, every academic would be notable. Dricherby (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Based on various scientometric studies, I've seen averages of "faculty" in the broadest sense, of between 1 and 3, and most published articles are cited either 1 time or not at all. If you want to day "the averaged tenured professor," you're already talking about the top level; it makes as much sense as to say the average professional baseball player isn't particularly distinguished. Actually, "average" isn't an applicable concept for things that fall under the

Bradford Distribution, such as the productivity of anyone in anything. The usual results from it in all fields of human activity is the top 20% of the agents doing 80% of the activity, but one can make the cutoff anywhere, since the curious property of this distributions is that if you take that 80% of the activity, 80% of it will then again be done by 20% of that highest 20%, and so on, until you get that approximately half the activity is done by one percent of the agents. In practice , where we draw the cutoff varies widely in different fields. notability is arbitrary, and depends on what we want to do with the encyclopedia, DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I never said anything about "the average tenured professor". A professional sportsman is the elite in his sport; "academics" covers everything from postdocs to Albert Einstein. I agree that there's a lot of latitude in determining what counts as the elite within that profession but, wherever you place the cut-off, doing the stuff that all academics do isn't evidence of being in the elite. Dricherby (talk) 22:14, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

After a side-discussion with DGG, I think our disagreement here is over phrasing, rather than the underlying concepts. Dricherby (talk) 22:47, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse on two grounds. The close was correct based upon the AFD and the state of the article at the time. Secondly, the new evidence brought forth which are predominantly YouTube sources do not contribute to any argument that this person does in fact meet GNG or
  WP:ACADEMIC. I find the G11 argument even stronger on the proposed replacement draft considering the COI. If Yunshui and DGG can improve the draft to get it through an AFC process then I would be willing to reconsider, but that has not happened yet and this decision is made off what we have on hand. Mkdw^talk 20:34, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Bristol/Bath to South Coast Study (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• Setting aside the technicalities of our notability guidelines for a moment and taking the view from 30,000 ft, I think that the name for the topic those sources are discussing is something like "transport policy in south-western England". I think this specific study is well worth including on Wikipedia but it needs to be a section of an article of broader scope, not a separate topic in its own right. I think that to have a separate article for a single study/consultation document about planning is a little too fine-grained for a general encyclopaedia. In other words, I think the AfD came to broadly the right conclusion and subsequent coverage has not invalidated it.—S Marshall T/C 12:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment It meets our notability guideline based on the 2nd, 3rd and 4th references, which deal specifically with this report. That does not necessarily mean we must make an article, but there is clearly more information available than was included originally. A good case can be made for separate articles on major government reports that cause public discussion. In any case, the existing merge, to Bath, Somerset#transport is not a good one because it involves more than that single city--we should look for or create an appropriate article.

more generally, perhaps it is time to look at other things than notability in deciding whether to make separate articles. Of course, since notability is not relevant to contents of an article, this permits us to cover fully a great many things that would not meet the notability criteria for a separate article. DGG ( talk ) 19:37, 21 May 2013 (UTC)Í[reply]

• Comment (proposer) I'm now adding refs 14-24 above. While most of them may not be individually significant in terms of determining notability, there is now one book which refers to the study. IMO the relatively high number of varied independent sources which have referred to the report would suggest that it may meet
  WP:GNG. Regarding the too fine-grained comment, we should note that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. Including a summary of info included within this report (and possibly some further content, even if from the primary source itself) would be undue within an article of broader scope, e.g. covering transport in south-western England. For this reason (and in order for others to be able to more readily improve the encyclopedic coverage of this topic) I still believe that the study warrants a standalone article at this point in time, be it a stub or otherwise. -- Trevj (talk) 12:54, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lassiter Holmes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Natalya Rudakova (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Comment Just out of curiosity, are there any reliable sources out there that discuss her career? From what I can tell she is mainly known for playing the lead female role in Transporter 3, which is where the page currently redirects to. I'm not all that convinced by her IMDB page, which lists two rumoured roles, three films roles and a TV documentary. Funny ^Pika! 20:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse redirect. Although I recommended "keep" in the three AfDs for this article in 2008-09, I don't see that this actress's notability has increased considerably since then. She hasn't had any more roles in films that have been theatrically released, other than Transporter 3, which was her only film credit at the time of the last AfD. Nor does she seem to have received additional significant media coverage since then. However, if a new draft article were created that established her notability more clearly, I might reconsider. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:23, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Holcombe Hockey Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Request the article be undeleted as there are a number of reasons as to why it is notable. The club is one of the largest, especially in terms of teams, in the UK.^[1] Both the men's and women's 1st XI play in the England Hockey League and so are playing at the top level in the country, with the men's 1st XI narrowly missing out on promotion to the Premier League this season just gone. The club is also home to a few players who are notable on the international hockey scene, particularly Barry Middleton, who has appeared on TV at the 2004, 2008 and 2012 Olympic Games. ^{[2] [3]} Is it not quite notable to have such a player as a member of the club? It demonstrates the intent to compete in the Premier League, which is quite notable in its field (being the home of many international hockey players).

• Endorse Being the "one of the largest, especially in terms of teams, in the UK" is not a sufficient claim to notability here. Playing 2nd tier of in the
  multiple, independent secondary sources discussing the club in-depth to support an article. As the previous Afd (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holcombe Hockey Club) highlighted, it lacks this - as does the above sources. Funny ^Pika! 20:00, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Sanaullah Haq (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin declared no consensus as editors had claimed ONEEVENT did not apply, however a simple Google news search shows he is known for this one single event, getting shived in prison, as such those claiming ONEEVENT does not apply failed to meet the WP:BURDEN of showing how he is otherwise known. I have discussed this with the closing admin and he has said to bring it here. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh, sure, Sanaullah Haq fails BIO1E, but Ymblanter was correct to find that there was no consensus to delete in that discussion.
  WP:BRD.

  Where there's no consensus in a debate, the correct finding is "no consensus" and DRV will normally support admins who make such a finding. Certainly DRV will rarely disturb a "no consensus" close of a fraught debate, unless evidence of socking, evidence the article is a copyvio, or some other overriding consideration comes to light.—S Marshall T/C 20:32, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Just because people
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. If these irrational "keep"-votes had been excluded before considering a close, then I doubt that we would have had a "no consensus" close. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:16, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

S Marshall, there was socking at the AFD two at least from user:Nangparbat (one accoubr one IP) If moven to "Murder of" the nit is the same again, oneevent with no lasting implications. Darkness Shines (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Good close, easily defendable. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Also not that "delete per BIO1E/BLP1E" requires explanation as to why "merge and redirect" is not ok. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse because there was no consensus. The AFD nomination was on grounds of the biography of living persons policy
  WP:BIO1E might be a reason for deletion but it would be a weaker case. Because the circumstances are now different a relist might be possible but I suspect that would simply rerun an unhappy argument and it is difficult to see things leading any more strongly towards deletion. (BTW: the article should be renamed or merged to describe the event(s) rather than the person). Thincat (talk) 09:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Based on what has been written here (thank you guys) I will withdraw this and propose a merger of the article to Sarabjit Singh#Attack on Pakistani prisoner in Jammu as that seems to best target for a redirect. How does one withdraw a DRV? Darkness Shines (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm sure Spartaz will sort things out nicely! Thincat (talk) 09:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Missed connection (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was nominated for deletion and received what seems to me to be a rather perfunctory and not particularly policy-based discussion which resulted in a keep outcome since nobody but the nominator voted to delete the page. It has since been brought up again, but one editor (who also participated in the original discussion) is objecting on the grounds that the new discussion is too soon after the last one. I don't see overturning the previous outcome, but I would like ratification that the present discussion be allowed to continue. There has already been considerably more discussion this time around, and of higher quality WRT policy; I don't see the need for further delay. Mangoe (talk) 13:02, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• The first step in appealing a decision is to have a decision to appeal.When the AfD2 closes, then if someone disagrees with the close they can appeal it. If you disagree with what is being said at an open AfD, make a comment there. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too bureaucratic. We waste some period of time discussing, only to have some admin close the discussion, so we can come back here and argue about having the discussion, so we can perhaps go back and have the discussion all over again? If it's too much of a problem to discuss it twice, it's worse to do it four times. Mangoe (talk) 14:51, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Close DRV, no action needed here. We don't need to "come back here and argue about having the discussion" in the first place. The 2nd AfD is currently going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Missed connection (2nd nomination), and the article can be (and is being) judged there on its merits. The procedural issues there are not the main part of the discussion. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Wait for AfD2 to close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Xiaolin Wang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

This page was speedily deleted as promotional. The man is obviously notable. The article should be fixed instead of being wiped out along with its history. Here's one of many articles on the subject [9]. At the very least a deletion discussion at the appropriate venue should have taken place. Candleabracadabra (talk) 20:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• List on AfD: The article definitely had parts which were inappropriate for an encyclopedia (e.g. "Experience Timeline" and other resume-like sections), but it seems salvageable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• The exact wording of G11 is as follows:- Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. Note: An article about a company or a product which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion. "Promotion" does not necessarily mean commercial promotion: anything can be promoted, including a person, a non-commercial organisation, a point of view, etc. Please note carefully that neither notability nor fixability are defences against a G11. We have no procedural grounds to overturn, and DRV is mainly for overseeing the process. To restore this page on the basis that the subject's notable would to invent a rule that we do not currently have, which we could do but I think would require exceptional circumstances.

  I would certainly agree with the deleting admin that the page is exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopaedic. The G11 does not preclude the creation of a non-promotional version of the article. All it means is that you can't have this version of the article. Therefore, even though I think Wikipedia probably should have a page called

  Charles Xiaolin Wang, I do not think we have any alternative but to endorse. In case this is unclear to some users, there would be no harm in explicitly saying that creation of a neutrally-worded version of the page is permitted.—S Marshall T/C 08:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Lots of articles are promotional. The article wasn't exclusively promotional. Are we to delete every article that gets puffed up? Candleabracadabra (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be vigilant about promotional content because Wikipedia's so attractive to people who want to write puff pieces. If we went about restoring puff material because it's fixable, then the result would be that anyone notable could put their puff piece at the top of google's search results for a crucial week or two when there's something particular they're trying to achieve. That's not okay and it's not what Wikipedia is for. Therefore our sysops are empowered to delete puff pieces on their own authority, even in cases where a non-promotional article with the same title could and should exist. If you want a Wikipedia article on this person, I suggest you write a neutral one.—S Marshall T/C 12:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article history, which has now been restored, shows the article existed for years and was edited by various editors. It should have gone to a proper deletion discussion. Speedy deletion deprives a proper review and eliminates any opportunity to fix an article. It also makes it impossible to see what was there. The history of articles and edits made is important to preserve especially for notable subjects. If promotion is a problem let's get rid of the promotion. Not sweep it under the rug. This article existed for years with problems and now another problem is be3ing created by eliminating all record of what was there and the history of edits. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:02, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That article history makes interesting reading. I've gone through the edits and as far as I can see, it was created as an advert, flagged by DGG as an advert, deleted as an advert under G11, re-created as an advert, a few formatting edits done, and then deleted as an advert again. In all that time there has never been a neutral version of the page. Not once. The outraged tone you're taking would be quite justifiable if we were dealing with a good faith attempt at an encyclopaedia article. This, however, was a puff piece that has never met or even attempted to meet our core policy on

WP:NPOV.—S Marshall T/C 09:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse reads more like a resume than a fair number of actual resumes I've seen. I don't know if a decent article on this person is possible, but I do know this isn't acceptable in article space and don't feel that it would be a useful place to start one. As S Marshall correctly points out, Wikipedia needs to be vigilant about spam and promotion. Wikipedia isn't LinkedIn or Monster.com and is not an appropriate place to host resumes. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow userfication, and list at AfD to see if it can be fixed enough for mainspace. See
  WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:21, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Is anyone actually willing to work on it if it's userfied though? And is keeping a copy of someone else's resume in userspace indefinitely genuinely in the best interests of the encyclopedia? Userfication can be a fine alternative to deletion when there's a clear path back to article space, but often it's just a lazy choice--the Wikipedia equivalent of tossing your trash in the neighbour's yard to avoid having to throw it out yourself. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:43, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Usefication should be dependent on the user being experienced in content work and acknowledging the difficulties of meeting WP:BIO. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse not what I'd have done but almost within the bounds of of speedy criteria. But yes, there easily could be a real article here. No objection to userfication in the hopes that the requester can fix it up. Hobit (talk) 00:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is G11, plain and simple. If someone wants to write a neutral article from RS, feel free. -- Y not? 13:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, pretty clear G11. Not a comment on the notability, and no objection to userification if someone genuinely wants to take this on to strip out the promotional fluff. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:02, 23 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

Officeyes.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article was speedy deleted -

I don't know if I've entered the xfd_page info correctly - was it the discussion page of the deleter or the deletion discussion itself I was supposed to reference? It was unclear. Anyway, I think this page has been overzealously deleted, and the reasons for deletion seem to have shifted after I made a case against A7/G11. I discussed the matter with the deleting individual who helpfully suggested I lodge a deletion review, which I am now doing, hopefully correctly. Coopeteer (talk) 10:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Your DRV submission looks OK to me. To save other people searching, you discussed with the deleting admin here but didn't inform him of the DRV because he referred you here which asks you not to not to bother. Obviously I can't judge the matter as things stand. Thincat (talk) 13:46, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi folks, could a passing admin do a temp. undelete? Also, Coopeteer, you mentioned a bunch of sources on the deleting admin's page, some of which you didn't link to. Could you provide a list of sources with links that you believe could meet the sourcing requirements found in
  WP:N? Given the A7/G11 deletion, we're going to need both. Thanks all! Hobit (talk) 14:17, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Article temporarily restored. Hut 8.5 15:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks! Hobit (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - in no way can it be construed a G11; it's written in an acceptably encyclopaedic style (how I'd write it). Sources are sufficient to establish it has some significance; may be notable. Wholly inappropriate deletion. WilyD 15:25, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While there is a small bit of promotional language, the speedy bar is pretty high (unambiguous) and this isn't that, so not a G11. Further, it appears to meet WP:N and so can't be an A7 either. This may well be deleted at AfD (though I doubt it), but it certainly isn't a speedy case. Hobit (talk) 16:06, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong overturn I agree with the two comments above. It is not a blatantly promotional entry and it deserved at least a discussion at the appropriate venue. This was not a good speedy deletion candidate and the rationale doesn't hold up. Candleabracadabra (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD to have its merits discussed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete and send it to AFD. I'm happy to say it's not a CSD G11, but I think the notability is very shaky and the CSD A7 is arguably valid. The article would benefit from more examination at AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Send to AFD I'm not at all sure it would pass an AFD, but it isn't quite a G11 in my opinion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:33, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I think it's probably NN, but it's certainly good enough to send to AfD -- Y not? 13:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dominic McDevitt-Parks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

The AfD was closed by its own nominator, after less than four hours, with only three supporters. I attempted to raise this at User talk:MZMcBride#Dominic McDevitt-Parks, but the closing admin stated that "deletion review would be a waste of time". The article should be restored; and the AfD allowed to run its course. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:57, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Since the article creator, nominator and BLP subject of the article all concur that this is not an appropriate article topic but a suitable redirect, there's no possibility that an extended discussion would have any other result. This DRV takes process-for-the-sake-of-process to the point of trolling. – 
  iridescent 2 22:12, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse: What iri said. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:44, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse all parties agree with the outcome, which was was obvious and uncontroversial. No AfD was needed, and the nominator of this DRV has no argument as to why the closure was wrong. Hut 8.5 23:27, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Is there a reason not to block the nominator for disruption if they don't withdraw a DRV that they knew was disruptive prior to filing? Maybe a block until he agrees to withdraw it? MBisanz ^talk 00:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I give up. What am I missing? The close was, on the face of it, horrible. Yes, it's probably the outcome we'll get to anyways. But it is none-the-less wrong yet I'm seeing a bunch of rather senior admins that I respect jumping in here. Is there some drama elsewhere causing problems? Hobit (talk) 00:54, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only thing I could imagine you've missed is where NYB warned him not to start the DRV. At least that's the only related thing I'm aware of. MBisanz ^talk 01:01, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ignoring the opinion of another user about a DRV justifies a block threat? Seems way over the top given that the close was out-of-process. Hobit (talk) 02:23, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I see NYB warning him that he is abusing process (a violation of
          WP:DISRUPT) and I see Andy acting without addressing the warning. MBisanz ^talk 02:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• vacate close The nom shouldn't be closing the discussion even if the outcome is clear. Withdrawing the nomination is reasonable, but let someone else close it. Further, redirect wasn't even a suggested outcome in the discussion for goodness sake. And yes, redirect is different than merge. Really bad form on the nom/closer's part. Hobit (talk) 00:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• All is fine. Spartaz has reclosed the WP:NAC. Process is satisfied. Feel free to take the redirect to
  WP:RfD, but watch out for any attribution requirements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:17, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ben Duscher (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

No reason for the deletion decision was given in the closure, and it seems to be based on either vote counting or the overarching

• Endorse Even if the subject passes the notability guidelines this only leads to a presumption of notability – people may still think the subject should not have an article. In fact those !voting delete said he failed the guidelines so potentially there is a conflict of evidence with those !voting keep. However, I expect the closer considered this was not so much a question of fact as one of opinion and decided all views could be taken into account. Delete looks well within discretion to me. Possibly you could add something to
  Bendigo Football Club. Thincat (talk) 22:07, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It's extremely unlikely that Black Kite has counted votes.—S Marshall T/C 23:15, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies I thought I had replied to the nominator on my talkpage, but clearly it didn't save or I did something stupid. No, I didn't count votes, although with five Delete including the nominator vs one Keep and a weak Keep there would have had to have been something seriously awry with the rationales for me to consider anything except delete here. I did have a look at the article, though, and whilst it appears to be impressively sourced, once you strip out the primary sources and match reports, there doesn't appear to be much to actively disprove the Delete voter's rationale that the player fails ATHLETE for Aussie Rules. Or certainly, not so much that I could consider closing this against consensus. Black Kite (talk) 10:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Unlike a lot of other team sports, Australian rules football has a condition in
  notable (point 3)
  if they are "known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league." My weak keep was to indicate that being a club captain and club best and fairest is at the lower end of "major individual achievements", and I was hoping for that to be discussed or debated. Other than the nominator and LibStar who stated that the Pro league is needed (which is at odds with the Athlete guideline), I'm left to assume due to lack of clear explanation that the other delete votes thought similarly. To me, it seems that the consensus did not read the notability guidelines properly, or didn't understand them in relation to Australian rules football.

For those who don't follow this sport, there is only one fully pro league, the AFL, with 18 teams. There is no promotion/relegation system. Below it are 6 state leagues (3 fairly high standard, 3 not so high) which are semi-pro and where the fully pro players play if not selected in the AFL side. Duscher captains one of these teams in a high standard league (Victorian Football League). The point 3 is widely accepted as covering winners of the league best player awards in these second level leagues. This being less than that, is why I voted weak keep, and is a bit of a test case. But no-one else has discussed point 3 of the guidelines at all, other than the article originator.

Is AfD/DRV a place to refine the notability guidelines? I don't think so - it might be a place that prompts discussion of the guidelines, but until they are changed/overturned at

WT:AFL

, then AfD and DRV should follow the current guidelines.

And as for the quality of the refs, yes, they could do with a prune, but refs 3, 5, 6, 24 & 29 are all significant coverage in independent reliable sources (especially 24, which isn't from a regional newspaper), which sounds like meeting

WP:GNG

to me.

I'm not arguing that you closed against consensus, I'm arguing that consensus was against the notability guidelines. The-Pope (talk) 14:19, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• 'Comment' Without regard to this issue, AfD is very much a place to interpret the notability guidelines. It is in fact the place, and to a considerable extent the guidelines are the guidelines to what is decided here. The community is not composed of a set of legislators who make the guidelines and we who judge according to them. The community is composed of a single group of people, all equal, who make the guidelines, decide how to interpret them in general, decide how to interpret them in a every particular case, and decide when to make exceptions to them. Some of the sports guidelines seem to be to some degree disputed, and whatever the community decides to do in a particular case with enough consensus is what it does.The role of an admin in the matter is only to decide what has sufficient consensus. If the admin wishes to urge the guideline be followed or not followed, the admin must participate in the discussion. Usually, of course, the community does decide to follow the guideline, and the presumption should be that it will do so. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse was a reasonable close. That said, this person has a strong case for meeting our notability guidelines as The-Pope points out. And further, no one really addressed the issues raised--all seem to either disagree or misunderstand the relevant notability guideline. Given this person meets
  WP:N on the face of it (plenty of sources, some of which are mainly about the subject), I'd urge an IAR relist. I strongly suspect that given an actual discussion rather than folks talking past each other, this probably would be kept. So basically relist on the basis of a fairly flawed discussion. Deletion may well be the right outcome, but I don't think that discussion really addressed the relevant points in any way. Hobit (talk) 17:07, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note from closer I'd be quite happy with a relist - this appears to be not as straightforward as your usual sporting bio. Black Kite (talk) 23:24, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Although not a professional footballer, Duscher appears to be notable enough for an article. Revolution1221 ^{(talk · email · contributions)} 20:13, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn While the arguments in the AfD centered around the specific SNG in question, long establish precedent is that SNGs cannot exclude on notability grounds an item that meets the GNG. Frankly, I'm getting a ton of dead links reviewing the referemces from work, but this one convinces me that there exists enough independent, RS coverage of this gentleman such that the SNG-based arguments, regardless of their numerical prevalence, should not have carried the day in the face of contrary votes that took a more holistic view of deletion policy.
  talk) 20:10, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - What scant coverage there is, such as the "Bendigo skipper to miss chance in AFL" one is just a routine sports blurb, nothing in-depth, nothing covering the subject in a significant or substantial way. Apart from that, no fault found in the closing admin's reading of the discussion consensus, so all in all yet another inappropriate "I disagree" DRV. Tarc (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Considering we've just had a very experienced admin and former arb say overturn, and many others agree that it was lineball, or at least deserves further discussion, I find your comments more inappropriate than the DRV. The-Pope (talk) 17:11, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it is rather fortunate that your opinion doesn't concern me all that much, and that when administrators weigh in on matters such as this, their opinions carry no more or less weigh than that of my own, or yours for that matter. Tarc (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Tarc has identified the real issue. In sports a lot of coverage can be written off as "routine". I tend to argue that the same could be said of coverage of the president of the US ("all presidents get coverage like that, it's just routine"). But what is routine and what isn't is a matter of opinion. I'm urging a relist because there wasn't actually a discussion on that issue--it was a discussion about the SNG rather than WP:N. I suspect Tarc's view on routine coverage has a good chance to carry the day, but I think it is a discussion we should have. Hobit (talk) 21:36, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reach for your calendars, folks, you may wish to mark the date. I actually agree with Tarc. Or at least, with his first sentence. Given that the closer himself has posted that he would not be averse to a relisting, it's hard for me to envisage any other outcome to this DRV, but my view on this should be read as weak endorse.—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm probably with S Marshall on this one as I can see us allowing someone to recreate this in 3-6 months time on the basis of arguments made, so what's the point? DRV is not AfD: Round 2 and keepers should have made their case with more gusto at AfD, but... Anyway, in the meantime, I've created
  WP:ATHLETE for AFL just to make all of these things a bit easier. Stalwart111 22:42, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Endorse in that the sources provided are primarily local newspapers rather than papers of record. Regrettably, this was not covered in the discussion. Nonetheless, given the comments that they had to work with, I think that Black Kite made a reasonable close. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:18, 18 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn: many of the 'endorse' comments here are still not addressing point three of the AFL notabilty criteria ("known, and has received significant coverage in reliable sources, for major individual achievements in a state football league" ). In this case the main arguments for the player meeting point three of these criteria are 1) his being captain of two VFL clubs, 2) won VFL best and fairest club medal 3) selected in VFL representative teams and 4) articles about him in papers that meet criteria which 5) include the opinion that he is amongst the best players in the VFL. These points concerning criteria 3 were not addressed in the original delete and need to be addressed now unless the criteria are to be ignored or changed; and, if so, a justification for that should be given.NimbusWeb (talk) 10:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC) An article from a reliable source newspaper on this player winning the Carter medal VFL club best player award can be found here: http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/story/719111/duscher-wins-bendigo-bombers-club-champion-award/ NimbusWeb (talk) 11:46, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you're right in that these things should have been discussed in the original deletion discussion. They weren't, but that's not the fault of the closer. It's not his role to research things never raised by the "keep" crowd and then super-vote the AfD closed against consensus. The "keep" crowd had a good argument (the one that has since been articulated here) but didn't make it at AfD. The closing admin can only go on what he has in front of him - in this case, a fairly clear consensus. DRV is not supposed to be AfD, round 2, where those who suddenly remember something or didn't see the AfD in time get to have a second crack. However, in this case, the closer has said he wouldn't be opposed to it being relisted. I imagine you'll get a chance to make your argument again and the above is a great start. I suspect we'll get a different result if it does indeed get relisted. Stalwart111 04:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sabur Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Being the president a

• One issue is that "notability" on Wikipedia doesn't mean what one might think it means. It means that "
  Term of art on Wikipedia rather than a judgement. Someday we'll all agree to change the name to something less insulting... Hobit (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse as notability is
  WP:NOTINHERITED. Local chamber of commerce groups tend NOT to be notable, but even if we assume for the sake of the discussion that the Dhaka one definitely is, he doesn't somehow gain notability just by working there. The AFD was pretty clear, and it's unlikely this could be restored unless Subur substantially becomes more notable in some other way. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:53, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Zac Poonen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

To move the well-sourced notable article Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Zac Poonen there. Launchballer 12:28, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• AFD2, AFD3
• I can't see the well-sourced part of that, the sources there are all pretty weak. Where are the in depth, independent multiple reliable sources? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 17:45, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Why would we move a declined AFC submission into main article space? If the article can't pass the AFC hurdle, it won't survive in main space either. ~
  talk) 18:04, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The request here is to remove create=protection on the article, so it can be moved. If someone does make an article on such a topic, they do have to request the protection be removed, and this seems a reasonable place to ask. Do not assume a decline was correct. Some are, some aren't. People could resubmit a better article, but only an admin could then accept it until the protection is removed. Anyone else would have to ask. DGG ( talk ) 14:34, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline The experienced AfC reviewer rightly declined it. The books are real enough, but there has to be some evidence of their importance. They are in almost no WorldCat libraries, but that says nothing with respect to titles of this nature from a non-Worldcat region. (they're pamphlets, between 40 and 120 pages), Some actual evidence is needed. DGG ( talk ) 14:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• No I'm not sure DRV even has jurisdiction to overturn declining an AFC submission, but for what it's worth I don't disagree with this being declined. It would absolutely NOT survive an AFD and wouldn't last long in article space if it got there somehow. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:17, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No Pants Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(Knowing in advance that overturning a 'no consensus' decision is a tough sell, but here goes...)

It seemed that the 'keep' comments in AFD discussion all pertained to sources about a completely different day, the No Pants Subway Ride, a different event on a different date than No Pants Day. The confusion in sourcing seemed to be the motivator behind the keep proponents. Accounting for that, the balance looks like it leans more to deletion than no consensus.

The closing admin suggested merging the two articles. That's a reasonable view, provided both topics are notable, but that isn't the case here. ~

So what do you actually want DRV to do? That sounds like an editing decision for which consensus can be sought without overturning the close. Jclemens (talk) 02:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Had I been the closing admin (which wasn't possible due to my participation in that AFD), I would have closed it as 'delete' based on the reasoning above. ~

talk) 03:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse close. I'm 100% sure that this passes GNG. I'm also 100% sure that there is inaccurate information in the article. This is an editing problem, not a notability problem. A gratuitous "fuck you" to those who cut the gonads out of Article Rescue Squadron, who would have been perfectly suited to fix this. Carrite (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  Did something happen to ARS that I missed? Last I checked it was still active and ongoing. ~

  talk) 15:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• endorseper Carrite. I rarely say "per", but I can't say it any better in all respects. DGG ( talk ) 14:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Noctem (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This band is one of Europe's current biggest extreme metal bands and is only getting bigger by the day. They have signed with

• Wikipedia has a definition of what notable means which may not be the same as you think, see
  WP:N, basically it's about if people other than wikipedia care enough about the subject to have written about it directly in details in multiple reliable sources. None o the items you say above necessarily meet that requirement. Are there articles which do write about the band directly in detail? Can you link us to a few? (Note the reliable part of this, fan sites, forum posts etc. aren't much use to us). Have the bands albums charted in national charts (i.e. major charts), if so where and is there evidence of this? I don't think it'll make much difference to the article being restored, since the deletion reasons seem to suggest that it was a copyright violation i.e. copied directly from elsewhere (The debate deleted it, then the next day it was deleted again as a copyvio and recreation), however having solid coverage in reliable sources will give an indication if it'll be possible to write an article which is likely to be kept. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 20:22, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per lack of a specific & provable claim (with a reliable source behind it) that the band is any more notable than it was in 2010. "Getting bigger" and "turning more notable" are nonspecific opinions and are meaningless for our purposes. What we need is a clear point of notability, such as (for example) winning a Grammy or topping a major chart, backed up by an indisputably reliable source like Billboard or Rolling Stone. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:35, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there are countless articles which write about the band directly in detail. And it's not only limited to that. For example, here is a video of the band appearing and being interviewed in the news on TVE, Spanish National TV, the biggest TV channel in Spain (similar to CNN in the USA or to BBC in the UK for example): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUX3BqeeVEw . There are way too many articles on the internet about the band. If you google their name, you will get over 2 million and a half search results and thousands of articles about the band written and published by music media from many different countries from all over the world. Here are some as an example: http://www.metalblade.com/us/artists/noctem ; http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=167209 ; http://www.blabbermouth.net/news.aspx?mode=Article&newsitemID=157159 ; http://metalshockfinland.com/2011/03/25/interview-with-noctem-exo-beleth-we-are-an-authentic-war-declaration-to-the-humanity ; http://www.metal-archives.com/bands/Noctem/102839 ; http://www.metal.de/black-metal/review/noctem/46333-oblivion ; http://www.rockinspain.es/noticias-rock/noctem-listos-para-lanzar-oblivion-con-metal-blade-records-en-norteamerica.html ; http://en.metalship.org/interviews/73 ... There are also articles about them in non-online magazines such as
  Kerrang. By "national charts", I'm guessing you mean USA charts, since I'm not American. The answer is no, they haven't made it to USA charts, but then again, how many successful and notorious bands do these days? Not many. If that was a requirement for a band to have an article on Wikipedia, there wouldn't be much more than 50-100 musician articles here. And as far as I know, there are thousands. Sadly, these days, unless a band is backed by a huge record label and lots of money or by huge media such as MTV, it's not common that they make it to the charts, regardless of their notoriety. And if the reason for deletion wasn't any of this but some copyright violation from someone copying something from another site, then what's the problem for the article to be restored? Thanks a lot for your time:) And in reply to the 2nd poster, sorry but I have to ask, is your reply a joke? If a band needs to be on Rolling Stone or Billboard or have won a Grammy to have an article on Wikipedia, only Beyoncé, Britney Spears, Justin Bieber, Kesha, Eminem, Justin Timberlake and a few more of the same kind would have articles here. Sadly the bands which win a Grammy or which are featured on Rolling Stone never do so because of their notoriety (even though if they do they surely are notorious), but because they are backed by big companies which make a lot of money off them. They are selling products. There are hundreds of extremely notorious, legendary and worldwide famous bands and musicians which never have and never will. Only a very small privileged minority of musicians do. Saying that a band can only be considered notorious or that it's a requirement for them to have an article on Wikipedia if they have is like saying only an actor can be considered notorious or have an article on Wikipedia if she/he has won an Oscar... even worse. Again, thanks for reading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eddie1984 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

"National chart" means the chart of any country. Please read Wikipedia's guidelines about

WP:BAND. Notability requires independent sources and the band's own record label (metalblade.com) is not independent; blabbermouth doesn't look reliable to me and the two articles you link there are based on press releases from the band, so they're not independent; metalshock is a blog, which usually wouldn't be regarded as reliable; metal-archive hosts user-supplied content, which is unlikely to be reliable, and claims to list 90,000 bands, so being listed there doesn't mean a band is notable; my German and Spanish aren't good enough to comment on metal.de and rockinspain.es; I'm not sure about metalship. An article about the band (not just announcements of record releases) in Kerrang sounds much more like a reliable source. Dricherby (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse. I can't see what criterion of
  talk) 23:49, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

David Talbott (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was incorrectly closed as keep instead of being relisted. There were four comments in this discussion. 1 delete, 3 keep. The delete cited standard policies about notability and said that the individual didn't meet them. Noone addressed these concerns specifically. The first keep voter, Dricherby pointed at a location where there could be significant coverage, but he didn't have access to the reviews and nor did anyone else. The other sources highlighted were unreliable. The second keep voter, Phaedrus7, gave a reason so poor that Dricherby helped show it to be invalid. The third keep was also invalid as it stated that they would have voted delete but there was previous AfDs and survival shows notability. Somehow this was closed as keep, rather than as a relist or similar. The closing admin gave this reason: [10]. Here was the reasoning:

"The arguments made by User:Dricherby were reasonable insofar as that there has been critical commentary on his work combined with non-trivial mentions in sources. User:Phaedrus7 builds upon that. The sole Delete !vote by User:Qworty provided no strong arguments to the contrary."

Dricherby agrees that the sources that he was mentioned in where not reliable, and I countered the use of The Pseudoscience Wars: Immanuel Velikovsky and the Birth of the Modern Fringe which does not give significant coverage to Talbott. None of us had access to the sources which LFaraone claims has critical commentary. Phaedrus7 did not build upon Dricherby's arguments since Dricherby rejected them.

• Comment. You are mischaracterising what I said, as you did at the AfD, so I repeat the reply I made there: "I wasn't claiming that the Velikovsky Encyclopaedia is reliable (indeed, I explicitly said it isn't [emphasis in original]). I mentioned it because it points to three sources that are reliable but which I was unable to access, since they're 33 years old and not freely available online." I did not agree with you about the other sources I mentioned; further, I rejected only two parts of Phaedrus7's comment supporting his keep !vote. Dricherby (talk) 18:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was no suggestion that the 3 sources give significant coverage of Talbott. On the Phaedrus point; what argument is left when you take away those two parts you said rejected?

talk) 21:55, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse though a relist would be unobjectionable because the discussion was not so good. First, the AFD nomination on the face of it did not raise an issue of policy.
  WP:BLP "Page deletion is normally a last resort". Thincat (talk) 19:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If the discussion "was not so good", then why close it as keep? Surely it should be relisted to get a good discussion or at the least closed as no consensus. Are you suggesting, as you appear to say, that because I based my Nom on the notability guidelines that this somehow weakens my arguments? If "The last two "keeps" do not seem much based on the notability guidelines", how do they carry any weight?

talk) 21:42, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Often AFDs are none too good but someone has to close them somehow. I think keep, no consensus and relist would all have been within discretion. I thought your arguments were strong but with any notability argument one can only express your opinion, supported by guidelines, etc. You are never in the position of legitimately being able to say "to keep this article would be a breach of policy". The two "keeps" were also expressing their opinions but were probably less likely to persuade others. The first "keep" was fine but hamstrung by lack of access to the putative sources. AFD is for people to express their views (within limits), not to salute the guidelines. Thincat (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with "You are never in the position of legitimately being able to say "to keep this article would be a breach of policy", easiest example is of a copyvio.

talk) 13:37, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

Yes, but "with any notability argument" was intended to cover this sentence as well as the previous one. Thincat (talk) 22:19, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I don't see any error in process here and the recent discussion at
  ANI about LFaraone's closes in general (including this one) largely agreed that they are fine. It must also be taken into account that the previous AfD for the same article, although four years ago, was a strong keep on grounds of notability, and also listed several sources. Dricherby (talk) 20:27, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No, the consensus was that he hadn't "done much wrong" in general. Further the closer states of that consensus: "Individual cases which could be reversed should be taken to WP:DRV, but there does not appear to be any consensus that there is any pattern of bad closures on the part of the admin in question. That is what I'm doing; taking an individual case to DRV. Of the two admins that commented on the Talbott article, one said it should not have been closed as keep, the other said "This was the third AFD, and the first two closed as "keep", so I can't see a third keep as being all that unusual". That is not largely agreeing that it was OK. When you say that previous AfDs showed more (unspecified) sources, that's an argument for an AfD, not for a DRV, you didn't bring that argument up at the time, so how could I rebut it at the time?

talk) 21:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I pointed out that two previous AfDs had resulted in keeps and asked what had changed since then. At that point, you could have attempted to rebut the arguments made at those AfDs but you just said "Consensus can change", without giving any reason why it actually should. Dricherby (talk) 23:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Considering the admins at the time gave no reason, what do you expect me to say? Do you expect me to go through every single previous keep vote from past AfDs and try and rebut them? If you want to advance an argument from a previous AfD, then advance the argument, but just pointing out previous AfDs is meaningless,

talk) 09:37, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I expected you to at least read it and, if you had policy-based disagreements with the overall argument advanced there (and, specifically, with what you viewed as its strongest points), to explain what those were. Previous AfDs are, in general, very meaningful because they point to an established consensus which you were trying to overturn. Here, I accept that the previous AfD was a few years ago and standards for AfDs, and interpretations of policies have moved on since then. However, the fundamental argument at the previous AfD was one of notability – it's not like people were arguing by the "Pokémon test" and things like that.

Notability is not temporary so any argument that Talbott was notable in the past is an argument that he is notable today. Dricherby (talk) 10:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm seeing the "keep" and "delete" sides as roughly equal in that debate, two of the "delete" recommendations being disregardable. The way to break the deadlock here is not to wrangle about policy but to check the sources Dricherby lists and see what they actually say, and personally, I'd suggest asking a librarian. Strictly speaking the correct close would probably have been "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 22:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion, which may appropriately incorporate the analyses in prior discussions. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, this is the reasoning: [11]. It didn't incorporate prior discussions. So your comment does not appear to make much sense in this context,

talk) 07:42, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse, I think the decision was reasonable. There had been two previous AfDs whose result was keep and the arguments for deletion for the 3rd AfD weren't strong, so pretty obvious keep. Aarghdvaark (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse not the greatest close, but seems within reasonable admin discretion given the two previous keeps. A relist after some time has passed might give clearer consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 10:29, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miyoko Akashi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This has incorrectly been closed as no-consensus because the closing admin has given undue weight to non-policy based keep arguments that Ambassadors should be inherantly notable. There is no policy anywhere on the project to show a consensus to support this argument. The relevant guideline

• Comment from closing admin - The only conclusion I felt I could reach here was "no consensus" as there patently was not one in the discussion. It's one thing discarding or giving less weight to blatantly non-policy based arguments, particularly by users with a significant stake in the article or with a lack of Wikipedia experience - but in this case wringing a "delete" consensus out of that discussion, which was pretty evenly split, did not feel right. The users arguing for "keep" are experienced editors, and this is not an article that breaks cast-iron policies like verifiability and neutrality. Rather, it's an article that hovers on the borderline of notability, governed by a one-sentence guideline (
  WP:BLP argument, simply because the article is entirely verifiable in its current stubby state. I would, however, add that I'm equally concerned at my close being used as a precedent for other discussions, given that the idea of "no consensus" is that there was exactly that - no agreement as to the correct course of action. I do not personally have a strong opinion either way as to the inherent notability of these subjects. ~ mazca ^talk 17:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment A good, forthright AFD discussion. This DRV nomination is conflating two separate things. First, are ambassadors inherently notable? There is no policy either way on this. There seem to be guidelines and precedent that they are not inherently notable but, for any diplomat, people can take what view they think appropriate for WP and, if there are reasonably consistent consensus decisions against guidelines over time, the guidelines should be changed to reflect this. Second, is BLP policy being broken here? If potentially contentious statements are unverified they should be removed. I suggest that if people are concerned they should clean up the article and see what is left.
  WP:BIODEL does not look to apply here. The close was good unless some arguments flouted BLP policy. Thincat (talk) 20:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Looks within discretion to me. Renominate it in a couple of months, is my advice.—S Marshall T/C 22:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, in my views an outcome well-explained in the closing rationale. There was no consensus to delete; the discussion in the related RfC primarly shows that the community is really split about the notability of diplomats, so this outcome is not surprising at all. Cavarrone (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse
  WP:NOTLAW, our outcomes are determined by discussions of this sort and the guidelines should then follow rather than lead them. Warden (talk) 17:14, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse since I only commented before. And, as a corollary to Warden's remark, the guidelines have room for waggle as well as wiggle. If AfDs consistently and with consensus start deleting as non-notable everyone who has not been in front page headlines in the popular press, GNG will (sadly) have to reflect that also. Thincat (talk) 22:39, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

article|XfD|restore

)

Very, very, few arguments were actually supported by policy; this was mainly a splash of new users resulting in an 18-2 – it would have probably been, otherwise, excluding the votes that were not supported by policy, an essentially 3 to 0 vote. I would have commented myself if I had had the time to get in a comment before the closure...

All in all, I feel the closure was premature, are that the deletion discussion should be relisted. Thanks. 68.84.47.109 (talk) 18:07, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• You realize, of course, that this discussion probably will be open for a full week and this will all probably be entirely moot by then? This feels like process for process' sake.
  talk) 18:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The close was made based on a false assertion: that there were no !votes for deletion other than the proposer: [13]. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Snow Endorse. I would snow close this as well. 90 per cent of the !votes were keep. And it had already attracted 20 -- well beyond the norm for an AfD. No reason to gratuitously mar the heading of a wikipedia page, where the result is so clear. Even recognizing that Andy was one of the 10 per cent minority, and that the IP (with few contributions as such) has a different view, I think a snow is appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 18:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Endorse. The closed noted that one commenter in addition to the nominator recommended deletion, so AndyTheGrump's comment above is misleading. That deletion argument was from AndyTheGrump and was "Delete, per NOTNEWS. There's always time to add later. Be bolder..." which doesn't even attempt to refute those commenters who evaluated the article with reference to NOTNEWS and recommended keeping the article (Edison, Legacypac, TJRC, AgnosticAphid and myself all did so explicitly or implicitly). The main thrust of the deletion nomination itself was that it would be a magnet for OR and POV, which is not a reason to delete anything. The other part of the nomination is a false dichotomy - just because something should have an entry at Wikinews does not mean it should not have one here. Closure by an admin would have been preferable (to avoid this pointless bureaucracy) but his was never going to end in anything other than a snow keep. Thryduulf (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

We just went through this discussion. SNOW KEEP. I thought the last deletion attempt was the dumbest ever, but now I see this one which trumps the first. The final comments by the originator of this thread above discounting the "new users" and 3 to 0 vote is complete BS on every level. No other way to describe them. Legacypac (talk) 18:37, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. As nominator, I made a point of noting that the early flurry of keep votes were a direct result of me notifying all of the contributors to the page (some of whom only write about fast-breaking-events), and did not reflect the consensus of the larger community. I also asked the quite reasonable question, "For those who are using the "It's in the news, therefor it must be notable" argument, do any of you have any evidence that it has enduring notability?
  WP:CIVIL I am not going to even comment on the call above to prematurely snow close this deletion review. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  Guy -- as I also requested at your nomination at AfD, please don't -- in addition to making your nomination -- then enter a !vote supporting your nomination. That's not normal practice, as it confusingly makes it appear that you are !voting twice. Please change your comment title from "Overturn" to "Comment," and it will be clear that that is not your intent. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  This DRV was filed by an IP editor 68.84.47.109, not Guy Macon. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, Tarc. I was confused, and apologize for that. -- Mr. IP, you seem very experienced for an editor who has had such few edits, and interestingly found yourself here ... might it be possible to share whether you are editing unintentionally as a logged-out editor, who also edits under a different user name? Thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• As to Guy's question -- "What's the hurry?" ... the reason that we snow keep in situations such as this one is: a) the result is clear; and b) keeping the AfD or deletion review open only serves to 1 -- mar the top of the article with a completely needless AfD or deletion review banner (as it is attracting, in cases like this, thousands of viewers) ... as the first thing they see; and 2 - wastes the time of the editor community, as editors comment here while they might otherwise be doing productive tasks ... on a deletion review where the outcome is completely clear.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you sure about that normal practice? I haven't done a comprehensive survey, but I seem to remember seeing a lot of "As nom" votes in various places. Is there a policy on his? (not trying to give you a hard time, just trying to understand current policy). --Guy Macon (talk)

Guy, I suggest that you actually READ what others say in AFD and not just ignore their posts and issue ad hominem attacks.Edison (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - There was no chance at all that the article would wind up deleted, not with that many calls to keep, so a snow invocation was appropriate even one done by a non-admin. The article is crap; an encyclopedia should not be rushing to cover breaking news stories, but our little crowd-sourcers like to run around and pretend that they're actual journalists. There's not much that can be done about that at this stage. We're just here at DRV to review the merits of the close, and it was sound. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• This closed SNOW because it looks like
  NOT". I guess a DRV is a reasonable level of beauracracy, but reopening an AfD that's doomed to keep is pointless. Endorse. -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:59, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• From the comments on this DRV it is already SNOW KEEP. Legacypac (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - The AFD and this DRV are pretty obviously a waste of time. In many regards, Wikipedia is whatever the community chooses to make it. It has been Wikipedia practice for a very long time that a few breaking news stories are developed into articles in realtime by a very enthusiastic editor community, and such articles are almost never deleted (though a few eventually get merged). Love it or hate it, that's the way things are. I understand that Guy and Andy might prefer that things were otherwise, for example, wishing such content lived on Wikinews [14]. However, I think they are being naive in expecting an AFD for an article like this to end with anything other than an overwhelming keep, especially while this remains front-page news worldwide. Keep was the only plausible outcome for this and the SNOW close was appropriate. Dragons flight (talk) 19:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse snow keep I agree this DRV is a waste of time. Consensus was overwhelming keep in the AFD. Dream Focus 19:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse it was very appropriate for a snow close and, it wouldn't surprise me if it would soon also meet the grounds of a speedy keep as this is worthy of news section on the main page IMHO. - Nbpolitico (talk) 19:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse (with no prejudice against later renomination), legitimate use of SNOW. I'm normally against almost any AFD being closed within 24 hours, but this one was one of the rare exceptional cases where it was justified: the nomination clearly arose from a misunderstanding of policy, there was no realistic prospect of the discussion resulting in anything other than 'keep', and leaving the AFD notice on such a prominent, high-traffic article makes Wikipedia look bad. Major breaking news stories receiving significant international coverage always deserve articles, at least temporarily, and AFDs like this one should always be SNOW-closed. I'm not opposed to the article being reconsidered for deletion at a later date; but within hours of creation, while the story is still 'hot', is the worst possible time to do it. Robofish (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keeeeep Is this closed or not? This is quite notable, front page news nationally and covered internationally, the likely subject of very long term interest. μηδείς (talk) 19:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deletion discussion was closed and the article kept. This discussion is about whether that closure was correct, not whether the article should be kept or deleted. !votes here commonly take the form "endorse" (i.e. the closure was correct) or "overturn" (i.e. the closure was incorrect), "keep" and "delete" comments referncing the article's merits are not relevant here. Thryduulf (talk) 19:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you. The deletion discussion tag at the article is confusing, it makes the discussion look live. I am obviously opposed to reverting the decision, and am going to remove the tag from the article. That can be reverted if it's wrong, but I don't think so. μηδείς (talk) 19:50, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • OH, never mind, I see it says "review" μηδείς (talk) 19:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the speedy keep - but we should re-review the article in a week or so. As others have pointed out, it is a local story that happened on an otherwise slow news days so made international headlines. As notability requires enduring coverage - and even for Cleveland locals the fact these women were missing was gone from the public collective until yesterday - there's a good chance this won't have such enduring coverage. But now as the story develops is not the time do that. I do, however, wish editors remember that we have NOTNEWS and Wikinews for just this reason - unless you are certain the story is notable (eg Boston marathon bombings), news stories should be developed at Wikinews and brough into en.wiki only once they have shown enduring coverage. --MASEM (t) 20:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Discussions about how soon news should turn into an article aside, I believe the initial SNOW keep was appropriate. The article can always be AfDed again if it does not have lasting notability for some reason. For now, extremely widespread coverage of a rather unusual event makes this notable. I hope the DRV can be SNOW endorsed as well (but obviously not as quickly as the initial AfD), since deletion tags on high-traffic articles look rather silly. – 2001:db8:: (rfc | diff) 20:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but only because it's pointless to revisit it right now. I don't agree with the idea that a certain number of "keeps" should become a SNOW close. The deciding factor should be the merits of the arguments, not the number of the arguments. One well-reasoned, policy-based statement should outweigh a dozen people saying "I like it" and "other stuff exists", and editors should be given the chance to make that statement, rather than having the door closed after only a day. Otherwise, you may as well leave off the cutesy exclamation points because it really is just a vote. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department: Please take a number} 21:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure. There wasn't a snowball's chance in Hell of a "Delete" outcome given the many "Keep" positions with commentary that articulated sound reasons for their positions. The only issue here is whether it would be kept based on a consensus of "Keep" (likely) or whether it would be kept based on "No consensus" (less likely, but possible). There's no point to continuing the process for that academic exercise. TJRC (talk) 21:15, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse its snowing everywhere. I don't really buy the NOTNEWS arguments. While in theory thats the policy in practice we have rapidly changing articles for every major news event which often rather good comprehensive article. Wikinews does not work because no-one goes there, their coverage of the topic is woeful[15]. Why stop an example of wikis working well?--Salix (talk): 22:28, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Complete waste of everyone's time to keep this open. Are we trying to set a new record, of number of support !votes in a row?Epeefleche (talk) 23:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A waste of time, yes. However, it is best not be too hasty to snow close a review of a snow close. It will waste a lot more time if this ends up at AN/I or similar. Thryduulf (talk) 01:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not so sure. Sysops commenting here appear to be unanimous. We could expect similar treatment at AN/I to the many comments here, and at the AfD itself. Which would result at AN/I as well, I expect, in summary closure. This gets more ridiculous as time goes on, not less. And anyway -- who would possibly be so non-consensus in their understanding that they would bring this to AN/I, after the overwhelming reaction at AfD and here, from a large number of editors -- sysops included?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:34, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Can we just close this incredibly silly attempt to over turn a SNOW close? If the one or two or three proponents of closing the article want to build one at Wikinews [16], go have fun. It's a ghost town over there. Legacypac (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe we could do the right thing: overturn the discussion, re-open the AfD, consider creating a CSD category to deal with horrible violations of our mission, and provide clear directions to Wikinews. This has no business on WIkipedia, keeping it up almost guarantees BLP violations (one could possibly argue that it's very existence is a BLP violation), this will certainly be deleted eventually anyway....We've been through this before: news story captures people's attention nationally (and by that, I mean in the US). It will likely involve a heroic drama, and may well play into either current social trends or fears. It will seem like the biggest thing ever. Once the 24-hour news channels find something else to talk about, a week or two later, it will completely disappear from public view (possibly resurfacing at a trial, though at that point the topic of the article likely needs to change). Someone then eventually pops the 3rd or 4th AfD, and finally enough people realize "Oh, yeah, this didn't change the world" and the article is redirected, deleted, or massively changed in focus. Why do we requires this tragic process to play out when it consumes so much time to police and argue about? Qwyrxian (talk) 02:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps we could agree to let consensus deterimne whether articles like this violate the mission to produce a free content general purpose encyclopedia? As far as I read these discussions consensus is firmly that encyclopedic articles about topics that happen to be a top news story are still encyclopaedia articles. I really don't buy this whole BLP-magnet thing - every article about a living person is a potential BLP violation and we have the tools to protect articles from them and block editors who make them. BLP is not an end run around consensus or other policies, and BLP does not prohibit a neutral reporting of what reliable sources have said about living people. The repeated nominations for deletion until you get the result you want are not something to be proud of - it's simply tendentious gaming of the system in an attempt to win by fatigue (I'm sure we have a policy page on this, but I can't find it). Thryduulf (talk) 02:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the snow closure. Deletion based on a dislike of breaking news coverage is a distinctly minority view among the WP community. This sort of article is always created very early in the news cycle; it is always hauled to AfD by somebody feeling creation is premature; it is always kept there after debate. Carrite (talk) 03:33, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse for the
  policy. Perhaps the nominator was unaware of the magnitude of the story and, therefore, its clear notability. As of now, WP:SNOW also applies to this discussion. --76.189.109.155 (talk) 04:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment: There was a comment that there must be a policy - we cited all kinds of policy, but here is an instructive essay. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion Legacypac (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The overwhelming majority of editors argued for keeping the article, and most cited convincing policy and guideline-based reasons. unlike the AFD nominator. As I asked in the AFD, are there other cases where multiple victims were held captive and the case was not found to be notable? The conjunction of a decade of captivity and multiple victims, along with worldwide coverage, are a reasonable basis for editors to conclude that these crimes are a basis for an encyclopedic article, and that multiple reliable and independent sources are likely to have continuing significant coverage through and after the conclusion of the inevitable trials. The nomination was flawed because it was claimed the article should be deleted because it was receiving inappropriate edits, but no such edits were identified, and if there had been such the article could have been protected. The nomination was not based on any valid policy or guideline. Most notable events start with news coverage, and it is an embarrassment to Wikipedia when every such article is slapped with a silly "AFD" banner, as a matter of course, when there is not the slightest likelihood of the article being deleted. Edison (talk) 05:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Keep (or send to AfD). The AFD that incubated the article was in 2007. Although the changes since then seem largely presentational it would be better to review the current state of the article (which to me does not seem to warrant deletion) rather than delve into the past. That would be a job for the talk page or at AFD. Certainly the history needs to be sorted for attribution. Thincat (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• I have performed a history merge to fix the copy-and-paste move; previously this was a GFDL violation. Prince of Peas, if you show up here, please don't move articles by copying and pasting, which breaks copyright. As for the question at hand, DRV is not necessary since the article is not currently deleted; I suggest closing this and speedily starting a new AfD nomination.
  Chick Bowen 00:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Could someone also reattach the old talk page ? WT:Article Incubator/List of German actors (from 1895 to the present) -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 01:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are a couple options for that without copying over what's there now. The histories could be merged, and then the content cut-and-pasted into an archive, or the whole thing could be moved to a talk subpage and then linked from the main talk page.
      Chick Bowen 14:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • There are a few
        parallel versions by 65.94.76.126 regarding the copy/paste, but they could be discarded since it has been fixed. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • I took the easy way out and moved the old talk to an archive.
          Chick Bowen 18:30, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• History merge, yes. The AfD is old and was weak, with explicit discussion of userfication and fixing. Allow return to mainspace, and allow listing at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, send to AfD if necessary - the AfD in question is very old and didn't deliver a particularly ringing consensus on whether the article was, in principle, appropriate. I see no issue allowing this recreation and encouraging it to be re-listed at AfD if there are concerns as to its suitability. ~ mazca ^talk 13:55, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD or move back. The superficial formatting changes are irrelevant to the AfD discussion, so G4 would apply if it had been deleted. I'm not entirely conversant with WP:Categories, lists, and navigation templates, but I think that the AfD arguments are still relevant: the large number of members is better managed by categories, and the list would need a heavy rewrite to trim the excess entries and add context. The list of redlinks could be stored as a WikiProject subpage to identify missing articles. Flatscan (talk) 04:22, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - it's an old AfD with a couple participants in which no arguments for deletion were presented. There's no need to enforce an ancient, bad decision. WilyD 09:28, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It would meet our present standards, but anyone who wants to send it to AfD could do so. AfDs more than three years old can reasonably be reexamined. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Finkelstein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Clearly does not fit within any CSD category. The only one that even comes close is G4, but I assure you that I personally wrote the entire article, complete with large number of sources culled from all over the web, many (some? I can't see the page now so I'm not sure) of which were not around five years ago. Let me quote from G4: "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"... Except by astounding coincidence I cannot fathom this being a substantially identical page. I'm fairly comfortable with WP:N, WP:V and the like, so I think this page would probably survive AFD, but one thing is dead certain--this is absolutely not speediable. Red Slash 19:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• comment To be honest, I wouldn't even know that Seth existed if it had not been for my interacting with him at the Larry Sanger article. Regardless of how someone may perceive an editor here I think our
  notable". At the moment I'm inclined to think that this a borderline case, in which I would tend to favor the requests and desires of the person involved. In other words: I'm open to being convinced in either direction at the moment. I'm not sure what the "protection" was about? — Ched :  ?  19:59, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • comment Perhaps it is. But my understanding is that borderline notability pages get taken to AFD, not speedied without any matching speedy criterion. Red Slash 20:12, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Adding the following links to prior discussions:
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 October 10
  • Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 30
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein (2nd)
  • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seth Finkelstein
  • I believe there was at least one other DRV, but I've not yet found it.
    • iridescent 20:57, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]

• Comment: This is a G4 and
  BLP deletion; almost all of the information in Red Slash's version was in one or another of the prior versions of the long-deleted article. None of the reference sources post-date the initial deletion of the article or its subsequent deletion reviews. While I sympathize that Red Slash acted in good faith in recreating the article, the unfortunate reality is that the subject was barely notable at the time of the initial deletion, and has not become any more notable since then. If anything, it reinforces the correctness of the prior deletion decisions. Red Slash should have known that this was the subject of prior deletions and deletion reviews, because when he tried to start the page, he would have received a suitable notice. Hence, instead of following deletion policy (asking for a review beforehand), he just created the article. There's no indication that he even researched why it was deleted in the past, or why other actions had been taken. Just because there is a multi-year gap between deletion and the intention to recreate the article doesn't mean that the deletion reasons no longer apply. They do. Risker (talk) 20:36, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • When an editor goes to write a new page that has been deleted, the notice says If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator using the information provided below. And believe you me (again, I have never seen the content of the old page), I created a new page with content that I synthesized from various reliable sources. Is that really a violation of policy? I remember once upon a time, a band that I rather like,
    Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Falling Up (band), which it cleared. I see a lot of similarities between the two cases. Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

I'm not sure using a deletion discussion from 2005 is really helping you here; the deletion policy has been completely rewritten a few times since then, and the

biography of living persons policy came into effect and has been revised a few times since then, too. And, since you could not see the deleted content, how would you know whether or not what you were writing was similar to what was there before? It's pretty clear from the message you left on User talk:Seth Finkelstein that you were aware that he "disliked this stuff". Even still, I get that you recreated the article in good faith; it's just unclear to me why you didn't follow the second sentence of the advice for creating a previously deleted page. I'm still having a hard time really getting that you believed this was a new page, though I'm sure that's what you thought. Risker (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I knew, obviously, that an article about this guy had been written before (maybe you've forgotten? all users can at least see the deletion history, if not the contents). And I knew that the guy didn't like it because I read his articles on the Guardian's site. I knew it'd be controversial--I also am pretty sure this article's subject is notable. And everything on WP:BLP about this that I can see deals with attack pieces, which surely everyone will concede this wasn't. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:CSD suggest that rewriting a deleted article is grounds for a CSD. Red Slash 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• • And also, seriously? Not one of the sources I gave postdates December 2007? Really? I can't see, of course, and of course I don't think you're lying, but really? I was pretty sure I got at least a couple that did... Hmm, maybe not? Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The closest is the link to his Guardian profile, but it's just a link to a list of his contributions there, and his last article for them was in 2009. Most are from 2001, 2003, 2005. Risker (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support deletion per my above comment,
  WP:BLPDEL, the subject's wishes, and Streisand effect. This is not a criticism of the 2013 author, simply my views on the current policies and best practices of the project. — Ched :  ?  21:01, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I appreciate the good faith Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, how does
    WP:BLPDEL support the decision to overturn? Red Slash 01:39, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Overturn deletion. This was not a recreation of a deleted article, this was a new article. That the two articles are going to have points of similarity is natural - they are about the same subject, and so the same points will arise. He meets notability criteria, he has a internet presence, and is discussed in several books (sources not used in the new article, but would be available to editors to use - some books which have been published since 2008, when the article was previously deleted. My understanding is that the rationale for deletion in 2008 was borderline notability coupled with concerns that Wikipedia could not protect the article. We have moved on since then, and I think we are in a greater position to protect articles against vandalism. However, the appropriate place to have that discussion is at AfD. The grounds for deletion are G4. The 2013 article did not have any resemblance to the 2008 article, other than subject matter and main points of the subject's notability. Wording and sources are different. It was a new article which appeared to be created from scratch. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 22:16, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having "learned" from Wikipedia this morning that Orville Redenbacher died of autoerotic asphyxiation, I humbly submit that we are in no way in "a greater position to protect articles against vandalism." Perhaps once pending changes is applied to all articles we will be. 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree with 28bytes; that portion of SilkTork's comment is mystifying. By any rational metric, we're actually in a poorer position to combat vandalism today than in 2008. We have fewer active editors, fewer active admins, fewer clueful admins, and less support from the community and from ArbCom for BLP enforcement than in 2008. MastCell ^Talk 20:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn The deletion seems to have been made without due process contrary to deletion policy. Warden (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. G4 applies because the claims for notability are the same as were addressed in the AfD and previous DRVs, even if the prose is new.
  Chick Bowen 00:19, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • G4 explicitly says that the article must be a recreation and "substantially identical". I fundamentally disagree with you on this assessment of the article I wrote. Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. The article was originally deleted because of borderline notability combined with the subject's desire not to have a bio. There's no indication that either of those factors has changed, so deletion was the correct step. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:37, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But this was not an AFD-based deletion, it was a speedy with no criterion given, which is flagrantly outside of deletion norms (and probably policy). It is certainly not G4 because this is not a recreation and is in no way substantially identical to the earlier article (except if by astounding coincidence--I've never seen the original(s) so I guess I can't say for certain ). Red Slash 01:35, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Are not the significant numbers of GBooks hits, published since the underlying AFD, exactly such indications? Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per se, no. They need to be assessed as containing secondary source material discussing the subject directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • You are actually reinforcing my point. They are indications, not proof, and require assessment. By policy, that assessment should be performed by the community, not by a single administrator, and your response actually provides the key reason why speedy deletion was both inappropriate and contrary to policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:57, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Yuck G4 does not apply to previous *arguments* or *sources*, so the G4 wasn't per policy. Having said that, I think this is a great argument for indefinite create protection on some BLPs, because the prior consensus was quite clear. Jclemens (talk) 01:32, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That is an interesting concept, Jclemens; I think at this point we don't have very many salted article pages, but I think you've got a good point. It would never fly coming from me, but might gather some momentum from you or others who are seen to be much more inclusionist. Risker (talk) 05:56, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion per SlimVirgin. I have no reason to believe that Red Slash's (re-)creation was anything but a good-faith effort, but as SV notes, the subject does not wish to have an article. This wouldn't matter if the subject were (say) Joe Biden, but for people with borderline notability, we ought to respect their wishes to "opt out." 28bytes (talk) 03:06, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This sort of problem often arises with
  WP:CSD#G4 speedies regarding "substantially identical". Some people merely ignore the requirement. Others interpret it as meaning that the original reason for deletion is still valid with the current article. Does "substantially identical" have a weaker connotation in the US than in Britain (I'm British)? See wikt:substantially in relation to wikt:identical. To me it means that the versions are exactly the same except for matters that are of hardly any relevance. I can understand the wish to delete without fuss an article that has the same objections as before but, unfortunately, that seems to be highly subjective and indeed begs the whole question. Thincat (talk) 10:25, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per Slim Virgin. Seth is no more notable now than before. If this weren't a BLP, G4 might be problematic, but I think deleted BLPs have to be treated cautiously and sensitively. There needs to be a consensus for recreation (in any form) before an article deleted in these sorts of circumstances is recreated. If that isn't enshrined in policy, it should be. WJBscribe (talk) 10:53, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think this comes within

  WP:BLP#Deletion of BLPs, Restoring deleted content: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material." The onus was on Red Slash to establish that the material should be recreated (whether it was word for word the same, or not). WJBscribe (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  But that has nothing to do with what I did. There's not a single word I recreated. I wrote that thing from scratch. I did not retain any material. I did not restore any material. I did not undelete any material. Neither WP:BLP nor WP:CSD suggest that rewriting a deleted article is grounds for a CSD. I made an article about the same subject and gave like nine links to prove notability. If you disagree that they indeed do prove it, WP:AFDEXISTS. Red Slash 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it's implied in

  WP:BLP, but leaving that aside what about common sense? You knew the article had been deleted before and the deletion discussion is linked in the logs for the page, so you knew (or worse, didn't bother to check) the reasons why the article was deleted. The reasons were low notability and the wishes of the subject. A consensus of the community had decided that justified deletion. What made you think you knew better? Why not start a discussion first to seek a new consensus if you believed it had changed? That seems a better way to approach re-creating deleted biogrpahies of low notability individuals who do not want an article. You say above you knew your action would be controversial - all the more reason to seek a consensus first. WJBscribe (talk) 09:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I agree with your last sentence (clarification following intervening remarks "If that isn't enshrined in policy, it should be.") and maybe I agree it applies in this case. De facto there is already "delete and salt" as an AFD close (is it documented?) and this would be preferable to a retrospective dubious "G4". Thincat (talk) 11:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  The original close did not specify that the article should be salted but probably should have done. Maybe we should made it standard that articles deleted for these sorts of reasons should be salted, to avoid good faith (if misguided) re-creation. WJBscribe (talk) 11:17, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  True story. I saw this wasn't WP:SALTed and that's what encouraged me to write it. I wouldn't have otherwise, of course. Red Slash 23:07, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. This article plainly wasn't speedily deletable; it's an abuse of process to argue that G4 applies in this situation, given that the article is newly-created and not simply a copy or development of the old deleted article. Moreover, it has been five years since the last AfD on this article. I don't think it's feasible to rely on an AfD from 2008 to argue that someone does not have notability in 2013. Who had heard of Justin Bieber this time in 2008? A lot can change in that time. I'd suggest restoring the article and raising an AfD to test afresh the notability arguments. It's quite possible that we will still find that the subject is only marginally notable, but we should test that proposition, not simply assume it without a proper discussion. Prioryman (talk) 21:18, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn This doesn't appear to fall under the G4 criteria at all. If you're going to go far enough to say that it does, then that means any article recreation, no matter what the content, is G4-able, which is clearly completely against the purpose of the speedy deletion criteria. Silverseren^C 02:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Isn't that a bit of a stretch? The G4 summary is "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". So surely it's only covered by G4 if there's been a deletion discussion? Isn't it therefore incumbent on the potential re-creator to see what the reasons for deletion were, see if they've changed, and - if so - start a recreation discussion? In this context, WJB makes a good point above, that the reasons for deletion were "low notability and the wishes of the subject". Does that suggest that the article should only be recreated if one or both of those factors have significantly changed?  Roger Davies ^talk 11:44, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Not an appropriate application of G4. And, since the deletion initially rested on an uncodified and informal practice rather than clearly enunciated policy or guideline, those insisting the practice should be maintained should carry the burden of demonstrating community consensus support. Also per SilkTork's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD - this is one of those difficult articles that hovered on the border of notability several years ago, and the bizarre combination of G4 deletions, an old DRV, and a very old AfD mean that the consensus for its existence or absence is really very vague. Given that Red Slash's recently recreated article was most commendably neutral, sourced, and concise I think it would be best to consider the article again at AfD. In these kinds of situations it's best to go over the discussion again for the avoidance of doubt - given that the recreated article is pretty harmless and miles away from an attack page that could cause real BLP issues, I feel it's best to discuss it in a situation where the community can come to a better consensus on the article and subject's notability on its merits. ~ mazca ^talk 14:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion. First of all, while people can become more notable over time, there's no evidence of that here. Per Risker, the re-created article contained no new sources compared to the older, deleted version, suggesting that the subject's notability has not increased over time. Secondly, there seems to be at least an implicit preference on the part of the article subject in favor of deletion; such preferences are typically honored in these sorts of borderline cases.

  Finally, the recent fracas over the Amanda Filipacchi BLP illustrates a serious problem: these relatively low-profile BLPs can serve as an inappropriate vector of abuse when Wikipedians are angry with an outside commentator. I'm not convinced that we currently have the resources or support to deal effectively with that possibility. While I recognize that it's generally useless on Wikipedia to appeal to common sense or pragmatism, the last point is decisive for me - we gain virtually nothing in encyclopedic value by retaining this article, while the downsides include disregarding the article subject's desire for privacy and potentially opening up a can of worms with regard to inappropriately motivated editing. MastCell ^Talk 17:53, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No vandalism or revenge-editing occurred in that recent case, despite all the uninformed "analysis" by misguided commentators in the media reacting to Filipacchi's similarly uninformed accusations, so that is not a good example. The principle that we should delete BLPs upon subject request sounds great in theory, but in practice would be an excuse for endless shenanigans. Any request should be evaluated strictly on the basis of whether such an article is suitable for inclusion.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 18:03, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, that's what I'm doing here. I'm just incorporating a few more considerations than you in deciding whether an article is "suitable for inclusion". MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and List at AfD Given the changes in the intervening years to the individual, the article and to Wikipedia as a whole, the speedy seems unjustified and inappropriate. Let's have a broader review of the article and allow the community to decide, rather than depending on the opinion of a single admin deciding on behalf of the community. Alansohn (talk)
• Overturn and have a new discussion at AfD. We wouldn't even be considering a request for deletion by someone with a similar career but no controversy between them and WP. I continue to think that the rule permitting deletion by subject request to be wrongly used, and this is an example. In almost every instance where it's come up I've opposed it as inconsistent with NPOV. There are some extreme cases that justify having such a possibility available--I can recall only a single one since I've been here where I've participated in discussing which I considered justified. Now that we have patrolled edits as well as protection we have multiple ways to deal with improper editing to BLP articles. DGG ( talk ) 20:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD. With all due respect for the positions expressed most clearly by Risker and SlimVirgin, this is a situation we encounter fairly often at DRV, and it's well established that
  DRV does not enforce five-year-old consensuses. If a good faith editor's gone to the trouble of creating an entirely fresh article five years after the last discussion, then they deserve the basic courtesy of a fresh discussion, unless there's some desperately urgent reason to delete. Oh, sure, it might be obvious to you that this article has to be deleted, but DRV's primary role to see that the established deletion process is correctly followed. Do you think that's just process for process' sake? Then see FairProcess—we have these processes for good reasons and, unless one of the narrowly- and carefully-drawn speedy deletion criteria strictly applies, you are not empowered to disregard the processes we have.

  There is no pressing reason why it's desperately urgent to remove this content, and there's a good faith desire for a fresh discussion, so to AfD it goes.—S Marshall T/C 21:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • I've commented with a !vote below, but wanted to echo this. This is important. We don't speedy things that don't meet our speedy criteria. Not because we follow process for process's sake, but because it is the right thing to do. We certainly want to be fair, and if this gets undeleted (which it really should) and sent to AfD, we can do things to protect Seth during that the time of the AfD (be quick on the article protection for one). Hobit (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my defense of the speedy deletion below. The "right thing to do" should involve a certain amount of sensitivity to real people. Proposed article protection is no solution, because as demonstrated, there is no such thing as a Wikipedia promise which can be relied on - the moment attention has lapsed, it can be changed. And that comes back to the "cost-shifting" issue of making it my problem to defend against libel and defamation. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't necessarily think we should have an article about you, Seth. What I think is that we should have a discussion about whether we should have an article about you in the normal way. At that discussion, I would !vote to delete this material; I have a long track record of agreeing that marginally-notable people should have their wishes respected in this regard. But the discussion is important. Contributors who try to write good faith content must be defended by processes that protect them from these unilateral ninja-deletions, or we'll drive away these precious good faith content contributors and all we'll have left are the vandals and the discussion-page gadflies.—S Marshall T/C 00:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • There should also be a safety-valve to protect living people from being dragged through discussions. That is the key reason such a deletion should be upheld barring extreme circumstances. BLP sensitivity indicates such concerns should be granted wide latitude, not described as "unilateral ninja-deletions". Otherwise, again, every little media blip could form the basis for another full-scale "discussion". Or revisiting could simply be done repeatedly as part of an attempt to wear down a target. Look at the potential imbalance here - it is essentially costless to them for a gauntlet of potshotters to line up and give me grief. But it is a wearisome burden on me (or worse) to repeatedly respond. Thus, such a potentially destructive cycle should be halted at the earliest possible opportunity, rather than done over and over again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • But there needs be a place for a discussion. And every 5 years doesn't seem too often. If there are credible new sources, it's more than fair to ask for a discussion. The speedy killed that. No one can discuss the article because no one can see it. I'm fine with handling BLPs like this differently. But deletion-by-fiat isn't the way to do it. Any solution we have must include a way that "forbidden" topics can be re-discussed. For now that means AfD. If you feel another process would be better, I'd love to hear it. But DrV is the wrong place--no one can improve the article (or a draft of the article). AfD or some variation of AfC would be fine (maybe only registered users could see it?). Hobit (talk) 03:31, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • The specific question here is when is it reasonable to put someone at peril of potential repeated anonymous harassment. It doesn't matter if a Wikipedia biography starts out as the most wonderful article in the world, if it can be replaced in a moment with "Seth Finkelstein (libel) (defamation) (smear) (mudslinging)". And then maybe I need to have a "discussion", with anonymous revenge-editors claiming "Seth, how you know that (libel/defamation/smear/mudslinging) is really libel/defamation/smear/mudslinging, huh huh huh? Wikipedia is not censored! STREISAND EFFECT!!!". Bluntly, going through the risk of this ever again would be too soon. The underlying discussion is not about my marginal notability, where it should be enough under BPL policy for an administrator to simply rule it hasn't changed. The true discussion is the risk-shifting tradeoff Wikipedia makes to offload costs from itself onto the subjects of articles. That has been, and will be, debated extensively. But it does not require sending me through the grinder again. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 04:39, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • Seth, the libel and defamation and mudslinging you mention is endemic across the internet. The closer we get to perfect freedom of speech, and the more widely people perceive themselves as anonymous online, the more people are empowered to spread gossip and lies. Anyone who's ever achieved anything very much in their life will feel it, on twitter, on email, on blogs and messageboards and over IRC: the psychotic weirdos who seem to despise them, the creepy weirdos who seem to worship them, and the scary weirdos who ferret out personal details and spread them. Ask me how I know.

                I think the big lesson of the internet is caveat lector. In time, I think that internet readers will evolve not to believe what they read and it'll all diminish a bit, but in the meantime your situation on Wikipedia is the same as most other corners of the internet: content about living people is not policed by anyone except the subject. Once the subject complains there are rules and policies to protect him, but the protection isn't absolute. Wikipedia's unique only in two respects: first it purports to be an encyclopaedia, and although there's a disclaimer linked from every page the disclaimer should probably be in large bold font, front and centre on the page, that flashes; and second the discussions are open and transparent. I think it's right that individuals don't have perfect control of their own online reputation. I think it's right that you don't have veto power over your own Wikipedia article. It's right that when your article is deleted in 2007 because you're unremarkable, but you're writing interesting and relevant things about Wikipedia and online censorship in 2009, that your status as an unremarkable person can be re-evaluated. You're entitled to be vocal here about your dissatisfaction with this, and it seems to me that a good way to address your concerns is to place the draft article, and the AfD, in an unindexed space while it's going on.—S Marshall T/C 07:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

                • It's 2013, not 2009. And what a perverse disincentive there! In fact, I'm not writing much now, very much because of the overall negative expected value on my life (of which extensive bona-fide harassment of me by some Wikipedians played a part). Again - "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life". Sigh. Here we go. FAQ: "But anyone can say anything on the Internet". A: Wikipedia is uniquely toxic, as it instantly promotes an attack by putting it on one of the most prominent sites of the Internet, while at the same time "reputation-washing" it via the impression of "Wikipedia says ...", and further hiding the identity of the writer from any accountability. FAQ: "You're trying to control your article". A: No, I just don't want to be libeled, defamed, smeared, mudslung. A Wikipedia biography can be a weapon of harassment. Once more, a plea to the closing administrator: THIS IS WHY SPEEDY DELETION WAS RIGHT. So I do NOT have to go through this painful gauntlet yet another time, of redoing the same argument with person after person, at risk of endless attack otherwise. There is a real person behind the keyboard. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:58, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I would note that he is mentioned or interviewed in sources subsequent to the page's deletion. Just a couple years ago he was actually talking to a press outlet in the context of criticizing Wikipedia.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 22:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD. I will !vote delete there on notability grounds, but this was clearly not a valid G4 and the article should be considered on its own merits, according to the usual policies. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:53, 8 May 2013 (UTC),[reply]
• Overturn and list While I can't see the article, no one has advanced the notion that this meets the G4 criteria (no one disputes this is a new article and no one seems to dispute there are new sources). Because I can't see the article, I can't tell if this would meet our criteria, especially as it's a BLP about someone who doesn't want an article on them. We do need a better process for dealing with articles like this, but for now AfD is that process. Perhaps salting the article with a clear process in place for writing a draft and proposing it at AfD? AfC would be a better place in some ways, but AfD deals with the issues involved more and is a more frequented place... Eh. Hobit (talk) 12:35, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salt As the subject at issue, I've been keeping my head down for fear of a backlash, but I believe the risk/reward now favors stating: I remain absolutely against having a Wikipedia biography, because of its extensive potential use as a weapon of harassment. The
  BLP deletion standards, the closer of the deletion debate should take into account the wishes of the subject if the subject is on the fringe of notability. Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. Now that Wikipedia has become one of the highest-visited sites on the Internet, we have to take into account that things said on Wikipedia articles can and will affect the subject's life. ... These articles are about real people, not just some fictional video game character. Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game. Biographies of living persons are not something to be taken lightly.". A speedy deletion was proper, as nothing has changed which should affect that determination. That should be the meaning of "identical" in the policy here, conceptual not literal. Otherwise, people could repeatedly be dragged through an abusive process by simply varying phrasing of the overall same basic facts. The decision here should similarly take into account that when real people are affected, there should be some protection against having to "run the gauntlet". -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 14:17, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. As per Seth  TUXLIE  14:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I should clarify what I meant above. The instance I am talking would be better described as him commenting on a story for a press outlet about Wikipedia. Another thing to note is that he has been an expert respondent in several Pew Research surveys as recently as last year.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 17:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI, Pew has apparently dropped me as a respondent, as I didn't hear from them last year for the current year. No disrespect meant to them, but it's hardly a signal honor. Yes, I got quoted in an article about Wikipedia and Google, two years ago. If you're having to go to these lengths, isn't this obviously marginal notability? As I've put it: "You've achieved a few things over the years, and as a reward, here's your very own troll magnet to monitor and defend for the rest of your life" -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 23:18, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I only mention those examples because they were relatively recent and voluntary appearances in independent, reliable sources.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:57, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're applying what might be a called a "fair-game" standard, which is not appropriate. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 03:15, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• No, what I am applying is that someone suggested the article should stay deleted because the reliable sources were older and I also know some people would want an indication that any later mentions are by choice. If your objection is that you don't want the page vandalized then there is no reason why we couldn't restore it with indefinite semi-protection or PC1 protection.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 05:01, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Your phrasing "any later mentions are by choice" is exactly my point. It's implying some sort of brought-it-on-yourself responsibility for potentially endless attacks using Wikipedia as a weapon. Your other suggestion doesn't work. Once more - There is no such thing as a Wikipedia promise! You can say, we'll do X. And the moment attention shifts, someone else can say, X is no longer necessary (and it's up to you again to establish it is necessary, put in your application with supporting evidence and we'll "discuss" it, maybe). When does this stop? If the answer is "NEVER", that's exactly my problem. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:25, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• I do not know of many instances where indefinite semi-protection has been lifted without being replaced with PC1, and I do not know of any involving a BLP. Perhaps there are some, but requests for unprotection in general are extremely uncommon and rarely successful, with successful requests typically involving full-protection.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 06:24, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this is text, let me try convey that the following should be read in a tone which reflects a life spent discovering the truth of the adage that the proper attitude to any contract is "Assume all parties drop dead tomorrow and their heirs hate each other.". YOU HAVE NO RISK. I can grant you're writing in good faith - but you might be wrong, you might be mistaken, and you cannot bind anyone. I am right now being forced to re-argue something I thought was long settled about not having a Wikipedia biography. And it seems I'm on the cusp of being put through a draining process rife with opportunities for personal abuse. It makes me supremely unconfident about any supposed assurances of protection. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 07:13, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - prefectly valid G4; G4 doesn't require that the page be identical, only that it be sufficiently identical that the original deletion discussion still applies. This article still unambigiously fails
  WP:N by a country mile. I might've preferred to run it passed AfD again, as I'm kinda conservative like that, but the outcome there would delete, and there's no value in process for process' sake. WilyD 09:23, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Great argument. Sadly, no non-admin can weigh in on the sources, including the author of the article, because the article is still deleted. Could you or some other admin either undelete the article or at least list all the sources used in the article? Given the previous discussions, it _seemed_ like WP:N was met by the old article. The issue was mostly subject's preferences not WP:N. If this really is a country-mile off from WP:N (no valid sources), a G4 could be quite reasonable. Hobit (talk) 13:09, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25] - only the first one doesn't also appear in the previously deleted article. WilyD 14:19, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. I'm going to disagree about the WP:N thing. The EFF award is a darn clear indication of notability. Given them all, he's clearly over the bar. Is it a legit G4? It's closer than I'd been lead to believe, but no, it's not. There are new sources (the first one listed) and there are a huge number of articles written in a major publication. This isn't a G4. New sources, new significant work, a new rewrite and 5 years passing are each reasons we'd normally allow a new discussion. We've got all 4 here. I suspect this will end up deleted, but no reason has been provided that prevents us from having that one week discussion. We can use page protection liberally if really needed. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Besides the perverse disincentives you're creating (the troll-magnet reward), there's a problem that's similar to "forum shopping". I'm not accusing you of the following, but as an issue, under your reasoning, someone who wants to use a Wikipedia biography to give grief to a target can repeatedly put them under that threat if 1) the target does anything which could be called a "source" 2) the target is mentioned anywhere 3) via a rewrite 4) even just after a while. Now, if the motive isn't specific personal animus, but more at wanting to do an end-run around BLP policy sensitivities because of ideological reasons, the problem gets much worse. This should have safeguards against it, for the same sorts of reasons that "forum shopping" is not permitted. Hence, there should be a "summary judgment" analog, which is being done here via G4 -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 11:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and list at AfD. This was not even remotely close to a valid G4 given that it includes several sources that did not exist in 2008 which indicate that notability might have changed since then. If there are sources that were not considered in the previous deletion discussion that address or might address the reasons for deletion then G4 cannot apply; this is the case here. If there are sources which did not exist at the time of the previous discussion which might demonstrate (increased) notability then G4 cannot apply; this is also the case here. Speedy deletion criteria only apply when it is clear that a page would always be deleted at XfD, so when there are opinions expressed in good faith that deletion is not a certainty then by definition the page is not eligible for speedy deletion. When there are good faith opinions that a speedy deletion does not apply then, by definition, it does not apply. Incorrect speedy deletions actively harm Wikipedia so it is important they are not allowed to stand. Thryduulf (talk) 10:12, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. To those seeking to overturn/list at AFD: If this article is listed at AfD, please can we userfy the article and discuss a draft that is kept out of the mainspace pending the outcome, with {{
  noindex}} if needed to keep it out of google etc? WJBscribe (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• As far as I'm concerned, sure, and I've already suggested it. I see no reason why it's necessary to make a public display of a discussion between Wikipedia editors.—S Marshall T/C 15:46, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• 100% agreed. In fact I'd like to figure out where the right place is to put that and suggest it as a guideline for BLPs deleted in part due to the subject's request. Hobit (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. In retrospect (and without doubting anyone's best intentions), it would have been better for i) Red Slash to have read the history of this article and prior to recreating in mainspace brought his list of references and/or a userspace draft to DRV to debate whether there was sufficient information to overturn the previous deletion, ii) for Risker to have been more specific as to the rationale for speedy deletion and/or taken to AFD instead. But given where we are, the most important bit seems to be WilyD's list of sources above. Taking at face value that Mr Finkelstein was deemed borderline notable (and hence his wishes to not have an article were taken into account) in 2008, and that according to WilyD, the list of new sources seems to overlap the old ones except for one (which seems to be at best a passing mention), I see no reason to overturn the AFD result and therefore endorse the new article's deletion.
  Martinp (talk) 16:29, 9 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Although I believe the article was probably rightly deleted, I would like to have a discussion about this subject under current standards. Thus, I say Overturn and relist at AFD.--
  WP:FOUR) 03:50, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion per MastCell and others. Andreas JN466 17:08, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and salt as per MastCell, SlimVirgin and the subject. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - Admins don't get to play editor-in-chief of articles through CSD. Here, there was new RS, so the CSD rationale was incorrect on its face. If someone wants to change policy and SALT all deleted BLP's. Change policy. If someone wants to force all editors to seek DRV before creating articles on subjects that have been deleted. Change policy. If someone wants to substitute their editorial judgement for another editor's by administrative action of CSD, where CSD does not apply on its face. Change policy. The article was not deleted as false or defamatory or puffery. The article was sourced to RS and apparently was NPOV. Notability is a consensus process and consensus can change. But the admin here derailed the consensus process. This deletion was a supervote, without even the benefit of an AfD discussion on the current facts. The Endorse rationales are all unsupported by policy, the purpose of DRV, or common sense -- unless your common sense is that the Pedia should not have BLP's, but that is not actually common sense. It is not clear what difference it would make to userfy it and have the AfD, so I have no opinion on that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I re-iterate to you the part of the Wikipedia administrator statement in the AfD decision "Mr. Finkelstein's concerns are very valid; a Wikipedia article is a prime target for trolls who want to anonymously defame the subject. ... These articles are about real people, not just some fictional game character. Editors need to realize, if they haven't done so already, that Wikipedia is not a game.". Doesn't common sense indicate that a person should not be put through the wringer of the peril of an attack platform on a flimsy basis such as "there was new RS"? That potentially doing it to them again and again, while quoting "policy", is indeed treating this like a game? ("Ah, you have been quoted in this article / written this column / published that paper, etc. so we play the "Consensus Can Change" wikicard, and that's an automatic 1-week run through the Gauntlet Of Misery. You lose a turn from your life, with -1 to health from stress. We cast Diffuse Responsibility, so take no damage. Roll to see if you're cursed with the Troll Magnet."). Common sense is that BLP's should not be imposed on unwilling subjects unless they are extremely important, and the letter of that qualifier should not be used as a way of violating the spirit of the concept. -- Seth Finkelstein (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Alan, Red Slash acknowledged that he knew the re-creation would be contentious: "I knew, obviously, that an article about this guy had been written before ... And I knew that the guy didn't like it because I read his articles on the Guardian's site. I knew it'd be controversial ..." [26] I think to know in advance that you're re-creating a BLP that the subject doesn't want, but to go ahead and do it anyway without DRV or checking with the deleting admin, speaks strongly in favour of endorsing the deletion. There is no new significant information in this article. The argument seems to be that Seth makes himself notable by continuing to write, which sounds as though we intend to punish him for it. The key point is that he remains of borderline notability, and when borderline-notable subjects request deletion, we lean in favour of deletion, per
  WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. Editors wanting to overturn that should be required to go to DRV, or at the very least to show the deleting admin that there's significant new material, so that it's not just one person deciding to put the subject through this again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:23, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Category:National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame inductees (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Supervote seems to have violated consensus and CFD occured without proper notifications.

• Overturn a CFD with little participation, where four keep commentators make reasonably articulate arguments not rebutted by two later arrivals with
  WP:VAGUEWAVEs is not a compelling enough story to close against the numerical consensus. Jclemens (talk) 08:20, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn. Multiple points by multiple keepers were not rebutted. The "wider concensus" of the cited guideline section is/was unsubstantiated. Categories and the category guidelines are a backwater, particularly the bit on awards, and the language is at odds with WP:CLN. It is not OK to use this guideline to dismiss reasoned points in a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:40, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a backwater, but a backwater that has stood the test of time and many, many, many CFD discussions. --Lquilter (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by closer. TonyTheTiger kindly raised the issue
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS
  .
  The keep arguments were that it is a notable award in a sub-field of a sub-field. (The field is basketball, of which American basketball is a sub-field, and college basketball is a sub-field of that). That does not add up to me as an argument that this is a highly important award of anywhere near the standing of the examples cited in the guideline.

Those lists of precedents shows that there is a long-standing consensus to restrict award categories to only a few exceptional cases. My approach as closer was to see whether the keep !voters had demonstrated a consensus that this was one of those cases, and as far as I could see, they hadn't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:17, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Precedent doesn't demonstrate consensus. I think it is very important to distinguish between (1) What we usually do & (2) has wide consensus. GO's subpages attest to (1), but it could be that a small non-representative group has been regularly doing something lacking widespread consensus. Alternatively, the several who advocated doing differently to the usual need bringing up to speed. In both cases, the wise closer shouldn't close, but should participate in the discussion. A third possibility is that this is a particularly special case. I don't know much about this, not knowing much about Kansas college basketball.

  I don't believe that the Overcategorisation guideline means that special interests (sub-field of a sub-field) shouldn't be categorised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is a theoretical possibility that something has been done repeatedly without being adequately tested. However, the more that the same course of action is repeated, the less likely it is ... and the best test of whether that has been happening is whether a wider group reaches a different view.
  A good example of an apparent consensus changing when exposed to wider scrutiny is the categorisation of actors by gender. For years, such categories were deleted by CFDs with v few participants. However, when the subject was opened to wider scrutiny last winter in a series of CFDs and an RFC, the long-standing but weak consensus was decisively overturned.
  I don't see any sign that anything like the actresses situation applies here. AFAICS, the issue here is just how much definingness is needed for an award category, and how we assess that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:03, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Disagree that something "done repeatedly without being adequately tested" gains standing simply by repetition. Untested repetition instead creates disenfranchisement, bitterness, etc. No, this case does not look to rise to the level of gender non-categorization, but having reasoned arguments meeting vaguewaves, it does look to require more discussion and less application of precedent. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:11, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I believe there is merit to this DRV. However, I agree with BrownHairedGirl that proper notification of the original CfD was provided. I suggest the nominator consider striking "occured without proper notifications" from the nomination, and not detract from the real debate on consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Consensus by the CfD participants was to keep as the award is defining for college basketball players, and exploratory browsing through categories would not be complete if this significant award was missing.
  WP:DEFINING, which itself is also tagged for discussion at its guideline page.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Awards_.28again.29 was started by Bagumba on 27 April, the day after the CfD was closed.
    Whatever the merits of any proposal made in that discussion, a post-facto critique of a guideline should not retrospectively invalidate a close made on the basis of the guideline as it stood at the time. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • A post-facto critique, if it reveals the guideline did not reflect a broader consensus, does invite re-examination of any previous close that relied heavily on that guideline, unless one takes the view that guidelines are legally directive according to the law of the day. We don't take the view, do we? If the post-facto critique seriously challenges the guideline underlying the discussion, then the discussion should be relisted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Joe, I'd go with you part way on that. If a subsequent discussion demonstrates a consensus that the guideline is flawed, then relisting is indeed appropriate. But I don't see any such consensus. The discussion that Bagumba links to below is one where AFAICS only Bagumba objects to the principle of the guideline. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:49, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • BrownHairedGirl: I informed you before this DRV was opened that there was an ongoing thread started in 2011, here at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization, that questioned the vague examples in OC#AWARD. Comments in that thread were ongoing before your 26 April closure of the CfD being reviewed. The newest thread I started on 27 April was a merge of three previous threads contesting AWARD.—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's a bit of a stretch to describe several sporadic discussions over a two year period of time as "an ongoing thread" ... "contesting AWARD". I mean, you pulled together those three threads and are describing them as "contesting", but it's more correct to note that, as with many criteria on many policies, there have been periodic discussions going on since it was drafted. This is completely appropriate. Anyway, just the last three seems a bit arbitrary to me. I've pulled together as many of the discussions as I can find in a talk archive at Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization/Consolidated discussions on Awards section. --Lquilter (talk) 03:22, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Notification for this discussion has been left at Wikipedia_talk:Overcategorization#Notability_vs._definingness, where this CfD was being discussed on May 3 in relation to OC#AWARD.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, no argument to the contrary of the majority holds water (a minor award? no). To delete it as completed defies
  WP:CONSENSUS, though probably with great intentions. Red Slash 20:47, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn The general consensus is that most awards should not be categorized, as described by the closing administrator. However, the consensus at this CfD was that this was an award / recognition that satisfied the standard, an argument that was consistently addressed by those voting Keep, and it was this actual consensus for this particular award that was disregarded by the closing administrator. Alansohn (talk) 15:08, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How is a 4-2 split a "consensus"? In a vote that constitutes a majority. In no system does it constitute a "consensus". --Lquilter (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Deleted No one presented any reasonable argument to break with the long standing no award rules. If we allow award categories at this level we will be allowing all sorts of award categories. We have never allowed hall of fame inductee categories, and there is no reason to start now.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you provide the specific text in a guideline that says there shall be no hall of fame inductee categories? This seems to be an arbitrary interpretation and exclusion of an honor that many in the CfD explained was defining.—Bagumba (talk) 21:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:OCAT#Award especially calls out awards as items that people often tend to categorize around (they're usually easily identifiable and easy labels so it's not surprising) that are nevertheless not defining. "Defining" and "not defining" has been repeatedly discussed in CFD discussions. In general, while awards, affiliations, specific performances, and other attributes can certainly be notable, they are not generally "defining" -- as in, this is not why someone is known. Awards in particular tend to recognize notability, not confer it. It is particularly true in the case of "Hall of Fame" awards, which basically recognize someone because of fame.
      
      An example of how an award might itself be defining would be the Nobel Prize. The Nobel Prize and its winners are the subject of numerous writings, itself, like who will receive it and why some people received it, its diversity and lack thereof; numerous awards are described basically as "precursors" to the Nobel, feeding speculation about particular people. So when someone actually receives the Nobel there's usually already a lot of discussion about them as potential Nobel Prize winners. Winning the Nobel would confer notability even without any other criteria. So winning the Nobel confers another axis of notability.
      
      Another example of an award that meets the extraordinarily high standard of "defining" is the MacArthur so-called "Genius" Award. This often recognizes people who are not otherwise as well-known, and it itself actually confers notability simply by winning it.
      
      Another sign is that there's almost no situation in which winners of the Nobel or MacArthur would be introduced professionally without leading with that award.
      
      Again, contrast these with almost all Hall of Fame awards that I can think of. Sometimes people will lead with that, sometimes they'll lead with their All-Star games or their World Series championships or their Olympic gold medals or whatever. In all cases these are significant, notable achievements; but the HOF awards tend to simply recognize existing notability. --Lquilter (talk) 23:45, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Your five paragraph explanation of a four-sentence
        WP:OTHERSTUFF, or we just say AWARD is poorly written, and has been contested for years on its talk page. Certainly not the pillar I would use as the basis for closing a discussion with a supervote.—Bagumba (talk
        )
        • The fact that a bunch of people including myself set up category superstructures to contain existing categories really doesn't mean that those editors support the existence of the individual categories or the concept. For example, me. As for whether
          WP:AWARD is poorly written, sure, most of Wikipedia isn't well-written. But the essence of the consensus around awards has survived a long time, and whenever awards come up for CFD, they are almost always deleted. Which rather demonstrates the robustness of the long-term consensus on the award. --Lquilter (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
          ]
• Overturn. Consensus at the cfd was clearly expressed, and there's no well-presented case that this outcome is irreconcilable with more general consensus regarding which levels of HoF may be categorized. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A 4-2 split is not a "consensus". --Lquilter (talk) 03:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep deleted - Completely appropriate to delete this. "Hall of Fame" award recipients are being recognized for being famous. The award itself does not make them notable. These people are notable & famous and that is why they are recognized with "Hall of Fame" status -- it's obvious by the name that this is an award that recognizes notability, rather than confers it.
  
  As to whether the closer (BHG) ignored consensus, only one of the four "keep" ("votes") raised a unique point worth considering. Shawn in Montreal raised a substantive point that this was the highest award in a field larger than many other pro fields. The next three keep !votes described it as "defining" or "notable" but didn't provide real reasons as to how it would be "defining". Alansohn for instance described it as "defining" and then described it as "highest level of achievement in collegiate basketball in the US". Which gets us back to the subfield of a subfield, and please note that "Hall of Fame" awards generally are not "levels of achievement", but honors that recognize prior-existing fame. Bagumba doesn't even address the defining aspect of the award; Baguma simply calls it "notable" which is not enough. Jrcla2 repeats that it's the highest award for the (sub-sub-) field. Again, nobody contests the notability of the award; just whether it is "defining" of previously famous/notable people. ...
  
  I also pause to note that 3 of 4 of the "keep" people spent an inordinate time discussing how lists, categories, and templates are complementary, suggesting they see the arguments against the category as basically being more about "we have a list we don't need a category". Yes, lists/categories/templates are complementary, but that does not mean that each should in all cases be present for any given attribute: just that the existence of one does not necessarily meet the need for the other. But they still all serve slightly different functions, and you have to figure out if there's a reason to have any one of the three navigational aids. Here, there has been no need shown for a category -- and there can't be, because Hall of Fame membership does not "define" one's notability, it "recognizes" prior existing notability. --Lquilter (talk) 16:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• "inordinate time discussing how lists, categories, and templates are complementary": Inordinate?!? What would you expect when one of the two reasons listed by the CfD nominator was "There is a list at National Collegiate Basketball Hall of Fame."—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn In essentially all cases a list of people with articles and a category not only can but should coexist, if someone is prepared to maintain the list, and nothing was presented showing why this might be an exception. DGG ( talk ) 20:51, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's really more an argument about the criteria in

overcategorization. There's no guidance anywhere that says that a category and list should co-exist whenever possible. I certainly don't believe that's true, for two reasons: (1) Too many categories at the bottom of articles do make the category list rather unreadable; and (2) perhaps more importantly, categories are quite difficult to maintain and police inclusion/exclusion from. You can't "watchlist" a category the way you can an article, so there's no easy way to automatically get notice about inclusion & exclusion. So categories are different, software-wise, than templates or lists, and that's why there's a different standard. --Lquilter (talk) 23:17, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

I agree we should do something radical about the entire category system, but too many categories do not make an article unreadable, since at least they're at the bottom; that they may a category list unwieldy is an insignificant problem, will be fixed when we replace categories by something better; that we can't watch categories, likewise. This particular category is not very liable to abuse, and if it is, the subject is looked at enough that it'll be easily detected because people look at the articles, where the categorization is done. Anyhow, when categories match lists as they should, you can watch the list. There is no rule that category=list, because there would be too many complicated exceptions in both directions. But practice here for the last few years has been that they do match, unless there's some special reason. Actually, looking at categories from time to time is an excellent way to detect articles that shouldn't be there-either not in the category, or--much more likely--not in WP. Whatever this is, it is not overcategorization--how could it possibly be any looser? "College basketball players who won awards?? one might argue over categorization for year by year subcategories, or cross categories with teams. 108.14.194.169 (talk) 23:53, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Too many categories don't make the article unreadable, but they do make the category list unreadable, thus harming one of its purposes (navigation from-page-to-peers). As for your optimism about "when we replace categories by something better": Awesome. Why bother keeping it functional now when sometime in the future we'll have something better. Really? The category system has been complained about for years and years. Is there a planned release in the next 6 months to fix it? If it's some indefinite "in the future" then shouldn't we be making what we have functional now? ... As for "This particular category is not very liable to abuse" -- do you mean because it's not insulting? I'm not talking about BLP or controversial categories. I'm talking about run-of-the-mill categories, whose inclusion/exclusion from articles are very, very difficult to police, thus making the categories worse than useless, because they have misinformation and are misleading. ... And there is simply no way that "when categories match lists as they should, you can watch the list." Yes, you can watch the list. But how does that help you police the category? --Lquilter (talk) 03:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn with no objection to a relist. This is a great case where the deleting admin should have instead !voted. When local consensus is overriding your belief about how things work and it isn't a black-and-white case, you should !vote rather than close. I don't believe this is a black-and-white case--the "minor" nature of the "award" is certainly in dispute and I really don't see how it could be considered minor for most that earned it. It is likely "defining" (the most significant award earned) for a fair percent of those that were so recognized. Maybe it isn't, but that argument needs to be made and supported--it can't just be assumed by the closer. That said, given the possible conflict between our guidelines and keeping this category, I've no objection to a relist to get a wider consensus. Hobit (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Civilization Jihad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) * [[MFD.]]

This

I misconstrued DRV. I withdraw the review. I see it is redundant now as there is a stringent consensus against the restoration of the previous article. I realize I am better off withdrawing albeit I would like others to create a neutral page (with a relevant name) on this subject. The possibility of that happening now seems as bleak as me ever getting nominated for

Noble prize. Let's move on. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 14:30, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion. Quit
  beating a dead horse; the purpose of DRV isn't rebutting people who disagreed with you at the AFD/MFD, but identifying and correcting process issues. Although I will note, briefly, that the "he never got a chance to fix the issues" is moot on two counts: first, that he never tried to do so while it was in his user space, and second, that he is blocked for sockpuppetry while trying to promote this article, and pursuing it further is not unlikely to get him blocked again. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• You acknowledge yourself that this was poorly written and had issues. So much so that a significant number of different editors believed this content should be removed as promotional and an attack page. In fact, pretty much every editor who has looked at this content except yourself and the author has objected to it. The answer is not to fight tooth and nail to keep a POV ridden and synthetically sourced article alive but to start afresh with a neutral properly sourced article that treats the subject encyclopediactly and with appropriate academic rigor. This is a clear case of NOTBURO. You had 22 days at MFD for this to be discussed and there was adequate input from uninvolved editors. With the exception of one editor who thought that this should be moved the AFD, the clear consensus of those that examined the content was that the material was so bad we should not keep it. That seems pretty simple to me.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:08, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• One editor? Me? My thought that the discussion should have been at AfD was for process/procedure reasons. I thought it should have subjected to the standards at AfD. At AfD, things are more readily deleted. At MfD, it is a tougher task to get something deleted; in userspace the threshold for keeping is much lower. I expected it to be fixed and pass MfD, which would have seen it head to AfD. Also, the speedy challenge should see it discussed at AfD. However, as the page failed the lower threshold of MfD, the AfD and Speedy deletion challenges are moot. As for me !voting at MfD or here, I'd prefer to not to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Relevant link
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion - First, no Wikipedia user was called an Islamophobe in
  Eurabia and references from well-known conspiracy theorists like Bat Ye'or. I don't think that it would be appropriate to re-hash all that was discussed at MfD, but the above description of what happened to the "article" after it was "userfied" is inaccurate (please see the MfD for more on that). Second, the "article" in question has likely not been lost entirely, since it still exists (but blanked) in user space here and it has been available on Wikipedia in various forms for many months now, so there was plenty of time to transfer it elsewhere. Users were even encouraged at MfD to transfer the content somewhere else as well. Third, as has basically been pointed out here already, the "article" in question was created by a single purpose account Wikipedia user that was shown recently to be utilizing many sockpuppets. Lastly, the basic idea that a tiny sliver of less than 1% of the U.S. population is out to overthrow the entire USA from within is really an idea that can only be described, IMHO, as a wild conspiracy theory. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't pass the smell test. There are surely plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the Muslim Brotherhood, but this unsubstantiated conspiracy theory isn't one of them. Guy1890 (talk) 20:14, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Many sources would disagree with you. The tiny sliver, in this case, would be 2.5 - 4.7

million muslims. Do you have any source that echoes your arguments? Otherwise these are all unfounded original research, because, as far as I know, nobody has claimed that "Civilization Jihad" has a fixed deadline. It's not an impossibility. Stop using the word Islamophobia this is not phobia. It is demeaning. "There are surely plenty of reasons to be skeptical of the Muslim Brotherhood" - that's putting it very mildly, won't you say, their "General Strategic Goal for the Group In North America" read this

:

″The process of settlement is a "Civilization-Jihadist Process" and all the word means. The Ikhwan [Arabic for brothers] must understand that their work in America is a kind of grand Jihad to eliminate and destroy the Western civilization from within, and sabotage its miserable house by their hands and the hands of the believers, so that it is eliminated, and God's religion is made victorious over all other religions.
Without this level of understanding, we are not up to the challenge and have not yet prepared ourselves for Jihad. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack. But, would the slackers and the Mujahedeen be equal.″ (my emphasis on Civilization-Jihadist Process)

As you can see the goal is to obliterate our miserable culture from within. And if somebody says that we should only be seeing it as a reason to be skeptical about the group, damn I am skeptical about the personal predilections of that person. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"The tiny sliver, in this case, would be 2.5 - 4.7 million muslims"...of which, obviously, a tiny sliver might be supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood that you attempt to describe (using, of course, an American Right-wing website like PJ Media) or some radical version of Islam. "And if somebody says that we should only be seeing it as a reason to be skeptical about the group, damn I am skeptical about the personal predilections of that person." Of course, that's not what I originally said, and...not that it should matter in this case...I'm an atheist, not some closet supporter of Islam or the Muslim Brotherhood. Like I've said to you before Mr. T, these kind of arguments aren't going to get you anywhere that you want to go on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• For me the key phrase from the nominator here is: "This article is about as consequential a subject as, say,
  insignificant." This is a good point that I wish to address. The nominator's position seems to be that this "unsubstantiated conspiracy theory", as Guy1890 describes it, may be entirely fictional but that doesn't mean we can't have an article on it. In other words, we should have an article about this "Civilization Jihad" for the same reason that we have an article on Bigfoot. False beliefs are best addressed by debunking them, not by deleting all content about them.

  Mr T, you say "Please comment", and my answer is that the consensus is clear here. The consensus is: (1) You can't have this article, and (2) You can't have an article called civilization jihad. There is nothing to stop you writing neutral and factual content about anti-islamic sentiment but the consensus is that it should be a fresh start with a new title, and I would advise you to ensure that it's closely based on the best sources available.—S Marshall T/C 22:44, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

  ]

Thank you for your comment, I would just like to sort out a potential misconception. It is not my position that the subject "may be entirely fictional", no, I, for one, have tried my level best to refute the argument that people who are writing about it know it's a figment of their imagination. In short, it's likely not a fictitious construct, at least writers are not addressing the issue that way, that's my point.
"False beliefs are best addressed by debunking them" - I agree, I welcome everybody to produce the rebuttal or refutation, as opposed to shrugging off the whole topic. With that said, I would like to refrain from commenting on anything else you assert. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:14, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"I welcome everybody to produce the rebuttal or refutation" Unfortunately, the history of the talk page of the Civilization Jihad page will show that you, in fact, fought tooth & nail to revert almost any attempt to introduce a NPOV to that article. Also, this tactic was tried at MfD, and it failed to convince anyone. If Mr. T is willing to try & turn over a new leaf now, that's nice, but there's no track record of that kind of feeling from the page in question, which is one of the many reasons why we're all here at this late date in this forum. Again, I warned you at the time Mr. T that your tactics there weren't going to get you where you wanted to be on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 20:34, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion obviously, since I am the one who put the G10 and G11 tags on it (and nother admin agreed with both or them). As I said at the original AfD, the article is essentially promotion of a cause, which is good cause for Speedy G11, which is not limited to commercial promotion. The G10 was on the basis that most of the content consisted of poorly sourced negative statements, either direct or by implication, of living people. The material was also essential original research in the sense of synthesis, the collection of miscellaneous news events and quotations to support a hypothesis. S Marshall is correct that were there a specific movement devoted to promulgating this conspiracy theory--which is much more specific than any rather general anti-Islamic sentiment, we could report on it. We would report on it, with abased of responsible comments about it, not try to prove it as the article does. It may be possible to write such an article, but not under this title nor with this contents, nor any likely version based on it or relying on the same material or written in the same manner. DGG ( talk ) 14:23, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That page was not exclusively promotional. Kindly temporarily restore the latest version of the deleted page so that non-admins can see what we are dealing with. Mr T^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 07:18, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion While I can not see the deleted article, I can see that no grounds exist in accordance with
  WP:DRVPURPOSE to overturn the outcome of the MfD being reviewed. My76Strat (talk) 08:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. This article seems to have been quite properly deleted. Prioryman (talk) 09:51, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I agree that there are no grounds to overturn the deletion. It was a mix of original research and a BLP attack page. If we ever have an article on this conspiracy theory it would have to make it clear that it is a conspiracy theory, not a reality as the article suggested. This is all based on a 1991 memorandum written by one person and then used by Islamophobes to promote their argument that Muslims are trying to take over America.
  talk) 10:17, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion. The Monsters Are Due on Maple Street. Viriditas (talk) 11:53, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as the DRV filing is one big pile of "I disagree" rather than any legitimate identification of closing admin misstep or wrongdoing. When the first few hits for a topic hit blogs, think tank press releases, and noted anti-Islamic blogs like WND and newsmax, you know a topic area is just plain trouble. That everyone out on the fringe has heard of something doesn't make it notable in the rest of the saner world of reliable sources. Tarc (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we close this early as a snowball? Literally no one except the nominator (a substantial contributor to the article, IIRC) is arguing against the close, and this miserable affair has now dragged on for over five weeks and included an AFD, an MFD, an SPI, and now this. All we're doing is giving GroundRisk and Mrt3366 more platforms to promote their conspiracy theory on. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  I noticed this DRV on my watchlist otherwise I don't know any of the history related to this article. I'd like to believe everyone has acted in good faith and I'm asking you to reconsider the appropriateness of labeling GroundRisk and Mrt3366 as you have done. My hope is that you will determine it to be extraneous to our goal. As a gesture to show collaborative good faith I ask Mrt3366 to recognize the emerging consensus and withdraw this DRV. Do the substantial rewrite this article requires and if it meets the criteria for inclusion, recreate the article at that time. That's pretty much the direction forward. Sincerely, My76Strat (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Believe me, I understand what you're trying to say here & I respect it. However, you should know that Mr. T has now taken basically this exact same case to the founder of Wikipedia's talk page. I guess, as has been pointed out there, that we're due for a future possible discussion by going "to WP:ANI". As was discussed at MfD, this is basically a crusade for Mr. T, which should put his comments above in proper context. I'm sorry to say that, but it's unfortunately true. Guy1890 (talk) 21:04, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already got the ball rolling by putting out a few feelers. I just asked the user how they would feel about a topic ban related to Muslims/Islam.[28] Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion - It is time to conclude this overly long topic. It surprises me that this issue is still going on, as only one user is against the deletion. Runehelmet (talk) 22:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Erm, after looking into a bit, but not deeply -- all I have time and patience for at this time -- I would tend to endorse deletion for now, without prejudice against re-creating a substantially different article under this name, if and when the term bubbles up into mainstream sources. I can't read the article (it's been restored but with no history it appears) and there wasn't a proper AfD discussion, but even so. There are certainly times when it's better to delete the article and start from scratch, and this may well be one of the. There appear to be no reliable NPOV sources for the term (yet) that I could find. And look, there are some subjects that are just hard for the Wikipedia to cover, and that need to be handled with extra care to mind NPOV, and this is one of them. Until and unless we can have a proper NPOV article with proper neutral reliable sources, we should probably have no article. I don't know if the speedy deletion was proper or not, but it appears to have been correct per
  WP:IAR if nothing else, so endorse deletion. Herostratus (talk) 15:06, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The actual page we are discussing was the sandbox in GroundRisk's area that was deleted at the above MFD.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:48, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Jack Schaap (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Although it was arguable before whether he was notable (personally I think being a pastor of a megachurch should usually count, but whatever), but the guy is now very clearly notable after his 12 year(!) sentencing for abusive statutory rape. This has been covered at the Chicago Tribune and Huffington post, CBS local and shed-loads of Christian sites and news sources.Teapeat (talk)

• The trial and sentencing is not enough to confer notability by itself.
  WP:CRIME recommends that in cases where the subject is known only for a specific crime the article should be about the crime rather than the individual, except in certain situations which don't apply here. Hut 8.5 18:43, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I agree that that wouldn't be enough on its own if he was a complete nobody. But in reality we already had an article on him, and it survived the first AFD, although it succumbed at the second, but it was rather marginal either way. But he's now exactly as notable as that first time around, plus he's been convicted of a very serious offence. Seems pretty clear to me he's now notable.Teapeat (talk) 21:37, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. The second AfD was unanimous, there wasn't anything marginal about it. Being convicted of a serious offence such as rape or murder is really very weak as evidence of notability. According to

Catholic sex abuse cases). Hut 8.5 22:14, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse statutory is, unfortunately, a pretty common crime, and those convicted of it aren't generally presumed notable. See
  WP:PERP for our specific guidelines on this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:48, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow re-creation - it's a six-year-old AFD and the person is obviously more notable (or notorious?) than he was then. The protection should be removed and a new article permitted. This shouldn't be AFD part 2 (or part zero?) - since the notability of the subject has changed, we should simply vacate the old AFD and allow the normal process to proceed (create an article, if someone doesn't like it, nominate it for deletion, etc). --B (talk) 05:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation- Quite notable subject as evident from the above links.--Robustdsouza (talk) 19:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]