Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 January

article|XfD|restore

)

First of all, in the original discussion the vast majority said "rewrite" or "keep", very few actually voted "delete". Thank you, the article has a lot of very good information, the problem is the referencing, but I believe it's not a reason to delete but to work on the article, which I'll be glad to do if restored. Here is the link to the original discussion: [3]. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn The clear consensus was to keep the article and not redirect. -
  Talkback) 12:41, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Note the selected list of individuals informed by the nominator of this DRV at time of listing - [[4]] --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I informed everyone who took part in the discussion, including the administrator who speedy-deleted it (against the vote). The only ones I didn't inform are two people who voted to keep the article, because they are not active on Wikipedia anymore (User:My very best wishes, User:W.V.-S.-). 79.180.31.23 (talk) 19:24, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:GiW who also opined to redirect was last editing 5 days ago. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse Redirect, unless someone can provide a valid counterpoint to the nominator's original rationale. No one did at the AFD, so this is your chance. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of people provided a counterpoint to the original rational. It's a big topic on it's own! I would be pro-merger, except for one problem - User Piotrus keeps on deleting the information from Belarusian nobility whenever someone copies it into Ruthenian nobility, using the false explanation that the Belarusian nobility article was voted to be deleted (never happened). 79.180.31.23 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural closure  This was a redirect-without-deletion, so there is no deletion to review.  Relatedly, a redirect-without-deletion coming out of an AfD is not binding on the community.  The AfD nominator states, "...I don't dispute the notability of this topic", so there is no dispute regarding notability.  The article had seven sources at the time of nomination and eight more were listed in the AfD.  So what this article appears to need is an editor...one willing to remove any WP:OR, remove unsourceable content, and add inline citations as needed for the remaining content.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:18, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the thing though, if that would be the case in practice that would be great, but whenever someone "moves" the information from Belarusian nobility to Ruthenian nobility Piotrus deletes it, because in his interpretation Belarusian nobility was voted to be deleted, not merged (or he fails to see the meaning of merge). 79.180.31.23 (talk) 07:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. There are ultimately two kinds of deletion discussion outcome, being delete and not-delete. There is nothing stopping anyone, after a not-delete closure, from taking editorial actions such as merging, redirecting, or reversing either of the above, and a deletion review is not required for that; it can be done under
  WP:BB. ✄ (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That's the thing, the article WAS deleted, even though the discussion clearly stated keep. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 12:20, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a DRV issue. The closer carefully redirected without deletion, which is an ordinary editing decision; its reversal should be discussed on the relevant talk page. If consensus is to undo the redirect, no administrative action would be required. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is most people didn't vote for redirect but to keep. Merger means including keeping the information, and it seems like a certain editor (with a specific agenda) deletes the information which was suppose to be merged into the new article. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Do not close DRV without an outcome - In reply to @
  has changed? ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:38, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you! 79.180.31.23 (talk) 16:48, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The policy WP:ATD states, "Deletion discussions that are really unresolved content disputes may be closed by an uninvolved editor, and referred to the talk page or other appropriate forum."  Unscintillating (talk) 03:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Close, after due consideration. I believe this is a content dispute, not an issue with the close of the AFD, as such. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:40, 31 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

People voted to keep Belarusian nobility (not merge, keep), yet someone decided to delete the article and say the descussion said "merge", yet as part of that "merge" the old article simple got deleted. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 12:54, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I disagree with the opinions that this is not an issue for deletion review to consider. People commonly see AFD decisions to redirect or merge as binding (at least until sufficient time has passed that is possible consensus could change, or until new information comes to light). In this case, looking at the history of the currently redirected article, it seems that attempts to undo the redirect were undone specifically because of the AFD consensus. Also, the instructions for this page state that it can be used whenever someone thinks the closer misinterpreted the consensus of a deletion discussion. There is nothing in the instructions that would seem to prohibit using deletion review when you think a decision to redirect/merge should instead have been a decision to keep. Calathan (talk) 16:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Fully agree - my perception is that a redirect as outcome of an AFD is binding, and redirects are often fully protected when editors who disagreed with the outcome try to get around the AFD consensus. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:46, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The outcome of the discussion is not unreasonable, but a better outcome would be "stubify and start over". We all agree it's notable. And the redirect target isn't exactly reasonable. Time allowing I'll try to start this article over with what sources there are or can be found. Not going to put a lot of effort here, but I want to get it to something we agree is a reasonable (if highly stripped down) article and go from there. This set of actions would seem compatible with the close. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 31 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original article was good, the problem is it was unreferenced. The references are easy to find, if someone speaks the right languages. What's written in the article is written in a neutral way (as far as I can see) and looks correct. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 07:45, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And... I'm having problems even stubbing it. I just can't find general sources in English. Hobit (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's true! The reason is because most sources will be in Russian, Polish and some in Belarusian. Whoever wrote the article based it on good sources and had a lot of skill, yet I think they didn't think they need to point them as well. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 11:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ''comment there has been no clear policy about whether redirect closes are binding, but our practice seems to be changing. Six years ago they were definitely not binding; in the last year they are often treated as if they are. I think this is a very good development: there is no other practical way to enforce a redirect when redirect is the best option. We should normally consider them binding unless the article is improved in a relevant way, just as a delete can be re-created if an improved article is written. To avoid ambiguity, if I close as redirect I will usually say something like "optional" if that's what I mean; otherwise I normally mean "required" , but I think I will start saying explicitly if I interpret the consensus that a redirect is required. DGG ( talk ) 18:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Why is this here? There's no deletion to undo. If the topic can be sourced adequately then it can be restored, as my closing rationale stated. If 79.x.x.x wants to improve the article, then do it in a sandbox and then restore it. You don't do that by simply undoing the redirect and leaving it in the state it was at the AfD, though. Black Kite (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Agree with the closer's reading of rough concensus. Nomination was sound. The finding of "redirect" in the AfD is binding subject to a consensus, preferable at the target talk page, to reverse the decision. The redirect should not be boldly reverted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:11, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn As far as I can make out the article was nominated under
  wp:TNT - which, having read the article is fair enough although I don't think it was the actual consensus. That said, TNT is a one-shot issue that only speaks to the state of the article as it exists at the time. But only two things are needed to render the entire basis of the TNT irrelevant. The first is someone re-writing the article, and the second is someone who can come up with a clear and sourced distinction between Belarussian nobility and Ruthenian nobility. As such, more so even than most merge votes this should not be treated as binding, although anyone reverting it should put in a re-write. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

To be honest, Belarusian is a modern term. In the past those people were called Ruthenian (a name used for Belarusians and Ruthenians), and Litvins (a name used primary for Belarusians). Belarusian nobility is basically a modern term for Ruthenian nobility living on the territory of what is now Belarus (and Lithuania).

I would actually agree with "moving" the article to Ruthenian nobility, my problem is that certain users (with a certain political agenda) keep on removing the Belarusian nobility content whenever I try and copy-paste it to the Ruthenian nobility article (which is very poor and has little information). When I say political reasons I mean that certain Polish nationalist's try to remove any trace of information about szlachtas which were not of Polish ethnicity. They basically try to "take over" the history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and reduce the influence and role other groups played in it (it was a multi-ethnic society).

If Belarusian nobility should be deleted, so should

Western Ukrainian nobility, and the content of both articles should be copy-pasted into the Ruthenian nobility article. 79.180.31.23 (talk) 08:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

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

)

I was about to note something regarding the page titled Yume No Hajima Ring Ring which is a upcoming song by Kyary Pamyu Pamyu. Sometime last week I noticed the article is been speedy deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury and labelled it as an A7. I got not idea what happened in the recent days or the one who deleted the article had some argument from the one who made the page a while ago. All I know about the song is that there are now official sources released, especially press releases regarding her upcoming single and her world tour this year. Counted that the article is related to the music artist, it needs to be undeleted and redone by adding reliable sources and information.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 12:54, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. Comment I have had no argument of any kind about this article, with its creator or anyone else. It appeared to me to be a non-notable song which has not yet been released, but I will bow to the community decision. --
   ^"talk" 14:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
   ]

• Undelete A single from a notable artist whose other singles have articles. It has a confirmed release date and unless something truly bizarre happens it will be notable. A7 doesn't apply to songs anyway, so unless this is a hoax (doesn't look like it, a quick search came up with the song, cover art, etc) then it should be restored and expanded. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn -
  A9 (which perhaps Anthony Bradbury meant to use) doesn't apply in this case since the song is by a person with a Wikipedia article. The page should be restored since it did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, though if anyone thinks the song is not yet notable, they could send it to AFD. Calathan (talk) 17:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 04:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment + Merge - BTW, it also needs to be merged with Yume no Hajime-Ring Ring since it's the single's original name.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 06:17, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Undelete - obviously songs aren't eligible for A7, and Kyary Pamyu Pamyu means it ain't eligible for A9 either, as noted. Whether redirection is appropriate is somewhat beyond the scope of this discussion, I think (regardless, since I can't read Japanese, I can't comment on that). WilyD 10:03, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation, all the while wondering why contributors who have the necessary information and references at their fingertips don't include them in the article first time round. Deb (talk) 14:38, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy undelete and speedy close DRV. Deleting admin's statement, above, makes clear that this was not an appropriate application of A7, particularly since A7 specifically excludes songs. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:19, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedily oveturn deletion - Subject unambiguously not deleteable under CSD A7, and no other CSD criteria (including A9, which generally covers songs) is applicable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:23, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I could say the decision is already clear by far, the article needs to be improved not speedily deleted. It didn't count as an A7 and A9 so the admin who deleted this before done a big mistake, so its better to close this one.--BlackGaia02 (talkpage if you dare) (talk) 03:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Songs are not in scope for A7, and songs with notable bluelinked artists are not in scope for A9. "It appeared to me to be a non-notable song which has not yet been released" indicates an admin who should review the
  criteria before doing more deletions. Non-notability is never a valid speedy deletion reason. DES ^(talk) 07:53, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn Clearly doesn't qualify under
  wp:CRYSTAL issue if not released and unsourced. But the actual deletion was unambiguously incorrect. Neonchameleon (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Tim Dowd (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Would like to request a review of a decision to 'Speedy Deletion' tag a new page for noted British television drama director Tim Dowd. The reason given for tagging the page was that it was promoting an individual. However, as the page was approximately 48 hours old, the only content on the page was a section outline for future content, a partial list of dramas the director had directed and a small amount of basic biographical information. Unfortunately, the page was deleted before authoritative references could be cited or further detail added. Pages that curate individual directors work assist readers who have viewed that work and wish to explore other titles. Content that is factual (i.e. titles, production companies, production dates, commissioning networks, etc.) and not promotional would seem to comply with Wikipedia content guidelines and indeed, there appear to be over 500 pages for other directors with similar content, which attests to the usefulness of the information. Wrldtvlr (talk) 02:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have temporarily undeleted this for the purposes of this discussion
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:34, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The article I deleted was/is nothing more than a CV, therefore I feel my deletion as
  G11 was perfectly valid. Further opinions welcome, as always. GiantSnowman 09:14, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• The nominator's contention that this was a "section outline for future content" looks credible to me. It does superficially resemble a CV. I think this is about the old, old questions that we've often considered before at DRV: are references necessary when an article's first created? Is it reasonable to begin with an article skeleton and come back to fill in the content later? Or should articles not be placed in the mainspace until they're fully-formed? When should a sysop delete material out of hand, and when should they tag it for speedy deletion so another sysop assesses it? Opinions on these subjects vary quite widely. Some users prefer to focus totally on the question of whether this content ought to be in the encyclopaedia or whether it should be removed with as little drama and procedure as possible. Others, who tend to think more in terms of editor retention and the effect of arbitrary deletions upon it, tend to take a much stricter view about speedies. I think most DRV regulars will know exactly where I stand...—S Marshall T/C 12:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But apparently, apart from me and Hobit, the only people who come to DRV now are the former type. So now people who join the encyclopedia and try to contribute content without reading all the rules in detail and building content that meets sysops' expectations in their userspace before posting it, aren't going to be drawn into a discussion, they're going to get stamped on.—S Marshall T/C 12:27, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I kind of feel that this is a response to my comment below, so forgive me if I'm wrong. Creating an article in userspace first is what I generally advice new editors, explaining to them that this way they can work quietly without being interrupted. I usually give this kind of advice when someone's article has been deleted or is being proposed for deletion. I give further advice on GNG and such and offer to have a look at any finished product before they move it into article space. I understand the problems with editor retention. However, as we all know, a lot of crap is being created that never will become an encyclopedic article and is promotional in nature. Page curation is a neverending chore and there are just not enough hands. So I definitely understand the person who CSDed this, given what it looked like when it was created. We better should spend the time wasted here battling among ourselves to offer help to the editor who was tenacious enough to find the way to DRV. --Randykitty (talk) 12:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The truly bad promotional stuff is being kept. Feel free to look at my very recent editing history for an example of one such article that had been here in that form since 2012. Written by someone who never did anything other than promotional work. The person who wrote that article clearly knew their way around Wikipedia yet never (AFAICT) contributed a n article that wasn't spam. The creator of this article had it deleted in 48 hours basically because they are learning. Or probably were. A BLP prod would have been fine--the material would either be improved or deleted. Sending to AfD would have been acceptable--they'd have a chance to hear their case heard. But instead we have this. Hobit (talk) 15:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're right about the BLPPROD, that would have been more appropriate. And you're also right that WP is full of things that people want to promote for whatever reason (often arguing: it's not promotional because there is no financial interest), but this doesn't appear to fall in that category. --Randykitty (talk) 15:13, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry but as my original comment, editor retention won't be achieved by letting something be restored only then to be dragged off to AFD and redeleted. Getting this userfied and working with them to get this bought up to scratch would be a far more constructive way of encouraging a new contributor. (And also as per my comment Speedy deletion probably wasn't the best way to deal with this, but nor would leaving it to get deleted through AFD either) --86.5.93.42 (talk) 20:05, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• We used to have a conversation before we deleted content. The submitting person could see there was a fair process and real human beings engaging with them, and a percentage of those people became Wikipedians. Nowadays we don't have the conversation, we just delete the material as quickly as possible, with maybe a couple of impersonal and standardised messages, and move on Speedy deletion is now the normal way. And, oh look, we're running out of editors. There is a connection between these two facts.—S Marshall T/C 20:25, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You're absolutely right and I agree that it's a vicious circle. And unfortunately I can't claim that I see an easy way out. There's only so much time in a day... --Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not which part of "Speedy deletion probably wasn't the best way to deal with this" is incompatible with at least some of that idea. What I disagree with is that running it through AFD and having that "conversation" is in someway better, I suspect it's pretty miserable to be honest. I'll note for all the fine words here about this, none of us (me included) have actually posted to the listing editors talk page and offered to help them build the article or guide them through why as it stands it might not be appropriate. I guess talk is cheap. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have not posted on their talk page because I assume they will be watching this. I have given some advice and offered help and the offer stands. --Randykitty (talk) 21:52, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to respond to I'm not which part of "Speedy deletion probably wasn't the best way to deal with this" is incompatible with at least some of that idea. ---- The fact that I replied to you doesn't necessarily mean I was disagreeing with you! I think of this as more discussion than argument.—S Marshall T/C 12:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can see what the deleter means in terms of looking CVish, but I don't think it meets the G11 criteria and most likely not the A7 criteria, regardless doubt speedy deletion was the best way to handle it. On the other hand I'm not seeing through some simple web searches much (if anything) of reliable third party sources on the subject. Restoring things for the benefit of "editor retention" is a fine idea, but is of little meaning if we turn around 7 days later and delete it through a different process, it's all just as frustrating. So absent any sourcing to show he may meet
  WP:GNG, I think the best which can be done here is to userfy the content so it can be worked up to standard. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 19:01, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Article is nothing more than a CV, a list of shows. There is no evidence of notability and 48 Hours is more than enough time that this article should of been improved on and sourced properly. There is giving time and giving time and editor had more than enough to show that this was suitable for main-space and to be honest surprised wasn't deleted sooner. There are ways and means of creating articles that aren't ready and this wasn't one of them.Blethering Scot 22:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no objection to sending the content by email or userfying if someone genuinely wants to work on it, but there's very little justification for sending a naked CV back into userspace. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't think
  WP:CHANCE is a strong enough argument considering the way the article was starting off (absent of prose) and the fact that it's questionable as to whether directing those episodes would qualify this article for a standalone opposed to a credit mention on the series articles. I do get that could be more work done to the article but under the discussions that went on prior to the DRV and that we have AfC and sandboxes I think this was a good cleanup of the article space. Mkdw^talk 06:00, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Unencyclopedic CV. I am sympathetic to S Marshall's concerns and would like to encourage the article creator to work on his article first in their userspace (i.e., sandbox) before moving it to mainspace once the article is ready (ping me if you don't know how to do this). --Randykitty (talk) 06:01, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn not a finished article and the text at the time of deletion wasn't overly promotional.
  WP:NUKE might have applied, but that's not a deletion criteria. Folks, it's important that we not speedy things that don't meet our criteria. There is no way this is a G11. Arguments like "There is no evidence of notability" are wonderful, but not a speedy criteria. Hobit (talk) 10:42, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What other use does a CV have other than to promote? GiantSnowman 12:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To describe? An article that was a list of works by a singer wouldn't be deleted in my experience. I'm not sure how a list of director roles is different. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How about an article about a football player containing the claim that he played in a single professional league game? But we're here to review the deletion, not remedy everythign that we perceive as wrong with WP... ;-) --Randykitty (talk) 15:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. But I still don't see how this is a G11/A7. It just doesn't meet the criteria as written. Hobit (talk) 17:29, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion although personally I would have used A7. No excuse for lack of references.Deb (talk) 14:34, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can see A7 (though I'd disagree with it), but a lack of references isn't a reason to speedy. BLP Prod would have worked. Hobit (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AfD. G11 is not always an unambiguous criterion, and any admin who uses in single-handed does so at the risk of making a error. I have encountered articles where I think it would be safe to do so, but normally I never use it without checking. We have been reluctant to say that singlehanded speedys are prohibited, but I continue to think that they should be. True vandalism or copyvio can always be temporarily blanked, and it doesn't take an admin to do that. None of us are perfect. I

As for this particular article, sure it's unencyclopedic in the current form, but the material can easily enough be rewritten into sentences. I would have declined G11. I think about half of us would have, and that;'s enough to show why using singlehanded deletion in that situation is wrong. And it is not conceivably A7--it claims being the director of major TV shows. Even so I am not sure it would pass AfD, but then again its hard to be sure it wouldn't if it were properly sourced. This is not the place for making that decision. It certainly would have been a valid BLP PROD, and BLP PROD I think is exactly designed for this sort of situation. DGG ( talk ) 07:55, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Yeah, the article was in lousy shape. But we have hordes of articles that are nothing more than a token opening sentence followed by a table or list of credits. Here, the credits plainly asserted notability as a director of notable BBC TV series. The article was not at all unduly promotional; the content would have been appropriate for inclusion, virtually verbatim, in a restructured article. The best course of action would have been to add an opening sentence and a BLP-PROD tag. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk • contribs)
• Overturn I agree that BLP PROD would have been more appropriate. Andrew (talk) 19:50, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  This is a case of an editor with less than ten edits creating an article.  There is already community consensus to do an experiment to require at least ten edits before creating a new article, but the WMF is blocking.  Since we don't have enforcement by software of minimum standards for the creation of articles, admins must use their time to delete articles that would otherwise not have been created.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article|restore

)

• Endorse own deletion. The blazon clearly exists if there was a crest/coat of arms drawn from it, and the file description page was tagged for over four months as replaceable. The file description also lacked a proper source. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse All coats of arms have a blazon. Coats of arms are replaceable by a freely drawn based on the same blazon. See for example
  Stefan2 (talk) 19:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • They have a blazon *if* all the relationship between all of the pieces is public. Let's say that a Fraternity Coat of Arms has a shield has 7 stars on it in the center. The fraternity has copyrighted that particular design, but the information on the relationship of the stars is only present in the image. In actuality, the stars are in the same geometrical shape as the 7 chapters that came together to form the fraternity, *but* that information is not public. All the blazon would contain would be that there are seven stars on the shield, *not* the relationship between them since that information is not public. (For a real world example, consider the method by which Brazil puts stars on its flag. If that were private, not public, it would be impossible to properly reproduce without directly refering to the image.Naraht (talk) 02:08, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The fraternity website gives a conventional blazon here which would be easy to draw up. Mangoe (talk) 13:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree there is a conventional blazon for Acacia Fraternity (I can't find blazons for most fraternities) There is also an exact version of the Coat of Arms which has been trademarked (unable to put exact URL, but at www.uspto.gov, search for acacia and fraternity). Would a user created blazon which did not match that be incorrect?Naraht (talk) 10:38, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A trademark is not the same thing as copyright protection. Trademark protection doesn't affect us. See for example
    Stefan2 (talk) 13:56, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

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

)

• this one looks moot. Recreated. I say we restore the deleted revisions as well. -- Y not? 01:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • another sysop has restored... -- Y not? 16:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Technically
  WP:CRYSTAL is not in play anymore which was the basis of the AfD. Allow recreation seems appropriate and I see it already has been regardless of this process. Mkdw^talk 02:23, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Murder of Jeff Whittington (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

closing admin says GNG is met. But consensus in murder AfDs is that WP:EVENT should be met. Out of the 3 keep !voters only one produced a decent argument and the other 2 were weak. The overwhelming consensus is for delete. LibStar (talk) 13:35, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Simply disagreeing with the closer's weighing of arguments, without providing any policy- or guideline-based analysis, is insufficient for reversal by DRV. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

in that case the closing admin has applied a supervote. He believes GNG is met when he should be closing on this basis of consensus. LibStar (talk) 02:25, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

there was consensus that GNG was met. There was no consensus on whether the article needs to be deleted nevertheless -- Y not? 16:07, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There was not consensus GNG was met. GNG excludes

• Endorse. This is not AfD2. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and delete. Closer applied own preferences which should properly have been expressed as a !vote. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I am very reluctant no overturn a no-consensus close. In particular, I rarely see a reason why someone who wants to delete an article should even bring one here. There is the much simpler method of waiting a few weeks and bringing a second AfD to try to find consensus. Technically, one could be brought immediately, but it usually helps to wait a few weeks to decrease the likelihood of a second non-consensus. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There doesn't seem to be a procedural problem here. A finding of no consensus is not a supervote because it is the opposite of a definite conclusion. Andrew (talk) 22:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No concrete evidence of a supervote. Taking it to DRV because you disagree with the outcome is discouraged if no new evidence is brought forth. Mkdw^talk 02:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) Endorse  This is a decent close, and were the refuted and empty arguments analyzed closely might justify a Keep.  The XfD nomination does not present any argument or evidence that EVENT is at issue, just a wondering out loud.  The only technical reference to EVENT is by a Keep !voter, and that !voter has added a reference to the article, so the consensus, such as it is, from both keep and delete sides, is that EVENT is not at issue.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - closers should explain why they closed how they did, in any case where it ain't blatantly obvious. In this case, that it meets WP:N is an important consideration, in weighting the policy based keeps against the policy-less "I don't like it" arguments for deletion. WilyD 10:21, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for articulating that, your views closely match my own. -- Y not? 15:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, good on you for doing it, though it's certainly own experience that doing so makes it more likely that a DRV will suggest you closed on your own view, rather than by reading the discussion and distilling the consensus. Whether it makes a DRV any more likely, I dunno. It's probably just a spaghetti approach - if you're unhappy with how the XfD went, throw every argument at the DRV and see what sticks. WilyD 09:46, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The good news is that I do not feel wounded when people bring my decisions to DRV or any other forum. The little bit of work that I do here on a volunteer basis I just try to do correctly and constructively, rather than trying to be #1 dog on wikipedia. Though I have to say, there has to be a better use of one's time than to DRV a freaking no-consensus close. Back to my day job. -- Y not? 19:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, no consensus seems appropriate here since there is obviously, well, no consensus that the article doesn't meet the relevant inclusion guidelines. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

I am requesting a deletion review. I have recently noticed my wikipedia page has been deleted after having one for roughly 6-7 years. I am not sure how this happened as i was told you need at least 3 "notable" fights to keep your page. I have fought on TV 12x, Spike TV, Fox Sports Net, My Network TV, HDNET and TSN in Canada. I am a 9x International Fight League veteran as well as 2x world champion and a 2x UFC veteran. My current website is MikeCMMA.com. I can be found on google quite easily as well as in many feature books such as "A Fighters Mind" & "Blood in the Cage." Many of my former fights are on youtube. I can be found on sherdog.com as an established veteran MMA fighter of over 10 years. I have a teaching degree from Lock Haven Univeristy where i was a member of the boxing and wrestling teams. I hold 4 blackbelts in martial arts and have trained all over the globe from Thailand to Brazil to my current home in Las Vegas.

Thank you,

Michael D. Ciesnolevicz mikecmma.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.173.218.206 (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Michael for this request. It is quite a reasonable request. Can an admin please temporarily undelete the article for the purpose of the review? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Userfy on Request  There was a "per nom" !vote, which carried no weight, so WP:NOQUORUM is the result of the AfD.  I see large sections of unsourced content that would need to be removed if the sourcing can be found to satisfy notability.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but Userfy. Closure was reasonable given what the closing admin had to work with (which wasn't much). However, the article isn't so terrible that it can't be moved into userspace or draftspace to have additional sourcing to verify the claims made by the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse and userfy - I don't find issue with the close but I also find the request for userfication to be very reasonable. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 16:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and userfy If the claims made are valid, it seems only fair to grant the request for userfication to go forward so that sources can be provided. Dramamoose (talk) 21:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sasha coen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

31.51.97.199 (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Page Ref. Sasha Coen. Author.

I created the page about sasha coen, but as part of the registry page, I added the name there too - at the time I thought it was the page title that I was trying to create that you were asking for, so I entered it.

As a result, it was assumed that I had created a biography. I hadn't - I am not sasha coen. I created a page about the author sasha coen. A deletion notice was added and I contacted the administrator that entered the notice. they did not make contact back and continued to delete the page.

I hope that the page can be restored as it took me a long time - as you can tell, I am not great with computers, but still made the effort. Hopefully you will too.

Thank you for your help

Clive.

• Hi Clive, welcome to Wikipedia. I'm sorry, I'm afraid I'm confused. Could you please be more specific about where you tried to add this page? Thanks—S Marshall T/C 00:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is how the article looked before deletion. 46.107.88.236 (talk) 13:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. Article was only sourced to a self-published eBook link at Amazon, and there's nothing else to be found out there to satisfy our notability guidelines. This is just a promotion campaign by an interested party or someone close to the author, going on in multiple places, see here and here. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse pretty clearly part of a [rather pathetic] promotion attempt. And surely no reliable sources exist anyway. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:35, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi S Marshall,

I added the page the same day as it was deleted. When asked for a name I thought I was been asked for the name of the page I was trying to create. I have since realised that it was a registration user name that I was been asked for. I have since corrected that by registering as intended. It is true that I only added a link to the ebook of sasha coen but that was because I couldn't find any other links and were hoping other users would flesh out the page at later dates. I could not find an amazon profile page. It is also true that I have talked about the writing style and content (genre) of the same book on forum chat. I had not realised that this would be an issue for user Tarc. As Tarc has also discovered, there is not much on the web about sasha coen. They are a gifted writer and I thought deserved recognition. I was under the impression that this is what users use wiki for. To make information pages about everything.

If Tarc had looked a little further, it might have been noted that my name is not sasha or coen. Moreover, Had a response been made to my application to Tarc when the deletion intention was first advertised, then these issues could have been rectified much sooner and with a lot less trouble

Thank you for your help and cooperation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.46.19 (talk) 21:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. User has not completed the prerequisite step of discussing the matter with User:Bbb23, the administrator who deleted the page, despite claims to the contrary above, nor has he even notified them (I have done so now). Without waiving this procedural defect, I would also endorse on the merits as the article is clearly promotional and has no clean version to revert to.
  To the creator: Wikipedia is here to collect, and to an extent, discuss, information that has been previously been published in reliable sources. If there is not much or any such information in the public domain, it is a very good indication that the person in question should not have a Wikipedia page at this time. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

hi, I replied to the user that initiated the cancellation a few minutes after he added the proposal. The reply was added in the same way as the one you are reading now so I are surprised it never reached the user. Regardless, it is evident that you have no inclination to amend the deletion order proposed by the said user so the steps taken and evidence given are all academic. It became clear very early on that there was no intention to overturn the order and were merely fulfilling the motions. I was under the false impression that wiki prided itself on users being able to present information of all types to a wider audience and other users able to add to that information in cases where information is lacking. For that to be necessary and required, the item (individual, material, theory...) is likely to be little known or difficult to research under general conditions. If the item, whatever that might be, is already thoroughly known and understood, there would be little need for a wiki page!

It is unfortunate that all of our time has been wasted. However, I thank the relevant members for taking the time to 'review' the decision made.

Kind Regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdc1cdc1 (talk • contribs) 20:48, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Wikipedia isn't a place to post absolutely everything you feel like, nor does it cover any imaginable topic. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes subjects already covered in sufficient detail by reliable sources. Just for the moment, I'm going to assume you're telling the truth: that you're "Clive" and not Sasha Coen or someone directly related to / hired by them, and that you're merely trying to get the word out about a book you liked. If that's true, Clive, please consider that your efforts aren't exactly making Sasha Coen look good, and that you've caused them some measure of embarassment through inappropriate promotion on at least 3 different websites. If you really aren't Sasha Coen, I strongly suggest not spamming their name across the web, because that's the kind of attention nobody really wants. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:42, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Blatant promotion. No content sourced to independent sources. Listing at AfD would be pointless. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:56, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

On 21 January 2014, User:JDDJS twice deleted a block of information from the Infobox Template of the Lost Girl article. The template contains the pre-existing fields of "|writer" and "|director". The fields exist in the template so that information can be added to them. User:JDDJS deleted the information in the fields because in his personal opinion the information contained in the fields did not belong in the article.

If the fields did not exist in the template, there would be no reason to add information to them. Therefore, the fields serve a purpose and this purpose has been contributed to by many editors before User:JDDJS found his way to the article and undid what others had contributed before him.

I reversed said deletion of information by User:JDDJS and he again deleted the information after it was restored (which I then, once again, restored to the article). It is my opinion that no one user has the right to undo what other contributors to Wikipedia articles have contributed in good faith and via means invited by Wikipedia. Just because editors of articles "A" "B" and "C" have not made good use of all the fields in the templates used in their articles does not mean that editors of "Z" cannot add information to the fields in the template used in theirs. Please stop User:JDDJS from continuing to vandalize the article. Thank you. Pyxis Solitary (talk) 06:23, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is not the correct venue, it's an editing dispute. The correct place is initially a discussion on the talk page of the article and if that fails then
  dispute resolution --86.5.93.42 (talk) 08:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Obviously this is not the place to discuss it, but Looking at the transclusions, I see 3/4 of the major shows do not have it but 1/4 do. I also see there is no discussion of when to use it in the template documentation. We do not need another round of The Template Wars, and someone interested should start a centralized discussion somewhere, DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted per

• Overturn and list at AFD. Article contained reasonable claim of notability, which defeats an A7 deletion. Stifle (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: As of this moment the text of the deleted article is still visible in the Google cache. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse simply including the word 'prominent' isn't enough to dodge A7, especially when paired with the word 'niche' which appears to contradict it. For what it's worth, other claims in the article appear to be false, so I would consider the rest of it suspect as well. The company itself may indeed be notable, and may be a potential article subject, but restoring the former text would in no way help the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Words such as prominent, high quality, influential, much sought after, 'high' prices in the deleted article are promotional and subjective characterization, not A7 importance/significance. Leen Ritmeyer is the only Ritmeyer for which there appears to be source information. Given the poor state of the article and the lack of online access to information on the 1930s-1970s German piano manufacturer, it's better to way for someone to come along and put together a reasonably source article. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:08, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn clearly a claim of notability was made. The only real issue is if it's credible. The company existed and made pianos. They aren't exactly in high demand from what I can tell. But I can't show that the claim is not credible. Further, I'd be somewhat surprised if there isn't enough RSes in paper form to meet our inclusion guidelines--reviews of pianos seems a likely thing. So not an A7 unless someone can state with authority that the claims are not credible. Certainly worth an AfD. Hobit (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn when an article like this is challenged in good faith, it's fairer to have the community decide -- which also gives a chance for the community to find sourcing. It seems reasonable that a piano company with a 40 year history might be notable,-- it depends on whether there are reviews etc. to be found. 7 yearsafo, we sometimes absurdly interpreted claim for importance as meaning that the article lead had to contain the word "important" or "notable." In recent years wemean there is material in the article that gives a good faith indication of significance, no matter how the article is worded. DGG ( talk ) 17:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD as a contested speedy. I'm not seeing any obvious good sources, but they sell on eBay. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:21, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD, if there is any doubt at all with an A7, reject the speedy and deal with it another way. I don't think this'll survive AFD, but it's not clearcut enough for A7. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:17, 21 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and list at AFD. Not clearly an A7, and the puffery in the text was curable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 13:34, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Removing the puffery leaves just the opening sentence. Drmies (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - valid A7? Yes, I'd have done it. If there are sources, the sensible course of action is to userfy, add them, then push back to the mainspace. If there ain't, AfD is going to axe it. This seems like the wrong venue. WilyD 10:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I view A7s as "my band that just started playing at a local bar for the first time yesterday" not "company that made real products still identified with it by brand name for 30+ years". Even ignoring the puffery, there is good reason to suspect it has a real shot at meeting our inclusion guidelines (though sources are likely all paper). That seems like something that belongs at AfD. Hobit (talk) 12:26, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article gives no indication it has any shot at meeting WP:N after a search. Most A7s are not explicitly non-notable, but read like this one "John's table company makes tables", or "We Recycle is a band from Australia". Any subject could be notable, but most aren't. There's nothing here to make one suspect there are sources. But that's neither here nor there - if there are sources to be found, the wise thing to do is find them, and render this discussion moot - otherwise, it'll get sent to AfD, which might as well be sending it to the wood chipper - it has no chance of survival. WilyD 13:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• List it at AfD. There's reasonable doubt about the A7, and "wouldn't survive an AfD" isn't a speedy deletion criterion.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, but "does not make an assertion of significance" is a speedy deletion criterion, and "will be deleted at AfD" is a good reason to choose an outcome other than "Send to AfD to be deleted" at DRV. If there are really any sources (I'm sceptical, but let's say), and someone is willing to put in the work to find them, then it should be userfied to that person so they can do so. This conversation is strongly suggestive that no such person exists. "Undelete, then send to AfD to redelete" is just silly (and a waste of everyone's time). WilyD 14:43, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • These remarks, and some others here, seem to bear rather little relationship to the
      A7 criterion in particular. It really is worth reading them through from time to time. However, I realise that the document may be so badly written that it does not describe consensus decisions regarding appropriate CSD standards. If so, a substantial rewrite is overdue. Thincat (talk) 23:11, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn but list at AFD. This is not one of the "most obvious cases" of an article with "no indication of importance". There are several claims that, if true, are of substantial importance. Likewise, if the article has been impartially written and the statements are true (and I think this is possible), they are not puffery. Matters like this require discussion. Thincat (talk) 23:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse no claim of notability; mere puffery is insufficient. If I write an article about my goldfish and say it's a notable niche goldfish, it survives A7 in some editors' views??? We waste much time on "saving" unsourced garbage that has no claim to notability. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, I can't find a single source. Nobody at this DR has presented a single source. Not one! Only the ebay item on auction which has just ended now, which could be digitally manipulated for all we know. I'd be more inclined to consider this request seriously if someone indicated they have sources that they could add. The article under review did not provide information required to make the article credible - names, facts, figures, ... details. None to be found. (i.e. why is it notable? who has purchased one? how many were made, etc) All we have is the org name and a year range which is extraordinarily long. If it isnt A7, it is G3 (hoax) until proven otherwise, either by sources, or by statements that can be researched. Userfy it if necessary. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:36, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow. I apologize for being rude here, but I'd hope most long-standing admins would have a better sense of our speedy deletion criteria than this. If you were at RfA with an answer like this, you'd have little chance of passing. Please read the speedy deletion talk page (where this case is being discussed). We don't speedy delete anything, even BLPs, solely because it isn't sourced (that's for BLP prod). And while this may be a hoax (I can't find a RS on-line) there are about 10 auctions, with pictures and in many case buyers, for Ritmeyer pianos. So it certinaly isn't a blatant hoax which is what A3 requires. If you think it's a blatant hoax, I'll take a $100 bet on the issue. I'm much more than 50% certain a company named Ritmeyer produced pianos. And if you aren't a lot more than 50% sure, you shouldn't be calling it a blatant anything. Given the time frame claimed, it is likely that paper sources cover this in detail. There are lots of notable topics that the web doesn't cover. At least until we do. Hobit (talk) 14:28, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed it does not need to be sourced, but it does need to be credible. The company may not be a hoax (I personally would say greater than 50% chance it is real, as I have found one advert from 1957), but the article content appears to be one. 90% of it would be tagged with fact tags and removed quite promptly. The most easily falsifiable is the article states that "influential inventions within the area of piano development". That isnt credible. Who was influenced? I have access to most digitalised resources, including abstracting services not part of 'the (googlable) web', and I dont get any hits other than the above advert. I personally would have shipped it off to Afd, but we're at DR, and the only argument put forward is a bureaucratic one, with nobody even attempting to put forward any sources. I'm usually a stickler for bureaucratic processing with there is a real dispute, but I cant see how it helps here, as nobody has given any evidence that this could be a viable topic. If the author or others believe it is viable, the userifying it lets them continue working. The admin made a decent call from what I can see. Could you please link to the 10 ebay auctions you have found? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 15:52, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • My concern is that if DRV upholds something that isn't actually a speedy deletion candidate, we'll see more and more out of process deletions. It isn't an A7 or a G3 and DRV shouldn't uphold it as one. It isn't close IMO, but I realize that could be debatable. Given your resources (which I lack) it may well be there isn't anything of significance here. But sending it to AfD gives people a realistic chance to source it. There may well be someone with paper sources that would see this (again, I find it very likely a company that has been around as long as this one has reliable paper sources). There is no reason not to give it a shot at AfD. As far as auction goes this search gets most of them. (Most, but but all are on e-bay). Hobit (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I think(read:hope) there are lots of people watching to prevent individual cases like this becoming justification for CSDs becoming useless. I also expect(but again read:hope) the admin made a judgement call here-it is one I cant find a reason to contradict at least. There will definitely be print sources, and it may be that they can prove significance, but i'll bet it isnt they cant back the statements in this article. That would require many extensive compendium of music history (Oxford, Cambridge, etc) all omitting the contribution of the Ritmeyer, which also happened to never file a patent. There may be some other significance, and as an inclusion I would be happy with only a factual account of a mediocre contribution to the relevant discipline if it is niche. But this looks like an ebay item description recycled as an encyclopedia article, with no sources, and time to coincide with an actual ebay listing. My alarm bells are ringing! When I search ebay, and skimming the search results you point at, I can only find items which mention the one ebay auction as a 'see also'. i.e. lots of hits, but only one item. If there are more than one item on ebay, I missed it in my initial search and also now when I've looked at your results. i.e. links to ebay items instead of search results would be great. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 16:39, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- There's a good case that A7 applies and, even if it didn't, it's obvious that this article could not survive an AFD so undeleting it would just be process for the sake of process and a huge waste of time. Reyk _YO! 04:49, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Decade of Darkness (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

DRV does not tolerate discussions being used to attack other users. It requires a collegial tone to be able to best evaluate content under policy. Emotional and political arguments cut no ice here and I will summarily close this discussion if it appears that the discussion is veering in that direction. Finally, if I close this, I will discard arguments that appear to be motivated by political animus rather then policy - that's you I'm looking at JOttawa16. Keep it clean folks if you want this to run the course. Spartaz Humbug! 04:48, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply ]

In 2012 Decade of Darkness was speedily deleted because some users tagged it as an attack page. In early 2014 the page was re-created using numerous media and journalistic references. Yet again, the page was speedily deleted without the opportunity for discussion or review.

The topic itself, the "decade of darkness" for Canada's federal government while under Liberal governments from 1994 to 2005, is an important topic for Canada's military and the federal government as a whole.

The page was recreated in 2014 with newer, more reliable sources, especially considering that some media sources were considering whether Prime Minister Harper's budget restraints would plunge the Canadian Forces into a "new" decade of darkness.

Similar additions to the Rick Hillier page, who coined the term, have been deleted, usually by the same user who speedily deleted this page. This is a relevant and important topic in Canadian government, Canada's military, and it deserves recognition. Request that the page be restored and allowed to stand. — Preceding

Please note that this article was originally deleted at

WP:G4 "Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". - Ahunt (talk) 16:05, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep deleted
  User:ARMY101 is the original creator of the page. In the original AFD only one other editor, supported keeping the page. A google news search for "Decade of Darkness" yields only 8 results. The article itself contains no useful information. There is no reason for this page, other than to attack liberals. JDDJS (talk) 16:25, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion The AfD conclusions were overwhelming. Every recreated version of this article has proven to be just another highly biased and politically motivated attack piece. - Ahunt (talk) 17:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Close accurately reflects AFD consensus and analysis. Moreover, as a simple GBooks search demonstrates, this is a rather generic political cliche applied by political comments of all stripes to time periods marked by actions they criticize. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endrose. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion policy and process. It is not a venue to seek a second bite at the cherry or advance new arguments (or re-advance old arguments) that were/should have been made at the AFD discussion. Stifle (talk) 19:35, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

1. There was certainly not "overwhelming" or "unanimous consent" given to delete the original article. Some of the original complaints, when the original page was created in 2012-2013, were that the article was poorly sourced. The new article has provided several sources, including those that relevantly apply to current Canadian politics as they suggest a new decade of darkness may be approaching or already underway.

2. If there are additional uses of the word (e.g. in other governments) then the page should be expanded to broadly label what a decade of darkness is and instances where governments or departments went through said decade.

To continually reject the noteworthiness of this topic is to refuse that such a decade ever happened. Federal employees, including defence officials, will tell you it happened and is indeed noteworthy, even if some Liberals don't like it.

Comment: I would say 13 editors in favour of deletion or redirecting and one opposed to it in the AfD is "an overwhelming consensus". Also by even using this venue to make politically-motivated comments as you just did tends to support the identification of problem of a lack of

WP:NPOV in the original article. - Ahunt (talk) 02:18, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse per the consensus at AfD and inability of article creator to put forward NPOV arguments. --Randykitty (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Admin Comment If I don't close this, could the closer not what appears to be canvassing by the nominator. [7]. Thanks
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Clear consensus at AfD. Appears to be advocacy, implying original research. It could be redrafted, I recommend this, assuming that anything new is more strongly based in sources that are more independent and more distant from the subject. I recommend academic articles or reputably published books, and not newspaper stories. The title "Decade of Darkness" is not suitable, as it is provocative, aka non-neutral. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close as
  WP:SNOW. There is absolutely no other reasonable closure besides delete for this AFD, and DRV is not a venue to get a second bite at the cherry when AFD hasn't gone your way. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC) For clarity, this is a process request; my endorse !vote above stands. Stifle (talk) 16:02, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - This does not prohibit the writing and posting of an article on the media's use of Rick Hillier's 2007
  WP:NEO. You may want to put together a draft that overcomes the reasons for deletion listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decade of Darkness and ask at DRV that the draft be moved to article space. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • University of Regina political sociologist John F. Conway noted in March 2006 that Hillier used the term,[8][9] so the article lead statement "The Decade of Darkness was a term coined in 2007 by then Chief of the Defence Staff Rick Hillier." was not correct. -- Jreferee (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AfD. Whether or not the AfD was overwhelming or not is irrelevant here - I see no mention of how strong the consensus was in the G4 criteria. What is important here is whether it's "substantially identical" and it's clearly not - the text is quite different and all the references are different. It shouldn't be up to a single admin to decide whether these sources are enough to meet our requirements as that should be decided by consensus at AfD. We don't ask admins to assess references for A7 and nor should we for G4. New references = new AfD as far as I'm concerned and this is also my understanding of policy. And to be clear here I'm not questioning the original AfD closure which was clearly correct, I'm !voting to overturn the G4. Dpmuk (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It will be pointless to start another AFD. It is clear that it won't survive. And the recreate might no be the exact same version as the one deleted, but it does have the exact same problems, namely violating
    WP:NPOV. JDDJS (talk) 19:34, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse clear consensus at the AfD. No new information brought forth making this a case of an editor disagreeing with the outcome. Mkdw^talk 08:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, crystal clear consensus at the AFD and no new arguments advanced here either. I am disappointed to see accusations of party partisanship being made here; DRV is oddly enough usually somewhere where good faith is assumed by all participants. Lets keep it that way. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Note: the original page creator just today tried to take the article text we are discussing here and insert it into
  Canadian Forces and Jean Chrétien, although it has now been removed from both articles. - Ahunt (talk) 18:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Yes, it certainly was added to the
  Jean Chretien pages, as that's what was suggested here. JOttawa16 (talk) 00:29, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Um, no, it hasn't? I can't see where that was suggested, please point to where it was. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• In fact this DRV has not come to a conclusion yet, but it looks right now that it will endorse the deletion of this subject and text in the original AfD as not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia and that means that it should not be reinserted by stealth elsewhere. - Ahunt (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as Stifle points out, DRV is for where a deletion is reasonably contestable, not for when you
  don't like the AfD result. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kent Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmokeyJoe (talk • contribs) 11:29, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was deleted because of an insufficient amount of references as there was only one that mods found satisfactory. I now have a list of references which I have included below. I request that the article be undeleted so that I may go in expand the article and cite correct references and change the content to more closely follows Wikipedia guidelines.

Articles/Reviews/Blogs
Cambridge Day
http://www.cambridgeday.com/2012/09/28/trip-hop-gets-new-meaning-with-monday-musical-novel-reading-for-crash-course/

Kirkus Reviews
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/kent-evans/a-crash-course/
Indie Music
http://www.indie-music.com/ee/index.php/blog/comments/interview_with_kent_evans_accomplished_experimental_author_and_musician
Portland Book Review
http://portlandbookreview.com/confessional-literature-or-fictional-memoir-by-kent-evans/
Why I write
http://www.patriciadunnauthor.com/why-i-write-by-kent-evans/
Think like a Label
http://www.thinklikealabel.com/interview-with-kent-evans-experimental-accomplished-author-and-musician/
Henk Jan Vanderklis
http://www.henkjanvanderklis.nl/2012/10/kent-evans-a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
Chicago Center for Literature and Photography
http://www.cclapcenter.com/2012/12/30_books_in_30_days_a_crash_co.html
Unconventional Librarian
http://unconventionallibrarian.com/2012/09/17/kent-evans-crash-anatomy-robots/
Fairy Cakes
http://maimoonamayrahman.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots-kent-evans/
Rat Race Refuge
http://www.ratracerefuge.com/bookreviews/evans-a-crash-course.html
The Next Best Book Blog
http://thenextbestbookblog.blogspot.mx/2012/09/a-crash-course-on-anatomy-of-robots.html
Moonlight Gleam
http://moonlightgleam.com/2012/09/author-guest-post-with-kent-evans.html
Offbeat Vagabound
http://offbeatvagabond.blogspot.mx/2012/09/arc-review-crash-course-on-anatomy-of.html

Appearances
Franklyn Street Works
http://articles.courant.com/2012-09-14/community/hcrs-65332hc-stafford-20120912_1_robots-novel-anatomy
http://www.franklinstreetworks.org/k/
http://www.fairfieldcountylook.com/index.php/calendar/icalrepeat.detail/2012/09/20/1059/26/franklin-street-works-presents-a-reading-and-musical-performance-with-kent-evans
Brazos Bookstore
http://events.chron.com/houston_tx/events/show/281368765-kent-evans-a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots
http://www.artshound.com/event/detail/441708781/Kent_Evans_book_signing_and_discussion_
Book Soup
http://www.timeout.com/los-angeles/music/kent-evans
http://www.visitwesthollywood.com/event/kent-evans-discusses-and-signs-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
Books Inc.
http://www.booksinc.net/event/kent-evans-books-inc-opera-plaza
Radio Bean
http://www.radiobean.com/cal/view_entry.php?id=3916&date=20121005
Biblioteca San Miguel
http://www.atencionsanmiguel.org/2013/05/17/a-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/

Radio/Video
The Front Row with Dean Dalton Interview, KUHF (Houston Public Radio)
http://www.kuhf.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10780
Martini Productions Interview
http://martiniproductionsnyc.com/2012/10/04/interview-with-kent-evans-author-of-crash-course-on-the-anatomy-of-robots/
It’s Relevant Interview
http://www.itsrelevant.com/content/11616/Music_&_Readings_at_Franklin_Street_Works
Big Blend Radio Interview
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/big-blend-radio/2012/10/15/big-blend-happy-hour-radio

Awards
Indie Excellence Books Awards
http://www.indieexcellence.com/indie-results-2013-finalists.htm
New England Book Awards
http://www.newenglandbookfestival.com/winners2012.html
Beverly Hills Book Awards
http://www.beverlyhillsbookawards.com/2013-BHBA-Winnners-and-Finalists.htm

DizaBlah (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse admittedly I didn't click every single link but the ones I did look at are either not reliable sources, not primarily about Evans, not more recent than the AFD (and thus not new information), or a combination thereof. Also, it seems a primary issue with the article was promotion, so even if the subject is indeed notable it may be better to start from scratch. A new draft article may be the best way forward. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:22, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I can only evaluate the information for the books. I see from worldcat that one is in 2 libraries only, the other in 5, which is below what is expected for the most experimental of experimental literature. Kirkus is unreliable nowadays for independent publishers. The awards are mere listings as honorable mention, and only at minor festivals. The blogs are blogs. Appearances are trivial. There is no imaginable case for notability as an author based on the books. Whether there is a conceivable case as a performer or otherwise I cannot evaluate. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per Starblind and DGG. Closer accurately evaluated consensus and no significant new material showing notability. --Randykitty (talk) 17:24, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse That looks like a
  wp:BOMBARD to me. The notability guidelines for third party reliable sources aren't difficult to understand - and the half dozen I checked failed those standards. There might be a couple of notables in there - but two good references beats fifty bad ones. And if there are any good ones in there I'm never going to find them. Closer accurately summarised consensus. Neonchameleon (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Please review
  WP:RS before taking it to DRV over it. Most of those sources are immediately disqualified as user submitted content and unreliable. Other editors above have pointed out important key points. Mkdw^talk 08:58, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:SimCity_Mac.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Discussion at Talk:SimCity (1989 video game)#Recent_revert; this file was deleted because screenshots of later Free ports of Sim City could be used. However, these differ radically in appearance from the 1989/1990 releases of Sim City and are misleading when used to illustrate the article. I have not contacted the deleting administrator, User:SchuminWeb, because they left Wikipedia in December 2012 and have not been active since. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:15, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• restore and someone can list as needed. The linked discussion provides reason to believe the speedy wasn't appropriate (might be, but when in doubt with speedies send for discussion). FfD is a better place for this (if someone thinks we shouldn't have the image) than DrV. Hobit (talk) 16:46, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The images on that article don't look like the original SimCity that I remember. And SchuminWeb left under a cloud after he had failed to respond to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchuminWeb----and Arbcom desysopped him in absentia----and all of this drama happened because of his inappropriate image deletions. I'll go with speedy restore.—S Marshall T/C 09:10, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow Restore the discussion linked on the articles talk indicates that it was one of the participants who listed it for speedy (and who is now supporting a restoration) and would likely have removed it from the article and would then have been deleted as unused. Can't see the fault in the deletion, but can't see a fault in reuploading or restoration either. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:39, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who listed it for speedy. I'm actually neutral. I'm not familiar enough with our non-free image policy to know whether a restoration is called for. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 14:49, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think it probably warrants a discussion. On the one hand I can understand the suggestion the current free images don't truly represent what it looked like, on the other how far does that go. Does it rise to the level of significantly aiding understanding? What about that the Mac version would have looked different to the C64 version etc. I very much doubt we can have one image from every version published under NFCC, so which one should we choose etc. If it is the Mac version, then why not the others, if that version is "good enough", then why aren't the Micropolis images good enough? Not something DRV is really suitable for determining. --86.5.93.42 (talk) 17:32, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The '89/'90 releases looked considerably more like each other than Micropolis does (even eg the version crammed into the 32K of the BBC Micro is recognisably a stab at the same UI as the other releases). I do feel that understanding would be aided by a screenshot of an originally released version because, as mentioned on the article's talk page, someone unfamiliar with the capabilities of videogames at the time would get a completely inaccurate impression of the situation. (Someone who is, of course, looks at the screenshots and goes "Surely there has been a mistake".) Pinkbeast (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If the current screenshots show a different game, then a non-free screenshot seems to make sense. If there is a dispute, it's better to list it at FFD or NFCR to sort it out. --
  Stefan2 (talk) 02:14, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore. The non-free screenshot differs enough that the newer screenshots don't replace it--not when you're talking about the visual presentation. Despite being in monochrome, it's closer to the PC EGA version I remember. That's the game that was played in the late 80s and early 90s. Mackensen (talk) 02:53, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jesús Omar Rivera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

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

This article was closed by

The current "top-tier" criteria for MMA fighter pages lists Jewels as a promotion deemed eligible for consideration for female fighters. Below it, Deep is listed as a "second-tier" promotion and is only eligible for consideration for male fighters.

The main issues with this are that: 1) Deep was the "big brother/sister" promotion to Jewels and the companies are now merged under one banner, so Deep should surely be given equal or greater weight in comparison to Jewels, which was a much smaller promotion, 2) At the time that Miku Matsumoto was competing, Deep was the second-largest MMA promotion in Japan and its female champions typically received greater worldwide recognition than most of its male champions (See here, here, here, here, here and here), and 3) As the final Deep women's lightweight champion, Matsumoto was the holder of what is generally thought to have been the most prestigious women's title in Japanese MMA history so far.

In addition, Matsumoto also defeated the following fighters who all have Wikipedia pages that remain intact: Rena Kubota, Seo Hee Ham, Hisae Watanabe (whom she defeated for the Deep title) and Lisa Ellis. Also, Deep's other women's champion, Satoko Shinashi, still has an active page. I believe that the page for Miku Matsumoto is worthy of restoration, and if I can be of assistance by adding new references and/or bio information to the page should it be restored, I will gladly do so.

Deep is actively promoting female MMA fights once again, and I propose that female fighters - or at least its champions such as Ms. Matsumoto - who compete(d) frequently for Deep should be deemed notable enough to retain their respective Wikipedia pages. FemaleMMAFan (talk) 07:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Could you please list any new sources you might have about Miku Matsumoto?—S Marshall T/C 13:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - If you want to change what is recognized as a top tier promotion at
  WP:SIGCOV I am not convinced until you show new sources as S Marshall points out. Mkdw^talk 02:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC) Endorse closure but permit recreate. Mkdw^talk 04:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I included six sources in the original post above, and I believe that at least three of them were not included in Ms. Matsumoto's Wikipedia article page when it was active. I can and will provide additional links to articles on Sherdog.com (biggest MMA news site), MMARising.com (covers women's MMA extensively) and major Japanese MMA sites such as eFight.jp and BoutReview.com if that will be beneficial. She was one of the most well-known female MMA fighters in Japan and that was why I was confused when her page was removed while other less notable fighters still have active pages up. With regards to the issue of promotional notoriety, it was Jewels that folded and merged into Deep, not the other way around. My argument is not that Deep is a top-tier promotion for men, because it isn't. The argument is that it is still a top-tier promotion for women because Deep was a parent company to Smackgirl and Jewels, and Deep events typically attracted between 2000 and 4000 spectators - including for its female title bouts, which are in question here - whereas Jewels rarely drew more than 500 and yet is still deemed to be top-tier. I will reply again below this with a list of as many references as I can find to support individual notoriety even if Deep itself is not deemed to be a notable promotion. FemaleMMAFan (talk) 02:31, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Here are many sources for review: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 (in Japanese), 27 (in Japanese), 28 (in Japanese), 29 (in Japanese), 30 (in Japanese), 31 (in Japanese), 32 (in Japanese), 33 (in Japanese), 34 (in Japanese), 35 (in Japanese), 36 (in Japanese), 37 (in Japanese), 38 (in Japanese), 39 (in Japanese), 40 (in Japanese), 41 (in Japanese), 42 (in Japanese), 43 (in Japanese), 44 (in Japanese), 45 (in Japanese), 46 (in Japanese), 47 (in Japanese), 48 (in Japanese), 49 (in Japanese), 50 (in Japanese), 51 (in Japanese), 52 (in Japanese), 53 (in Japanese), 54 (in Japanese), 55 (in Japanese), 56 (in Japanese), 57 (in Japanese), 58 (in Japanese), 59 (in Japanese), 60 (in Japanese), 61 (in Japanese), 62 (in Japanese), 63 (in Japanese), 64 (in Japanese), 65 (in Japanese), 66 (in Japanese), 67 (in Japanese), 68 (in Japanese), 69 (in Japanese), 70 (in Japanese), 71 (in Japanese), 72 (in Japanese). These are 72 links to relevant Miku Matsumoto-related articles from the largest MMA news site in the world, two of Japan's biggest MMA sites, and the largest women's MMA-focused site in the world. I will include all of those references - plus roughly one or two dozen more for her kickboxing and shoot boxing matches and early-career MMA fights - on her Wikipedia page if the page is restored. Even if it is determined that Deep is still not noteworthy enough to be considered top-tier, hopefully this at least establishes that Miku Matsumoto herself is relevant enough to have her page restored. I will do all of the work needed to expand upon the page. I don't mind. All that I ask is that an admin restore it. FemaleMMAFan (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:55, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Looking at the original article, there were only nine total sources and limited fight/bio information, so I can understand how that probably contributed to the page's closure. If there are no objections to the page being recreated and expanded from its previous form, I will try to include about 90-100 sources in total. The 72 listed above plus as many more relevant ones as I can find. I will start on that as soon as the page is approved for full restoration. FemaleMMAFan (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-list at AfD. This isn't an attempted end-run around the previous consensus. It does involve sources that haven't previously been considered. This user deserves the chance to make their case. Editors interested in mixed martial arts may have views to contribute, and in view of the decisive nature of the previous AfD, it's not right to restore the article without another discussion.—S Marshall T/C 09:02, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but relist. The consensus was to delete and it doesn't look as if it was based on a mistaken reading of Wikipedia:WikiProject Mixed martial arts/MMA notability. If that essay is unsatisfactory, I suggest FemaleMMAFan sees to getting it changed. It is a great pity the AFD only considered the "top tier" aspect of that essay and seemingly ignored the broader notability guidelines. So a relist, hopefully with strengthened references, would be useful. With hindsight, it might have been better to have continued the AFD discussion with a remark that the notability guidelines should be explicitly taken into account. Thincat (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'm not in a good position to evaluate the reliability of those sources (does the MMA group have a list of reliable sources?) But given the large number of sources that seem to be reasonable coverage, I'm good with a relist. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this at DRV? More efficient to create a new article, since the original was apparently inadequately sourced and lacked clearly stated but potentially valid claims of notability. Since the OP states their intent to revamp the article, a simple relist (which admittedly could be an appropriate outcome) wouldn't necessarily lead to a productive discussion until the new text was provided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:44, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I felt that way as well, but I wanted to make sure that I followed the request of the original closing admin before proceeding with any recreation of the article, and she suggested that this would be the best place to bring up the issue. If there aren't any objections, I will recreate and significantly expand upon the original Wikipedia page within the next three days. I should be able to complete all of it on Tuesday. Once all of the new text is up, and especially the 70-90 extra sources along with it, hopefully notability will be much more clear at that point. If I had seen the original AfD for the page last month, I would have expanded upon the article then, but I missed it at the time. FemaleMMAFan (talk) 08:23, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, FemaleMMAFan consulted the closing admin, Sarah Stierch, who felt she (Sarah) couldn't undelete without community consensus and so suggested DRV.[15] All very proper. And now we are here I, for one, feel we are on thin ice in directly assessing the potential article since that is not on DRV's remit. But I know in practice if someone recreates an improved article after an AFD delete they can be hammered with accusations of going against deletion policy. Is draft space going to be able to help us in future? It is more suitable for collaborative editing than user space and gets round the peculiarity of user space being open to search engines by default. Thincat (talk) 10:54, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Endorse or unsalt this title because article

• I deleted
  Q Mobile; however, each of the 2 articles do have some references, though I think them inadequate for supporting notability. A community decision is best, and the first step would be to merge the two. after which AfD would be appropriate. DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• t temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm annoyed. The fact that this article has been recreated after salting I consider to be tantamount to block evasion. The instructions above state that deletion review to only be used after discussing it first with the deleting administrator, which you have not done. As there are several deleting administrators, you should have asked Kudpung, who salted it. This does not require the attention of deletion review. All that is required here is a histmerge.--Launchballer 22:26, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been automatically unsalted by being restored. No objections to to a move and eventual merge without prejudice to a community discussion at AfD. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:15, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Merging will be good for this article in current situation. --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 09:46, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This discussion was closed by User:Coffee as delete. I believe that this was a mistake, and that this decision should be reviewed, because "there was a substantive procedural error(s) in the deletion discussion". In accordance with Wikipedia policy I have discussed this with User:Coffee, and he has agreed that I should now open a DRV on this article, which I am doing here. I believe there are the following problems with the conclusion of the deletion debate:

First, the debate was premised on the position that Tomas "[f]ails notability standards for biographies". I believe that this judgement did not take adequate account of provisos mentioned under "Additional criteria" section of

I should say that I don't have any particular axe to grind with respect to this article. I'm by no means a believer in Tomas' stories, and regard him as something of a crank, along the lines of Benjamin Creme, but he does seem to be an important writer in his field, and well-respected by his peers. I'd be interested to hear other editors' comments on this deletion debate.

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 22:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The pre-deletion debate version of the article is this one: [[16]]. Because I didn't know what I was doing (see below) I re-created the article with a brief entry, but the article as deleted was more comprehensive. Sorry, but at the time I didn't know the rules. I hope this is clear; if not, please let me know. Thanks. RomanSpa (talk) 01:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(continuing from before the above interpolated comments...) I'd also particularly like to thank User:Coffee for his help in this. I'm not a particularly expert editor, and have not tried to do this before. I originally tried to simply re-create the page and spark some discussion that way. Fortunately, User:Coffee corrected me, and has now pointed me in the right direction. I'm very grateful to him for his patience and support. You can see our original discussion at User_talk:Coffee. Anyway, I hope that you'll at least give serious consideration to the point that "We are Not the First" is an important book in its field, and that for that reason at least we can conclude that Tomas "has made a widely recognized contribution... in his or her specific field", and that he should therefore be covered by Wikipedia. Thank you. RomanSpa (talk) 21:10, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As I understand it, you would like us to consider overturning the AfD on the basis of this source which the AfD already discounted. If that's correct, personally I don't think we should do that. One source is insufficient for a separate article on a fringe topic. However, I do agree that Wikipedia should make some mention of Andrew Tomas; a search for his name shouldn't draw a redlink and a complete blank. I see that he's mentioned in ancient astronauts and in pseudoarchaeology, so we could perhaps set up a redirect?—S Marshall T/C 23:32, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• My point is, in part, that the participants in the debate were wrong to discount this source. The link in question is to an article that originally appeared in the "Australian Ufologist Magazine". The AfD discounted the magazine, citing
  WP:FRINGE
  . The contributors to the debate seem to have concluded that since the magazine covered a "fringe" topic its contents on all topics could not be trusted. This seems excessive to me. I agree with the principle that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and on this principle would not trust the "Australian Ufologist Magazine" in its claims about UFOs without substantial supporting evidence from more mainstream scientific publications, but where the magazine is simply providing a community or administrative service or function there seems no particular reason to require the same "extraordinary evidence" - all that the magazine is doing is providing an obituary, in the same way that other specialist magazines commemorate experts in their various fields. The obituary in question makes no particularly radical claims, nor does it seek to advance a fringe theory; it simply outlines the life of someone who did make radical claims, which is not the same thing.

RomanSpa (talk) 01:51, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the magazine may simply be providing an obit, and the basic facts could probably be used, but the question is whether the magazine is sufficiently reliable and discriminating for that obit to show notability . I have no opinion on that. DGG ( talk ) 15:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There's a remark in the deletion debate that the publication in question seems to be one that Tomas was not directly involved with (though the obituarist had presumably met Tomas in connection with their shared esoteric interests). RomanSpa (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse; the question of whether a given source is reliable, substantial, etc is largely a subjective one, particularly in a contentious field such as UFOlogy. In the discussion, there seemed to be a clear consensus that the source in question was not up to scratch. I don't think it's appropriate to have another whack at the piñata when the first AFD already covered it all and the admin made what in my view was an accurate assessment of consensus. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:39, 17 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Ben Jordan: Paranormal Investigator (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This discussion was closed by

I realize, of course, that Pharaoh's close retains the article and what I am asking would not change the article's status. However, the connotation between a "no consensus" and "keep" close are different, and have different consequences, and I'll reiterate that when consensus is not clear-cut, I don't think non-admins should be closing such deletion discussions. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 17:45, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't really agree with any of that, I'm afraid. Admins don't have any special insight into consensus. Any experienced user can find a consensus----and virtually any experienced user could be an admin, if they applied before 2008. (Many who obtained the tools historically wouldn't have much chance of passing a 2014-standard RFA.) And of the available outcomes, "no consensus" is clearly closer to what the community is telling us than "keep" or "delete".—S Marshall T/C 23:49, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And yet a closing rationale for no consensus was not provided. When arguments are divided, isn't it reasonable to expect a closing editor to summarize the conflict, especially since this has gone through AfD a number of times? I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a clear closing statement is always to be preferred except in the most plain and obvious cases.—S Marshall T/C 09:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This is why I intensely dislike non-admin closes. The discussion stood at 3-3 counting the nomination when it was relisted once, garnering 1 more keep. Relisted a 2nd time resulted in another call to keep. IMO if you relist twice to gain further consensus, those 2 inputs tip it towards keep. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I actually voted to delete (or re-delete, as it's been deleted before), but even so I can't see a true consensus in that debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have preferred a keep close here (more-or-less per Tarc) but NC is within the closer's discretion IMO given the state of the sources. So endorse. Hobit (talk) 21:19, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Though when closing against apparent consensus, a closing statement is a good idea. Especially for a non-admin closure. Hobit (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The close could have been either keep or non-consensus. the only difference is the length of time to wait before renominating, if anybody wanting deletion wishes to pursue the issue. I agree with Tarc & others that saves trouble if non-admins don't close in situation like this, because the closes tend to come here, when they well might not otherwise. As I've said before, I have no opinion on the actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 15:22, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Ultimately, deletion discussions can end in delete or not-delete, and making distinctions between the different varieties of not-delete outcomes is verging on process wonkery. ✄ (talk) 10:13, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Berkeley Hall School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At the time of deletion it was claimed that Berkeley Hall School is a "Non-notable school per PROD of Feburary 2013".
Below are some facts and documents along with evidence of coverage in popular media (LA Times, Beverly Hills Independent, Brentwood Post etc) which taken together clearly suggest that the school is notable.

Facts about Berkeley Hall School:

• Oldest coed private school in Los Angeles – Founded 1911
• Centennial celebration covered by Patch.com (links on deleted article)
• Centennial celebration attended by Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
• Proclamation awarded by the City of Los Angeles on the 100th Anniversary of BHS (Link to document)
• Accredited by the California Association of Independent Schools (Link to BHS page on California Association of Independent Schools)
• Accredited by the National Association of Independent Schools
• Accredited by the Western Association of Schools & Colleges
• Notably high diversity for a Los Angeles independent school – 41% by NAIS (National Association of Independent Schools) standards
• Notable alumni: Val Kilmer
• BHS Art teacher Tracy Cheney just named Outstanding Elementary Visual Art Educator for 2013 by the California Art Education Association.

Coverage by media:

• Los Angeles Times ([17])
• Beverly Hills Independent ([18])
• Brentwood Post ([19])
• Beverly Hills Independent Bi-Centennial ([20])
• Valley News & Bay News ([21])
• Mothers Club Members ([22])
• Pacific Palisades
• Sherman Oaks Patch
• Brentwood
• Sherman Oaks Patch

Azakeri (talk) 20:34, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Article has been redirected, not deleted, and no DRV is necessary to recreate it given sufficient proof of notability. ✄ (talk) 12:12, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:GNG in view of the above sources. Also, the school has been around since 1911 so it is very likely to have receive enough reliable source coverage in the last 100+ years. This version did not seem that trouble as to require redirecting. However, the AfD was clear. Write a draft article at User:Azakeri/Berkeley Hall School and ask here at DRV to request that it be moved to article space. If you only include information in the draft from the sources cited above, there should not be any issue with having an article on Berkeley Hall School. -- Jreferee (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Permit recreation It looks to be as if the people in the discussion simply saw it was a middle school, and didn't really look further. Frankly, I tend to do just the same thing, and we probably do miss some notable schools this way DGG ( talk ) 19:48, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse recreation. As a high school, this is covered by
  inherent notability.--Launchballer 22:05, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I think we usually say presumed notability. It's out usual presumption, not a fixed guideline.

& in any case it does not seem to be a high school-- the article says K-8. In the US, , 7-8 is an intermediate school, and high schools are those that go through grade 12 to prepare for college education. DGG ( talk ) 22:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment A thank you to all who participated in the review.
  

Jreferee & DGG - Most of the information in the redirected article was drawn out from the sources mentioned above and also the following sources:

• National Association of Independent Schools [24]
• National Center for Education Statistics [25]
• Western Association of Schools & Colleges [26]
• Berkeley Hall School [27]
  

The only part which may not have a source is the "Administration" part which I can remove if it is a concern. Azakeri (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a matter of whether the information is verifiable--the sources are good enough for that. But such listings are not reliable sources for the relevant notability guideline , which is the GNG. This requires substantial coverage from reliable sources that do more than list the data, but whose coverage of the school is sufficiently deep to show they regard this particular school as notable. I think you need another chance to show it, but you will need to show it to pass AfD. DGG ( talk ) 01:41, 16 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While the closing admin gave a decent rational for his no consensus closure I believe it is flawed, the majority of Keep votes gave no reason within policy for their vote. The majority of deletes did give a reason within policy for deletion. The delete votes outnumber the keep votes, Delete votes: 29 Keep votes: 21, given this the discussion should either be relisted until such a time as a clearer consensus is reached, or the list ought to be deleted. Darkness Shines (talk) 20:15, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Well, there was no consensus, was there? And if I was worried that the closing admin hadn't paid enough attention to the quality of the individual arguments, the closing rationale makes it clear that great care had been taken. In fact I think the closing statement was a very good one indeed. Unhappily, I do not share the nominator's confidence that further discussion would lead to a greater harmony of thought. Thincat (talk) 23:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I can find no fault with the close. If anything I think it might have overstated the strength of the deletion argument in that discussion. But even then, this wasn't a keep. So NC is the right answer and the close is very well explained indeed. Hobit (talk) 01:09, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse "no consensus" looks like an accurate way to sum up the discussion. I've always been against proposed numerical limits on deletion (i.e. maximum x noms or maximum x times per year) but it's hard to look at the history of this particular article, after a dozen AFDs and DRVs, and not see an attempt at victory through exhausting the community's patience. Nominating it yet again without demonstrating some new and previously unconsidered reasoning should be dealt with as disruption. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:40, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I voted for deletion and still think that could have been a reasonable result of the close given the tallies and arguments. However, the close was well within discretion and pretty well-justified (except perhaps I wish Sandstein had discussed the keep arguments in a bit more depth). Vehemently disagree with the assertion above that there should be a permanent moratorium on further deletion discussions, although restricting to 1/year is probably fair. This article is unquestionably divisive... probably the only list on Wikipedia with more than 30 archived discussion pages... Sailsbystars (talk) 02:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, particularly given the closing admin's lengthy remarks and reasoning. There was clearly no consensus in this discussion and neither side presented any brilliant policy-based arguments that would have given the closing admin room to deviate from closing the discussion as it was closed. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:31, 8 January 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Request Modified resultAnnual AFDs will only end when this has been deleted or we have a community consensus over the various perennial claims of OR/POV/FRINGE/BLP/whatever..... the best way to do that is for the deletion process to "retain jurisdiction", send us to the talk page under fear of
  WP:ARBCC, let everyone involved give the climate DS template warning and log it, and then, once we're at the talk page, work through a list of FAQs that address the various points. Each perennial argument, be it a VAGUEWAVE or something articulate, should be thus laid to rest in the FAQs, or the page should be deleted. This is pretty much what the closing admin weakly suggested, but I request you keep our feet to the fire by re-opening the AFD with instructions that a future closing decision will be based on the FAQ discussions at the talk page
  , at a time to be determined. That way, we might actually work constructively, and one way or another, bring the annual AFD parade to a halt.
• PROCESS ERROR Neither this version of the article or this version of the talk page tells editors that deletion review is underway; I was expecting this so I came looking, and voila! Here it is! Could an admin who knows the right clerk lever to pull please flag the article/talk page so people know? The dang thing is protected right now so it will take the hand of god's angels. Thanks.
  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Well-reasoned close. I would weight the arguments slightly differently, but still come to no consensus. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I was also impressed with the statement, despite my request (above) for a modified result.

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment I would like to thank the closing admin for daring to stick their neck out and for writing the reasoned close. I was for keep and asked those wanting to delete to say what grounds in BLP they were going on about as it is a large policy but I didn't get specific sections referenced. That's practically the exact opposite impression to the OP as far as policies and guidelines were concerned - so I guess we're both unsatisfied and that's about as how it should be from what was said at that AfD.
  Dmcq (talk) 14:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Climate change denial is a stupid, dangerous and irresponsible view held for short-sighted, short-term political and economic reasons by a small number of extremists in the few nations on the planet blind enough to deny the almost unanimous consensus among people who actually know what they're talking about. But, we're trying to be an encyclopaedia, so our job is to inform and educate, and one of the things we inform and educate about is lies. I mean, Wikipedia isn't Snopes, but we do have articles about notable lies, such as chupacabras and sasquatches and area 51, and it's right that we should. Climate change denials is one of the lies that Wikipedia should cover. Retaining this list is appropriate. I'd endorse Sandstein's well-reasoned close which lets us get to the correct outcome while remaining firmly within the deletion guidelines for administrators.—S Marshall T/C 15:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the above rant is exactly why this list is problematic. The inference that it is a list of "climate change denial" is fundamentally flawed and the conflation cannot be undone. Neither can the stigmatizing harm be avoided, deserved or not. --DHeyward (talk) 16:34, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endores per WP:PLEASESTOPWASTINGOURTIMEANDDOSOMETHINGUSEFULINSTEAD William M. Connolley (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wouldn't deleting it waste our time less than discussing it? All the scientists have bios. The list is the time-waster. --DHeyward (talk) 16:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We could allow anyone to speedy delete anything and give no opportunity for review. That would save even more time. And it seems (below) some people do not find it necessary to waste time reading an AFD close before endorsing or overturning it. Thincat (talk) 09:23, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was commenting more about this being the sixth deletion nomination and the problems with the article listed by the closing admin should have been addressed by now. Instead it will only waste more time. It's not like the issues are new or the main editors of the article have changed. Nor have opinions expressed by those that haven't read any any of the comments likely to change. --DHeyward (talk) 16:42, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• strong endorse climate skepticism/denialism is a highly notable topic and the list is well sourced. If there are issues with individual members of the list, they should be removed, but categorizing a list of notable people who have a notable view is not a policy violation, regardless of what we think of the view. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:05, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you perhaps under the impression that the article was deleted? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:17, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was. thanks for pointing it out, I have updated my !voteGaijin42 (talk) 18:18, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - While I will be the first to admit that my !vote should have been discounted, I find it impossible to conclude that the AfD could have been interpreted in any other way than "no consensus". Many of the deletion supporters had excellent arguments, but so did quite a few of the opposers. Props to Sandstein for doing such a fine job of closing such a difficult AfD.- MrX 18:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Normal Wikipedia policies support this article perfectly well, including the fact that anyone can suggest or challenge any entry at any time, especially if they have new citable sources about the position of the scientist listed. Gradually over the years, I expect the list to diminish in size until there are only one or two outliers who still think that they can legitimately argue that the science is somehow flawed. At that time, the list can be deleted. Until then, those who disagree with the science for whatever reason, should rejoice in an article that shows that we are able to find a couple of dozen published scientists (in some field) who agree with you. --Nigelj (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I admit I should have changed my vote but I honestly didn't think this AfD would last this long. Nevertheless the closing admin went through all the votes and examined and there is no consensus. Just because the deleted votes beat the keep votes doesn't mean the article should be deleted. There was 50 votes 29/21 so the delete votes gathered was about 58%. Does 58% of the votes for the deletion sound like a consensus? JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:51, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse I don't see how any admin could have possibly closed this as anything other than "no consensus". A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 13:40, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The close was very compellingly argued as no consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse My !vote actually was delete, but if I would have had to close this my conclusion would also have been NC (although I would probably not have been able to provide the well-reasoned rationale that Sandstein provided). Many !votes on both sides were, as noted, not policy-based and those that were, more or less evened out. Let's wait a year and if things haven't improved by then, bring it to AfD once more and this time try to limit ourselves to policy-based arguments, instead of bickering whether or not John Doe should be on the list or not and such. --Randykitty (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Closer clearly weighted the arguments and I see no fallacy in their rationale. There was nothing to suggest it should be deleted as the outcome if it needed to be relisted and nothing suggests a clear consensus would come from relisting. Mkdw^talk 19:08, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am placing this DRV on behalf of the article author,

• notability, just a history of the business. Am I missing something? (it is early, after all) ES&L 11:02, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• comment/weak keep/weak overturn - According to the sources in the draft, the company is listed in the Quebec 300, to top 500 employers in quebec (2009), and has had several articles in les affaires (not sure what level of publication this is). It also won the "Lachance-Morin Prize", apparently some sort of industrial safety award in quebec. its weak notability, but I think it passes. Gaijin42 (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm not sure what standard we are supposed to adopt in this sort of situation. I suppose we can either accept the article in main space, accept it but requiring AFD, or reject the draft article. If anyone was minded to allow it in main space would this be because they think (1) it should be able to survive speedy deletion, (2) it should be accepted at NPP or AFC, (3) it should survive AFD. Or maybe we are expected effectively to perform an AFD discussion right here. Thincat (talk) 13:36, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There's no way we can accept it that will prevent someone from sending it to AfD, and as is, it probably would not pass. An article devoting much less space to perfectly routine business matters and listing only appropriate ELs might appear less promotional . Top 300 or 500 in a Province is not notability--exact rank might be if it's high enough; the prize is minor. An additional aspect of notability not mentioned above is the racing sponsorships. and ref 7 appears substantial, though like all articles in business magazines, it is probably based in part on PR. DGG ( talk ) 20:09, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow return to main space. If in main space again, the article would not qualify for speedy deletion (including
  WP:CORP#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations apply, these are carefully demonstrated in the article. I agree with DGG that pruning might strengthen the draft. Thincat (talk) 11:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Album Network Expando Tuneup 24 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Notability - the justification for non-notability is nonsense. The people taking part in the discussion obviously had no understanding of the notability of the article. Just because an article is not notable to you, does NOT make it non notable. Sa cooke (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - This was just discussed as a declined request for undeletion; I suggested to Sa cooke that if he thought the consensus in the AfD linked above was incorrect, he could take it to DRV; or alternatively, recreate the article with reliable sources presenting significant coverage to establish notability. The deleted article consisted entirely of an infobox and a track listing with no references. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment the nominator is concerned that the non-notable comments were subjective. Wikipedia however tries to avoid that and make notability objective, not the subjective view of wikipedia editors but if there has been significant coverage in third party, independent, reliable sources. This is why the !votes in the AFD say they couldn't find coverage. To overcome that we need these sources. Do you have any of those? --86.5.93.42 (talk) 07:05, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - just the same point again - The article was entirely unsourced; write a new article demonstrating
  notability, and the old AfD wouldn't apply. Restore this article (which has minimal content), and it would just get deleted at AfD again anyhow. WilyD 09:50, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Closer appropriately read consensus, with not a single "keep" !vote and policy-based "delete" !votes. --Randykitty (talk) 13:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous AFD and no new information presented. "The people taking part in the discussion obviously had no understanding of the notability" is veering rather dangerously close to attacking other contributors, which isn't acceptable at DRV. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:28, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse DRV should not be used to review ancient deletion discussions. When an editor returns to the project after a 6-year hiatus they may find things are a bit different, i.e. the threshold for what does and what does not pass our
  notability criteria has become much, much higher. The user should become familiar with the new standards, request userfication to work on these old articles, and proceed from there. They should not return directly to article-space. Tarc (talk) 18:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Yes - I accept that a six year hiatus is a long while and standards will have changed in that time. I certainly agree that there was not enough in the original article, however what I'm asking for is that the article be undeleted so I can add to it. I have no idea what userfication is, but it sounds like something that allows me to work on the article until it meets the new notability requirements (which I am sure will be met) and then made public. This would be an acceptable solution for me. Sa cooke (talk) 23:09, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David Pearce (philosopher) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please read comments at bottom of Talk page. David does not seem notable enough in terms of his academic qualifications or writings to merit inclusion in Wikipedia, despite a loyal group of people that maintain links from his biography to his numerous websites [[28]] flyingkiwiguy (talk) 20:10, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of most likes on you tube (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A few editors charged that I copied another list, but there is NO such list of likes on you tube anywhere, certainly not easily accessible with a google search. Nothing comes up in any such search. The deletion editor deleted the page anyway, despite the fact that the charge is false. There is no such page anywhere, and I did all the research myself directly from you tube videos. Why did the deletion editor not understand this, and delete my page anyway?

This subject is quite notable, certainly as notable as the other fine wikipedia "list of most viewed videos" already posted. I pointed out that likes are as valuable as views in determining the most popular videos. This could end up being a list of interest to lots of folks. Also, another poster did a lot of work to update and format the list. It is quite unfair to delete a page for no reason, after people have done a lot of work on them. It is unfair to ignore my responses to the incorrect comments that were made. Does wikipedia routinely delete pages for no reason? Is it only determined by a vote, without considering the validity of the claims made on the deletion talk page? Please reconsider and undelete this page.> Eameece (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]

• Endorse the nominator here is saying that it's original research (and sounds pretty much unmaintainable), and since no other such list apparently exists it would fail notability as well (Clearly the world at large can't be showing their interest by non-trivial coverage of this in multiple independent reliable sources if no such list actually exists elsewhere) --86.5.93.42 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer - As I pointed out in our discussion with
  WP:NOTAVOTE. There were some civility issues in some emails sent to me but I am inclined to see it as a new frustrated user unfamiliar with how things and work -- who undoubtedly put a lot of their time into making the article -- but it simply did not meet our policies and the consensus was clear. Mkdw^talk 19:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - Consensus at the AfD was clear. Eameece, why do you think the topic meets
  WP:LISTPURP? In looking into the topic, there is little to indicate that the compiled list is something others have written about (but see this). There has been some "Likes" coverage, for example - Psy's 'Gangnam Style' breaks YouTube 'most liked' record, Until we stop measuring social media by Likes, spend will remain negligible, SM Remarketing Announces Service to Buy YouTube Likes Cheap, click farms. However, there's not enough about List of most Likes on YouTube. 'There is no such page anywhere' means the subject is not notable and is reason for Wikipedia to not have an article on the topic. -- Jreferee (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• My iVote is below. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Lists consist of data, which is not copyrightable, so whether or not the article was "just a copy of a google page" really wasn't much of an argument. But since the creator admits to
  List of most viewed YouTube videos (which survived an AfD a few months ago), but views seems to have garnered more reliable source coverage than likes. Tarc (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I found some signs of notability, perhaps not enough. This list can be prepared and maintained without unacceptable original research. Wall of text follows.
  
  A search of the Web for "most liked videos on Youtube" (in quotes) turns up several mentions, for example: [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] (this last says "YouTube views and likes have become one of the most important signs of music popularity in recent years. Sometimes considered even more important than the sales chart, the number of likes on YouTube is now actually among the Guinness World Of Records Book criteria for the forthcoming year."). Whether Buzzfeed is a reliable source or not was debated
  WP:CALC. —rybec 08:46, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Reply below. Mkdw^talk 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:11, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit recreation - While the AfD was clear, the delete arguments can be overcome. Looking at the deleted article, I think the decision of the new user who created the article to place the Wikipedia article
  WP:PURPLIST as a valuable information source, something not discussed at the AfD. Given that Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most watched YouTube videos was closed as Keep and that List of most Likes on YouTube can be improved to overcome the reasons for deletion listed at the AfD, we should allow recreation. -- Jreferee (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • RS: All the sources listed are from roughly up until the time Youtube stopped reporting most likes. Now that Youtube does not it seems likely those sources will not report as they will have the same trouble as we do that they do not have a way to parse the data accurately. Guinness Book only reports the most liked (singular).
  • OR: There is no reliable source that publishes most likes at present and with out it everything except the top entry would be original research as based upon the time the editor spends browsing around Youtube looking for most liked videos. We would have no way of knowing if the editor missed a video hence making the list accurate. Most likes and most watched are not the same thing hence why we have
    WP:OTHERSTUFF
    -- you can only say most watched is a starting point and it does not equal a reliable source for the list of most liked.
  • Unless these two points can be addressed I am against allowing recreating. I agree it's potentially a notable subject but with out the reliable sources the list would be parsed down to one entry. Alternatively you could create the list List of most liked Youtube videos in 2012 when there were reliable sources. -- Mkdw^talk 20:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The CBS Radio list of disliked videos [41] is from March 2013. —rybec 20:23, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Which would be helpful about an article or section about dislikes and not likes. Mkdw^talk 21:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was responding to the statement that "All the sources listed are from roughly up until the time Youtube stopped reporting most likes." If people are still preparing lists of disliked videos, they may also still be preparing lists of liked videos. —rybec 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This brings us back to speculation and original research as a keep rationale. It also refreshes the point made earlier that the charts channel stopped in October 2013 and no new reliable sources have been producing results. March 2013 is well before October 2013. Mkdw^talk 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Responses by author
• I compiled my list not only from previous lists and sources, but from looking through sources for potential entries to the list, such as Billboard Top 100 charts for the period SINCE the source on you tube entitled top 25 most liked videos (July 2013), which was my starting point and proved to be accurate. I don't have to just browse around among all videos; there are indications of which videos to look at. This includes the other list of "most viewed videos" on wikipedia, which is being updated frequently, as well as on-line surveys of most popular music (Billboard, rock on the net, etc.). I already have a large list of videos that potentially might make the list, which I can check later. It was surprisingly easy and quick to search through these videos and look at how many likes they have. It's true that some most-liked videos might be missed at first, such as viral non-music videos, but they would be found later, and there may be sources to check for those too. I don't have to be the only one updating this list; another wikipedia author had already done so within the few days the list was up. I don't think the reader needs to assume that this list is completely up to date; it is only up to date as of the date listed, and would likely be accurate as of that date.

• The list of most popular videos referred to above seems to include only current popularity, perhaps in the last week or month. None of the most liked or viewed videos of all time are included, although it might be a list to watch. A writer above made a great point that you tube likes and views are among the most important indicators of today of how popular a piece of music is, and lots of folks are interested in that! I don't understand the idea that, because a list like this does not exist, it is therefore not notable. It seems to me that there are many things notable that are not reported on. That's why a need arises. That's why there's a wikipedia. Lots of times, it's the only reliable or meaningful source that comes up in searches I do. I appreciate all the comments.Eameece (talk) 03:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]
• Endorse per clear AFD consensus and lack of reason to imagine this is in any way an encyclopedic topic. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:58, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, based on Mkdw's response to Jreferee, I'm concerned that Mkdw is inventing a rule we don't have. It's always been Wikipedia's custom and practice to allow content provided it's based on reliable sources. There's no rule requiring the sources to be recent. Although more recent sources are often preferred, it's perfectly normal to have an article whose only source is the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica, and nobody would delete one of those. It's true that this means the list can't be current. It's of purely historical interest. But Wikipedia has enormous quantities of content that's of purely historical interest, and it's right that we should----encyclopaedias should be interested in history.

  Having said that a unanimous AfD is a unanimous AfD. Closers need confidence that DRV will support them if they follow the consensus, and on a more practical level I suspect this is best handled by adding another section, or perhaps just another column, to the list of most watched Youtube videos. So even though I don't agree with everything Mkdw says, we might have the right outcome here.—S Marshall T/C 14:01, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not being more clear. It wasn't my intention to imply that the content with an out-of-date reference was not admissible. I wanted to point out that the list was being updated and actively with information from no reliable source and hence prone to original research -- and eventually the entire list as was the main issue at the AFD. This is why I proposed List of most liked Youtube videos in 2012 as one alternatively as it denotes the historical facts. Mkdw^talk 18:47, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I notice that all the videos listed in the temporarily restored article have their own Wikipedia articles.
  Wikipedia:Lists_(stand-alone_lists)#Selection_criteria says that a common inclusion criterion is "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." If the inclusion criterion were changed to that, and the title of the list were changed accordingly, then the concerns raised in the AfD discussion and here would no longer apply. I suggest making that change (it should be described in the introduction) and moving the list to something like List of YouTube videos. —rybec 23:29, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While some redundancy is allowed between categories and lists I do not see any advantage to this list over Category:YouTube videos. Mkdw^talk 01:19, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I was interested in posting an article about most likes of all time, not most likes within a particular year, which is impossible to determine anyway. I wouldn't mind if a "list of most likes" were part of another article.Eameece (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]
• Just saying that a few opinions makes a "consensus" and therefore delete the article makes no sense. Most of the points made on the AFD page were ridiculous and without any basis (such as the charge that I just copied it from another list), therefore they should not be automatically deferred to.Eameece (talk) 21:59, 8 January 2014 (UTC)eameece[reply]
• Endorse, plainly correct decision and nomination is in violation of point 1 of "deletion review should not be used". ✄ (talk) 12:11, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Super Cup of Champions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Going to need a temp undelete here to see the sources as they are key to the discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Temporarily undeleted to assist discussion in this drv.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:30, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks! Hobit (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• First, the !votes were somewhat weak across the board. !voters for deletion either had no policy-based reason for deletion (a one-off game not being worthy for example) or cited policy that doesn't quite say what they want it to say (
  WP:SPORTSEVENT
  doesn't require coverage beyond that which is typical). The keep !votes appealed to there being enough sources to meet our requirements (which is reasonable if true), but the large number of IP !voters generates a reasonable worry about sockpuppetry. The closer's read of a 4-2 !vote isn't unreasonable.

On to notability. There were a few references that had enough depth to satisfy

WP:N is met. But it's not met by a lot. Secondly, we generally see a lot more in-depth coverage of regular season big-10 football games than this got and we rarely cover those in their own article as far as I can see. Even the other friendly tournaments in the same category appear to generally be larger (more teams), have more of a history, or have more coverage, though there are exceptions. So given that the bar appears to be somewhat higher for this type of event and the coverage appears to be pretty sparse (if the sources in the article are the best to be found, I can't find anything meaningful in English) this article is boarderline. So as much as I dislike supporting a delete outcome of a topic that meets WP:N and (on paper) had !votes to support it, I think it was within admin discretion. endorse though a NC outcome would also have been a reasonable close. Hobit (talk) 02:37, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse - I have to agree with Hobit's assessment. Though not an obvious close, it is well within administrative discretion. I would add that
  other stuff exists is not a valid argument keeping an article. Sir Sputnik (talk) 09:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. It was a first (promo, prime) edition of the United Tournament (but with different name), between UKR and RUS best clubs, and discussion about season articles now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 United Tournament. NickSt (talk) 19:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist Even the closer thought there was no consensus, and appears to have closed on the basis that we were not required to cover it--which may be true , but is not a reason for deletion . I have no opinion on the merits, but since a general question of what games we cover needs to be resolved, it should be discussed, but this is not the place. DGG ( talk ) 03:18, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. The result of the discussion for 2013 and 2014 tournament articles was keep: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 United Tournament, and I think the first promo supercup (between 2012 leagues winners) must be included as own article also, see United Tournament (new catmain article version) and navbox {{United Tournament}}. Here is the big poster of the supercup, here is the big banner before start. NickSt (talk) 20:14, 6 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Putative sockpuppet user (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Gm545) attended discussion and voted for deletion. Therefore the discussion and it's result no longer seem to meet requirements of independence, transparency and in conclusion validity. Discussion needs to be reopened and the article needs to be restored until a proper discussion has come to a valid result. BroncoPfefferminz (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sydney Uni Lions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Presumably the article was deleted following a deletion discussion (rather than as a result of speedy deletion), in which case the DRVPURPOSE choice which applies would appear to be that the closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly or that there was substantial procedural error. Contrary to WP:GNG, the major stakeholders were never notified of the proposed deletion or given time to respond. Paul McDonald wondered in the deletion discussion whether the club was a "club" or a "university club" but failed to work out that the Sydney Uni Lions is the team entered by the Sydney University American Football Club in Division One of Gridiron New South Wales, and that the Sydney University American Football Club is a constituent member of Sydney Uni Sport & Fitness, the body which administers all sporting activities at the University of Sydney. There is no excuse for not having worked this out as this information was set out in the article. Here is a link to the club page on the Sydney Uni Sport & Fitness website (http://www.susf.com.au/page/american_football.html). Sydney Uni Sport & Fitness is the most successful sporting body in Australia. If it was a country, it would have beaten Mexico at the recent London Olympics. The American Football Club was awarded "Club of the Year" by Sydney Uni Sport & Fitness for 2012. That was the fourth time in its 30 year history that it has received the award. The closer of the deletion discussion failed to notify the University of Sydney, Sydney Uni Sport & Fitness or the Sydney University American Football Club of the proposed deletion of the article. Further, the reason given for deleting the article in the discussion - that the topic has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - is erroneous. The topic in the article has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject for over 30 years. I can provide scanned copies of various newspaper articles, if necessary. The information in the article spans the 30 year history of the club, so it is unsurprising that current newspaper articles do not mention some aspects of the topic. Most recently, a report on the Sydney Uni Lions winning the 2013 National Club Championship was published in Roar Magazine (circulation of 50,000). The recent 2013 GNSW championship game won by the Sydney Uni Lions was webcast live and seen all over the world. I would argue that this is significant coverage in a reliable source that was independent of the subject. So reliable that you could verify it with your own eyes. In any event, if the closer of the deletion discussion (whoever that was) needs me to place the evidence of the significant coverage of the Sydney Uni LIons directly into his hands, then I am happy to do so. (NB:Copied from User talk:Ronhjones) for 123.243.19.45 (talk) 01:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed this one as a consensus for delete. I did offer the IP to userfy the article, but we need a username to be able to do so. The IP asked for deletion review User_talk:Ronhjones#Sydney_Uni_Lions  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 02:17, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - When I nominated this article for deletion, I notified the author the article. According to

significant coverage. Hack (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It appears that I will need to spoon feed you with some examples of the significant coverage gained by the Sydney Uni Lions in reliable and independent sources. The University of Sydney is currently on vacation and I will not have access to my copies of this material for a few days. Please do not (again) unilaterally take action on this matter until we have had the opportunity to set you straight. I appreciate that you are keen to justify your previous decision but it is plain that you failed to notify the major stakeholders of the proposed deletion as required by WP:AFD. The suggestion that internal posting through Wikipedia notifies the major stakeholders is laughable. Please let me know what procedure will be followed from here. Who are you and what authority do you have to determine this matter? Is this decision left in your hands alone or are others involved? Are your decisions subject to any review? What criteria will you use to determine whether there has been "significant coverage"? If this farce is anything to go by, then I think the University of Sydney would be well advised to withdraw its financial support of Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 04:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A public notice appeared on the article and was visible to all users for seven days per our policy. There is no requirement that subjects be informed under Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. I would suggest that you provide proof of notability rather than making threats. Hack (talk) 04:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Hack. As already discussed, posting a notice in Wikipedia visible for 7 days does not constitute notifying the major stakeholders as required by WP:AFD. Your policy is plainly flawed. As previously requested, please provide me with the criteria for "significant coverage". For your information, I have already sent a memorandum to the Vice Chancellor recommending the withdrawal of our funding support for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 05:05, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG

. This is the general notability guideline. A topic must meet the requirements of this guideline

WP:GNG

.

WP:GNG

.

WP:RS

. Identifying Reliable Sources. This is the guide to which sources are reliable.

While there is no requirement to notify non-Wikipedia stakeholders, you may feel free to direct

Dr Spence to this discussion. Hack (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• The history of the AfD indicates that it was open for less than 16 hours before it was closed as a delete. No one objected at the time, but since someone is now objecting, a relisting for a full seven days may be the right thing to do. --Arxiloxos (talk) 05:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have a problem with reopening but I don't see how the outcome will be anything other than delete. Hack (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, Hack, the University had only 16 hours notification, not 7 days? Do you accept that you did not follow your own policy? It would seem that the "right thing to do" would be to overturn a decision made in contravention of Wikipedia policy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 05:52, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily. Administrators have the power to delete earlier than seven days under the snowball clause - "When the outcome of the deletion discussion is almost certain, such that there is not a "snowball's chance in hell" that the outcome will be anything other than what is expected." I have amended my previous comment regarding seven days. Hack (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hack, your inability to accept your failure to follow your own policy only serves to confirm the flawed nature of this process. You clearly do not have the ability to review your previous decision with an open mind. Now that you have gone even further out on a limb by declaring you have relied on the "snowball" clause you have invested even more of your personal capital in upholding the decision. Please let me know if an editor who did not have any involvement in the original decision may take over the determination of this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 06:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your concern. I have directed the Office of the Vice Chancellor to this thread and asked for their comment. Hack (talk) 06:43, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If only you had been so enthusiastic in contacting the University before deleting the article. Hopefully, I will see Michael at the test match tomorrow and can raise it with him then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 06:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, there is no obligation to notify a subject of an article being proposed for deletion. Intimating that you have a close relationship with the Vice Chancellor does nothing to prove that the subject of this article is notable. The process has been followed and is being followed. Hack (talk) 08:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As I mentioned above, I will not get access to the archive material at the University for a few days. In due course, I will have someone look at the guidelines and provide you with relevant material. As a practical matter, how should copies of the material be sent to you? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 08:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Registering as a user would allow for the article to be moved to a subpage under your name (userfied). This would prevent your IP address from showing when you make edits. Hack (talk) 08:31, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was mentioned by ronhjones but I am afraid I do not understand how this helps. I mentioned to ronhjones that the original author, Aussiegriff, was happy to have the article "userfied". I have no problem with my IP address showing when I make edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following page explains what's involved - Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Hack (talk) 08:55, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can follow how to create an account but do not see how allowing the article to be userfied would assist in the process of getting it reinstated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 09:14, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, 16 hours was probably too short to allow all interested parties to have their say. Relist it for the full seven days, and then make a call after that. I would note that the clause in
  WP:AFD concerning notifications is not normally taken to mean that the subject of an article must be contacted, only those who have contributed substantially to the article and relevant projects. I find the rather accusatory and aggressive tone being taken by the IP here to be most unhelpful, lets let the discussion proceed in good faith and see where that takes us. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

Fair comment, Lankiveil. I am very much in favour of there being a discussion and that it proceed in good faith. I will hold my sarcasm in check. This is my first journey through the looking glass into Wikipedia and due process as practised in the real world does not seem to apply down here. Perhaps, in return, you can acknowledge that Wikipedia's high-handed approach in this matter has been the cause of much unnecessary frustration and annoyance. Please note that no one has answered my query as to how I can provide hard copies of relevant references to demonstrate the significant coverage of the Sydney Uni Lions over the last 30 years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.19.45 (talk) 09:51, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I see no harm in letting the AFD run its course. If the sources come in and they are proper, I'm open to changing my position.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:41, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - I see no evidence that the club is notable, and certainly no reason the subject of a Wikipedia article should be told when it's up for deletion (in fact given
  wp:SPAs round deletion discussions I recommend not notifying them). On the other hand 16 hours is not time for a deletion discussion to proceed on the grounds of notability. Especially not with so few responses. Neonchameleon (talk) 17:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Big_D_(Kuwaiti_rapper) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

restored a deleted a page

Hello editors I have spoke to De728631 the admin that deleted my page tried to reason with him it's hopeless so I thought I try here and explain my case. I told him he should have not deleted my account http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_D_(Kuwaiti_rapper) it is a recreation of a page that now fulfills the music notability guidelines I have valid references that allow my page to stay on Wikipedia it was not a copy/pasted version of the deleted one people spend a lot of time putting it together 3 years back and forth my page has been deleted and I've seen with my own eyes people with 80% less notable articles that never been deleted. I really do not understand I have newspaper articles written about me http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/182707/t/Kuwaiti-rapper-promotes-positive-message/Default.aspx VIA

• Encourage userfication, help this guy sort out a single account to use, encourage him to do some editing on related subjects, for credence. Come back here with an improved draft. Note, that with a COI, you should not be editing an article on yourself directly. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review. This was deleted as a G4 recreation. For comparison, the original article deleted has also been temporarily restored, at Big D Kuwait. The AfD that deleted it was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big D Kuwait DGG ( talk ) 00:45, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• wp:BAND accurately) will be enough to show notability. At that point a page will be merited. A fresh page, not one looking almost exactly like the old one - and this time a page that looks like a Wikipedia page rather than one that reads like a PR piece. Neonchameleon (talk
  )
  • The Arab Times article may not be neutral and reliable. Big D wrote on my talk page: "I had someone wrote a full article about VIA Arab Times". His English may not be perfect and I'm not a native speaker either but I understand this like Big D contracted someone to write an article about him in the AT which he then used for referencing Wikipedia. And that's not how reliable sources and independent coverage for the sake of notability work. De728631 (talk) 23:44, 2 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]