Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July

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

Let me apologize in advance for sounding like a kid in junior high, but I'd like to ask for your help with

• Hmm. This isn't quite what DRV normally does (one could quibble whether a relisting is a discussion close that would be within our purview), but I would suggest that we address it because (1) it fits in our broader capacity of overseeing the deletion process and (2) this user has been referred to deletion review by AN/I so it behooves us to be helpful.

  I've noticed on a couple of occasions that Davey2010 sometimes relists debates that could have been closed. He's not the only one who does this, but multiple relistings are covered under

  WP:DELREVD.

  But relisting that particular debate was perfectly reasonable and I propose that we allow the relisting to stand.—S Marshall T/C 08:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• @Magnolia677: - I saw no reason that it needed speedy deletion - It simply needed community input...... As for the TP message - You took me to ANI twice for basically me assuming good faith which IMHO was out of order, I stand by what I said, You can't just go around reporting everyone who assumes good faith with you!.
• @S Marshall: - I understand your concern but surely If I remove the discussion and instantly relist there shouldn't be a problem?, I can completely understand If I removed the discussion WITHOUT relisting but I done what I thought was the correct procedure,

As I'm new to this this is a learning curve and I can only learn from the mistakes so thanks for the message - Much appreciated, –Davey2010 • (talk) 11:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't get me wrong, I fully accept that you acted with the best of intentions. Even very senior community members would pause before removing a DRV, but there's nothing that actually says that anywhere, so an honest mistake is very understandable. I've proposed above that we should amend our rules for increased clarity.—S Marshall T/C 12:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ah okay, I suppose something should be done really, Thanks –Davey2010 • (talk) 12:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really very sorry to air dirty laundry here, it isn't the place. This all started here when I asked User:Davey2010 (I think politely) the following: "Hi there. I noticed you did a non-admin closure and marked it "keep". Why? Also, you relisted the deletion discussion. Where is the relisting? You also removed the AfD tag from the article. Why? Thanks."

User:Davey2010 responded: "because someone deemed it notable?, Since it's apparent you have no idea about AFD I strongly suggest you read

this

, Cheers". This effectively shut down any hope of dialogue, and I worked through the admin board, where my concern was supported.

I've added joy, friendship, rapture, desire, and lots of love, love, love, love, love to Wikipedia, and don't deserve bad manners and ego. Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:06, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best we discuss this on your page so I'll reply there instead :), Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Before the civility brigade come & make everyone lose all faith in humanity - I've removed the above message and apologized (1). –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:27, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Nitin Gupta is the founder of Relcy which recently got funding worth $9m from Sequoia Cap and Khosla Ventures. He previously had many publications in academia; and has opened and sold a company in India. This was highlighted in the top newspapers and articles are available online. With his latest stint at Relcy, I believe that we should have an article on him. There seems to be no other notable Nitin Gupta at this time. Rahul6301 (talk) 02:55, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Relcy doesn't look notable to me either, let alone Gupta, I think this is an attempt to build a walled garden. 109.157.158.99 (talk) 08:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Columbia Mall (Missouri) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I attempted to discuss this with the closing admin on July 25, he never answered and has since made edits including answering other people on his talk page. He closed the discussion as no consensus and I think there was a clear consensus to delete. Two out of the three keeps were impeached at the discussion as they simply cited

• Overturn and have it re-closed by an admin who does not comment at the DRV. If I still had the tools, I'd definitely have closed this as delete. But that's not the main reason why I'm !voting to overturn. The admin's contribution log says that they closed this AfD less than a minute after their previous one. They left no explanation for a 4-3 close. And then no explanation to the complainant here. That's not smoking gun evidence of course and I'm not trying to trout the admin; there can be all kinds of perfectly innocent explanations for each of those three occurrences. But it does lead me to doubt that a full reasoning process was applied to the closure, especially when I suspect a great many admins, if forced to write out reasons for the close, would have found a consensus to delete. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 11:23, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (edit conflict)When I review that discussion, "impeached" certainly isn't a word that springs to mind. There was a lot of discussion about the WP:OUTCOMES-based !votes in that AfD, and a number of editors expressed the view that such !votes were invalid. LFaraone presumably differs, as he's entitled to do; like so many notability debates, that whole discussion boils down to how you define "significant coverage". It was said, a number of times, that WP:OUTCOMES is just an essay. That's true, but I don't see a chain of reasoning connecting that statement to a "delete" outcome. I would think that "no consensus" was within the closer's discretion given the debate we're considering.

  However, personally I would very much have preferred "delete" as a close in that case. Epeefleche doesn't say "delete" in the discussion but his commentary really does lead in that direction. Unscintillating's "keep" !vote is supported by a number of remarks that reflect Unscintillating's unique conception of our normal conventions (e.g. "notability is not conferred", "Significant material is that which is not trivial, where trivial is things like a listing in a phone book"); I see these as non sequiturs that the closer should probably have discounted. The nomination was well-put and supported by good reasoning. I think that discussion strongly tended towards delete.

  Therefore, although I think the no consensus close was within discretion, perhaps the closer of this DRV would use their own discretion to relist the debate at once, so that after another week's discussion we can delete the article in an orderly fashion.—S Marshall T/C 11:35, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please support our policies and guidelines.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Consensus can change: I have over the past five or so years argued for great selectivity in our coverage of local subjects (malls included), and a year ago I would have said that to a very considerable extent the general felling agreed on that. However, over the last year, it has been increasingly evident that the previous degree of agreement is no longer the case: the current trend is for greater inclusiveness here. I cannot ignore that many of the people whose views on notability I most respect no longer agree with me here--whether I have been carrying this too far might be one explanation, but that the prevailing sentiment does seem to have changed. I am unwilling to argue that the rule I want is the rule that everyone does in fact agree with. Quite the opposite--if the general mood here is in a particular direction, I will eventually accept the change, not try endlessly to fight against it--its the only way to do effective work here.

There's no point in trying to appeal to principles on such matters: the guidelines are whatever we collectively want them to be, and we will collectively interpret policy to accommodate what we want to accomplish. For a project organized as we are, there's no alternative--anything else requires a formal body to oversee and enforce fixed rules, and as far as content goes, we do not have that.

The closer read the consensus correctly--there just isn't any. I can only suggest that in trying to remove excessive articles on malls or other local subjects, we concentrate on the smallest and least important, not the borderline. They;re the only ones where we're likely to achieve consensus. I don't think relisting will help--it would be better to concentrate on the less defensible articles of this nature. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Unless you discount some !votes, as the nomination suggests, there was no consensus. If you think OUTCOMES deals with the topic in question and it reflects your understanding of the community's view on notability, you are fully entitled to support its conclusions without providing further analysis of our notability guidelines and essays. To give a sufficient reason is quite suitable. I note the delete advocates did not give reasons against redirection or merging but nonetheless I think their opinions were also entirely suitable to be given full weight. I agree Epeefleche's contribution could reasonably be taken as delete. Thincat (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse clearly no consensus, though it did lean heavily towards the keep side. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:46, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  Due to the sourcing I added from the first AfD, I may now be the primary content contributor to this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  As I stated at the first AfD, following [1], and based on Typical GLA Range (Sq. Ft.), # of Anchors, Typical Number of Tenants, and Trade Area Size; it is my opinion that this topic is either a large "regional mall", or a "super-regional mall". 

According to [2], this topic is a "super-regional center".  Unscintillating (talk) 01:48, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - The closing admin invited all relevant parties, including Me5000, to discuss the dispute on the article's talk page where the admin started a discussion concerning Me5000's inappropriate repeated attempts to redirect the article after his AfD failed (his second one to fail). As the lack of consensus above in regard to this review shows, I suggest it may be time to Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:20, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: No consensus in discussion, insufficient evidence to support overturning at AFD. BTW, I invite Me5000 to explain what the backstory is here, there clearly is one to why he's nominating the article, while at the same time creating stubs on certainly less notable malls like Wilson Mall and Central Mall (Salina, Kansas), and a long ago history of creating things like Twilight Festival.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:19, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well Me5000 just got a block for a 3RR violation, but just before that, he prodded the three articles I just cited above He's pissed about something, but I have no idea what the cause is.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 14:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Ugh. This is a mess, for so many reasons. First, on the full disclosure front, I blocked
  Mkativerata's observation, above, that the closing admin appears to have been more concerned with quantity than quality. He closed four AfDs (including this one) in the span of two minutes. Some of them were simple, some were quite complex. There's no way this closure got the degree of careful consideration it deserved. Looking back over his commit history, I see runs of 9 AfDs processed in 4 minutes. This doesn't give me a lot of confidence that anything more than vote counting is going on. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse. My major concern here was the rapid-fire closings. The closing admin, LFaraone gives a legitimate explanation (below) of why this occurs, so I'm now satisfied that's not a concern. With that in mind, a closing of No Consensus seems reasonable. Note: I was involved in the original AfD, and argued for delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:29, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn I see only 1 keep argument that makes any policy based claim and they did not offer anything to support that claim in the way of references or other evidence. The arguments for deletion made valid points. I don't often support overturning a closure but in this case I think a poor interpretation was made.

  Calling for

  Chillum 16:41, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note: I just saw that the closing admin was not notified of this discussion, I have notified them.
  Chillum 16:54, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

While

WP:OUTCOMES rationale is disingenuous. LFaraone 01:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse "no consensus" is a reasonable view of that discussion. If there's lingering doubt the best course of action would be to wait a bit and re-nom it if it hasn't improved in several months. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Match World Cup (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Speedy Close this listed this back in December with the exact same list of references. As nothing has apparently changed, we shouldn't entertain merely listing again and again hoping for a different result. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That request was about season articles. Now about main article only. NickSt (talk) 17:35, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to remind you, this is the string of edits where you list that review. Where you list it under the name of the top level article, where you list out the top level article as well as the "season" articles. The logs for the top level article (as well as the DRV) show it was restored for the benefit of the DRV and then deleted again once the DRV was completed. The idea that this is somehow new and different does not pass even cursory scrutiny. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And what? I think this tournament deserves own article. Read Afd again. First vote against: "Season articles in contravention of WP:NSEASONS". Second vote against: "Keep the parent article, but Redirect or Delete the season-articles". Third: "Neutral leaning to delete on main article. Delete the season pages". Fourth: "Delete the season articles as a starting point". All votes against were about season articles. Clearly, it was no consensus about deletion of the main article. Also it was 5 votes for keep. Unfortunately the closer decided to delete main article also without consensus. My first DRV proposition was about all season articles. I see enough press coverage in different media for existing of page. Now I propose restore (and relist on AfD) main article only without seasons. NickSt (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand you think it deserves it's own article, but you listed it here before and the outcome was to endorse. You've come back and presented exactly the same sources which were rejected last time. You know repeating your view doesn't make it anymore persuasive. So that does appear you want to just relist until you get the result you want. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Repeatedly, now my request about main article only (with merging of the season articles into main, as was proposed by majority on Afd). No analyzes of sources were given on AfD or DRV. It was no consensus for deletion of the main article. I will show notability for the tournament in the article when I will receive the sources of the main and season articles. Club champions of Russia, Ukraine, Uzbekistan, Saudi Arabia took part in the competition, thats why we cannot say about "weak tournament". Definitely main article must exist. NickSt (talk) 16:16, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Trying to argue that there is something materially different to the last DRV because you are not asking about the season articles is frankly an insult to everyone's intelligence, the topic has been covered. The AFD resulted in a consensus to delete - the AFD closing admins comment "the people arguing keep had three weeks on bringing significant coverage in either this debate or the article that makes the parent article meet WP:GNG, but didn't bother." (emphasis mine), the parent article was specifically covered in the decision, so your attempt to paint it as something different, which you tried in the last DRV and had rejected then too, is transparently false. You don't need to receive those sources to demonstrate notability, since they've already been found lacking, so repeating them here will be pointless. I'll look at the sources you've listed below separately. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also I must say, we can easy find much more sources about
  Match World Cup in English-language (and local-language, of course) media around the world: The National, Business Emirates (UAE paper magazine), PanArmenian.net (Armenia was not represented by any teams), Khaleej Times, Sport360.com, GulfNews, Time Out Abu Dhabi (with detail description of participants), Cicero & Bernay (Dubai), Payvand News (Iran), UzReport (Uzbekistan), FilGoal (Egypt), UkrInform (Ukraine). Also Russian sports top-media had special tags for this tournament (Sovsport.ru) or detail live-translations (Sport-Express) Not every single winter tournament had such media coverage. NickSt (talk) 16:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• temporarily restored (again) for discussion. I have no personal opinion, but it would help for everyone interested to be able to see the article. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can I edit the article now, removing {{
  tempundelete}}? Or only after relisting on AfD? NickSt (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

No, you shouldn't edit it now – but it is very frustrating to have to wait. Anyway, in principle DRV is assessing the AFD and so changes to the article now shouldn't make any difference to the result here. You could obviously do something in userspace with a view to merging it in during an AFD or in preparation for an acceptable new article. Thincat (talk) 23:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow re-creation. This user is presenting new sources that the AfD didn't consider, and the discussion we're considering is more than six months old, so it's reasonable to allow a new article to be created. As normal, this should be without prejudice to a new AfD.—S Marshall T/C 10:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Just like DRV isn't AfD round two, DRV isn't DRV round three. I looked at the sources presented here. They are almost identical to the sources presented in the previous DRV. So, nothing has changed, we're just throwing this against the wall again to see if anything sticks this time. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation and list at AfD. I agree with RoySmith that the sources presented in the DRV nomination are the same as those presented in the previous DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 December 21. However, more sources were presented here at 16:57, 28 July 2014 (UTC) by NickSt. Those sources were not considered in the AfD or the previous DRV, so I recommend relisting the article to review those sources. Cunard (talk) 02:37, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy
  2013 Match World Cup per the nominator's good faith request. Cunard (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse per RoySmith. As a non-binding suggestion, it's probably not a good idea to re-run this for DRV yet again until the tournament has occurred again and there are multiple new sources having covered the next one. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews states:

  If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

  If the closing admin finds that there is "no consensus", I recommend a relist. The nominator, an established editor, has make a good faith argument that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline by presenting sources that were not discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Match World Cup.

  The discussion of whether these new sources do allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline belongs at AfD, not DRV. Therefore, a relist is a better option than keeping the article deleted by default.

  Cunard (talk) 05:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong venue  WP:DELREVD states, "Before listing a review request, please: 1. discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before Deletion review."  In the December DRV, one of the participants stated, "I am sure the closer will engage reasonably with any editor who now can bring forward more sources, or maybe even work on a userfied copy. I don't see any attempts at discussion so far."  As suggested by WP:Deletion process for Wrong forum, this request can be moved to the talk page of the closer.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:28, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Help, I'm trapped in DRV and can't get out. Could somebody please close this? I participated, so I can't close it myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Bone Clocks (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was deleted last month but this month it has just been included in the 2014

• Not sure it adds much right now, since the book still isn't available, and it's only on the longlist as the moment (presumably submitted by the publisher for listing, which would not be a sign of independent interest), as it's due for release in September, I'm not sure the harm in waiting for more coverage which you'd expect to materialise pretty soon. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article. In addition to the book's addition to the 2014
  Man Booker Prize list found by 86.45.76.161, I found that The Bone Clocks has received a review from the Publishers Weekly:

  "Fiction Book Review: The Bone Clocks by David Mitchell. Random, $30 (640p) ISBN 978-0-8129-9473-5". Publishers Weekly. 2014-06-02. Archived from the original on 2014-08-03. Retrieved 2014-08-03.

  The concern in the AfD nomination ("Only reference is publisher's page, no independent reviews or announcements") no longer applies. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Tomato. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since there's a good faith challenge, perhaps it should be discussed at RfD. Personally, I don't think we should add a redirect for all of the multitude of mis-spellings by those who have only very sketchy English. DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. F is next to T on the keyboard so not implausible at all. Per DGG, should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist at
  WP:CSD R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse: recently created (as I gather from stats) and implausible: more plausible
  WP:CSD#R3 was not applicable here. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:36, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment that some possibly similar redirects don't exist is no reason why this one should or shouldn't. Adjacency i=on the keyboard is not a useful argument--it would make 6 redirects for every word, 6**n if we considered every letter of a n-letter word. And even if we used the argument, it would normally apply only to left and right , not diagonal--left and right are much more likely--at least the way I tend to make my typos. But the place to discuss this is RfD, not here. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, RfD is for redirects. There is no redirect at Fomato. This is a straight-forward deletion review question – whether speedy criterion was applied properly or not. It is not the business of RfD. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 08:14, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

right, my meaning is, it isn't clear enough for speedy since its been challenged in good faith, it should therefore be restored and discussed at RfD. (where I expect to argue for deletion).

That is just not needed. This is already a discussion about this deletion, and it may be endorsed here. FWIW, it was challanged in the lack of valid argument against deletion. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 15:57, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. Honestly, like DGG says, it all comes down to plausibility. Being seached only 53 times in July 2014 (most of those on one day) makes this seem an extremely unlikely typo. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 08:36, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

article|restore

)

Deleted under the speedy criteria of being an implausible typo for Oven. Yet it appeared on a restaurant menu in China and the typo is a single letter. It is also an expected misspelling considdering the spelling and the schwa sound. So it's clearly plausible. WhisperToMe (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. A plausible misspelling, as the nominator explains. Should be sent to RfD if there is any disagreement on this. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 21:38, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist at
  R3 deletions so a relisitng there is the way to go. The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:33, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn: as I gather from stats, this redirect was not very recent, thus
  WP:CSD#R3 does not apply. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk•track) 07:41, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per Dmitrij D. Czarkoff. It looks like it was made again anyways. If an admin could fix it to reflect the original creation date, it would be preferred. ♥ Solarra ♥ ^{♪ Talk ♪ ♀ Contribs ♀} 08:28, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, as it is a reasonably plausible misspelling of the word, and redirects are cheap. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:06, 2 August 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

The Keep votes, based on

• My opining about the close afterwards isn't the same as my official close, so you seem to be misrepresenting the close, which consisted of "The result was delete. Looking at the keep votes, I'm not moved my numbers of subscribers nor number of casual mentions nor comparisons to other similar articles. WP:GNG is about sourcing and significant coverage and there is no indication this criteria has been met. As for salting, I don't see sufficient cause at this time." Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 14:22, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• We get random outcomes in AFD depending on the personal opinions of the closer. Sometimes people saying something passes a subject specific guideline is enough to keep the article, and sometimes they ignore the subject specific guidelines entirely as though they didn't exist or matter, and only focus on the general notability guideline.
  WP:NOTABILITY clearly states A topic is presumed to merit an article if It meets either the general notability guideline below or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right. You can pass either one, you don't have to pass both. Dream Focus 14:47, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • He does get coverage such as this [3] and this [4], among others, listed in the AFD. The article needs to be restored in its final version so people can see what it is we are arguing about. Dream Focus 05:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• "Presumed" means "presumed" -- it does not imply that we necessarily will have an article. The presumption can be rebutted by showing that the purported material does not meet other requirements, including that the article basically not be used for promotional purposes. Many autobiographies are indeed used for promotional purposes--I do not presume that every one of them is, but I take it as grounds for reasonable suspicion. If the involvement of the subject continues to the extent that we cannot have a NPOV article, then unless there is actually public significance, there should be no article. NOT WHO'S WHO. I and most of the other people there reached this conclusion. Basically, excluding promotion from the encyclopedia is more important than borderline questions of notability: unless we exclude promotionalism, we're not an encyclopedia but a vanity publication or a medium for advertisements. No one comes to an en enccylopedia to see what people have to say about themselves--they go to their web pages, which is where such material belongs. DGG ( talk ) 19:17, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of DGG (the NOM)'s complaints continue to take the giant hammer of deletion to solve the fly of editing portions of the content. As I said at the time the subject of the article was "giving up" in frustration during the debate, I said the article itself should stand on its merits whether or not the subject agrees to its content. Any article should consist of what we know about the subject, not what they wish to say about themselves. OK I tend to look at the slippery slope. What if
    Adolph Hitler didn't like the story we told about him and said to delete his article? Would we listen to him at all? Would we manipulate our content to fit his view of events? Of course not. And so far in current events we are trying to expel the Russian propaganda view of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17‎. This process is called editing. We are called editors. So use your editing skills to remove those things that you think are self-sourced and self-promotional and give other editors the chance to verify or work around what you have done. That is the collegial nature of wikipedia. And all of that gets completely wiped out by deletion. Now, no other editors will have the chance to come by and make the article better. My point is, this article might be borderline as it existed. It was in need of further editing. It certainly was not fraud, not purely self-promotional and shouldn't have been a candidate for deletion. Trackinfo (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Are you really so crass that you are going to break Godwin's law and throw it onto DGG? Are you really that ignorant? And you want to compare this fluffy biography to the death of almost 300 people in a horrific military blunder? Do you simply lack any sense of proportion or common decency? Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:55, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Without having seen the article, it sounds like it was bloated with unsuitably promotional content, overly influenced by non-independent sources. Anything financially connected to the person or his company, publications or promoters is non-independent. Such sourced may be used to source primary source content, but should not form the basis of an article. If there is independent coverage of this person or his company, then I suspect it is best that a fresh article be drafted, based on the independent sources. Leaning "Endorse, encourage userspace drafting of a better attempt using independent sourcing". Would appreciate temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:40, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since no one has done so yet I put a copy online here.[5] It may be slightly different from the last version deleted but mostly the same. Sources include The New York Times, Sun Sentinel, SF Gate, SBEntrepreneur, Santa Barbara Independent, Chicago Tribune, and others. --

C 02:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Unless it was written entirely by Green Cardamom, this copy at

TempUndelete}} is strongly preferred. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Are these references new since the AfD. If not, then you need more. If yes, while I am not so impressed as explained above, the article may be entitle to another pass through AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The reason he is notable is because of

C 03:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

If you selectively read the page on which

WP:CREATIVE is a section, then it may appear that meeting that criteria is an unquestionable indication of notability. If however you widen it and read the "Additional Criteria" into, of which that's a subsection and is says stuff like "People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. ..." "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.", contrasted to the Basic Criteria defined on that page (which is essentially the GNG), where there is the stronger presumption of notability. DRV has long read the secondary criteria as subordinate to the GNG and an indication that sources may exist, when challenged sources about the subject are required. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

It's not "unquestionable" notability...

C 13:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse as DRV is not a venue to continue arguing the merits of the original article, only to review the close. Here, the closer was correct in discounting the weak keep votes, that's all there is to it. Work on a copy in user-space, try resubmitting in the future. Tarc (talk) 14:15, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are Subject Specific Criteria arguments "weak"?

C 14:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Obviously I do not think that, if I endorsed the deletion finding. Learn to accept that editors can disagree with others' findings and still be acting in good faith. That's the fundamental flaw in your DRV filing; it rests solely on "I disagree". Also, peruse

Wikipedia:BLUDGEON at some point, before you decide to respond to each and every endorse comment in this discussion going forward. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Oh man Tarc, I've been at this too long to "learn" that others sometimes disagree. My question was an honest one, the DRV is based on legitimate guidelines not just "I disagree". I was trying to understand your endorsement within the framework of the guidelines. You don't have to say, you don't even have to agree with the guidelines, your endorsement still carries. --

C 04:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse. Reasonable close. Someone above rightly points out that the key words in
  Mkativerata (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Hmmmmm. We have articles on people who're far less noteworthy than Mr Tomicki, who's had an eventful life that amounts to quite a lot more than just writing a travel newsletter. On reviewing the sources, I can't help thinking there's an article there to be written. The "delete" outcome here strikes me as a little harsh but it was probably within discretion, and I conclude that although there's very arguably a reasonable basis for an article, the community doesn't want this article. I would hope to see that become a bluelink in due course.—S Marshall T/C 23:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

An admin. has deleted this article under criterion A7, when it did contain a credible assertion of notability, plus 2 external links. I have discussed this with the admin. but have not received a satisfactory reply. Of course the article was very short, but it was a legitimate stub. PatGallacher (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Our discussion can be found here, although I added something simultaneously with Pat notifying me of this discussion. In addition to what I said on my Talk page, the article wasn't really about Aaron. It was about his capture. The article contained no biographical information about Aaron. It could have been about any Israeli soldier.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:17, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn, I'm not sure that it would survive AFD on grounds of
  WP:BLP1E, but there's clearly enough of a claim of importance there, not to mention coverage in reliable sources such as this, this and this. There is enough doubt here that speedy deletion under A7 was not appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]

  You link to two spots that mention the name and the claim he was captured and they were looking into it, and then one other link says they stated no such soldier was captured. So it just a brief hoax. Dream Focus 18:13, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  As I said, I don't think it'll survive AFD, but at the same it's not clear cut enough that we shouldn't list it for community review, just to be sure. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Overturn The virtue of afd is that someone may be able to source it.Whether or not it would presently show notability there is irrelevant to speedy. Whether an article,, has good sources -- or for that matter any sources -- is irrelevant to speedy. Even a blp--for the ones with no relevant sources, we use BLP PRod, not speedy. It should be obvious to anyone who watches the news that deletion of an article ofn the capture (or even possible capture) of a Israel soldier this week is likely to cause a lively debate at afd, and could not possibly be called uncontroversial. Bbb23: to the extent it was about his capture, not him, it makes for an even clearer claim of significance, though it does give rise to the question of whether we should change the title. DreamFocus: a false claim in matters like this is all the more likely to be controversial. DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• *Temporarily undeleted for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:51, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The two sources, although naming the subject in their titles, contained no biographical or secondary source content. It is not enough for a stand alone article. This is an issue of wanting to wait for better sources, versus wanting Wikipedia to be as up to date as possible. I think the solution is to introduce mention of this soldier in another article. In any case, List at AfD and see what happens there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - obviously inexcusable A7; in the long run, a merger may make sense; in the short run, I'd suggest any process other than letting it respond naturally to what unfolds it's likely to be purposeless drama. It's probably going to be days or weeks until it's clear what long-term decision makes sense; there's no need to rush to judgement without information & perspective. WilyD 08:43, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see a credible assertion of notability, unless we agreed at some point that an Israeli soldier who was captured is reason enough for inclusion. (Which begs the question of whether all the Palestinians in Israeli prisons are notable.) Nothing in these two articles says anything specific at all about the soldier, and indeed one article points out that this is a claim, and that an Israeli spokesperson denied it as a rumor; the most recent information I could find, here (careful--Haaretz overdoes the pop-up advertising), has him listed as MIA. Or, in other words, all this is completely premature, if it ever gets to be anything in the first place. A captured soldier can, I suppose, become notable, if it turns out to be something in the long run, but I do not see why we should assume prima facie notability, and why this wouldn't be speediable. And calling it "inexcusable" is over the top, really. Drmies (talk) 16:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either someone has no understanding of A7, and is performing A7 deletions anyhow, or they have some understanding of A7, and deleted it anyhow. Neither of those can be justified. Mistakes of fact sometimes happen (though in such an obvious, clear cut case that ain't difficult to parse), but that the deleting admin was asked about it and responded with anything other than "Whoops, I clearly fucked up, let me undelete that" only re-enforces the conclusion. So, yes, inexcusable. That someone might be able to argue for deletion in an AfD is not a reason to speedily delete it to avoid an AfD where the outcome would probably be something else (although at the moment, if nothing changes, merger seems likely, but it's dodgy to assume nothing's going to change today). WilyD 07:33, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't this the same person covered by the
  Oron Shaul, and the AFD on that article should be allowed to run its course. Calathan (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just posting again so I can give an edit summary with the right name. Calathan (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All those different spellings of the guy's name. I noticed that in one source used at

Oron Shaul (different spelling and the names inverted). Thanks, Calathan.--Bbb23 (talk) 23:08, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Restore and AfD. There's reasonable doubt, so the community should decide.—S Marshall T/C 23:28, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography of Aeolian Research: A (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

tl;dr: The articles make a plausible claim for public-domain status and a plausible claim for notability. That's sufficient in this case to prevent speedy deletion.

I am requesting review for seven articles:

• Comment Good Lord, why on Earth would anyone ever want to create articles like that? PubMed is public domain, too, are going to import that whole database into WP, too?? So perhaps it wasn't copyvio, but, I mean, why copy a whole bloody website even if it is public domain?? --Randykitty (talk) 10:04, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• As above. Plainly the G12 (is G12 still copyvio?) deletions were wrong. I suppose the right thing to do is to undelete and send to AfD. But really... --
  Mkativerata (talk) 10:06, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm intrigued. What's the purpose of copying this information onto Wikipedia?—S Marshall T/C 12:24, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  ISBN and/or OCLC identifiers, and of course wikilinks to coauthors, journals and topics. Author and publication indicies become trivial to generate, and where there is a standardized classification system (like MSC2010), topical indicies can be generated as well. Here, though, the editors who created these articles hadn't thought through these issues, and unfortunately mainspace is not the right place to start planning on how to transform a bibliography into an encyclopedia article. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Fascinating. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this imply that the material shouldn't be restored to the mainspace? Surely it should be put in your userspace instead?—S Marshall T/C 21:55, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you'll excuse my fine parsing, these articles shouldn't have been started in mainspace, but once they were there, they shouldn't have been speedied as copyvios. So we're left with a situation where we have several articles with a solid prima facie case for notability, but they don't look like what we think encyclopedia articles ought to look like. If the original authors were here stating that they were planning on improving the article, then I'd say the best way forward would be restoring the articles, slapping {{stub}} tags on them, and then hashing out the notability and copyright issues at AfD. Since they've made the (perfectly sensible and understandable) decision not pursue this course, I think the path of least drama is to let the articles remain deleted. If I decide to pick this topic up on my own, the articles in their current form wouldn't be any more use to me than the original web pages, so I don't think there's a need to restore them to my usersapce. Bbb23 or any uninvolved admin is welcome to close this now per my comment below. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If indeed this was released properly, it can be undeleted and I won't stand in the way. I do see how PRIMARY applies (though not for speedy deletion, of course), by the way, and despite LC's valiant effort I do not see how the material content of a bibliographical project should find a home here. Note that I didn't delete the article; an article on a bibliography is in principle fine, naturally, as long as there's independent sourcing. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The USDA copyright statement does not say that "the work" is in the public domain. It says that "most information" is in the public domain, but "some materials" may not be. If there's any ambiguity here, we have to err on the side of avoiding infringement.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's correct that not all information on a .gov domain is necessarily public domain. Sometimes a US website will host information written, and copyrighted, by others. That's something to be assessed at
    Mkativerata (talk) 20:10, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Moot—The authors have decided to move the bibliography elsewhere. I do think that larger bibliographies can and should be added to the list of things we do well, but I understand how the community thinks this is too large a leap for not much gain. At this point I think the discussion can be closed. Thank you all for the helpful, civil conversation. Lesser Cartographies (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is pedantic, slavish, punitive time wasting of the most execrable. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus cannot be expected to host anything which makes no attempt to be an encyclopedia article. The question one has to ask themselves at DRV: Would, at AfD, this result in anything other than a slow closure? If so, then there's no point undergoing needless bureaucracy for the sake of procedure. Use common sense in future.--Launchballer 20:31, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• IAR endorse- technically the speedy deletion criterion may not apply. But it is obvious that this kind of material is not encyclopedic, and these articles would not survive an AfD. So why waste everyone's time? Reyk _YO! 23:19, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of 2002 FIFA World Cup controversies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't exactly understand why this article was deleted. Many of the later world cups have corresponding articles. Many of the assertions were backed up with references, so I don't think it's fair that this article wasn't given a chance. Or do you want to delete the others too becuase they are not notable? Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, it was deleted because someone thought the article was
  WP:RELIST might have been possible given the low participation, but the commenters made good points, including the possibility of adding sourced commentary to 2002 FIFA World Cup. The process was entirely in order; in fact the debate ran several days longer than required. Mackensen (talk) 22:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Thanks for replying. Is there any way I can recover the source code of the article? I want to pass it through the article creation vetting process - I don't want this nonsense repeating itself. Bokoharamwatch (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - close was sound. I wouldn't be opposed the author making a new submission via AFC but I would strongly suggest he contact at least those who participated in the discussion to ensure he has adequately addressed the concerns they raised. The BLP violations are an obvious issue and any new content would need to address that before formal submission. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:00, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Westshore Town Centre (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Discussion with closing admin is at [6]

(1) The primary problem here is that this AfD should have been relisted instead of closed.

(2a) A secondary problem is the offer in the closing for WP:Merge and delete.  WP:Merge and delete states,

• "The
  Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License (CC-BY-SA) and the GNU Free Document License
  (GFDL), which Wikipedia uses to license all of its content, both have provisions requiring that the attribution history of an article be preserved.",
• "...a merge and delete is not usually done unless there is a specific and pressing problem with the redirect", and
• "...admins should feel free to interpret 'Merge and delete' votes as 'Merge.' "

(2c) Another secondary problem is that there is no policy basis for a delete in this case.  As it stands, this is an unnecessary loss to the community of content contributions.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the substance of the close, which is to axe an article about a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable. The consensus was clearly against that view and there was no need for a re-listing. On a technicality: the close should be endorsed except to the extent that the article would be temporarily restored for the purposes of a merge. As the nominator states, the article's history would need to be permanently restored, underneath the redirect, for any merging of content to be properly attributed. What all of this means is that the article should be restored, and converted into a redirect, thus allowing a merger to take place. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 07:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn to merge and redirect. I think Unscintillating should dial back his comments but it's a strange close that deletes but offers a temporary restoration for merging purposes. Wikipedia:Merge and delete is an essay but it captures the essential problem with that outcome, and Scottywong is too dismissive of it. Northamerica100 favored a merge, and I think it's possibly the editors who favored a redirect did as well (one of them agreed with Northamerica100 but didn't state it explicitly). Presumably Unscintillating would favor a merge over outright deletion. Mackensen (talk) 12:57, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Take no action. I'd normally endorse, but for the "merge and delete" offer, which of course we can't do. However, the article title has already been re-purposed for a redirect to
  Westshore_Town_Centre#Attractions, and the only sourced fact in the original article is already there, so I'm not sure that a "Merge" verdict would be anything other than process wonkery at this point, as there is nothing to merge. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:09, 20 July 2014 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Take no action. What Lankiveil said. His analysis hits the nail on the head. Also agree with Mkat on those points (only) where he essentially gets to the same place ("a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable"). As to the closer's view that the consensus was to close it as a delete (contra Un's assertion here), I agree with the closer. Epeefleche (talk) 03:13, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse delete, but clarify the offer to restore. Delete, delete and redirect, and redirect (history available for merging) were all within admin discretion, but merging was not.
  User:Amatulic declined the REFUND along those lines. Scottywong's exact wording in AfD's closing statement has been superseded by his rejection of Unscintillating's request. Flatscan (talk) 04:27, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Regarding the WP:REFUND discussion, it was not I who restored the redirect, but once it was restored, the process as per WP:DRVPURPOSE B7 is to request WP:REFUND.  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  Once consensus for the redirect (topic) existed, there was no applicable content policy for keeping the edit history (content) away from non-admins.  Likewise, [see point (2c) of the DRV request] with an
  alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion in the first place.  What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• A few months ago, WT:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect discussed whether REFUND should fulfill these requests. Since there was no consensus either way, the responding administrator has a wide degree of freedom, and Amatulic deferring to Scottywong is perfectly acceptable. WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) rejected that "deletion is a last resort" (prompt opinion #2) subordinate to any alternative. I broadly agree with Scottywong's last response. I am happy to discuss specific useful content or attribution problems. Flatscan (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know how I can competently discuss "specific useful content or attribution problems" when the article has been 30 days since being deleted, and the edit history has not been restored for this DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Northamerica1000 asked for the sources that he added during the AfD. The page histories of Langford, British Columbia, List of shopping malls in Canada (proposed redirect targets), Victoria Regional Transit System, and Redeemer Lutheran Church (Victoria, British Columbia) (search results for Westshore Town Centre) can all be examined for copying. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't know why you are saying that WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect rejects "deletion is the last resort".  I see only one response, one which agreed that deletion is the last resort.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The RfC was closed with consensus for equal weight among keep, merge, redirect, and delete (prompt option #4), which is incompatible with and an implicit rejection of "deletion is a last resort". That only one participant used the exact wording is not a material criticism. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The closing had to do with comparing the weights of merge and redirect !votes with delete and keep !votes.  The closer said nothing about deletion being or not being a last resort, nor do I see any reason to think that this was being considered in the closing.  WP:Deletion policy states, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page."  In the context, "editing" means those things that can be done without admin tools.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Your sentence is quoted from Editing and discussion, the first subsection of
  WP:PRESERVE (a related section at WP:Editing policy#Try to fix problems) are linked from the RfC prompt. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That RfC is long, but there are possibly four more editors who mention in passing that as a matter of policy, we should avoid deletion.  Two expressed this as, "If in doubt, don't delete."  Unscintillating (talk) 14:55, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Whether or not deletion is the last resort, deletion was explicitly identified here as an "executive decision", i.e., WP:IAR.  Regarding my unanswered question, "What is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history away from non-admins?", the answer appears to be that there are no benefits.  On the other hand, the deletion has had WP:BURO disadvantages, because editors who have had reasons to use the edit history have not been able to do so.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:45, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Regarding point (1) of the DRV request involving
  WP:RELIST: none of the four AfD commentators were agreed.  In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Looking a bit today at the sources, I see that no mention was made at the AfD of the alternate name "Canwest Mall".  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating (talk) 07:05, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment – On User:Scottywong's talk page I have requested userfication of the deleted article to my userspace to enable a merge of some of the content to Langford, British Columbia. I recall having adding sources to the deleted article, so that content could be merged to improve the Langford, British Columbia article. NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:08, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scottywong responded with three raw URLs. The third is already in the Langford, British Columbia article, copied by Epeefleche. Flatscan (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • N.b. I have withdrawn the userfication request on User:Scottywong's talk page (diff). NorthAmerica¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:45, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Question  With reference to point (1) of the DRV request involving
  WP:RELIST: In the words of the closing admin, there was no consensus among the choices being considered.  Why was this AfD not relisted?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question  WP:N is not a content policy, it is a topic guideline.  As relates to point (2c) of the DRV request, with an
  alternative to deletion available, there was no policy basis for the deletion.  Note that there is no dispute for the redirect (topic).  Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:27, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore the article's history under the redirect. Unscintillating, a good faith editor, believes the encyclopedia would benefit with the article's history preserved under the redirect. Unless the deleted article violated a core policy like Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (no evidence of that has been presented here), I think his reasonable request should be granted. As Unscintillating writes above:

  Ignoring policy for the moment, what is the benefit to editors, including admins, of keeping this edit history (content) away from non-admins?

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

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

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

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

  Cunard (talk) 06:08, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why should Unscintillating's opinion, supported by technicalities, be raised above the other AfD participants? He has had plenty of time to compose an argument on the merits: a few days between his first edit to the AfD and its closing, and a month since. If you believe that Scottywong misjudged the consensus or the value of the history, then you should recommend overturn explicitly. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • RoySmith, the only editor who explicitly mentioned "delete" in the AfD writes below, "agree with a permanent restore to preserve the history beneath the redirect". I don't see a consensus to keep the article's history deleted.

      I endorse the finding that the mall is not notable and should not exist as an a stand-alone article, but disagree with the decision to keep the article history deleted after a request by a good faith editor. Cunard (talk) 05:36, 26 July 2014 (UTC) Text revised. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

      • Cunard -- As nom, I was another editor who explicitly sought deletion at the AfD (I nominated the topic for deletion). And I agree with Flat here. From the AfD it is clear that this was a subject that only one person in the whole debate considered notable. Epeefleche (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have fixed the typo in my previous comment. Cunard (talk) 02:42, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider restoring the history to be overturning Scottywong's close, especially after he affirmed the delete by declining Unscintillating's and Northamerica1000's requests. My recommendation would be different if there were a legitimate attribution problem or if someone had advanced a convincing argument based on specific content. Flatscan (talk) 04:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:BURO and WP:IAR apply, through which it is not necessary to overturn anything to reach a proper result.  As I stated here, restoring the edit history moots my discussion with the closing administrator.  This remains true, even now.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:18, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, sort of. The only real point of non-consensus is what is the proper redirect target. Two participants suggested Langford, British Columbia, I suggested List of shopping malls in Canada. I'm perfectly happy to amend my suggestion to also support Langford, British Columbia. Now we have consensus on where to redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and yes, agree with a permanent restore to preserve the history beneath the redirect. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cameroon vs England (1990) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

This AfD was relisted specifically with the reason to gain better consensus for deletion or merge. the subsequent !votes established clear consensus for delete not merge as the closing admin has performed. LibStar (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

actually I will withdraw this as the closing admin deleted then redirected. LibStar (talk) 07:53, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmm, as the closing admin I've had a bit of a closer look at this one since LibStar has drawn attention to it. The withdrawn comment above is not entirely accurate; the article was moved during the discussion, which I didn't catch, and my close simply moved the redirect from one target to another. The original history is still at Cameroon v England (1990 FIFA World Cup). I had intended that the close would essentially be "delete, but without the need for someone to request userification if they want to merge", but upon further thought the article is unsourced and not something we want merged. Now that this is at DRV, I'd be happy to suggest overturning my own close and moving to delete the redirect, but there may be alternative views on this. But I'm not sure what the done thing is here where the closing admin themselves changes their mind. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:34, 18 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • I reckon just do it. I think closing admins in these circumstances have quite a bit of discretion as to what to do below the redirect, and that discretion includes changing your mind. Your change of mind would be within the consensus. --
    Mkativerata (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Sounds good enough for me, so done. Happy for someone else to come along and close discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

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

This article was not deleted following an AFD - but it should have been. Five people calling for deletion (including me, the nominator) and three calling for it to be kept. Of the three 'keepers', one said it should be kept because he will be notable in the future (violating

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 19:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Notifying those who commented on the AFD - @Joy: @Mikemor92: @Mice never shop: @Sir Sputnik: @WR227: @KDS4444: @Nfitz: @Why should I have a User Name?:. GiantSnowman 19:07, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the time of the World Cup wasn't the best time to tell people about footballers not being notable enough :) I raised my eyebrow a bit at Scotty's 'no consensus' decision. Had he decided to interpret that 6 : 3 as a weak consensus to delete, I doubt we'd be here again. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 19:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't think there was a consensus on the key point: whether the GNG could be met. Keep voters pointed out some sources that give the subject a fair degree of coverage; I might have argued against that as well, but there weren't exactly many delete voters with overwhelmingly strong arguments to the contrary. Yes, much of the coverage arose in the context of transfer business, but it was also direct coverage that addressed the subject in detail. Ultimately the GNG point didn't really go anywhere either way. 6:3 as 'no consensus' is obviously going to annoy, but I don't think it's an unreasonable call on this one. In fact, I'm inclined to think it was the better call. Of course, the article should be replaced by moving the sandbox version over it for proper attribution to GiantSnowman.--
  Mkativerata (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment from closing admin - I probably should have offered a rationale in the AfD for this closure, to make it more clear why I closed it the way I did. As we all know, consensus is not determined by counting votes. Here is the rationale that I offered GiantSnowman when he approached me on my talk page:

Since there are obviously a lot of sources available, this AfD really comes down to whether or not the coverage is routine.

WP:ROUTINE gives examples such as wedding announcements, obituaries, sports scores, and crime logs; coverage of sports matches, film premieres, and press conferences. I'm not convinced that the coverage of a teenage athlete being signed by a top team (and being valued at €6million+ by those teams) is quite on the same level as obituaries and wedding announcements. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 21:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse closure, allow renomination -
  WP:ROUTINE. With regard to football (soccer) AFDs, coverage of signings (especially those relating to young players) has often been interpreted as "routine". Coverage is often based on PR from agents rather than actual interest in the subject and much of it constitutes one or two lines among dozens and dozens of such articles during the transfer windows. It's only when that coverage extends to actual profiles that we consider someone has taken a genuine editorial interest in the subject. Otherwise, the effort involved in reporting it is even less than that given to reporting match day sports scores. A €6 million signing is not "insignificant" but many youth players are signed years in advance of ever taking to the field and so consensus has evolved to draw the line somewhere. There probably isn't a strongly defined consensus in that regard anyway, so a "no consensus" result doesn't seem unfair to me. That said, there is generally no prejudice against the renomination of an article where a discussion has closed as "no consensus" and it doesn't seem the closing admin has indicated a specific objection in that regard. So that's where I'd go with it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I feel that this type of coverage is more than just a routine announcement of "Player X was transferred to Team Y at a cost of Z dollars. Player X scored 25 goals for Team W last year." However, since the AfD came to no consensus, I'd have no objection to a renomination at some point in the near future, especially if it specifically focused on an evaluation of the available sources with respect to

WP:ROUTINE. ‑Scottywong| chatter _ 00:57, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Sure, but that's not really coverage of him - that's coverage of a legal dispute between the clubs that happens to relate to him. It doesn't tell us anything about him, really and I wouldn't consider it significant coverage of him. But anyway, I don't want to force you to defend your close by taking one side or the other - the whole point was that you worked with what you had, and in this case that was a not-particularly-clear consensus and your close reflected that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:23, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not clear-cut, that one. Personally I would have preferred "delete" as a close, but "no consensus" was well within discretion. Since it was a "no consensus" an early renomination is permitted, and I'd suggest that.—S Marshall T/C 08:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - heads were about even, plausibly meets
  WP:N. No consensus is the right call. An in-depth analysis of the sources might be able to tilt the discussion, but that didn't occur (from either position). WilyD 09:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• That the article appears to have been plagiarized out of
  SPA with no user page and nearly vacant talk page, and that such a page should have been created as a result of a page move by Nordlund95 from Giantsnowman's sandbox to the corresponding full article name space (which clearly was not done, and was not done for what look to me like shady reasons), credit for the article's creation aught to at least go where it is due, however that can be accomplished. KDS4444^Talk 16:03, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We can, and should, merge the relevant part of the history of GS's sandbox into the history of this article. The SPA might as well be censured for failing to observe basic copyright policies. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

history merge according to GiantSnowman's preference. Flatscan (talk) 04:26, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse no consensus was the right call, people on both sides didn't budge. They addressed each others concerns, but neither wanted to give. The original editors should be credited to avoid COPYVIO. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:42, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - the fundamental crux of this discussion is that we are dealing here with a player who has never played even a minute of first team football at any level, either the
  WP:CRYSTAL then an article is warranted, but at the moment we are left in the strange situation where editors are claiming notability on the grounds that this individual is a footballer, without him actually having played at any notable level. Fenix down (talk) 09:16, 20 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

That may be true, but that's more an argument that should have been made at AFD (or should be made at the next AFD). St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You may wish to refresh your knowledge of the deletion discussion as that was exactly the argument put forward by myself, Sir Sputnik and Michael. Oh well, if he plays in the next couple of months then he will be notable, if he doesn't then he will almost certainly be back at AfD. Fenix down (talk) 08:22, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my parenthesis were unclear perhaps. I've already suggested it be nominated again so I was making the point that the argument should be made again. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Delete. The community's consensus was correctly assessed by the closer. Per
  WP:DRVPURPOSE, this is not the venue to dispute a closure just because someone didn't like it. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse as accurate evaluation of the AFD discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 11:14, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment by closing admin - This one seemed like an open and shut case to me. Three editors opine that the subject is not notable because the only coverage in reliable sources is
  WP:DELREVD). ‑Scottywong| babble _ 13:25, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I didn't waste my time because I didn't think you had much you could have done about it. The coverage that I brought up was more then just routine trivial coverage, and I'd like to point out the references I provided during the discussion as well included feature focus articles on the game traditions itself rather then a particular game out of the tradition. The problems I see is that there is a very geocentric notability standard being applied here which I will say that the editors arguing against seem to be harboring, seriously how many single football games are you aware of that have coverage at local, regional and state level, the biggest event of it's kind in Colorado and also the oldest. We have this problems in other areas of wikipedia that we only consider things notable if they are notable where we live. I truly don't understand what I"m missing here, it has adequate and significant coverage which is not trivial and focuses on the rivalry itself and not the two teams.

talk) 17:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• "Colorado Springs has nothing on Pueblo. ... and the Bell Game is noted as the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi River" [[7]] Colorado Springs Gazette

• "Oldest Rivalry in the west" [[8]] Picture from 1935
• All time oldest rivalry of all Colorado high school sports 1892-2002 (this was time of publication and it a pdf. I couldn't link to that) -Colorado High School Activities Association
• I think I have provided enough to show that it's not just routine local coverage and if those things aren't enough to keep the article well it happens. I think it definitely passes because it is a HUGE community event that receives multiple coverages and the duration of the coverage is really the deciding factor. I'm not putting it at a high level of importance but it does pass the notability guidelines. I think the difference here is that it is the largest in event of it's kind in Colorado (really big factor that makes it notable for the area), has the age factor of being the oldest and longest rivalry here and overall the 8th of the nation
  talk) 17:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse deletion, allow recreation - the close was an accurate reflection of consensus which continued to build despite
  WP:GNG. I've been an advocate for the deletion of non-notable "rivalries" in the past but I think this one gets over the line. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:09, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse and Allow recreation consensus was reached in the AfD. A passionate user tried to sway people, it didn't work. There are references that indicate
  WP:SIGCOV so the article should be allowed to be recreated. There's nothing here that indicates that it shouldn't be recreated. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Thank you I tink that both of your assessments are correct there was a consensus and it was interpeted by the admin correctly I just thought the article had significant coverage. BTW

talk) 07:02, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

That's neato! Across from your part of the HKI, Shau Kei Wan. I love living on the island! The dim sum is still as plentiful as the day you left, so come back for a bite! XiuBouLin (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore article. Hell in a Bucket convincingly argues with multiple independent reliable sources that the Bell Game passes
  Taylor Trade Publications calls "the 'Bell Game' between Pueblo Centennial and Pueblo Central, the oldest high school football rivalry west of the Mississippi".

  I believe the delete closure was within discretion, but I would have preferred a "no consensus" close since The Pueblo Chieftain article was not adequately discussed.

  Cunard (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

Consensus lacking, closed by non-admin, more meaningful discussion warranted. 0pen$0urce (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist Article was removed for AfD without consensus. Could merit at least 1 more re-list. Arguments to keep, 1 from author, who seemed to just focus more on nominator less on content, cited wiki policy either inaccuaretly or of out context, and generally didn't seem to be assuming good faith. The other claimed refs were improved, all those references are sourcing from the primary source. And generally seems to be arguing that position automatically warrants notability, whcih is incorrect. Just want a further review. No previous person in exact same position has article, not seeing what puts this person over the top and makes them notable. Seems position is being subtituited for notability.--0pen$0urce (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As the closer I felt consensus was reached and what with the sources presented passed GNG, I will say tho had Wikipedia not been down I would of actually relisted and left a note, Regards, –Davey2010 • (talk) 23:20, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• How the hell could a profile in the Washington Post be considered a "primary source"? Or a feature in Government Technology? Or an article in Information Week? These are all instances of significant coverage in independent reliable sources. In what way is
  WP:BEFORE? St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - not a particularly accurate reflection of my comments there. I didn't say they had been improved, I said both sets of references were sufficient. Major publications considered her notable enough to track her career and comment on both her appointment and subsequent resignation. "No previous person in exact same position has article" is a ridiculous
  straw-man - no previous person has held that position because prior to her holding it, it didn't exist. One of the largest public sector organisations on the planet created the position for her. Prior to that she held a position we consider notable in its own right - not the person, the position itself. Prior to that she held a Cabinet-level position as CIO of a state where computers and electronic products account for 42% of all the state's exports; a state larger in terms of GDP than all but 10 countries. But sure, let's re-list it and see what others have to pile on say. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse - demonstatably and unambiguously meets
  WP:N, as was presented in the discussion, rendering the delete arguments wholly and totally invalid. There doesn't appear to be anything to discuss, so pointless relisting is just unwelcome clutter. WilyD 09:31, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse. I believe I take issue with every single part of the nominator's position. With all due respect, there was more than sufficient consensus to close the debate. Quite a few non-administrators are capable of judging a consensus (and a few administrators aren't, although that was a much larger problem five years ago than it is now; most admins in 2014 are relatively experienced and level-headed). It's true that more meaningful discussion is usually warranted in AfD debates, but we have to be realistic. Participation in the project is so low nowadays that many AfDs are relisted several times without any comment at all. Where there's some policy-based argument and analysis of the sources, that's got to be enough.—S Marshall T/C 11:22, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A clear keep. And a justifiable case for a non-admin close, too. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 11:36, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, I'd have closed it the same way, User:Nikkimaria's comment pretty clearly refuted the original rationale for deletion and no further reasons were put forward despite the discussion being open for a week subsequent to that. A relist would have been pointless process wonkery at that point. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse More sources were found to meet
  WP:GNG guidelines. Whether it was closed by administrator or relisted another time, the final outcome probably would have been keep. JayJay^{What did I do?} 20:29, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse Were it a sheer matter of numbers, I tend to prefer a bit more discussion (and perhaps I err on the side of "needless wonkery", *shrug*), but Nikkimaria's sources seemed strong and were not rebutted despite the clear evidence that the nominator (and only delete opinion) had an opportunity to do so. --j⚛e decker^talk 20:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XfD|restore

)

The author has continuously re-posted this page about himself and he is not notable. Krisje9 (talk) 17:39, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This article does not belong at deletion review, as there has not been an AFD previously. And I have no idea what you mean that he "has continuously re-posted this page about himself", as I see no evidence that he has ever edited this article. Unless you mean User:Paul Drye, which was moved out of article space... 10 years ago, from what I can tell. BOZ (talk) 17:53, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No AfD discussion, from what I can see, the author/user has not repeatedly "re-posted" this article. The only potential problem with that, would be COI, which this article doesn't suffer from. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:23, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close. There's been no deletion to review. AfD is thataway --->—S Marshall T/C 11:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was sent to AFD in 2008 and was in pretty bad shape at the time, and deleted with four unanimous responses. The article was deleted after AFD by

I started a requested move discussion a couple of weeks ago, with the only respondent being BD2412; the request was procedurally closed, with a recommendation to try DRV instead, so here I am. BOZ (talk) 00:59, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Without actually judging notability, this is good enough to be accepted from AfC. Anyone who dislikes it can then send it to AfD. The previous version was not salted, so actually anyone can move this to mainspace. DGG ( talk ) 01:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original closing... but Move to mainspace as the new version of the article corrects the prior issues. As a structural criticism, the published works should be moved to its own section. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:27, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What XiuBouLih said' --Dweller (talk) 17:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What Dweller said Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:22, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Heaven Sent Gaming (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Extremely passionate long-winded arguments on both sides. I believe it should be "Overturn", in favor of a "Keep" or "No Consensus".

• I haven't reviewed completely, so can't offer an opinion on all the sources yet. It has been a concerted effort and such, and if others think it will stand up to AFD, I will take their word for it. Right now I'm spending quality time with one wife and two dogs, so don't have time to fully exam it to the extent I normally would, but you can ping me tomorrow if you would choose that I do. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 01:14, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and move to mainspace, I don't know what the article originally looked like, judging from the edits I can see at User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming, any concerns from the original AfD have been corrected. The sources are reliable and most are non-trivial, there's enough here to create an article from those secondary sources alone, and the subject meets the criteria for notability and inclusion. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2014 (UTC) Sorry, forgot to state my opinion that the original AfD discussion should have been closed as, no consensus. However with the current revisions I would personally vote, keep. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did a small search on Google Books, and on Internet Archive. Subject meets the general notability guidelines. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:43, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closing admin. The discussion was difficult because of a large number of sock/meatpuppets all of whom posted keep votes. That doesn't automatically mean the article shouldn't be restored or even that the subject or those that have worked on the article condoned the puppetry, of course. However, while the new version reads acceptably, that's still not clear; there are a lot of mentions of the group in the articles but nothing that seems to be substantially about them in a source I'd consider reliable. They certainly do seem to have a dedicated fan following, they seem to be nice folk, and this shouldn't be taken as a statement on the quality of their work, but I don't think it adds up to an article that'll survive a second AFD yet.. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 17 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• @Lankiveil:, I agree with your assessment on the puppets, regardless, AfD is not a vote and the results show. The only reason why I support a "no consensus", in contradiction to your original thoughts on the AfD, is due to both sides, "delete" and "keep", bringing up policy-based arguments that were largely ignored by huge debates from both sides. Neither side budged, and I still don't think either side would budge after the end of that AfD. XiuBouLin (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Found this about the subject: Shigimori Shizuka (16 June 2014). Internet Legends - Heaven Sent Gaming: 伝説のインターネット - ヘヴン セント ゲーミング. Golden Yen Publishing. This book was published last month, which is not included in the references of the current article, which may correlate with when the article was created. Would it be possible for the article to be restored? So that way users, like I, can view it and its history. If a book like this, lead to the article's creation, then that would be cause for interest in this subject. Meaning the subject gained one piece of "significant coverage" prior to the article's creation, which was never discussed in the AfD. XiuBouLin (talk) 01:40, 18 July 2014 (UTC) Bolded and italicized for emphasis on main points, it's not to be rude, I completely respect Lankiveil he is a great admin. Just have a tiny disagreement with him at the moment. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:48, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for that reference XiuBouLin, that's a gigantic secondary resource, I've now added it to the User:Smile Lee/Heaven Sent Gaming version. It was never referenced in the mainspace version of the article, but it could have definitely been a driving force in the creation of the article. I didn't stumble upon the article until around the middle of the AfD, but that's a great resource on this subject. LuigiToeness (talk) 06:50, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Glad you found the reference relevant. XiuBouLin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Per XiuBouLin's request, I have restored the article using the instructions under Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary undeletion so that the content can be reviewed using the article's history. Please do not edit the page during this discussion, and understand that an admin will delete it again if the deletion is not overturned here. BOZ (talk) 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you BOZ, my suspicions were confirmed the article's creation date coincides to after the publishment of the book by Yen, the book was more than likely the cause of the creation of the article, and is the plausible cause of users interest in the subject. XiuBouLin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Arguments basically amounted to
  drop the stick and move on. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note
  WP:ITSNOTNOTABLE. And both sides cited policies. It should have been a "no consensus" in my book. Whether or not Golden Yen and/or Web Fiction Guide are reliable is irrelevant, they are independent secondary sources accompanied by obviously reliable secondary coverage. The article about Al Hurricane is irrelevant too but, even so, was not created by the creator of this article. I have no "stick", and I have no interest in editing the article, just a peruser of the AfD and DRV. XiuBouLin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Saying that both sides were equally wrong is a false equivalence. Only in the most shallow way could you say that both sides cited policy, and this is another false equivalence. I could call my dog a reliable secondary source, but that doesn't make it so. And I would note that this user has made very few contributions. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not making a false equivalence, that's an incorrect assessment. You could call your dog a reliable source, but comparing "your dog" to a translated published book and a website dedicated in a specific field IS a false equivalence. I never claimed both sides were "equally wrong", I don't think either side was wrong, just indicated that neither side made a convincing argument. I am new, and stated it multiple times, as you can also see from my contribution history, I've voted delete and keep on several AfD and DRV discussions. This is the aspect of Wikipedia that interests me most. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. I know that some editors are working on a new version, and I've offered a tip or two although uninvolved with it. I wish them all the luck getting that version up to par eventually. All of that is meaningless here at DRV, all that matters is "Was the close a reasonable read of consensus?" of the AFD, using the article in the state it was then, and to me the answer is clearly yes. Even giving credit where it isn't due, ignoring the meatpupptry and such, it doesn't change the fact that the article as was presented at AFD didn't provide multiple sources that had significant coverage. Consensus isn't about numbers, it is about substantiated claims of notability and the keep side of the argument failed miserably on this point, so it doesn't matter how many of them failed. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 19:59, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with
  WP:WHYN, we can see that this subject's article would not be at odds with; being a useless collection of information or against being hearsay. Throughout that AfD discussion multiple new sources kept being revealed. Even I, someone who prefers AfD and DRV to article creation, found ANOTHER point of reference. But due to the puppetry and the moot arguments on both sides I still would call it a "no consensus". I applaud User:Lankiveil, though, must have been a difficult AfD to sort through, but I still disagree with his call. XiuBouLin (talk) 20:51, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The problem here is that there were some sources that were marginal to acceptable for sourcing the content itself, but none of it passed
  WP:SIGCOV. Usually, we want to have two or more sources talking about the topic as the central theme, and from high quality sources, not marginal sources. I don't think the new, reworked article does this yet and the old article surely didn't. That is what the admin has to look at. If there were clearly two high quality RS's with significant coverage, I would have just moved the new article over the old myself, with a note to the previous admin, whom I'm confident wouldn't have complained. In good faith, you are confusing "sources that back a claim" with "sources that establish notability" and they are not at all the same. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:55, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Dennis Brown, you're an amazing admin, and I aspire to be as helpful as you one day. Many thanks for assuming a potential err in my thought, let me clarify in as simple of terms as I can. I understand the closing admin had to make an extremely tough call but there was no indication in the AfD, or from the article itself, that deleting the article was the best course of action. From what I can see, in the history, at one point there was around 50 references "HOLY COW!" From useless database entries, no less. They were removed over time, in favor of the more broadly accepted sources. Recommended improvements were constantly made, and multiple lengthy secondary sources were found post-deletion. A clear indication that deletion wasn't the correct choice, "no consensus" would have been the most prudent course of action. XiuBouLin (talk) 23:30, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I will be bolding and italicizing key parts, it's not to be rude, just to save time, for voters of this DRV. All three of the ^above^ "endorse" suggestions are from editors that got their desired "delete" result in the original AfD. An ^above^ user, voting "overturn" in favor of a "keep", didn't get his desired result. None of their votes are any lesser for it, nevertheless could contain predetermined bias. That is irrelevant though, their arguments remain, in my opinion, unconvincing. I've voted for an overturn to "no consensus", and I've stated my rationale many times. I do not believe relisting the AfD would be beneficial either. Since both sides are, unconvincingly, arguing the semantics of "reliable" sources. I would like to know what my fellow non-biased users have to say about this DRV.XiuBouLin (talk) 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Minor Comment I understand the arguments for delete, it got swamped in a nasty AfD, and as with any publishing subject with several topics this could become a large amount of articles. In the opposite direction, in favor of keep, I've never seen a non-notable subject having an independently produced book about it... or being mentioned in newspapers and talk radio... or being listed in this many databases... even Crunchyroll and Crunchbase has this subject covered in articles. Though, from the sources mentioned in and outside the article, Heaven Sent Gaming itself probably qualifies for an article, there are several people and topics in the article like Jason Waggoner and Life Never Lost the DO NOT qualify for an article going purely off the independently published sources, Mario, Isabel, and Drew seem to have enough references to get their own articles and the only notable published materials seems to be "Reverie" and "Thad's World Destruction: Before Destruction". Since they seem to be the only SIGCOV potential articles. We should place a watch on potential non-notable independent articles from this topic-set So that way we can avoid a flood of articles claiming, that notability is
  WP:INHERITED, we should keep a look out for things like "Many: The Blog Of A Space Probe" and "BladeChick", since they do NOT have references that can pass as claiming notability yet. I believe the Heaven Sent Gaming article to be fine, and the current revision should be moved to the mainspace, but experienced people like User:BOZ should handle the potential Drew Cass, Mario J. Lucero, Isabel Ruiz, Reverie (comic), and Thad's World Destruction: Before Destruction
  articles. 23:08, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

• Overturn and move to mainspace, agree with comments made by XiuBouLin, should have been "No Consensus". I would like to state that I voted "Keep" in the original AfD. BeachParadise (talk) 19:46, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Per Dennis Brown and NinjaRobotPirate. The issue at the AFD was a lack of reliable sources that would support notability claims. AFD isn't cleanup, the article wasn't deleted due to
  WP:OVERREF or the lack of the sources being in the article, but due to an actual lack of reliable secondary sources. That does not appear to have changed in the short time since the AFD concluded. I voted for delete during the AFD. This DRV appears to be going along the same lines as the AFD though... The "Keeps" and "Deletes" disagreeing on what a "reliable" source is. -- ferret (talk) 20:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Agreed that the DRV is going the same direction, which is why I'm going with Xiu's comments, his views on the AfD, are overall correct. Overturning to keep would be silly, and so would siding with the original delete decision. This strengthens Xiu's "no consensus" argument. Apparently, the articles original creation date was after a book about the subject was released, Xiu mentioned it and I just found it on Amazon. Decided to purchase the book on Kindle and I will read it tonight, after work. There's another book that contains a chapter about the subject, I've been looking for it, but I can't find it anywhere. BeachParadise (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• From the description page on Amazon, "a team of editors responsible for fact-checking and reliability, they each come from multiple backgrounds in book publishing" "静山社 (Say-Zan-Sha), リクルート (Recruit), 小学館 (Shogakukan), and ゼンリン (Zenrin)" "Scholastic, Penguin Random House, Macmillan, and HarperCollins". This is extremely relevant to the notability of the subject, and the reliability of the source. BeachParadise (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty confident that that book is not a reliable source and is self-published, but I don't really want to comment further on it. Since I'm not interested in rehashing the AFD, this is my last reply here. -- ferret (talk) 21:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The above discussion by ferret and BeachParadise is the exact type of conversation that occurred throughout that AfD. There's no consensus here, and this confirms that relisting the AfD will only result in the same back-and-forth. Overturn to no consensus, and move the current article to main article space. This can go up for AfD sometime down the road, but as of now, this will go nowhere. I'm convinced that this subject meets the notability guidelines, but the arguments in the AfD seem split. XiuBouLin (talk) 21:56, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closing statement is apt and pithy, and correctly summarises the debate.—S Marshall T/C 11:20, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, the original nomination was disputed by me, about there being a low amount "Google hits". For whatever reason, it was ignored, Google Search. Notability has nothing to do with the content of the article, but for some reason the references in the article was constantly used as being the problem. Notability is about external research, I found this publisher is on the Library of Congress, there were plenty of external references that were found during, and after, that predate the debate. Both sides of the debate were "longwinded arguments", and they came from both the delete and keep sides, both sides are over 3000 characters. DunDunDunt (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse a lot of misbehaviour in that AFD on the Keep side. Closer made the right call, and it's hard to disagree with the closing comment. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment is it possible that most of the misbehavior on the keep side came from multiple changes in rationale during the debate? The keep side of the debate argued multiple rationale, this would be especially frustrating for new users being bombarded by experienced users. Let me show the earliest most example of bombardment, the original rationale was "Non-notable business website. Almost no hits on a Google search" (a.k.a. bad reasoning
  WP:GHITS), that original stike-through clearly indicates that most of the calls for deletion were hasty. Consistently so, the experienced users were being just as misbehaving, but they did so with an understanding of how to side-step the rules, a great example is the retort by Kolbasz to DunDunDunt, both were long lists, and both were incredibly disrespectful to the other's arguments. I'm being as objective as possible, which is the reason why I'm saying overturn, and this should go up for AfD down the road. XiuBouLin (talk) 19:10, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Paul Hume (game designer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was sent to AFD in 2012 and had no sources at the time, and was deleted with two concurring delete responses. The article was deleted after AFD by

• Move to mainspace. In my opinion the draft overcomes the problem (no sources) identified in the prior AfD and would not be subject to speedy deletion under G4 or any of the other criteria. Given the improvement, I see no impediment to moving it to the main article space. That said, the sourcing remains thin and I am not sure whether it would survive a new AfD or not. But if BOZ thinks it's ready, I see no reason to debate notability here rather than let someone take it to AfD is desired. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:55, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse previous close but move to mainspace, basically, I completely agree with Eluchil404, including that the sources are a bit thin, but nothing that should prevent it from going into mainspace. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 13:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close, move to mainspace, notability seem to be a possible issue, since its a stub, more information will turn up. Here's some potential sources [9] [10], there's probably more though. XiuBouLin (talk) 21:57, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was sent to AFD in 2007 and had no sources at the time, and was deleted after only one concurring delete response. The article was deleted after AFD by

Move to mainspace, I would probably put the books in his bibliography like this:

Adam Jury; Mark C. MacKinnon; David L. Pulver (July 2005). Tri-Stat DX V2.0: Core System Role-Playing Game. Guardians Of Order.

ISBN 978-1-894938-58-7

.

Since that will look less list-like. XiuBouLin (talk) 16:21, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Source 3 is self-published. Source 2 doesn't mention him. Source 1 clearly isn't and does, respectively, which is good, but it's just one source and it's hard to know if it mentions his name parenthetically on occasion or gives him the serious in-depth reporting you'd expect for someone notable. --Dweller (talk) 17:11, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Source 3 probably doesn't confer any notability because it is the website of a publisher he worked for, but would it make a difference if I can track down an independent reliable source relaying the same information? This is the program for the convention itself (don't know if that helps), but this appearance at a trade show probably isn't a big deal anyway. Source 2 doesn't mention him (or any other designers) by name, but it does mention the product he worked on and the two awards it won. Per this page he was one of several designers on the book. On his page here he clarifies that his role was "Game Design Team, Author, Interior Layout". Source 1 I added myself so I can verify he definitely was mentioned by name multiple times. BOZ (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse adding sources where there previously weren't any is always good, but I agree with Dweller's assessment of the sources. What's there just isn't enough to support a BLP. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:36, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of chess-related deaths (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer of the deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly DavidWBrooks (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse by default, nominator expresses disagreement with the close but gives no further reasoning. (See "Deletion Review should not be used..." section above.) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - OK first of all I thought the admin who closed the discussion did so much too abruptly - within a couple of days in relation to an article that had been there some time.

Secondly there was no consensus and clearly quite a number of editors arguing to keep - to dismiss the keep arguments as not policy based was an oversimplification.

Thirdly the grounds given for closure and deletion were original research and lack of verifiable sources. However these grounds were inadequate - there was no original research, all significant material was sourced and much of this was sourced very solidly. As I said before the USSR banning chess in space after one of their Antarctic workers killed a colleague with an ice pick over a chess game says something very clear about chess-related violence that simply does not arise with say checkers-related violence or ludo-related violence.

If there was a real concern re lack of verifiable sources /original research a better opportunity could have been given to allow time for the article to be improved.

Finally, even if all of the above were not accepted, deletion of the whole article is too drastic. If it can't be kept it should have been merged into Chess as one of the editors commenting suggested. --Zymurgy (talk) 16:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Don't merge into chess!! Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 00:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. It's not a satisfactory debate. There's no consensus on how to evaluate the notability of a cross-sectional list (see
  WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS itself notes the possibility of unofficial consensus. The close doesn't grapple with any of this and proceeds from the assumption that we're on settled policy ground. We're not. The "keep" editors shouldn't have been ignored and this should be closed as "no consensus", with the understanding that cleanup on the article continue. Mackensen (talk) 22:26, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Correct reading of the discussion. I see the sourcing was strongly criticised. Any new attempt to recreate should involved a draft incorporating better sourcing. Including anything related at Chess should be proposed at Talk:Chess; where I doubt it will get much respect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There was no evidence presented in that debate: it was nothing but a clash of opinion statements. In such cases, the numerical consensus should normally prevail, and I'm pleased to see that on that occasion, it did. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 22:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  At the risk of being difficult, I am personally unfamiliar with the principle that in the absence of policies we fall back on a headcount and I have no idea what a "numerical consensus" would be. Furthermore, that's not the closer's rationale, and that's what we're reviewing here. If it's a policy-based close then the numbers don't matter. If it's a strict headcount the closer should have said so. Mackensen (talk) 22:39, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I would expect most people to understand what I mean by a numerical consensus, but it means the majority in a show of hands. I realise it's traditional to sneer at the show of hands on Wikipedia, but where there's been no evidence and no strong policy basis to choose one close over another, the numerical consensus is not normally to be disregarded.—S Marshall T/C 00:37, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. It's not a satisfactory debate. That's not the fault of the closer, that's the fault of the participants. Given the inadequacy of the debate, the nomination here is simply frustrating. DRV is not another chance to re-argue points you failed to make adequately during AFD, nor is it a chance to raise points you've since decided you should have raised during AFD. The closer made do with what he had. If you don't think the community adequately assessed notability or validity then ask/argue for recreation. But a 9-word DRV nomination should almost be closed as "endorse" by default. And how on earth was the close "abrupt"? It was closed after 8 days - more than the standard 7 and there's absolutely no requirement to relist based on the age of an article (especially if the quality of debate suggests nothing would come of it). St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:15, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, with a disclaimer that I voted in the discussion and got my preferred outcome. The close was well within the administrator's discretion and I'm stumped as to what the reasoning is for bringing it to DRV, apart from wanting another bite at the cherry. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:59, 13 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Meh. I agree that this wasn't a particularly good debate. These two (adjacent) entries are telling:

• Delete - Not an encyclopedic topic. Trivia.
• Keep - An encyclopedic topic. Not trivia.

Both debaters are simply stating their opinion, with no argument to back it up. There was a lot of that, on both sides. It's really hard to keep score when nobody is playing by the rules. If I was closing this, I would have closed it as No Consensus, but admins get paid the big bucks to make these hard calls, and the Delete call made in this case isn't so farfetched that we should overturn it. For those of you looking for a one-word soundbite, Endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your fourth sentence present the srong overturn argument: There was clearly no consensus and the article shouldn't have been deleted. The decision should absolutely be overturned because AFD removes all the related material from wikipedia - poof! It's the death penalty, if you will, and like the death penalty should only be employed when the decision was beyond a reasonable doubt, which wasn't the case here. Article deletion leaves no ability to improve or adjust material to help wikipedia, as with most edit debates - it should only occur when there is consensus, which was not the case here. This is a pretty straightforward overturn. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 17:46, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, which do you consider my fourth sentence? Are you counting Meh as a sentence? Are you counting These two (adjacent) ... no argument to back it up as a single sentence (which, grammatically speaking, I believe it is; consisting of two independent clauses and two parenthetical quotes)? Not trying to be (overly) pedantic, just want to make sure I understand which one you're referring to :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I really only meant half the sentence; I was trying to be too clever and ended up incomprehensible. "If I was closing this, I would have closed it as No Consensus" ... I agree with that. In fact, I was preparing to do just that when the gun was (IMHO) jumped. (I'm an administrator too, if that matters - which it doesn't). - DavidWBrooks (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I think there's room for different people to reasonably look at the same argument and come to different conclusions. Saying, That's not what I would have done is not the same as saying, I think what you did was wrong. I'll admit that there's an element of chance in every AfD close. Had I, or you, come along a bit earlier and closed that AfD, it would have gone differently. While that's sub-optimal, it's the system we have and we need to live with it. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You had already !voted to keep the article, so closing the discussion in line with your own !vote would be inappropriate. Reyk _YO! 00:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The article should be restored while at deletion review. That is what is normally done isn't it? Dream Focus 15:54, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - closing admin was correct in largely discarding the vapid keep votes. Tarc (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Based on the number and strength of arguments presented at the AfD, no other close than delete was possible. The closing administrator judged consensus correctly. Reyk _YO! 23:38, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - policy-based decision. --Dweller (talk) 09:13, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - it's one of those "old wikipedia" random trivia articles that xkcd sent up so devastatingly with their "in popular culture" strip. There's a few of them still around but wikipedia is supposed to be a bit more grown up these days. MaxBrowne (talk) 15:25, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Closer's description of the debate is quite accurate. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Overturn"Looking atthe title, I expected to endorse; but looking at the article, it seems clear from common sense that the topic has occurred to a surprising number of people, and is therefore worth including. We have no firm criteria for such lists very few of the sources actually discuss the phenomenon of "chess related deaths" as a whole. may bet rue, but there haas been no agreement to use it as a reason. The randomness of afd is well known; but since a random delete can always be overturned by a new afd, there should be a mechanism for overturning a random keep also, by having a new discussion. Whatever mechanism we use to keep these from recurring indefinitely should be symmetrical. At present it is not, but biased strongly to deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:39, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, closer's assessment was correct. XiuBouLin (talk) 06:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The closer is correct. While sources exist for the anecdotes there is little to support the topic itself making the article not meet
  Chillum 18:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn - There was clearly no consensus and the article shouldn't have been deleted. Turkeyphan^t 22:12, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - There was clearly no consensus and the article shouldn't have been deleted. Sorry if you think this is not "an argument". Yes, it's just my view. Sorry if you think that's against "the rules". Martinevans123 (talk) 22:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fleischmann-Pons experiment (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

article|XfD|restore

)

Previous review: Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_May_8#2016_NHL_Entry_Draft

At the time this article was closed as redirect in December of 2013 there was just one transaction and a story covering a potential location for this draft. At the time of closing I do believe the correct decision was made. However seven months later this article should be allowed to be re-started as there have been an additional six transactions that have taken place since that time. In addition leaving this article as redirect any longer does go against the previous consensus of the community. The nine previous articles covering this topic (2007-2015) have been allowed to exist unchallenged between 24-27 months before the event was scheduled to take place.

The protection that was applied to this article on May 8, 2014 should also be removed, while I do believe the admin that applied this was acting in good faith. Preventing editing of this article until May of 2015 will cause a significant amount of information about this article to be missed (there are usually anywhere from 15-30 transactions involving draft picks during this time). These articles at worst usually only suffer from some persistent vandalism that is usually limited to the first round of the draft.

Please note that I have tried to contact the closing admin (on July 1, 2014) at this time there has been no response. I am also aware that this article has been listed here once before on May 8, 2014 with the result being no consensus. Deadman137 (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the protection, restore article. There have already been a number of trades involving this draft. For example, see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. The start dates for the previous drafts are:
  • 1) 2014 Draft (June 2012)
  • 2) 2013 Draft (June 2011)
  • 3) 2012 Draft (June 2010)

• So, as Deadman137 notes, 2 years before the draft is usually about the time we start these articles, as many GMs begin to make trades involving said drafts. I believe keeping the full protection for another year is unnecessary (and will just make us miss many more trades involving 2016), and we can create the article again as we actually have content for it. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 03:26, July 11, 2014 (UTC)
• Remove the protection, restore article: Honestly, I find the efforts of WilliamJE and Ged UK to keep this shut down and force it to DRV to be obnoxiously over-officious; this is exactly the sort of stunt the naysayers cite when they claim that Wikipedia's been taken over by rules lawyers. While I completely deplore Dolovis' eternal whoring after edit and first article counts, that's not a valid reason to keep this article shut down while the transactions pile up concerning a draft that's less than two years away now. In any event, the original AfD had no consensus to salt the article, so it should be available for recreation. Ravenswing 09:57, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove the protection, restore article, as it's less then 2 years now & as mentioned, many 2016 draft picks-to-be have already been involved in trades. GoodDay (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold the AFD. This second DRV comes shortly after the first DRV where the AFD was upheld and the lock on the article is to keep any single editor from deciding for themselves that the AFD doesn't apply. Ravenswing you personally attacked me its not appreciated and totally uncalled for....William 18:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: No, I rather think it is called for. Locking down the article back in December was justifiable. Locking down the article after facts and reliable sources pertaining to the subject started to appear is, in fact, over-officious, especially since there has never been any consensus to salt the article. Any article removed at AfD, unless salted, is removed without prejudice and is liable to be recreated should sufficient sources turn up to support the subject's notability. To quote from WP:Deletion policy, "If an article was deleted for lacking content or for having inappropriate content ... and you wish to create a better article about the same subject, you can simply go ahead and do so, with no need for review. It is especially wasteful to go to deletion review ... when the alternative of creating a sourced article is available." Your edit summary of "Result still applies" demonstrates a lack of understanding of deletion policy. In your shoes, I'd correct that before getting upset that I was being called on it ... or before advocating that the article stay deleted without proffering any reason beyond that some people thought it ought to be eight months ago. Ravenswing 04:36, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the protection, restore article, this article was useful and informative, and should never have been locked down in the first place. Verifiable transactions concerning this draft had already been made, and the original AfD reads like "no concensus" to me (if not to the closing admin). Now a back-logged of transactions exist which increases the work-load for those editors who volunteer their time to update and maintain this article. Dolovis (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I certainly understand the desire to uphold community consensus as expressed at AFD. In this case, consensus was probably "weak" though "no consensus" probably wouldn't have been out of order. But then I don't think redirect was the wrong call under the circumstances. That said, it's a 6+ month old discussion and that's not really the point of this DRV, is it? Whatever consensus was then, it seems community consensus now is that a few editors should be given a good-faith chance to re-create an article with this title. I think, given the circumstances, this should be recreated rather than restored, evidence now having been presented that the situation may have changed since that discussion. Though complicated, I suppose my final position would be endorse deletion, support removing protection, allow recreation with no prejudice against future nomination for deletion if authors don't get the new article right. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Remove the protection, restore article per nom and Canuckian89. Even a year ago people were starting to talk about players in this draft; changes are coming to the draft rules; there's at least as much to say about this draft at this moment in time as an event like the
  2017 Men's World Ice Hockey Championships. Cobblet (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore - I would echo Ravenswing in noting that this has become yet another huge pile of wasted time generated by Dolovis' egotistical need to get the first edit on every page possible, even when doing so is massively premature. However, as Cobblet notes, there is concrete information to be added at this point, and it no longer serves Wikipedia to hold this page as a redirect. Resolute 14:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Resolute you personally attacked me its not appreciated and totally uncalled for. You should remember that your iVote supporting a redirect this past November[18] is largely responsible for this “huge pile of wasted time”. Dolovis (talk) 14:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly. In November, that was the proper call; I'm not bothered about the results of last year's AfD. By the bye, I know your love for cut-and-paste, but did you notice that William used poor grammar on "it's"? Ravenswing 15:18, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, Dolovis. Your need to create premature articles is what resulted in that AFD and now two DRVs. None of which would have happened if you simply waited a few months to create the article. If you had bothered to read my comment from that AFD, you would have seen how easily I predicted the amount of time that you were going to cause us to waste. Resolute 14:25, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article was created when warranted. Take your complaint up with the Dallas Stars and Edmonton Oilers who had already registered a transaction[19] concerning the 2016 NHL Entry Draft when this article was created. Dolovis (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Remove the protection, restore article. no consensus in the original discussion, should have never been salted to begin with. XiuBouLin (talk) 02:22, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rin Nakai (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I believe the initial deletion review had problems and should be reviewed.

The subject of this article is notable, and was unfairly deleted without a thorough and accurate review of its notability. The person who brought this article up for deletion grossly misrepresented the fighting history of the fighter. "Coverage appears to be routine sports reporting and nothing shows that her 4 wrestling matches give her notability. Mdtemp" This is completely made up and untrue: if you examine her fight history, she had already participated in 16 fights by Dec 2013, when the article was nominated for deletion. Her fight history by that time included a win against Tara LaRosa[20], a fighter who was notable enough to have a rather extensive article on Wikipedia.

Since then, she has defeated Sarah D'Alelio[21], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia. She is also now scheduled to fight Miesha Tate[22], another fighter with an extensive article on Wikipedia.

This fighter is undefeated, extremely popular in Japan[23], the #1 fighter in her weight class in Japan, the current title holder in her weight class in Japan (per a Wikipedia article) [24], having held the title since Dec '12 (per another Wikipedia article) [25], and the #10 fighter overall internationally in her weight class [26][27] (All of the other fighters in her weight class in the top 10 have their own article).

This fighter is notable enough to have articles on her in 5 different editions of Wikipedia, the most extensive of which, unsurprisingly, comes from the JPN Wikipedia [28] - there's been an article on her since 2009 in the JPN Wikipedia.

If you check the article views, it jumped to 444 recently, which is unsurprising since readers probably came here to search for information on this fighter due to her upcoming fight against Miesha Tate[29]. This notability has crossed international boundaries: there are articles in Greek[30] and Portuguese[31] making references to this fighter. Unfortunately, the article appears to have been re-deleted on that same day by an admin who didn't bother to check or investigate whether the fighter had become more notable since the last deletion of this article, which, of course she has.

I believe there's more than sufficient evidence to show that this fighter is notable, so the article on this person should be restored. 123.193.40.25 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AfD, obviously. Advise the IP to register, declare any
  WP:COIs, and write a userspace draft before coming here again. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I believe that assuming good faith is a fundamental principle of Wikipedia[32]. I did not come here with a hidden agenda. I searched for info on this fighter due to the recent publicity, and was genuinely surprised to find that this article was deleted for non-notability and wished to bring this issue up in front of a larger audience to review the merits of this article, especially since the article was condemned with minimal participation in its original deletion discussion. Although I've made many bureaucratic filing errors in pursuit of trying to bring wider recognition to this issue (errors which were not helped by the bureaucratic complexity of Wikipedia), that shouldn't invalidate the merit of the argument and evidence that I've brought forth to support the notability of this article. I've brought forth what I consider valid arguments in support for the validity of this article - the only argument that you've used to support your position is, essentially, an ad hominem attack on my credibility.123.193.40.25 (talk) 14:36, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Where there is a clear deletion decision, and someone brings new sources, it is usual for that person to create a draft to show what the article looks like. It makes it much easier for you, and for us. You can use AfC, but it is much easier, for you, if you register and use your own userspace. There is nothing "wrong" with having a COI, only with not declaring it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's a bit odd to ask someone who's suspected of having a COI to re-write the article and re-submit it for approval. I would think that it would be more appropriate for me to end my involvement at that point and allow more neutral parties to re-write the article. As I mentioned earlier, I have no particular interest in this article. It appeared to my un-trained eyes that this article was obviously notable, and that other people would probably run into the same scenario when searching for info on this article, so I wanted to post a notice somewhere to alert someone on a possible mistake in judgement in this case. Apparently, I'm mistaken, since it appears that the consensus is in support of the original deletion. I have no interest in forcing my own opinions on others. If you guys are happy with the situation here, then I'll just accept that reality and move on as there are much more interesting things to do with my time. I have no further interest in this article, so I withdraw my original petition and you guys can just go ahead and close this case123.193.40.25 (talk) 15:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Having a COI (depending on the degree) doesn't mean you can't write the article. Are you the subject, her manager, or her promoter?

This nomination was a little confusing. Firstly, it referenced a "deleteion review" which I couldn't find. Secondly, it was unclear as to whether you wanted to protest/overturn the AfD. Thirdly, you appear to want permission to recreate the article on the basis of newly found sources. Shall we agree to ignore the first two, and just discuss the third.

You had a brief discussion with the AfD closer, received advice, and ignored it to come here. The advice you already received was good. I have essentially given the same advice, though with stronger encouragement to

register

.

I agree, on the basis of some of your sources, and on a translation of the Japanese Wikipedia article, that this person looks notable, and that the AfD was perfunctory.

Your interest in this subject is to be assumed on the basis of you bringing it to DRV. I would like to encourage you to register, and to write and improve the article, but if you have no further interest, I'm sorry. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I am inclined to support undeletion/recreation per nom, noting the low level participation and discussion at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:38, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Just restore the article Mr SmokeyJoe... Not the little one but the bigger one from 4th December 2013. It's accurate, lists her multiple Pancrase fights (WP only requires 3 for her to be considered notable) and there was an obvious error in judgement by the <<self-censored>> person who deleted the thing in the first place!! This should be a no-brainer - Especially given the obvious public interest that the upcoming bout is generating ffs!! *** — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.24.7.9 (talk) 05:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I support restoring the deleted content. Deletion can be discussed later at AfD if someone wants to. The decision to restore (undelete) now rests with the closer of this DRV discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Previous DRV was not completed fully, so it looks like the robot automatically removed the "empty" page from the active list. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:07, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A bot incorrectly removed the page from
    Stefan2 (talk) 23:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• temporarily restored or discussion DGG ( talk ) 23:20, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the AFD as decisive and correctly closed, but permit recreation if a draft which makes her notability clear can be presented. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn the {{
  WP:NMMA in supporting deletion. Their analysis did not analyze whether the article's 42 references were sufficient or insufficient sources.

  For example, why is "Yasuko Tamada Captures Flyweight Title, Rin Nakai moves to 7-0 at Valkyrie"^WebCite from mmafighting.com, which is published by SB Nation, not considered a reliable source that provides significant coverage of the subject? http://www.mmafighting.com/masthead^WebCite indicates the website has editorial oversight. The lack of substantive discussion about the sources indicates the discussion was defective.

  But the closure was within administrative discretion (though a relist would have been a much better decision), so I endorse Callanecc's close.

  I am unsure if the sources here are sufficient to allow the subject to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. But based on the change in circumstances (Rin Nakai's signing by the UFC) and the defective AfD discussion, I recommend that the DRV closer relist this at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rin Nakai (2nd nomination).

  Cunard (talk) 06:30, 16 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

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

Source: [33][34] GZWDer (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment One of those is transparently a press release, the other is, I believe, less transparently a press release. --j⚛e decker^talk 23:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I'm assuming here that you wish the article restored on the basis that these two links constitute reliable sources that would push Nicole past the

WP:GNG. If that's the case, I'm forced to concur that both of them look like publicity rather than genuinely independent coverage. If your intention was not as I assume, can you please clarify what you are asking for? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC).[reply

]

• Endorse by default, no new info presented, and the linked sources aren't even close to enough to change consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temp restored for discussion not that I think we'll change our mind, but so people can see it and realize why. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Sad to say that even with the number of YouTube subscribers Megan currently has, 2.5 million+, more than the subscriber tally for some of the fellow YTers she's worked with, Tiffany Alvord, Jason Chen, Dave Days and Alex Goot, to name a few, all of whom have Wikipedia articles with their respective notabilities established somehow, Megan has yet to meet the guidelines under
  WP:GNG via interviews and mentions." My thought is Alvord still is struggling with the notability test (also noting her article in Wikipedia is relying heavily on primary sources), but not quite as much as Megan. I will say that I am a fan of Megan Nicole, and am even subscribed to her YT channel, but she will need greater exposure away from YT, and perhaps an album of original work, or other original work, which further defines who she is. MPFitz1968 (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow recreation. The subject has received coverage in at least four reliable sources:
  1. Piña, Kimberly (2011-08-16). "Katy teen breaks into music industry".
     reliable sources to allow Megan Nicole to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

     I have expanded the article and added these references to the article. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 15 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

     ]

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

This article appears to have been deleted for non-notability, but I believe that's an erroneous assessment. A Western-centric audience might find her to be a trivial fighter, but she's quite well-known in the smaller world of Japanese MMA. She's the best fighter in her weight class in Japan and is listed as a top 10 fighter internationally in her weight class [36]. While she's the only member of that list who's not Western, that shouldn't disqualify her as a notable person.

All the other fighters in the top 10 in her weight class were deemed worthy of an article, but she's not? She's also listed as recently having beaten Sarah D'Alelio, [37] [38] a non-top 10 fighter who has her own article?

She's scheduled for a UFC fight against another notable fighter, Miesha Tate[39][40], who again has her own article.

This article exists in several other language editions of Wikipedia, the most notable of which is in Japanese [41] (an article which has existed since 2009 in the JPN Wikipedia).

If this article was deleted because she failed to fulfill Wikipedia standards for notability, perhaps those standards should be reviewed, especially when it concerns the notability of persons of whom Western audiences might have less familiarity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.193.40.25 (talk • contribs) 2014-07-07T04:15:43‎

• This was also listed at
  Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

With the following secondary sources, I think the notability of the institude should be reassessed. [42](

• Request Hi, can the page be temporarily restored, please, so that non-admins can take a view? The Whispering Wind (talk) 23:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Done
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Thanks! :-) The Whispering Wind (talk) 21:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The vote count was overwhelming for "delete". Yet, the closing admin closed the AfD with "keep" on his own discretion, which he is not entitled to. The community decides which page to delete and admins must follow the community's decision (not policy). Taku (talk) 20:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse "keep" closure as an AfD participant. As argued in the AfD, the subject has received substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources in three countries dating from March 2011 to October 2013. The alleged BLP–NPOV conflict was rebutted and addressed in Number 57's close:

  Reasons for deletion were given as ... a claim that the boy's work is twaddle. Even if this was true (without any proof, this is also original research), it is still not a reason to overrule GNG (if there are concerns about his work which are reported in reliable sources, these should be included in the article).

  After weighing all of the arguments, the closer concluded that the arguments for retaining the article were stronger. I agree. Cunard (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse "keep" closure as an AfD participant. AfD decisions are not necessarily taken on a show of hands, the vote was not "overwhelming", and the closing administrator gave clear reasons for the decision. Viewfinder (talk) 21:17, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have already expressed my displeasure at the closing administrator's closing argument here, and a number of editors have weighed in on both sides. I will abstain from further discussion at this DRV. Sławomir Biały (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn with a side of trout. A majority of experienced Wikipedians in that discussion ultimately came to the conclusion that the relevant policies were NPOV and BLP. The closing argument failed to address either of these policies. In fact, it seems to me as though the closing administrator did not read the entire discussion in order to gauge what consensus ultimately evolved. Bizarrely this brazen act of administrative negligence seems to be defended by one of the participants in this very DRV here. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse keep closure. Closing admin gave clear reasons for his decision. The arguments for keeping the article were stronger. I agree. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Cogency of the rationale is one thing, but whether it actually addresses the
  consensus that emerged from the discussion is another. If cogency of the final decision were all that is required, then there would be no reason to have deletion discussion in the first place: the whim of the closing administrator would be all that matters. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There was no whim on Number 57's part, and you're demonstrating a

WP:BATTLE mentality. Give it a rest. SW3 5DL (talk) 03:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I was pointing out that your claim of the cogency of the rationale is irrelevant to the issue of the deletion review. Many editors made many cogent arguments on both sides of that discussion. The purpose of a

WP:DRV is: "if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly". It isn't "did the closer give a cogent argument". (Also, surely this is what is known as a "discussion" rather than a "battle", in which people with different points of view present reasons for their points of view. Pointing out an obvious flaw in your interpretation of the policy seems well within the acceptable norms of such discussions on Wikipedia.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 03:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn. A number of fairly highly experienced editors voted to delete and supported this with reference to policy (especially
  WP:BLP. Barney the barney barney (talk) 22:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

60 Minutes seems reliable. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Are we here to hash out the arguments again on the problem of such sources, that was already conclusively demonstrated in the AfD proper, or to comment on the extent to which the close gauged the consensus that had formed from the discussion? Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Our BLP policy says we should remove unsourced negative information about living people. It doesn't say "delete articles about living people". It also doesn't say "delete sourced information about living people". Because AfDs aren't votes, the participants' rationales are as important as their opinions. Any suggestion that the guy wasn't notable was utterly blown out of the water by Cunard's very extensive list of sources. Those delete !votes aren't downgraded, or given less weight. They're given no weight at all. Refuted. Null and void. It was correctly pointed out during the debate that this is a vulnerable minor, but I can't connect this with the need for a "delete" outcome at AfD. Perhaps this DRV will fill in the missing links there for me, so I'll reserve my position for the time being.—S Marshall T/C 23:47, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently not: the DRV so far just consists of the same editors who showed up at the AfD, re-stating their opinions in the emphatic declarative. There's no meaningful discussion happening here. Endorse because the "delete" !voters aren't providing a reasoned case to overturn.—S Marshall T/C 09:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Huh? Your original question was specifically addressed in Eppstein's post immediately after yours. But to reiterate in more detail, your vote seems to hinge on the aspect of consensus building in which (from
  WP:AFD) "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." That is exactly what transpired here, through much discussion. Logical arguments based on policies were advanced by both keep and delete voters. The closing administrator may not have agreed with the delete voters' interpretations of those policies. That is certainly allowed. But there is then a substantial onus on that closing administrator to make the case for discounting those interpretations as completely without merit. (You have said "Refuted. Null and void." — where did this refutation occur?) It is of course true that deletion discussions are not strictly votes, but I think there is an expectation that in overruling a majority, the closing administrator will at least provide some rationale as to why those votes were discounted. To disregard most of the arguments completely and without comment is not what the community should encourage. It is antithetical to the ideas of transparency and consensus. Sławomir Biały (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• S Marshall, thank you for your comprehensive thoughtful analysis of the AfD, which I agree with. What are your thoughts about DGG's interesting view below? (I could repeat to DGG what I said in the AfD, but I'd like to hear your thoughts about the issues DGG's raises.) Cunard (talk) 20:20, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not able to follow DGG's reasoning. DGG is another of those who feels that deleting someone's biography from Wikipedia protects them in some way, and that doesn't make sense to me. There's nothing defamatory or harmful about the content of the subject article, and the young man's making Youtube speeches and his parents are publishing books about him; there's a clearly-displayed intention to seek publicity. Therefore he benefits from a non-defamatory biography on Wikipedia, QED. The fact that he's a vulnerable minor may be grounds to protect the article. I don't see how it's grounds to delete it.—S Marshall T/C 20:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I share your view that a non-defamatory biography of a non-private figure will not be harmful to the subject. Thank you for reviewing DGG's arguments. Cunard (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen or overturn. The closing admin seems to have not read or badly misread the arguments in the AfD concerning
  WP:GNG (which were also in play but not the only policies or guidelines in play). It is within an administrator's remit to close an AfD with a decision opposite to the majority of participants, when the majority opinion is not well-based in policy and the minority is, and the closing rationale tries to portray the debate as being like that, but it is simply mistaken in that respect. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Our BLP policy says "remove unsourced negative information about living people". It doesn't say "delete articles about living people". It doesn't say "remove sourced information about living people". It offers no mandate to delete a sourced biography whatsoever. Our NPOV policy requires us to present the information in the sources without bias or prejudice. It, too, offers no mandate to delete a sourced article.—S Marshall T/C 14:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That might make sense for a DRV where the closer acknowledged the BLP arguments but decided they were inappropriate for a deletion. Here, the closer ignored the BLP arguments. DRV is not the place for arguing whether or not the BLP issues of the article were sufficient to justify deletion — that's what the AfD was for — but rather for determining whether the closer correctly judged the consensus of policy-based arguments in the AfD. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:10, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• When you raised this self-same point on his talk page, the closer told you: "Do I really need to mention every single argument put forward by contributors in a rationale? .... As I've already pointed out to Barney, BLP is largely about content, and is a very weak deletion rationale (the only real valid rationale is when an article does not have a single reference, or if the article is entirely negative in tone). See
  WP:BLPDEL for further information". I infer that the closer did assess the BLP argument but didn't think it necessary to mention it in his closing statement. I see no grounds to suggest that he ignroed it.—S Marshall T/C 18:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn this misguided and shallow ruling. Delete and salt. The closer appears not to have understood the crux (cruces?) of the arguments that were advanced by the majority of editors in the Afd, many of whom had much experience in Wikipedia of the field at issue i.e. physics and mathematics. These expert editors found that the claims made about the subject of the BLP were false or misleading (supported by The Skeptic article[48]), and that therefore the source material which supported the BLP was too unreliable to be used in Wikipedia. This is not original research; it is assessment of the reliability of sources which editors are expected to do routinely. The closer also did not address the important claim made by several editors: that exploitation of a vulnerable minor was taking place and that Wikipedia should not provide a haven for that exploitation. Wikipedia BLP policy places much importance on the welfare of minors, and I am amazed that the closer thought that this issue was too unimportant to be addressed. Several editors asked for the AfD to be blanked because of harm that might be done to the subject and his family. Why did the closer not consider this too? Xxanthippe (talk) 01:56, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• I don't know if the AfD should be blanked while the DRV is ongoing, so will leave it to someone uninvolved to decide. But after this DRV is closed, I recommend courtesy blanking the AfD per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Courtesy blanking of talkpage or deletion debates.

  I support courtesy blanking because of editor's unsourced speculations that likely violate BLP. This and this are hurtful to the subject's mother. This comment is hurtful to the subject and his mother. Cunard (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The same editors, four so far, who opposed the article at AfD then demanded its closure, seem to be lining up here with more or less the same material. This discussion seems to be turning into a continuation of that AfD. Viewfinder (talk) 06:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This comment is a bit puzzling, as you yourself also participated in the AfD and, as far as I can tell, are guilty of the same behavior that you accuse others of. In fact, many of the commentators here are just repeating arguments that were advanced in the AfD itself, some of which were solidly refuted. If anything, the participants that you are complaining about are those whose arguments focus of what is within the remit of the DRV process: whether the closing administrator accurately gauged the consensus of the discussion. Sławomir Biały (talk) 18:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist, preferably without any of the participants in the last discussion getting involved again. Contentious closes like this are inevitable when editors use argumentum ad infinitum at AFD to push very marginal arguments. The closing admin is not to blame for the resulting mess. I don't think the "Keep" arguments were particularly strong, but it's impossible to determine any coherent position out of that discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Overturn (1) We make the rules, and we make the exceptions. Passing the GNG (or its alternative (WP:PROF in this case) does not guarantee an article, just as failing it (or its alternative WP:PROF in this case) does not prevent one. (The only relevant factor here is the GNG--there is no possibility whatsoever of passing the alternative WP:PROF.) If there is significant publicity for something unimportant, we collectively can use our judgement. That's we collectively, and not a single admin making a supervote. (2) The analysis by Agricola of the sources in the AfD is perfectly correct: they';re unreliable publicity and gossip, no matter where they were published. The only statement that might conceivably imply notability is a highly selective misquotation. (3) We protect minors, even if the press does not. We protect them even from their parents. I have consistently opposed articles where it appears that the parent is exploiting the child. Usually it refers to sports or entertainment, but this is the same sort of situation. We're an encyclopedia , and our own standards are higher. Our rule is NOT TABLOID, and if otherwise respectable newspapers act like tabloids, they're judged as tabloids. The fundamental moral basis of BLP and child protection here is to do no harm, and enshrining this in an encyclopedia is harmful. DGG ( talk )

As a contributor to the original AfD I was intending to withdraw from this discussion, but since Xxanthippe et al are still active, I feel the need to respond to the above contributor, who is implicitly insisting that show of hands should be paramount. There is nothing about minors in

canvas their supporters with intent to use Wikipedia as a platform to promote their points of view. This will be prejudicial to our neutrality. Viewfinder (talk) 09:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

How did the rules get made, if not by agreement, which in practice can only mean a majority? Since we made the rules, we can also make exceptions to any rule we decide to, and I know no other way of doing it that by discussion to see what most of those interested want to do. Anything else implies that some one of us knows better than the others. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't let's turn Wikipedia into the kind of shambolic battleground in which shadowy pressure groups compete to bring out the most supporters to show their hands and (internet equivalent of) shout the loudest. We have to have rules. Viewfinder (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and delete, per the consensus of the discussion, as this is a clear situation of the proverbial "supervote". The input on both sides was based on sound policy and project guides, so for the closer to say one side was "stronger" is so blatantly wrong I almost go into
  WP:CIR territory. The consensus of the discussion was to delete the article. The closer flubbed. Badly. Tarc (talk) 23:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I read a no consensus, no consensus to delete, and a difficult article to watch for some time. This is not a private individual, so there is no default to delete here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct to say that the subject of the BLP is not (now) a private individual because of the tabloid exploitation. However, a 16 year old autistic boy is a vulnerable minor, as I have said before. I am still waiting for the closer to explain why he did not take account of this factor in his ruling. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:48, 6 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

This, for example, is the subject actively engaged in high profile promotion of noted things about himself. He is now, now, only in the media due to invasive tabloid journalism. I say this to note that our policy to err on the side of deletion for private individual does not apply here, now. This matters, because I think the AfD was a no consensus, which may have defaulted to "delete". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments for deletion are all wide of the mark. The claim that he's a 'vulnerable minor' is an example. Is there a policy on WP that tasks editors with uncovering if minors are being exploited and, if so, deleting their BLP's? This article easily passes GNG. The close was correct. The child has published an article in a prestigious physics journal. He's been interviewed by 60 minutes, the BBC, etc. He's notable. Whether or not the tabloids are exploiting him has nothing to do with his BLP on WP. That would seem to be a task for his parent. Not WP editors. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes,

WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "Wikipedia editors must not act, intentionally or otherwise, in a way that amounts to participating in or prolonging the victimization." Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:19, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:AVOIDVICTIM: "When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic." Can we agree about that, SB? If so, then I think we now have such an biography. I am sure that you will be watching it to ensure that it remains so. Viewfinder (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There doesn't appear to be any evidence that any WP editors "acted intentionally or otherwise in a way that amounted to participating in or prolonging the victimization." It's a sourced BLP of a notable subject who passes GNG. The admin made the right call. SW3 5DL (talk) 18:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn' to delete. From reading the discussion and the closing statement, it is clear to me that the delete opinions were well grounded in policy and common sense, but were not given due weight by the closer. Reyk _YO! 01:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongly endorse. This is exactly the sort of close we call on administrators to make. The article subject was the central figure in a book published by a major trade house and profiled by both an important national magazine and a prominent TV network news program. The burden of proving non-notability in the face of such independent, reliable coverage is virtually insuperable. The nominator's gross failure to conform to WP:BEFORE taints much of the AFD !voting, and the closing admin might quite appropriately have disregarded the notability-related delete arguments which did not take such coverage into account. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Unreliability of these sources was conclusively demonstrated in the course of the AfD. Sławomir Biały (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. Utter nonsense. Nothing in the AFD comes close to showing that, and significant parts of the would-be debunking are plainly false (eg, the claim that a review of the mother's book was advertising); the challenges fall well short of showing that the sources generally fail

WP:RS. Do reports in popular media treat scientific matters somewhat simplistically? Of course, But, quite often, so do their coverage of the arts, of economic issues, of nearly everything. Did the media in this instance play up elements of a human interest story in ways that give greater weight to the subject's achievement than they may likely merit? Nothing surprising there. (I defy anyone out there to demonstrate any legitimate achievements os significance by Ann Coulter, but her notability can't fairly be denied.) If anything, your analysis supports the need for an encyclopedic article, to present the subject in a better-structured, more illuminaing perspective, which is an encyclopedic goal. And if the subject were an outright pseudoscientific crackpot with the same level of coverage, which few of them achieve, there'd be no serious contest of notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• This line of argument now circles back to a point that was covered in the AfD as well (but, like essentially all points, ignored in the closing rationale. The most reliable sources we have (a blog post by an astrophysicist and an article by an expert in child development) essentially expose the Barnett affair for the sham that it is. Should we write an article based on these sources, or do the demands of BLP (as DGG summarizes "do no harm") override the demands of NPOV? That was the crux of the AfD debate, but was not addressed by the closing administrator's rationale. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:15, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Was it conclusively demonstrated that all of them were unreliable? The most that was successfully demonstrated to me was that some of them may have given the impression to lay readers that the subject had done more than he has. Viewfinder (talk) 23:30, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Essentially all of the sources Cunard mentioned repeated obviously false claims, yes. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Where are the "obviously false" claims in this article? You are implying that its author is a liar. Viewfinder (talk) 02:33, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That article describes the subject as "one of the world’s most promising physicists", an assessment which can only be based on one mediocre publication of which Barnett was not even the primary author. That's clearly not a true statement at this point in Barnett's "career". There is a lack of authority behind it: it is the opinion of the journalist, rather than the opinion of a scientific authority. Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The Perimeter Institute evidently regarded him as most promising, or they would not have taken him on. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• So in your mind, admission to a masters degree program is a sufficient condition to be one of the world's most promising physicists. Really? Sławomir Biały (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The PI refer to his Exceptional Young Talent.Viewfinder (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Argumentum ad brochurum. And "exceptional young talent"≠"one of worlds most promising physicist" Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:21, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I see no "obvious falsehood". Viewfinder (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Such statements require evidence. For a research physicist, evidence consists of the body of that individual's research. It's not based on college admission, student prizes, etc. It is clearly misleading to say that someone with essentially no body of work is "one of the most promising physicists". That you seem incapable of seeing a misleading statement, presumably because you lack background in the sciences and lend credulity to such irresponsible reporting, does not change the fact that it is. The only evidence to the contrary you have provided is "but the journalist says so". That is not a justification for a position; it is just an
  appeal to authority. The authority is not a scientifically credible source, in top of that. Sławomir Biały (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• With all due respect you presume incorrectly. I studied mathematics and physics to advanced level at school and graduated in Engineering from the University of Cambridge. It does not necessarily follow from his lack of significant output aged 16 that "most promising" is an "obvious falsehood". Nor does any source that we have expose the subject as a "sham". The article by the child development expert that you refer to calls the subject a savant. Viewfinder (talk) 02:15, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, lack of scientific output by age 16 is not an indicator that someone won't be a great physicist, but so what? That's a red herring. Albert Einstein didn't have any scientific output at age 16, and it would have been equally wrong to describe him as "one of the world's most promising physicists" at this age. Also, savant syndrome is another red herring. This has nothing to do with promise as a physicist, and the aforementioned article says that he is a typical autistic savant. Sławomir Biały (talk) 02:25, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - AfD closings are not just a count of !votes, but a weighing of those arguments in relation to our notability guidelines. There was a lot of "not notable" or "fails
  WP:GNG. The "fails WP:PROF" arguments were simply red herrings.--Oakshade (talk) 02:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse - "Meets
  WP:IDONTLIKEIT". There are a couple more heads on the delete side; Canvassed? I can't see many AfD regulars supporting such a position, and the arguments for delete show a kind of cargo-cult Wikipedia-ism; knowing how to Wiki-link policies but not understanding either the policies or the purpose of Wikipedia. In any event, the heads are almost even, and policy is overwhelmingly on the side of keep. The only delete argument that might almost carry weight is that he's a minor, but there's zero evidence of anything harmful in the article, and given that he and his mom are engaged in promoting him, you'd need a compelling argument for harm (and realistically, with stories in Maclean's, the BBC, Forbes, et al., the possibility of harm reduction, were there actually harm, is miniscule). WilyD 08:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn and delete. I won't bother to take up the duel of policies with acronyms above. Instead I appeal to common sense: making wiki articles about subjects with good potential to become tabloid ephemera is dumb. Am I declaring that this subject is ephemera and will never deserve an article? I am not. I am just saying it's premature to enshrine the subject now. Do the endorsers realize that there are probably dozens of such child-genius stories there are out there? (That is a conservative estimate.) This one is not different. Here's the last one I remember hearing about. Actually this link is from later in the lifecycle of that person's coverage when the media were done milking the interest story and ready to milk the disinterest story. When lightning strikes we can be the thunder, but keeping this article is thunder-before-the-lightning. If dogged adherence to the letter of guidelines is causing anyone to admit such a story into WP, then I recommend we reconsider how we apply the guidelines. Rschwieb (talk) 12:58, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• overturn in the interest of charity to the subject. I'd say technically, by the sources, the notability is there. What's problematic is that the whole thing revolves around a minor who is being made the subject of a spectacle. If he pans out as a prodigy, we can wait for that; if not, it's cruel for us to contribute to keeping hijm in the limelight. We are not obligated to participate in the media circus. Mangoe (talk) 13:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a respectable position, but I think it is overcautious, as I think the Wikipedian community can be trusted to keep the coverage minimal, and certainly to exclude sensationalist coverage. The current state of the article is a stub presenting references and links to a very short list of very reputable sources. Wikipedia should not reproduce tabloid coverage, but it should include the basic facts for a topic on which readers can reasonably expect something. Has someone, the subject or a guardian or a representative requested privacy? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Further to SJ's response: I respect the personal opinions of the last two voters, even though they are, by their own admission, not grounded in Wikipedia policy, and imply the opinion that a sustained lack of common sense has been shown by so many non-tabloid journalists. FWIW my personal opinion is that a story about an autistic boy who is admitted to a prestigious research institute aged 15 is, in the words of one of those journalists, "a story that deserves to be told". Viewfinder (talk) 14:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Aye. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP which he both misunderstands and misrepresents. Barney the barney barney (talk) 19:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

There's plenty of

WP:IDONTLIKEIT without reference to policy going on here. Can anyone refer me to a policy, within BLP or anywhere else, which specifically addresses the issue of minors? Viewfinder (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

Responding to each and every point as ViewFinder (talk · contribs) is doing is never a good idea - while it increases the amount of text that apparently supports your view, it is nevertheless rather rude and inconsiderate. Meanwhile, given the complete lack of quality of your arguments, given that they are assertions about policy that simply further demonstrate your complete lack of understanding of said policies is just not cool. Issues about whether policy should be clearer on this issue are different from the in depth understanding of said policy that is held by people who are clearly have more wiki experience and deeper understanding of policy and precedent than you do. Barney the barney barney (talk) 18:10, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I will respond to that only by stating that I am pleased that there are several editors here whose knowledge and experience of Wikipedia greatly exceeds mine. Viewfinder (talk) 21:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ARBCOM ruled a long time back that "Implicit in the policy on biographies of living people is the understanding that Wikipedia articles should respect the basic human dignity of their subjects." Keeping a bio on a kid who is being presented, marginally, as a prodigy (especially when, as Rschwieb says, it appears that the hype cycle is starting to burn out) lacks that respect. Let the kid fade back into obscurity, as policy and decency dictate. Relying on the decency of journalists is indefensible; the community here has had to be bludgeoned into decency multiple times before, so I don't see relying on that either. Mangoe (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So having a short, neutral and hype free biography of a child who has had so much media coverage is disrespectful and indecent? Are you suggesting that there has been sustained indecency on the part of so many non-tabloid journalists? It seems to me that some people hold that point of view, and are here to push it. Viewfinder (talk) 20:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The difficulty with keeping the BLP is that, to ensure

WP:Do no harm it would be better to delete everything. This argument was made in the AfD but ignored by the closer. If the child's claimed talents come to fruition the the BLP can be recreated (with better sources). Xxanthippe (talk) 07:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC).[reply

]

Thank you for your calm response. The relevant section seems to be

WP:HARM#TEST. If the critical material has been adequately reported, it can be included. If not, its inclusion is not necessary to ensure NPOV. This can be discussed on the article talk page. Viewfinder (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The article itself is the hype. Mangoe (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. Claims that he was about to disprove relativity, disprove the big bang, win a Nobel prize, or even the debatable IQ claim, are not even mentioned as the article currently stands. I don't think the sources generally make these claims, but the lay reader may have got the impression that some of them do. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse: I noted in the AfD, "how many years of news coverage will this person need to be the subject of before you decide he's notable?" He's been in the news now for three years. DR is not a second chance AfD. The bringer of this DR would like us to believe it is a vote. The closing administrator noted a majority of !voters voted to delete. But, the closing administrator rightly knows AfD is not a vote. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. Carrite (talk) 19:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. An excellent close (though I would have had to accept no consensus as within discretion). S Marshall's careful analysis is tremendously helpful in showing me where I differ from him (I am more tolerant of reasoned opinions contrary to the notability guidelines; I think extra weight should be added if several people express similar opinions), but still I think his and Number 57's approaches to assessing the discussion are absolutely appropriate. Wikipedia started without any notability guidelines. It started with a list of what WP was not and after a while guidelines grew up to codify what it was that it wasn't. Reporting by external sources was eventually agreed to be the basis for deciding which topics should have articles rather than a subjective assessment by editors of what they thought was important. This led towards some objectivity at the cost of favouring populist topics that are all too often (in my view) based on unsatisfactory journalism. So, although I would give weight to an argument "the topic passes GNG but we should delete the article because ...", the "because" has to have some cogent reason relating to our general approach. Reasons such as "from our personal knowledge we know these reports are unreliable" absolutely will not do. We surrendered our personal judgements on importance to those of people who get themselves published. Balance is achieved by referring to diverse sources, not by omitting what we happen to think is unimportant. Thincat (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep - Subject of a 60 Minutes segment, Huffington Post piece, covered in Psychology Today, and on and on and on and on. An obvious keep as a public figure, regardless of age. I have no idea why this outcome is so surprising as to land this at DRV, it's doubly easy as an endorsable decision here. Carrite (talk) 18:57, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Keep - the subject has clearly been noted in a wide variety of media outlets over several years (eg BBC, The Times, usually regarded as reputable). I too am baffled that there should be anything even marginally surprising about a 'keep' outcome.
  Oculi (talk) 15:04, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • You and several other participants here didn't actually read the discussion carefully, did you? There was strong reason for not regarding those sources as reliable in this particular case, despite their usual reliability. (I.e., they repeated clear and obvious falsehoods.) —David Eppstein (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • "BUT
      linkbait is it?" (facepalm). Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn The closer's rational may have been reasonable in most cases, but actually reading the points confirms that what has been said about the subject's work is twaddle. The media loves a heart-warming story and they are ready to parrot anything, but what has actually happened does not satisfy notability—the publication certainly does not satisfy WP:N, and there are hundreds of similar media interest stories each month. The article can be written when the subject has published sufficient material—until then it relies on non-encyclopedic tidbits such as what his mother thought, or that the subject is the youngest "in its 3 year history". Johnuniq (talk) 07:53, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Closure. This DRV involves important issues of Wikipedia policy. It should be closed by a senior editor (obviously a senior admin or higher) and not by some ordinary drive-by admin. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Welcome to DRV, Xxanthippe. You'll find that we have a small number of closers, all of whom are rather reliable. Discussions here are closed with great care and thought.—S Marshall T/C 10:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is indeed encouraging. Careful and thoughtful is as careful and thoughtful does. I note that you have have expressed a strong POV in this matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• comment/revision: Further up I once said that notability was technically there, but in light of further discussion I withdraw that assertion. We tend to take newspapers and general interest journals as reliable sources, but in reality they are rather often credulous. After further consideration I don't think the stories here are reliable enough to establish real notability. Mangoe (talk) 17:23, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would say that the volume of sustained coverage, in both broadsheet and academic media, in itself establishes notability, even if there is some skepticism in some of the academic sources. The coverage is not of the here today, gone tomorrow type. Viewfinder (talk) 22:56, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprise Architect (software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The page was created in 2011 with extensive, but positive interaction since then.

One of the points for deleting it was that it was not a notable piece of software. The application has been in existence since 2000. It is used internationally by government organisations, standards bodies and international corporations. It did have numerous references from other wiki pages.

This software is a major contributor to the global use of UML modelling for visual design of not only software, but business systems. It is used extensively by numerous international standards bodies for setting modeling standards including Airlines (International Air Transport Association) , Automotive industry AUTOSAR, Health Health Level 7 to name a few.

Please also see the comments in the discussion on:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/Archive_138#Enterprise_Architect_.28software.29

One further point, if this is to remain deleted then please review all other entries on the following pages:

List of Unified Modeling Language tools

Comparison of data modeling tools Enterprise Architect was recently removed from this due the deletion. Leggattst (talk) 07:14, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]