Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 October

XfD|restore

)

Hi, I was wondering if there was a way to userfy this page. I have an interest in the topic, and understand the article was deleted more than once (there was no second deletion discussion). Cheers! Ema--or (talk) 00:37, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You're probably looking for
  db-repost}}). The content at the page you linked has only been redirects and/or copyvios. --ais523 03:01, 31 October 2014 (UTC
  )

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

The initial request for undeletion was submitted on October 3. The ensuing discussion can be seen here. Essentially, it was suggested I discuss this with the admin who initiated the original deletion of the article in question. I posted the request to his page, and this request can be seen here. There has been no response in over three weeks, which I am not criticizing; we all have our own reasons for not keeping up with Wikipedia. Nonetheless, I feel this is sufficient time to move forward and request that this process be forwarded to the next stage, bypassing Stifle's authorization and opening an actual discussion on undeleting the Wikipedia article Freefall (webcomic). I'm placing this back into contention for undeletion one more time, using this as my justification:

"If you are not a fan of Freefall you ought to be. Alas, it really will involve some time because it is a serial story, and the current panels are shocking — that is, they have a total surprise that I do not think many readers saw coming...The story is well developed and very logically constructed. I’d like to see it win a Hugo. It’s really good." -- Dr. Jerry Pournelle, March 2, 2014, http://www.jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/forced-sale-of-crimea-learning-math-prince-igor-and-the-hearing-log-continues/

-- Modemac (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment the article was deleted due to not being sourced. I think the Pournelle article could be used as a source, Are there any other reliable third party sources? Do you really want the old article restored? Often it's better to start from scratch. If you really do want it restored, then you might get a better response by asking for it to be userfied, resolving the sourcing issue and then getting it moved to mainspace (though of course it could still be AFD'd again) --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:07, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will help:

• TV Tropes entry for Freefall
• Republibot article on Freefall — Preceding unsigned comment added by Modemac (talk • contribs) 00:36, 28 October 2014‎

TV Tropes, as an open wiki, is almost the opposite of a

reliable source (at least in the way relevant here). I haven't looked at your second source in detail, but it seems dubious at a glance. —Cryptic 01:17, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Restore to draft space. If Pournelle is the only good source, that would likely be insufficient to survive another AFD. No objection to restoring to Draft space for improvement, however. ~
  talk) 02:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore to draft space. per Amatulić. And i am now reading my wa through the comic...thanks for introducing me to it! --doncram 21:42, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation, as a draft or otherwise. There appears to be sufficient evidence of notability now to supersede the prior deletion. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation, as a draft or otherwise. I agree with above that there is at the very least adequate notability to overturn the prior deletion, and certainly to work either in main article space or user space and then if necessary could have another deletion discussion to assess that article's state at that point in time. — Cirt (talk) 03:36, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse personal blogs are generally terrible sources, even when the blog is of someone notable, and it wouldn't be a good idea for an article to fully hinge on an unreliable source. A draft might be a good way forward, as others have suggested. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:38, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians who use Cologne Blue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Category pages, such as this one, using {{

• Comment from deleting administrator: First off, this seems pointless, as I deleted this per
  WP:CSD#C1, and told Technical 13 that he could freely re-create this category in good faith, as any CSD#C1 deletion allows. That being said, if we are discussing if the deletion was proper, this isn't really a maintenance category. It's a category that's trying to be passed off as a maintenance category in order to get special treatment so it can't be deleted. I was actually involved in creating the specific exception for maintenance categories when expanding on the C1 criterion many years ago and I can definitively say that this is not the type of category we envisioned when creating that exception. That exception was made for project categories that often become empty, or categories like Category:Wikipedians looking for help. This is simply a category where Wikipedians self-describe as having a preference of a particular Wikipedia skin. Under no interpretation could I consider this meeting the standard to have the {{Maintenance category}}. It was proper to delete this because it was empty for 4 days, and it should stay deleted until it becomes populated. VegaDark (talk) 17:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • The category is used by script developers to determine the impact maintenance to a script they are working on might have from people using a certain MediaWiki skin. It is used for maintaining userscripts, which is of course a maintenance category. Just because this admin didn't envision categories that are used for maintenance of userscripts when they helped with the exception doesn't mean that isn't a valid use. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this a hypothetical use of the category or has it actually been used for these purposes? Forgive me for being skeptical but I find it hard to believe that Wikipedia script developers make a change in their script and then go seeking out users in these categories to find out if that change caused some issue with their particular Wikipedia skin, or ever would do so. If this is in fact the case then I can see the argument that it's a maintenance category and would restore the category. I would suggest over a restore, however, that the category is re-created under another name (if it is in fact determined to be a maintenance category). 99% of people have no idea what "Cologne Blue" is. I certainly didn't before I saw this category - it needs some sort of clarification that this is a Wikipedia skin option (the rest of the category tree needs this fix as well). VegaDark (talk) 21:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I use it, although not exactly in that way. It's more of a check what skin the user is using when they report that they have an issue with a script. Especially when two user's report issues and I'm trying to deduce what they have in common. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 22:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the purpose you are saying you use it, it seems totally inadequate. (1) It assume people will keep it up to date and it reflects the skin actually in use and (2) The categories as they stand contain 12 entries. Removing where the same user appears more than once and ignoring you (who appears in all 3 populated categories) then it's 7 other users.
      So in your use case you hope the users having issue are two of those 7 and have selected the right category and kept it up to date. Really your use case seems far fetched and impractical - surely getting a labs account and seeing the users profile in the database would be a far more effective way of doing what you want? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:09, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, as I think it's quite a stretch to describe this as a maintenance category that's exempt from the criteria, but at the same time allow recreation if it is going to be useful and populated in the future, as permitted by the CSD criteria, and close this discussion as excess bureaucracy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse the important point about maintenance categories such as
  WP:CSD#C1) is that people remove entries from them when they have been resolved, which means the category may become empty when someone has dealt with all the outstanding entries but will only stay empty until the next issue arises. This category wasn't like that at all, as it didn't list issues that someone has to deal with. This particular category wasn't discussed at CfD and even if it had that would only be a technicality. Hut 8.5 07:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse This isn't a maintenance category, in that if it has no entries in it, that can reasonably be deduced to be because it's unused (as opposed to, say,
  CAT:AFD/U, for which being empty would mean that all active AfDs had been correctly sorted). Thus, this was an entirely reasonable C1; the exception is meant for cases where there might be confusion about whether a category is used or not (and thus the situation would be too complex to be speedyable). --ais523 17:27, 27 October 2014 (UTC
  )
• Restore Apparently the deleting admin recognizes that it may be necessary to recreate this. It would therefore have been simpler not to have deleted it in the first place, as it apparently is not uncontroversial. Speedy is for uncontroversial deletions where essentially everyone who understand WP would agree. The specific limitations are specify some particular areas as being inherently in need of community input. All those not included there may be speedy deleted, but only if uncontroversial. I do not see how an admin in good faith who was aware of the prior CfD could possibly have thought this uncontroversial. The argument there was made and accepted that they were being reworked. To delete on in the meantime would therefore seem totally unproductive. It is clear the deleting admin knew of the discussion, for he listed the CfD in the first place. Though this relatively rarely used skin wasn't specified there by name, it was surely included in the designation (and subcategories). I regret that I can only see this as an attempt to deliberate over-rule an XfD closing that the admin didn't like. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted this category before initiating the CfD in question, as the timestamps show. At the time I didn't even know I'd be initiating a CfD, and I wouldn't have initiated a CfD I didn't think would succeed. So no, I did not think this was a controversial decision to delete. VegaDark (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the one who contributed to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/User/Archive/March_2007#Parent_categories_to_depopulate where the similar Category:Wikipedians by web browser was determined it should be empty and only contain subcategories, and as Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_August_18#Wikipedians_by_web_browser has shown that categories grouping users by preferences in methods of connecting to and viewing Wikipedia are highly controversial, why would you possibly think that a similar category would not be controversial? Your comment here seems disingenuous to me... — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 20:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't personally see how web browser and skin are that connected they aren't particularly similar things in their own rights and if it's just categories by user preference/use of something I'm sure there are examples of both keeps and deletes spanning back that 9 year history from that dbeate. The first discussion there doesn't seem that related either. The second discussion seems to have occurred a few months before VegaDark even joined wikipedia, so not sure how you'd think they would automatically know about it (and it doesn't seem that controversial anyway), nor why you'd think that some standards and opinions from 9 years ago would automatically carry forward from today. Indeed if someone listed a 9 year old deletion here for review we'd likely not bother... --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I, too fail to see the connection here. I wouldn't put this category at the same level of "by web browser", and frankly I'm not even convinced the "by web browser" categories are even worth keeping either. Just because I initiated a CfD 7 years ago asking for those to be depopulated of individual users does not mean that 1) My views on user categories have not evolved since then, or 2) Just because I'm initiating some change in a CfD means that it's my end goal for the category nominated. I've made numerous nominations that I don't consider to be my "end game" when it comes to my position on the category, because my proposal is at least an improvement, and is likely to get consensus for the change. For instance, with this category tree, I think the categories should be deleted, but if consensus is not to delete them at this time, I could easily see renominating them for a rename to make it more clear that they are Wikipedia skin categories, even though my ultimate preference would be deletion, because at least a rename is some improvement. My act of nominating those to be solely parent categories (by the way, it looks like quite a few users need removing from them) should not be interpreted as me endorsing keeping those categories as-is. VegaDark (talk) 21:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Take to
  village pump technical - This category shouldn't be filled in by users, it should be filled in by the Mediawiki software automatically for everyone that chooses this skin. This would make it 1000 times more useful for technical troubleshooting. That would also make it a bona-fide maintenance category. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 03:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, for now, but certainly agree with exceptions as wisely pointed out by Lankiveil, above. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Murray (journalist) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non admin closure when there was not clear consensus i.e. I was arguing for deletion and another editor was arguing to 'keep'. Discussion should either have been extended, or an admin should have closed the debate (I would have thought 'no consensus' at best). Sionk (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC) Sionk (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to no consensus so that you can immediately freely re-nominate this in good faith, vs. the general waiting period that is expected for a "Keep" closure. I agree this probably shouldn't have been a NAC because it wasn't a "clear keep outcome." VegaDark (talk) 17:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit re-nomination. I'd treat this as kind of a 'soft keep' -- essentially a 'no consensus' due to lack of input -- and renominate it at AfD in the not-too-distant future. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 19:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Permit immediate re-nomination. I think that "soft keep" is a good way to go here. I think the original closure was within reason given what the closer had to work with, but it doesn't make sense for a discussion with such meagre participation to be binding. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:28, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn to NC - indeterminate headcount, positions weakly expressed. Perhaps Overturn to meh is more appropriate? WilyD 16:49, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Awesome Wikipedians (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe the closing administrator erred when he closed this as "No consensus" as opposed to Delete. I like to give leeway to XfD closures even when I disagree with them, but this is an example of one that sets off too many of my red flags for a bad closure. On a pure headcount, it's five in favor of deletion and three to keep, which could have been a reasonable "No consensus" close had the rationales been equally compelling. That isn't the case here. One of the keep !votes was literally "it is just for fun. And it is fun." while another !vote was "Imagine my surprise when I clicked on this category and found MYSELF! That made my day." These are not reasons to be keeping a category on Wikipedia. The fact of the matter is that this category unquestionably and unarguably violates

When I discussed this on the closing administrator's userpage, he stated that he discounted the above !votes as well as one of the delete !votes (that being because the !vote was copy/pasted across several other nominations). While discounting the above mentioned !votes was certainly proper, I think discounting a !vote because it was copy/pasted between a few other, similar CfDs was not proper unless that rationale was flawed. The rationale that was copy pasted was "doesn't help building an encyclopedia - which is why we're here. I think." This rationale goes hand in hand with WP:USERCAT and in my view should not have been discounted, making the totals based on headcount alone 5 in favor of deletion to 1 in favor of keeping.

Now, let me address the final keep !vote, which the closing administrator apparently solely relied on towards keeping as the basis for the no consensus close. diff Please judge for yourself, but my reading of this boils down to "I've used it before, it does no harm, it doesn't bother anyone, and adds to enjoyment for editors to participate in Wikipedia."

• Comment from closing admin: VegaDark makes some good points above about the distinction between userspace and the category system, but as I told him when he stopped by my talk page to discuss the close, I simply did not (and do not) see sufficient support for his position at the deletion discussion to say that consensus had been reached. I understand that he would like to cast this as a "5 (valid) deletes to 1 (valid) keep" discussion, but I respectfully disagree with that analysis, and would reiterate that regardless of the head count, there were reasonable arguments presented by both sides, with neither (in my view) dominating over the other.
  WP:NOHARM is, of course, part of an essay often helpful in considering the strength of arguments, but is really better suited for consideration in an AfD close rather than a CfD close. I would add that I don't think relisting would be beneficial, as the discussion had already run two weeks with no further comments after October 20, five days before I closed it. There simply (in my opinion) isn't consensus on this one. 28bytes (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Within admin discretion. And -- sorry to be so blunt -- but this really is an epic waste of time. Begoon's comment in the CfD was particularly resonant... --
  Mkativerata (talk) 06:01, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. I read "no consensus". I also read clearly that VegaDark is convinced by his own arguments, but he has attempted to rely excessively on an over-stated precedent without arguing why categorisation of recognition of editor collegiality has has no or limited relevance to the encyclopedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Yup, I concur with both Mkativerata and SmokeyJoe here. I also read "no consensus" in that debate, and I think the case for deletion wasn't convincingly made. I also think we should create Category:Wikipedians who aren't awesome so we can all join.—S Marshall T/C 12:51, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn closer admitted ignoring input from commentators. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse seems like no consensus to me was reached. Also don't think relisting would help as was listed for a reasonable period.Blethering Scot 17:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I totally know how VegaDark feels here. I submitted Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 10#A Dozen Small English windmill categories expecting it to be totally non-controversial based on my ironclad explanation and it shockingly looks like "no consensus" at this point. It would seem odd to me if the closing administrator ignored the good faith contributions of those other editors though. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:15, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• A more on-point comparison would be if you had 500 prior nominations for nearly identical windmill categories, which in turn created the standards by which Wikipedia now follows for these type of categories, and then a run of the mill discussion to continue furthering this system suddenly results in no consensus leaving all the work you did in question. VegaDark (talk) 17:46, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closure although I believe the category isn't very useful to development of the encyclopedia and probably should be deleted... Perhaps put it up for deletion again in a couple months and ping everyone involved in the original CfD and everyone involved in this discussion? — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 19:58, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as within admin discretion. → Call me
  21 20:29, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse- While many of the keep votes were weak, so were the delete votes. Only Begoon made what I would consider a decent argument. Clearly no consensus to delete. Reyk _YO! 23:37, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, User:Begoon's argument there is the only one that I'd consider to be 'good', and it was for "Keep". Given the numbers, I think that 'no consensus' is about right. Note that I'd have probably voted 'Delete' myself had I participated in the discussion, but the closing admin can only work with what they're given. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse - no policy based arguments advanced in either direction, what little "is it good or bad for the purpose of encyclopaedia building?" arguments were advanced might favour keeping, but there's no data and no agreement on the point. My Markov Chain Monte Carlo analysis is suggests the headcount is consistent with being balanced (though we can argue about the priors, of course). All this adds up to no consensus. WilyD 11:55, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, agree with close, there was certainly no consensus to delete in this case. The comment by Begoon at that discussion was well thought out and poignant. — Cirt (talk) 03:33, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

List of Windows Phone 8 devices (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Result contradicts consensus set by Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of Android devices, and discussion did not contain enough viewpoints. Recommend a relisting with wider opinions from those involved with articles for other operating systems. ViperSnake151  Talk  23:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As closing admin, I will just say the consensus was unquestionably to keep and I endorse my own close.
  WP:WAX. Dennis - 2¢ 23:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. A single AfD produces a consensus in respect of the article being discussed. No further. There is no overriding policy or guideline here that compelled the closing admin to set aside a very clear consensus to keep. Given the overwhelming consensus in that direction, and the near impossibility of reversing it with further discussion, a re-listing would be an unnecessary clogging-up of the daily AfD log. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 10:27, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - it's a list, with no policy reason for deletion, with a strong headcount in favour of keeping (and since listing is mostly content organisation, rather than inclusion/exclusion, headcount weighs more heavily). The nomination statement includes the demonstratably false assertion that it's an indiscriminate list, and then makes a couple of assertions that are essentially unrelated to the matter at hand - i.e., the only delete argument is based on a factually incorrect assertion. There's no way to close this as anything other than keep. WilyD 16:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Most appropriate close by
  unanimous at the discussion, and the topic is educational and encyclopedic. — Cirt (talk) 03:31, 1 November 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:PCAGlobalGenetic.gif (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

Copyright permission given by author. Deleted with no discussion. Peasant in Suit (talk) 14:31, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The file wasn't uploaded on en wikipedia, but on wikipedia commons so admins here can't restore or see the image. As I've no idea what the permission said it's pretty difficult to tell. If it said "you can use this on wikipedia", then the deletion on Commons was fine, Commons only accepts free images i.e. those with broader licenses for everyone to use including for commercial purposes. En wikipedia has a similar policy, though in

some circumstances fair use claims can be made. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:42, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Close I agree with 86. The file was speedy deleted on Commons as "copyright violation". To request its undeletion on Commons go to commons:COM:UR. Thincat (talk) 18:30, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like the nominator has been blocked as a sock - [1] --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Close as wrong forum The file was deleted by
  Stefan2 (talk) 00:09, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Close As a commons' admin I've just seen File:PCAGlobalGenetic.gif. It's absolutely clear. File is slolen from here. --Gruznov (talk) 09:21, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This mfd was speedily closed as keep, and I believe the speedy close to be the wrong call. The reason provided in the close, and elaborated on at User talk:Edokter#Signpost quote template, was that as a "special" template, this should have first been discussed at the signpost. Though I believe that that would have been the preferable approach, I don't think having a pre-discussion there would be necessary for a good faith MfD nomination - and that even whether or not it is in fact preferable is open for debate. As such, I believe the speedy close should be overturned, and a full discussion should be had. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Although I broadly agree with Pigsonthewing's various attempts to delete odd quote templates on Wikipedia, I also think this edit is the kind of behaviour that fully explains, and excuses, Edokter's attitude.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's not make this a discussion about anyone's attitude, the circumstance, or the merit of the template in question, the just about the close itself. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • DRV normally considers the close in context, Martijn Hoekstra. Other edits are not out of scope.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Including edits made after the disputed close? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist You could sensibly/legally nominate the entire Signpost at MfD, if you had a good reason (admittedly, I can't think of one right now). More people should have been notified, but MfD is the correct venue to be having a discussion about whether a page should be deleted. As an analogy, suppose that someone wanted to delete a page in my userspace. Certainly, my opinions about whether the page should exist would be relevant and should be taken into account. But it's important that there's some process for people to delete pages in userspace against the owner's wishes. Likewise, MfD should be able to delete part of a WikiProject, process, the Signpost, or whatever, if it has a good reason (informing the Signpost would be a good idea, but being automatically bound by its wishes regardless of the circumstances wouldn't be). In this case, I don't think there's a particularly good reason to do the deletion, but that's irrelevant to if the close was correct; if there's any good-faith argument for deletion, there's really no harm in letting the discussion play out to the full length. Not all keeps have to be speedy. (For reference, the relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Speedy keep, which doesn't seem to cover this case.) --ais523 22:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
• Relist if MFD is capable of closing Esperanza its equally capable at looking at a template, although TFD would be a better venue.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:03, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • A pointer was posted at TfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist (as nominator). The first close was out of process; the second an abuse of admin privilege by an
  involved admin (who has since declined requests to undo that action). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:34, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Prey tell... what privilege did I abuse? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:58, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As I wrote above, "admin privilege". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Which implies I abused something only admins have. So what is it? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 18:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • "admin privilege". Note your hatnote in the second close. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Anyone could post that note... -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 22:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though I am open to persuasion otherwise. I think Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Before_nominating_a_page_for_deletion likely applies: "Policies, guidelines and process pages: Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated, as such nominations will probably be considered disruptive, and the ensuing discussions closed early". For me, the speedy keep certainly was not out of process but (like any speedy action) can be challenged at DRV. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's "pages". We have plenty of precedence for deleting (and replacing) or merging existing templates, many with far longer history and/ or far more transclusions, than this one. Neither does
    WP:POINT apply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:35, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • ... and sub-pages. At the time of the (first) speedy the only comment had been to the effect that the nomination was disruptive.[2]. Whether the disruption was to make a point is still further a matter of opinion. But, as I said, I am open to persuasion so thank you for trying. Thincat (talk) 19:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a "sub-page", it is a template. The reason it is not in template space is, apparently, merely an attempt to prevent its deletion. The comment to which your refer is the
        WP:POINT matter you seem to be looking for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Relist- This is clearly a matter that can and should be handled at MFD. Reyk _YO! 22:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at TfD, but with a bonus slap on the wrist to Andy Mabbett for attempting to wikilawyer his way around this. That said, I don't see that consent of the Signpost is needed to delete Signpost-related pages, any moreso than the consent of a Wikiproject should be needed to take an article to AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:13, 24 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn &
  WP:TROUT. WP:Supervote and non-existent Speedy Keep criteria. Advise all closers to cite the applicable Wikipedia:Speedy keep criterion when administratively shutting down a discussion. I further note that the MfD closer, as an author of the page, was not WP:UNINVOLVED. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • On the merits: "Redundant" usually implies an need to redirect, not delete. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:09, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse  As Thincat has shown, WP:Miscellany for deletion/Front matter states,

I'm not aware that the nomination can be improved, but if so, there is in general WP:NPASR after a Speedy Keep.  For future consideration, although "Speedy keep" is specifically listed at WP:MFD as the proper outcome, I suggest that "wrong venue" with a corresponding move to the recommended talk page be considered.  Likewise, I suggest the closer here consider WP:BOLDly starting a discussion at

WT:SIGNPOST.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• • Please see my reply to ThinCat, where I refuted your first point. Neither is this a case of "wrong venue". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • You contradict yourself; you say it is a template, but you did no nominate it as such at TfD. In any case, wehter used as a template or not, it is a subpage, and it may be established. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 16:56, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is no contradiction whatsoever. Not only was the location of the nomination suggested by Twinkle, but I also posted a notification at TfD. Furthermore, Template:Signpost quote is a redirect to it. Given that the template is also transcluded, using {{ markup; and that you have not previously mentioned "wrong venue", you appear to be clutching at straws. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As per your request I've looked at your reply to Thincat, but I've not seen where you refuted the comment.  WP:MFD states about the nomination that "such nominations will probably be considered
      WP:POINT apply."  IMO, the probability that this MfD nomination was disruptive was increased with your second edit, diff, which reverted an administrator without using WP:TPO.  The edit remains hidden.  The edit comment for that edit was "nope".  Do you agree that a nominator's revert of an administrator's close without using WP:TPO and with the reason "nope", is disruptive?  Unscintillating (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • The refutation was "We have plenty of precedence for deleting (and replacing) or merging existing templates, many with far longer history and/ or far more transclusions, than this one." Since Edokter has claimed not to have been acting as an admin in his first closure, your closing comment and question appears to have the qualities of a straw man. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:39, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:OSE?  I don't see you disputing the closer's judgement (see WP:DRVPURPOSE), I think you are saying you don't agree with WP:MFD, so this entitles you to an out-of-process nomination, and the closer should defer to your opinion.  Right?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Regarding this being a non-admin closure, I see no evidence to that effect.  The diff of this closing, diff, does not say "non-admin closure".  Nor do I see in the discussion on the closer's talk page that the action was in a non-administrative capacity.  But assuming for the moment that this was a non-admin closure,
          WP:NACD states, "Participants...should not reopen non-admin closures."  Were you a participant, and did you reopen a non-admin closure?  Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • OSE does not preclude precedence. The judgement exercised in both the first and second close was highly flawed. There was no "out-of-process" nomination. The evidence for what I said about non-admin closure is, as I noted, Edokter's own words. If the first was an admin closure, then that would be a further abuse of admin privilege, per
            WP:INVOLVED. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 00:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • I've not seen you show any knowledge of
              WT:SIGNPOST", or "ok, we can continue this at the Village Pump", or "ok, my nomination argument of 'redundant' was not sufficient but I really do have a deletion argument and I'll also include a WP:IAR argument and mention WP:NPASR at WP:MFD, and I'm done with reverting closes when I am a participant."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
              ]
              • You might like to read what I write, and stop trying to put words into my mouth. The reason given for the close was not "Out of process", but "This template is specific to the Signpost, along with all other related templates." You're welcome to use your expert knowledge of WP:SK to quote the part of it which supports that reason. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • You have now edited your comment, after I replied to it, to add a diff. The diff links to a comment made on 23 October. The MfD discussion was closed, with the reason I cite, on 21 October. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yes, I changed, "The closer specified that the nomination was out-of-process." to "The closer specified that the nomination was out-of-process, diff."  Even now, you are not able to show other readers that you are aware of the meaning of my words, even though you now have a diff to which you can refer.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • In my estimation "Established pages and their sub-pages" means stuff like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard are established pages, and things like Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents as one of those subpages. I don't think a template, as a technical doohickey, is intended in the spirit of this guideline. I could imagine you'd disagree from a literal reading of that guideline description, but the outcome of this DRV could give some clarity and guidance on that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 08:43, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion review is not the Village Pump.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Secondly, the pages that deals with this is about "Policies, guidelines and process pages". I don't think this template satisfies any reasonable definition of that. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:30, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The question for DRV is if the closer acted within discretion.  If a literal reading falls within the bounds of reason, that sounds to me as you agreeing that the closing was within the bounds of discretion.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:33, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me for sounding incredulous here, but I don't see how any reasonable person could interpret this as a policy, guideline, or process page. —Cryptic 23:44, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • The quote from
          WP:MFD is, "Established pages and their sub-pages should not be nominated..."  Since you note "the two-inch-tall mfd box in the middles of all the Signpost articles this is used in", do you agree that this was an "established page"?  Unscintillating (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
          ]
          • No. The quote from
            Wikipedia:Signpost is an established page in this category (with a small stretch, but that's ok). Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-17/News and notes is a subpage of it. This page is neither; it's a technical detail. You're wikilawyering and I think you know it. —Cryptic 01:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
            • Your non-answer to my question implies that you agree that yes it is an established page, even if you want to focus on the context meaning that comes from the title of the subsection table header for the row.  I've not reviewed the history of this text, but the closing administrator says, "That is also the reason it is not in Template: space, to prevent exactly this type of nominations."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:46, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
              • Hi Unscintillating, as far as I can see, the quote is very clearly intended to apply to "Policies, guidelines and process pages" and nothing else: it's not the section title, it's the table header for this specific entry. Could you re-check the MFD page and see if you find this interpretation likely at all? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 09:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First of all, what we are discussing is Thincat's observation that the quote from WP:MFD "likely applies".  I think we are at a point of consensus that the "Quote" subpage is an "established sub-page", and you've in effect agreed that there is a reading in which the WP:MFD quote applies, but you still want others to consider whether there is a spirit of the text which is applicable.  Searching on "process page", I find WP:Policies and guidelines#Demotion. 

This page documents a procedural policy of Wikipedia.

Regarding the use of WP:MFD for demotion discussions, the policy states, "the MFD guidelines explicitly discourag[e] this practice".  IMO this entire section on Demotion is relevant.  Do you still find that your view is very clear?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:18, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're nuts. Nobody - nobody - thinks this is a process page except you. I have complete confidence that the closing admin will discount this spurious argument entirely. Someone care to hat this useless distraction? —Cryptic 04:50, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the power of

WP:AGF, I can view this response as a reflection of the strength of the argument, a neutral policy-based argument that is likely to have considerable weight in the closing.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Placing a template outside Template: space, "to prevent [its] nomination" is not a valid reason not to consider that template's nomination for deletion; were it so, everyone with a dodgy or redundant template could use that as a get-out clause. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:24, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no "consensus that the 'Quote' subpage is an 'established sub-page'", not least because
  WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:19, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and trouts all around. On the one hand, this probably should have started either with a bold redirect or with one of the smaller variants of {{
  tfd}} instead of displaying the two-inch-tall mfd box in the middles of all the Signpost articles this is used in. On the other, well, there's circumstances where an administrator is correct to immediately shut down a discussion and add a bolded, italicized warning not to reopen it, but this ain't remotely one of them. Appalling. —Cryptic 23:38, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If you saw a "two-inch-tall mfd box in the middles of all the Signpost articles", then there is a problem with your setup. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • ...I don't see how? This edit puts the full mfd box into Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Quote without include guards, and you didn't orphan it first. I didn't see it actually inside the articles before it was speedy-kept. —Cryptic 17:57, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Chiefly, because the template in question is not transcluded in "all the Signpost articles"; but also because you'd have a rather odd screen size/resolution to show the transcluded MfD notice "two-inch-tall". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:06, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Just to re-iterate my position. The nomination stated the template is redundant, but did not say to which ohter template. That also means there is no plug-in replacement that offers the same styling as mandated by the Signpost design. 3rd, While andy recognizes this is a template, he listed it at MfD, which is the wrong venue; a page's function is the determining factor for listing for deletion, not the page title. Any MfD/TfD notice should also have been guarded against inclusion to prevent leaking; there were 200+ (mostly archives) pages in the Signpost being poluted with the MfD notice. All in all, I believe that a neutral discussion was not possible, having to find or create a replacement under pressure. If a delete was the result, it would have been recreated anyway, negating the entire discussion. MfD should never be used to force using a replacement template, especially when none exist. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't really agree. 1. it seems redundant to {{
    pull quote}}, but that's something for the MfD/TfD proper. 2. Either venue seems fine to me, but if this is a matter of grave importance, there is a large difference between just speedy closing, and speedy closing for wrong venue, and asking to re-open at a different venue (or re-opening yourself at a different venue). I would have regarded re-opening on TfD as a reaction to this close a bad move, and can't imagine that is the result you were looking for. 3. no including by the nominator could (debatably) have been nice (I personally prefer having broad notification over not having notification) but not really a cause for a speedy close. Closing is just as much work as no-including, and while there may have been some friction in the communication. I don't believe any of these arguments would be guaranteed a lack of neutral discussion to a point a speedy close would be reasonable. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 13:40, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Further to Martijn's response: As noted above, the reason given for the premature closure was "This template is specific to the Signpost, along with all other related templates", nothing to do with the wording of the nomination (which actually said "Redundant to other pullquote templates"); what part of WP:SK allows for closure on that basis, and by an involved editor/admin? Nor was the reason given the palpably false "a neutral discussion was not possible"; what part of WP:SK allows for closure on that basis? What part of WP:SK allows for deletion on the basis (albeit probably false) that an editor believes that "it would have been recreated anyway"? (Nor are any of these things you have relied on previously in discussion of this issue). Your final sentence is a mix of strawman and bogosity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is quite enough... How about coming up with some actual arguments, instead of questioning other people's arguments without rebutting them, and then acuse everyone that does not agree with you of being a strawman? That's right... in all your ranting above, I could not discover a single argument that actually has some merit to this discussion. You sound like a protester that yells all about what's wrong, but you never provides a solution to the problem. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 17:52, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • See above. If you make bogus arguments, expect to have them rebutted; as yours have been. I note that you fail to answer the questions about WP:SK. The only arguments (not people) I have described as straw men warrant epithet. And knock off the ad hominem attacks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:22, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we now get this closed, and the MfD reopened, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. DRVs run for seven days. Closing early would be a groce violation of policy, wouldn't it? -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 13:03, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't aware of that. "Groce [sic] violation" would be hyperbole, but I can wait another day. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the speedy keep decision. The original attempt to delete the item and the argumentation within this DRV are not helping build the Wikipedia. --doncram 05:51, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any "argumentation within this DRV" - including that which you have just posted - is immaterial (unlike the points made in it) to whether the closure was correct or not. On the other hand, a nomination to delete a redundant template, thereby reducing the overall maintenance overhead, very much does help to build the project. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:12, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong endorse and urge speedy close as such. I find the original MfD nomination to be pointless and disruptive. As I gather from the above discussion, much of which is opaque to nonspecialists, the issue is that the Signpost uses a different format for block quotes than other pages do. This is perfectly sensible, and any objections to it or questions about it should be raised on the Signpost pages rather than on an MfD. The discussion above has devolved into process and personalities, and reconvening it for another week appears likely to squander a substantial amount of the community's most precious resource, which is our editors' limited time, while serving no useful purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the issue is not "that the Signpost uses a different format for block quotes than other pages do". Thus your belief that "the original MfD nomination [is] pointless and disruptive" is misfounded. Nor is the discussion above about the merits of the template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:08, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

i am aware that the newly added data sounded as promotional not as Africell's achievements through the years. I didn't respect the rules. Adding it was a mistake. However, Africell had its credibility on wikipedia, and i suppose it has the right to be restored; knowing that i will always stick to wikipedia's rules and regulations. 37.209.251.119 (talk) 07:51, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I deleted this article; in my view the text as posted was totally promotional, and thereby wholly unsuitable for Wikipedia. If it is believed that Africell has encyclopedic credibility, or notability, a complete re-write would be necessary to demonstrate this. --
  ^"talk" 12:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse a quote from the very first line: "putting the communities in our markets at the heart and soul of our business". Yeah, that should not be undeleted. Previous versions are less blatantly spam but still have too much marketing fluff (for example, a section about a "dream house" contest) rather than encyclopedic content. If the company is notable then I suggest a brand new version by an established editor with no
  WP:COI. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:18, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse per above. The IP newcomer needs a bit of help. I strongly advise him to register. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I've reviewed about a dozen random revisions of this article (there are hundreds), and all were G11able promotion. Even the very first edit helpfully included an {{advert}} tag and then brazenly went on to republish spam directly from the company's marketing department. Endorse, keep deleted, burn with fire. —Cryptic 23:18, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page should be undeleted because I am the copyright owner and creator of the written content on the page you suspected to be where we copyrighted from (link: http://nurkhan.com/). I have also sent an email to permissions at wikipedia following their instructions to donate the copyrighted materials. And I also placed {{

• The article about
  Malik Nur Khan exists. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I suspect that the review request is incorrect. I believe that the request may have intended to refer to
  Malik Nur Khan (the target of the redirect from Nur Khan) was a different person entirely. --David Biddulph (talk) 12:20, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Sounds like Matte finish wiki (talk · contribs) could use some help on his talk page. To attract attention, use Template:Help me. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:16, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because of the Reddit thread, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected csp |username}}.

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

Achievement Hunter is a large, popular and growing company. 2+ million on YouTube alone and require their own article to cleanup the

• Note : I have declined
  technical move request, pending the outcome of this DRV. I think the original close is evident and non-contested, but the article was protected due to repeated unredirection against the AfD closure. This is a discussion about the merits of recreating the article, using the currently drafted version. I am neutral on the topic. Also, be aware of off-wiki coordination.☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:24, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wrong forum  This is deletion review, not AfD review.  Non-deletion AfD results are not binding for multiple reasons, including that AfD volunteers are not content specialists on every possible topic in the encyclopedia.  Administrators who try to enforce such AfDs beyond the close of the AfD end up in the middle of content disputes, which is not the purpose of the deletion process.  Discussion can continue with the content contributors on the talk page of the article.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:34, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A redirect must of course necessarily come here when the decision is to delete and then redirect, but this was not the case.

However, in practice we have often considered here closes other than delete when the argument is that the close was wrong. We frequently consider complaints that an article was improperly closed as non-consensus, and sometimes complaints that an article was closed as keep. We rarely reverse these decisions, because , just as Unscintillating says, there are other and easier avenues, such as bringing a second afd. But we have reversed these in cases of gross error by the closer, because one of the roles of this process is to help guide administrators towards properly judging consensus. Every one of us who frequently closes, myself included, have made errors in judgement, and although many such errors are self-corrected when the admin is notified, sometimes bringing the matter here is justified, because we sometimes have been hard to convince. I certainly have learned from the one or two of my closings which have been overturned here! DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not only this, but shuttling discussions around in an endless "chase down the right form" byzantine bureaucracy is really unhelpful and really unwiki. If there's a better form, by all means, be bold and fix it, but otherwise "wrong forum" is a really uncollaborative, really unhelpful, and pretty disruptive. WilyD 08:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:WilyD here, lets overlook the fact that they submitted pink form 15D/7 instead of blue form 15D/77, and concentrate on the substance of the request. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:19, 22 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

• Comment - it makes sense here to do something like we would if it was a delete and we were asked to review a G4 (which is the same principle, enforcing old AfDs until a new discussion takes place). So a close of something like "Endorse, but no longer enforceable" seems like the sensible thing to do. (Assuming people concur with my assessment that the Joystiq and Kotaku sources are too much to enforce the old AfD - I may be a little more liberal than most in what's needed to nullify old AfDs?) WilyD 08:57, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Not Yet. Having reviewed the sources in the article, I'm still not entirely convinced that it meets the GNG. There are a lot of references to Achievement Hunter, stuff that they've done, or people that they're associated with, but nothing that is both independent and substantially about the group. Rationales based around number of views on Youtube and such are unconvincing, as we don't create an article for the creator of every viral funny cat video. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Allow re-creation and nomination at AfD. The Nov 2013 AfD is arguably overcome, a better place to discuss this is at AfD. I commend the opening of a discussion on the re-creation at Talk:Rooster_Teeth#Suggested_Separate_Achievement_Hunter_Article. However, EoRdE6 (talk · contribs) should have waited longer, at least a week, before proceeding with the re-creation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs) I personally didn't recreate it. Someone else moved my Draft to Achievement Hunter. I took this as permission for recreation... Sorry I know for future EoRdE6 (talk) 15:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I over-presumed there. I think you did absolutely nothing wrong, or even ill-advised. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD has no jurisdiction, as the decision as to whether content should be standalone or merged is a content decision, and as per WP:Deletion policy, any such AfD over a content dispute could be promptly closed by an uninvolved editor.  AFAIK, if there is need for a community discussion, RfC on the talk page is the proper vehicle.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That's an argument to make at AfD. I think it could go to AfD if a nominator were to make a solid case that the content was overwhelmingly inappropriate. If not appropriate for AfD, then follow whatever process is appropriate for pushing against opposition for a merge. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  WP:Deletion process#Procedural closure states,

Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural closure  The discussion on the talk page has proceeded and reached consensus.  The discussion here is moot, and editors are free to participate on the talk page.  I am changing my !vote from "wrong forum" to "procedural close", as there is no longer a need to move this discussion to the talk page.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

7 Angels 7 Plagues (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not sure that I need to bring my concerns here, since the page I would like to re-create is not salted, and my userspace draft for reinstatement is sufficiently developed that it would be ineligible for a G4. But I am being cautious in rolling out changes. The article for 7 Angels 7 Plagues was nominated for deletion on September 23, and garnered two votes for delete, as an article with promotional wording about a non-notable band with no references. The decision to delete, I imagine, must have looked rather uncontroversial, and so an admin closed it as delete; I did not have the page on my watchlist, and found out it was deleted when the article title was mass-unlinked (and so did not !vote in the proceedings).

As it happens, there was a rather substantial article published about this band in Milwaukee's

List of 1998 FIFA World Cup controversies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

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

For several reasons, this comes almost a month after the deletion of the above, including the fact that I've been busy doing other things. I do not want to challenge any decision, as I will probably lose again (sooner or later), I just want to make some general points and observations.

I found it strange that the 1998 article was deleted, despite the fact that it was not explicitly discussed or mentioned (outside of the act of nomination itself) in the nomination discussion. I think it deserved its own discussion, because of this. However, again I know this would never actually occur, now that the article is lost and eventual deletion was probably inevitable in any case, given the strength of the consensus.

It's beginning to seem to me that such articles are simply not politically desirable in this Wikipedia (such as the deletion discussion here). More so, it being a deletion discussion, no attempt was made by anyone to reciprocate my efforts to engage in a debate, or answer my clarification requests.

Although the future looks bleak....

I suppose that I will follow the advice given by ChrisTheDude and SmokeyJoe, and try to merge them into the respective tournament articles. I believe that these controversies are often a source and driver for rule changes within the modern game, so it is important to document them. These articles will return - you have been warned!! Asoccer maniac (talk) 02:08, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleter, Wikipedia name: "Secret", said that a book source (The Commissioner: A True Story of Deceit, Dishonor, and Death by Bill Keith) is "self-published." It is published by Pelican Publishing Company of Gretna, Louisiana. "Secret" erased my comment without a reply when I informed him on October 18 that The Commissioner is NOT self-published. The article overall has various sources, two books, newspapers, oral history, etc. I was surprise it was challenged in the first place. I believe the article was deleted without it being fully read, as the final copy was put together only in the last few days. The comments were about evenly divided, pro- and con. So the deleter made an error in judgment when he downplayed one of the book sources. Billy Hathorn (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I really wish the closer had !voted rather than closed the discussion because of the "self-pubished" claim. Before thinking more about this I'd like to know whether Keith, Bill (2009). The commissioner : a true story of deceit, dishonor, and death. Gretna, La.:
  ISBN 978-1589806559. is really self-published. Pelican Publishing Company is not in List of self-publishing companies or Wikipedia:List of companies engaged in the self-publishing business and it looks to me rather much that it is not a vanity publisher.[3][4] Thincat (talk) 20:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I have restored the history and routed the article to this DRV process instead of speedily deleting it, as at least one other editor than nominator has expressed concerns about the deletion discussion. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 12:41, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The publisher appears genuine. [5] I'm not sure what makes Bill Keith an appropriate authority, though; he appears to be a creationist politician, not an academic historian.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I've had a look at the book. I suspect that what Secret really meant by the "self-published" comment is that the book is a first-person account of the author's experience in relation to a particular criminal event, and therefore not a reliable independent source. Page 134 gives the game away: "Afterward, I learned that Sheriff Terry, who was a true friend throughout the ordeal, had instructed his men to make working in the northern part of the parish to make several runs by our home each night." Not reliable. And even if it were reliable, it barely tells us anything. There are only about six mentions of Terry scattered throughout the book, and the book never provides any biographical details that might help establish his notability. The conclusion: the source was correctly disregarded (as were other totally unreliable sources like [6] and [7]) and the close was otherwise sound. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse It is relatively rare that I would endorse a deletion made on incorrect assumptions. The book is not self published. That the author is a creationist politician not an academic historian is totally irrelevant--the article is about a county sheriff not a biologist. But as
  Mkativerata says, the problem is the book is about another subject entirely, and just mentions him That it mentions him over 4 pages -- all of which are merely about an event where he had no substantial participation-- does not make it substantial coverage But the article is hopeless. It might conceivably be possible to write an article about him that would actually be suitable and concise, and show his notability, but the first step would be to discard the over-personal unencyclopedic prose and start over. If, as was said at the afd, we have 531 articles on American sheriffs, we need to look at the ones for which that position is their major notability, or at least the recent ones-- many of the earlier figures may be notable. DGG ( talk ) 23:14, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• (
  Mkativerata's interpretation of the close is spot-on. Perhaps a poor choice of wording but without giving a detailed synopsis of the source, it does explain the problem in general terms. We need significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources and the sources provided would not seem to fit the bill. "He had an interesting story" and "he was a sherrif" are not strong arguments in the face of "sufficient significant coverage does not exist". St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:20, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• It was poor wording on my part. I had read the source before closing it and saw that it was a trivial first-person account, which got me confused with self-published. That was the only policy based source mentioned in the entire AFD that wasn't rebutted, and after I've read it, I didn't find it suitable, thus the "self-published" mention. I didn't see any sound policy based keep rationales in the debate outside of that. It was a clear delete consensus. Secret ^account 02:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse It is appropriate we include information on the murder of
  Jim Leslie but the consensus at AFD was indeed that it was not suitable to have an article on Harold Terry. I think that is a pity. The views for deletion were based on the notability guidelines (but the guidelines could also have been used to support keeping the article). I welcome it when a closer, as well as crystallising a discussion, also makes remarks helpful for future editing but the two aspects need to be kept quite separate. Thincat (talk) 09:06, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse, I think we can acknowledge that the book is not self-published, but it's still unreliable and doesn't mention the subject in depth, if what is written above is to be believed. So, there is still no good reason to undelete the article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

X-Cart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There were some poor attempts to create the article by marketing guys with no respect to rules. It was reasonable to delete this spam. However I suppose that X-Cart has sufficient grounds to be restored. I prepared a little draft. There are only facts and no marketing bullshit. NB: I must declare my conflict of interests because my friends from X-Cart asked me (as a skilled editor) to help them Gruznov (talk) 00:44, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. The old AfD was so long ago, and the proposed new content so different (and well-sourced), that I believe there is little benefit in restoring the old article but see no reason why it can't be recreated from scratch with the new content.
  0 10:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment this proposed draft has a lot of problems; promotional language, advertising jargon, and most (if not all) of the sources are press releases or self-run websites (SitePoint possibly be an exception, but I'm not convinced). Overall, the draft reads as spammier than the article that was deleted, and the sourcing is no better (and perhaps worse). I can't see that draft surviving an AfD. WilyD 15:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I re-read the draft and can not find any example of a advertising jargon or promotional language. If you may show me problem fragment I'd be very thankful. And it would be great to see a deleted variant. --Gruznov (talk) 18:05, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Use of "solution" in the salesperson jargon sense, for instance. WilyD 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• allow re-creation. the review in Merchants Maverick seems to be a truly independent review that goes beyond the press releases. I think it merits at the least another discussion. AfD, not here, is the place to decide if the sources are sufficient for notability. I don't see the version as promotional, linking to a press release is not by itself promotional if there are also good references and the article is basically descriptive. DGG ( talk ) 19:14, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  The Merchants Maverick is certainly in-depth, and possibly independent. It's a little slick-looking, but it's a guy writing for his own website with no evidence of editorial oversight or reputation or whatnot; from an WP:N standpoint or whatnot, I read it as basically a blog. WilyD 09:06, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation but I can see the current draft having problems at AFD so, really, what's the point? It's "promotional" because the major claims are not sourced to independent secondary sources but press releases and interviews with the CEO. The "boring" claims (fraud prevention, number of plans) are the only ones sourced to independent reviews. With 2 (maybe 3) independent,
  WP:CORPDEPTH might be a struggle. My advice? Spend some more time collecting decent sources, ditch some of the press releases and you'll be in a much better place. St★lwart¹¹¹ 12:06, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Smart Energy System (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A user (Graeme Bartlett) deleted our page as he thought we had broken a copyright agreement based on this publication: http://www.aidic.it/pres2014/001.pdf. I firstly contacted Graeme Bartlett explaining that we did not infringe on any copyright agreements since we own the copyright to this document, thus asking if the original content could be put back. He then told me to contact the OTRS team to release our ownership of the copyrighted material to Wikipedia. As authors of the original content that Graeme was concerned about, we then obtained written evidence from the publishers of the Pdf (http://www.aidic.it/pres2014/001.pdf) confirming that we own the copyright to it. Afterwards, since we own the copyright to this content, we have signed the standard Wikipedia Copyright Release agreement to release our copyright for publication on Wikipedia. After verifying this with the OTRS team (Matthew Dann), I was told to apply here to have our page "Smart Energy System" restored. Dave1898 (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OTRS comment Permission has been reveived (Ticket:2014100610005117), but another admin advised me to take it here, as there may be a few issues with tone and the like. --Mdann52talk to me! 16:24, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If the article is restored, and the copyright permission is certainly adequate for that, I shall list it for speedy deletion or AfD as an advertisement. (I can not imagine it passing afd in its current form). It is not an encyclopedia article, but a promotional piece explaining the need for and the merits of their system. When I encounter submissions like this at NPP, I normally list them for deletion as both G11 and G12, to make it clear that even with permission, it's unsuitable. When I give advice in such situation, even if I think it might possibly pass afd, I make it very clear that it would be much better rewritten--most contributors do understand he problem, even if they prove unable to write a proper article. It's a shame the contributor has been advised to go through the complicated hoops for getting permission; it will inevitably give him the impression that we're a mindless bureaucracy that deals with the immediate face of things without evaluating the entire situation like intelligent humans. DGG ( talk ) 19:10, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• While the article is certainly not a valid G11, it has less chance of making it through an AfD unscathed than I would of making it through Hell in a gasoline suit unscathed. It might be appropriate for transwikiing?, but there's no usable content here for an encyclopaedia. It's simply not written like an encyclopaedia article. If the subject is suitable for an article (which is probably is), the only sensible thing to do is start from scratch. WilyD 12:27, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

agreed; and no permission here is needed for doing that. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Let's take this in a more constructive direction - If the tone of our article is not suitable, then could I be given the opportunity to change the tone? Our original motivation for publishing the article was to contribute to the general understanding of how we need to change our energy supply in the future, not to promote ourselves. However, I accept that this line may not always be clear, since we are the people who created the concept we are trying to promote. We want to make the information available to everyone via Wikipedia, rather than keeping it for those fortunate enough to have access to scientific journal publications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave1898 (talk • contribs) 12:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Your first article is a good place to start reading. Articles about similar topics (especially those rated as Good or Featured articles) may be helpful. WilyD 11:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• While the article wasn't bad enough to qualify for G11 the tone wasn't suitable for an encyclopedia article. The best I can recommend is that the article be userfied so the creator can work on it, though it would need serious work to be at all acceptable and I would strongly advise against the creator using Wikipedia as an opportunity to make themselves more widely known. Hut 8.5 21:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Kidnapping in Islamism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleting administrator cited as reasons for deletion arguments given by Wikipedia members that are prima facie not valid. For example: "As pointed out by Chillum, the available sources lists/discuss events, but do not address the generalized topic of "kidnapping in Islamism" as such." But the article includes entire books and academic articles devoted to Kidnapping in Islamism. Administrator claims to have been impressed by arguments brought by DGG, who argues that: "What seems to be intended by using the word "Islamism" is an attempt to make a negative implication about Islam as a religion without actually saying so." This is untrue, "Islamism" is a term of art applied to a specific, radical political movement. DGG: "Second, nothing here is unique to Islamic groups: kidnapping by terrorists is a fairly common part of their general practice. It's the result of the logic of terrorism, not the logic of religion." Untrue since multiple Islamist groups (Boko Haram, ISIS) have published formal theological justifications of kidnapping based on (admittedly radical, and minority) interpretations of Shaaria. It is, moreover, unclear whether the closing administrator encountered the arguments given by several Wikipedia editors who offered careful arguments for keeping the article. ShulMaven (talk) 13:15, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd endorse that close, because I'm completely unable to understand how an article called "Kidnapping in Islamism" could possibly be a good idea.—S Marshall T/C 13:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously , I disagree. Can I have access to the article for a couple of weeks, so that I can efficiently move some material in it to the relevant Wikipedia articles.ShulMaven (talk) 16:44, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- the close seems to be a fair reading of the debate regarding an article that's always going to have major
  WP:NPOV issues. Reyk _YO! 21:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Strong endorse, now that I have seen the temp-undeleted article. Reyk _YO! 04:43, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • history temporarily restored for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - There's no such thing as religious kidnapping, the very premise is absurd, pushed by biased editors and sources, as the finding of "OR/SYNTH" noted. As some suggested, begin anew with Kidnapping and terrorism if it does not exist in some form or as part of another article already. Then kidnapping events from all over can be discussed, rather than (wrongly and with a tinge of prejudice) focusing on kidnappings done by people who may be adherents of Islam. Tarc (talk) 18:36, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse on the basis that the strong policy-based arguments in the AfD (particularly those of Carrite, Drmies, Chillum and DGG) were reflected in a well-reasoned closure. Happy days. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 09:31, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn The nominator is a
  WP:RS
  sources ,the title is not a reason for deletion .

Guardian: Schoolgirls kidnapped by suspected Islamists in Nigeria:Islamists in Philippines threaten to kill German hostages Algerian Islamists threaten to execute hostage unless France halts Isis attacks,:Islamists bankrolled by large-scale African drug-smuggling operation

The Telegraph : Islamist fighters 'kidnap 90 women and children' from Nigeria villages and *Mali coup: Islamists kidnap Algerian diplomats

Reuters : Islamists kidnap 25 Libyan soldiers, Army says; PM seeks support

Washington Post*The outrage of the Islamists’ bartered ‘brides’,*Russia to help fight Islamists in the Middle East,*Iraqi army struggles in battle against Islamist fighters in Anbar province

Saudi Gazette :Islamists claim kidnap of Algeria envoys

Gulf News: Lebanon soldier held by Islamist militants ‘freed’

Gulf Daily News :Islamists kidnap 25 Libyan troops

Khaleej Times :Iraq air force to back Kurds fighting Islamists

Al Arabiya :Report: Qatar’s support for Islamists has ‘alienated its allies’

Even newspapers Published from the Middle East use the term Islamists and Newspapers like the

I continue to regard the title as inherently prejudices and POV. It implies that Islam per se as a religion is in general particularly likely to promote or encourage kidnappings. In contrast, kidnappings in a Particular country or by a Particular group is a suitable descriptive title for an article. I note that the titles of the articles quoted above say this properly for the particular cases they report. Generalizing is not only OR, but OR at the service of religious prejudice. DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You continue to avoid...I'd have to say deliberately, at this point...the fact that these are news stories of kidnappings where the perpetrators are adherents/followers of Islam; they make no indictment or claim that there is some intrinsic connection to their religion and the act of kidnapping. In this vein, we should be creating Terrorism in Judaism because of the Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. Tarc (talk) 15:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tarc, I was thinking of using just that example as argument for not using this title. We do not do that, as overgeneralization, so we should not do this. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Btw just to be clear, I am not actually advocating for the creation of "Terrorism in Judaism"; the above was just an example of the absurdity of following the logic of the "Kidnapping and <Religion>" format. :) Tarc (talk) 15:24, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks for your comments DGG which I regard highly. I see that some editors in the AFD feel the term Islamism in the Title is POV and implies that Islam encourages or promotes Kidnapping and feel clubing together Groups under the Title Islamism which they feel is
  WP:OR
  .

Tarc ,Thanks for your comments. Sorry if I was not clear ,I thought I had made that point above. It is an International crisis in

WP:RS

sources confirm it.

Arab News IS justifies enslaving Yazidis

CNN ISIS states its justification for the enslavement of women

Lists Out 5 Islamic Reasons to Justify Beheading Alan Henning and other Captives

How the Islamic State Justifies Kidnapping Non-Muslim Women as Sex Slaves

Judgment Day Justifies Sex Slavery Of Women – ISIS Out With Its 4th Edition Of Dabiq Magazine

Nigerian Kidnapping Is Completely Justified by the Quran

CNN How Boko Haram imperils Nigeria's future

Islamic State seeks to justify enslaving Yazidi women and girls in Iraq

Full horror of the Yazidis who didn’t escape Mount Sinjar: UN confirms 5,000 men were executed and 7,000 women are now kept as sex slaves

I am generalist and this is not my area of editing and if one feels that it would better to a specific Title .Fine with it.I leave it there for the closure . Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:31, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as within discretion. Thincat (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse within discretion and closed without flaw.
  Chillum 04:23, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

I have tried discussing the matter with the admin that enforced the deletion ( link), and have been told to come here to resolve the matter. I have no clue why this article was nominated for deletion in the first place,(except for for non good faith reasons). Notable secondary sources describe ADCC as:

• ESPN "The top grapplers in the world congregated in England this past weekend for the 2011 ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship. A bi-annual event, it's the most prestigious submission grappling tournament in the world and attracts fighters from across the globe."[[8]] "The highly regarded Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) was instituted by Sheikh Tahnoon Bin Zayed Al Nahyan in the United Arab Emirates in 1998." [[9]]

• Sports Illustrated "A year later, he failed to let go of a compromised limb during a submission grappling match at the famed Abu Dhabi Combat Club world championships." [[10]] "Einemo is a Brazilian jiu-jitsu black belt who shined on one of the sport's big stages, the ADCC Submission Wrestling tournament, winning the championship in 2003" [[11]]

• Bleacher Report "In late 2002, Bravo entered the North American Trails for the ADCC Submission Grappling Tournament, a qualifier for the toughest no gi competition in the world." [[12]]

• SB Nation "One of the most prestigious grappling competitions in the world lands in China for the first time on October" [[13]]

• Sherdog "Started in 1998, ADCC is the world’s most prestigious grappling competition. The world championships take place every two years and tournaments are held in five weight categories for the male competitors. Additionally, an open-weight “absolute” tournament is held, pitting top competitors from each weight class against one another to decide the competition’s supreme grappler." [[14]]

ADCC championship accolades are notable and widely used:

• Fox Sports "Galvao is a two-time world champion as well as an ADCC (Abu Dhabi Combat Club) champion multiple times over including a championship in the absolute weight division." [[15]]

• Yahoo! Sports "A jiu-jitsu black belt, Abu Dhabi Combat Club (ADCC) gold medalist, and multiple time Mundials winner, Souza is perhaps the best jiu-jitsu competitor inside the UFC today" [[16]]

Looking at their anual tournaments wikipedia articles (which are also now nominated for deletion as a consequence to the main article), most of the winners (Gold, silver, Bronze) in all the different weight class are notable individuals that have their own wikipedia articles example 1, example 2, example 3

Deleting this article has also been a disruption to articles linking to it. Bigbaby23 (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have temporarily undeleted the article for the purpose of this DRV. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 18:44, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  There are several procedural issues, none of which IMO should overcome the total absence of WP:V verifiable information in this article.  The sources above pretty well establish the world-wide wp:notability of the topic.  I have also verified that WP:BEFORE was not followed for the reporting of the "What Links Here" in the nomination.  I also looked at the edit history and see over 600 edits to this article that were lost to non-admins.  With only one editor supporting the nomination, this is a
  WP:NOQUORUM situation that should have been a soft delete, and it makes me wonder why the AfD was not relisted, and why the closing administrator did not strike the duplicate !vote.  One to two editors does not create a consensus.  Skipping all the procedural issues, there may be an obvious Userfy here.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:18, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

As closing admin, I have no issue with a relist, given the lack of participation in the AfD, and per the spirit of

WP:NOTBURO. A relist would basically go along side the ones that are running in parallel. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 23:31, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I would like to see the discussion reopened. I think this is a significant event in submission grappling, although it was poorly sourced. I would like to allow more editors to voice their opinion and, hopefully, improve the article. Papaursa (talk) 17:08, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Incubate (WP:IAR if necessary)  One of the points of the AfD nomination was that the article has no citations.  Without citations, IMO, there is need for further discussion.  With potential sources listed above, and multiple editors expressing interest in the article, incubation keeps an article without citations out of mainspace until the article is improved.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:50, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Apart from the nominator, both the other two editors who commented indicated that the topic was "well-known" but that they couldn't find much coverage. This should have constituted reasonable doubt per
  WP:DGFA because editors commonly have trouble finding sources; it doesn't seem to be easy. In this case, the search problem is that the title of the event is long and includes an abbreviation. When the search constraints are relaxed so that partial hits are included, another good source immediately appears — The MMA Encyclopedia — which confirms that this is "the most prestigious competition in the world of no-gi submission grappling". Andrew (talk) 07:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete The article was basically an advertisement. The coverage used basically blogs or passing mention. There was no citations and simply is a tournament that some people travel to go to because they have prize money. It is as relavent as the New York Open. [17] It simply isn't notable. CrazyAces489 (talk) 08:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The ADCC tournament is widely regarded as one of the top two most prestigious events in submission grappling, the other being the

Mundials/World Jiu-Jitsu Championship. The analogous event in judo would be the Olympics, the All-Japan, or the World Judo Championships, not a regional event like the New York Open. -Toptomcat (talk) 02:07, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment  Two more Sources for notability, books written by elite grapplers: Marcelo Garcia - The X-Guard: Gi & No Gi Jiu-Jitsu and Royler Gracie - Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Submission Grappling Techniques. Both say it is the most prestigious no GI competition in the world. Bigbaby23 (talk) 15:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist per closing admin. There might not be citations in the article itself. There may not have been any brought to light during the AFD. Those things are irrelevant if sources have since been found. Given what has been put forward, I can't see this being deleted though. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:14, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - one of many tournaments claiming to be the best You will see the
  World Nogi Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Championship, North American Grappling Association, Grapplers Quest. Additionally the New York Open is an international tournament, even though the name says New York Open. It is a money tournament [18] and draws people from numerous nations. [19]. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:38, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn and keep Google Books and ProQuest turned up more sources:
  • Sheridan, Sam (2010), The Fighter's Mind: Inside the Mental Game, Atlantic Monthly Press, pp. 59–60. Two paragraphs of description, focused on the 2003 event.
  • Buffer, Bruce, It's Time!: My 360-Degree View of the UFC, pp. 137–139. Eight paragraphs of description, focused on the 1999 event.
  • Frias, Daniel (28 May 2005), "6>Grapplers to fight for crown", Press-Telegram. 674 words, focused on Renzo Gracie and the 2005 event.
  • Frias, Daniel (30 May 2005), "Wrestling wins a family affair", Press-Telegram. 725 words, focused on Renzo Gracie and the 2005 event.

Together with the previously mentioned books by Marcelo Garcia and Royler Gracie, the MMA Encyclopedia, and the ESPN article on the 2011 event, these sources meet the criterion that "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Had these sources been found during the initial AfD, I really don't think it would be resulted in a deletion. Melchoir (talk) 05:50, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Submission Wrestling does not Equal MMA. So although it is mentioned it is a passing mention in the MMA encyclopedia. There aren't many independent sources that cover ADCC. Submission wrestling is a minor page in itself. Might be better to merge ADS into Submission Wrestling. CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:04, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that there are enough independent sources. If that isn't clear yet, we can relist the AfD, although I don't think that's necessary. Melchoir (talk) 16:52, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I few specialized articles and passing mentions doesn't allow it to have notability. Which is why I don't think it should even bother to be relisted. There was not enough support to stop its deletion. CrazyAces489 (talk) 17:28, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fails

WP:MANOTE

Criteria supporting notability

"Subject of an independent article/documentary: see above, and consider if it was the style/art and the school/organisation was an example. Long, externally verifiable history Large number of students Regular or large competitive successes in inter-school/ organisation tournaments where the style is notable. Multiple wide spread sites: an organisation 2 or 3 in a 30 mile radius is a lot less likely to be notable than one with 30 schools in different countries. These are the extremes but illustrate the point."

Is there a link to the page where the discussion has been moved to? As it appears someone has claimed to relist the article and just deleted the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.70.164.189 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 21 October 2014‎

The below template auto-collapses the discussion. You should be able to view it by clicking the [show] button on the right. If this isn't possible on your web browser, you can report the issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Melchoir (talk) 00:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What I did was re-opened the original AfD, and extended it for another week of discussion. You can find it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ADCC Submission Wrestling World Championship. Please feel free to participate there. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:55, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

(The following post has been copied from the article subject's post on the deleting admin's talk page. User:Jenks24 hasn't editted since mid September, so I'm bring it here for others to decide. I avoid AFDs on academics, so I have no opinion on the notability or not of the article, and not being an admin, I can't see the deleted article either. I will notify SamJaneB that the discussion has been opened up here.) The-Pope (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Samantha Brennan here. I was just alerted to the fact that my wikipedia page, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Samantha_Brennan, was taken down for not meeting notability standards for academics. I'm totally new to Wikipedia, just starting to learn how it works and I'm interested in learning how to get involved. I didn't write my page and I was interested in editing it but then went to look and saw it wasn't there.

In my own case, I don't know if any of this helps but I'm also Vice President of the Canadian Philosophical Association and President next year, [20]

And co-editor and co-founder of Feminist Philosophy Quarterly, [21]

And I've been features a few times on Australian Broadcasting Corporation, [22]

And I've been on CBC Ideas, [23]

I'm probably best known for my work on children's rights--see citations to my paper on children's rights [24]--and my work on feminist ethics, again see [25].

External sources, see also [26]

And Ms Magazine listed me as one of the top feminist fitness bloggers, [27] though that's related to my blog [28]

Cheers, Sam

SamJaneB (talk) 14:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• First off, thanks to Sam (Dr. Brennan) for her interest in contributing to Wikipedia and for bringing this issue to out attention with a reasonable, polite, and well cited request. I would encourage you to read
  WP:SCHOLAR calls for. As for advice going forward, I would say that it is entirely likely that Dr. Brennan will, later in her career, meet the relevant guidelines, or the guidelines themselves may be broadened a change I might well support. Until then the single greatest evidence of notability is significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. For a biography that means coverage of the subject as a person, and not just her work or ideas. For example, magazine, newspaper, or journal articles focusing on the subject (not simply interviewing her or reviewing her books) or providing reasonably in-depth coverage in the context of a broader review e.g. of Canadian philosophy professors. On the one hand, the demand for such coverage leads to systematic bias in favor of celebrities, royalty, and actors that are featured in tabloid style journalism rather than academics or others doing useful important work but who are individually not "famous for being famous." On the other hand, it ensures that before we write a biography of someone we have sources to work with, allowing us to avoid original research or relying of self-published CV's. I hope this helps a bit in understanding Wikipedia's processes and guidelines. Eluchil404 (talk) 02:19, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Thanks. Very informative. Off to do more reading! Cheers,SamJaneB (talk) 13:44, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Temporarily restored article history for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Overturn The discussion was almost entirely on the wrong basis, and an afd discussion that does not consider the right criteria needs to be done over. (In a sense this is the fault of myself and the relatively small number of others here who work on this topic, but we inevitably miss some--especially as I and about half the others are mainly working on AfC and other matters.) The relevant criterion is not WP:GNG, but it's alternative for academics,
  WP:PROF
  . WP:PROF requires demonstrating that the subject is an authority in their field; this is normally done by published works. In the case of the sciences, we can look at citations; for the humanities, like philosophy, we look at the books(and anyone who can meet WP:PROF in the humanities will usually also meet WP:NAUTHOR). Thee are 4 published books in WorldCat, some with quite high library holdings. Unfortunately, Brennan is not the author but the editor--they ate only collections, for which she compiled or helped compile the sections and wrote some of them. This is not at all the same thing. The closest thing in the CV is the authorship of two chapters of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,' the standard professional encyclopedia. Th9s comes very close, because the intention of SEP is that it be written by authorities in the subject., and selection for writing the article there is a matter of considerable prestige. I would be prepared to argue that this is sufficient for notability, but there would be a much stronger case if there were also one well-received monograph.

Secondary sources are not actually necessary for WP:PROF (except that technically, the catalog records of the books and the attribution in SEP are secondary sources.) For WP:NAUTHOR, the usual secondary sources are substantial book reviews--and there are almost invariably present for monographs from major academic publishers. The problem is that though there may be book reviews here, the subject only edited the books, not wrote them, and I don't think any reviews on the books would be enough to satisfy NAUTHOR.

CVs on an official site are perfectly reliable sources for the facts of someone's life, under WP:PROF or otherwise. If the facts they demonstrate show notability on their face, then there is not necessarily the need for anything further (this is one of the key exceptions about WP:RS and primary sources). In the 7 years I've been working on academic bios here, I can remember only 1 case where it turned out that a university CV from a European or American university was significantly inaccurate. Obviously, in other fields a little skepticism and cross-checking is needed, but as a statement of what the person has done, they're almost always more reliable than any secondary source--which would in most cases just be entirely entirely on them)

The reason I said Weak overturn, not overturn, is that I am not sure any argument based entirely on SEP would be accepted. It's hard to tell what the result of a proper AfD would be--AfDs here have a considerable degree of variation in the results, depending on who is present and how carefully and emphatically they argue. But guessing on the basis of experience, I think that though I would probably !vote to accept the article, I estimate there is less than a 50% chance that the community would do so.

My advice to the appellant is therefore to drop the appeal, and postpone an article until there are further substantial publication or prizes on a national level. One of the problems of autobiography here is that even if the article is properly writer, it is very difficult for anyone to accurately judge themselves against a qualitative standard--especially when one is unfamiliar with the way we apply it. DGG ( talk ) 17:47, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. As per
  WP:PROF "Academics/professors meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable. [...] 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed academic post at a major academic institution or major academic society." Brennan is the Vice-President of the Canadian Philosophical Association, the primary academic society for her discipline in Canada. ^[1] This means that she is also President-elect and will assume the Presidency in 2015, mentioned here: ^[2]
  .

As I read WP:PROF, that suffices to demonstrate her notability, meaning that the discussion of her publication record and impact is unnecessary. It happens that many parts of philosophy emphasize articles, not books, and so monographs aren't an appropriate exclusive measure, but, as I say, I don't think we need to evaluate her publication record in this forum at all. She meets one of the tests of notability, and that's sufficient. JacobTLevy (talk) 16:59, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support overturn She does pass professor guidelines for academic posts, this includes fellowships and her position as VP at the CPA. However, the article is in desperate need of improved reliable secondary sources. Missvain (talk) 17:50, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. In light of DGG's analysis, I am withdrawing the "endorse" portion of my comment. I have no problem a relist, move to user/draft space, or even a straight undelete if consensus is that it is warranted in these circumstances. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:02, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I largely concur with Eluchil404. I've always been hesitant to say that specific notability guidelines such as WP:PROF are alternatives to the GNG. I've always felt they're supplemental to the GNG and offer clarification in difficult cases, but that's the full extent of their role. Indeed, here at deletion review we have frequently taken the position that the GNG trumps SNGs. The circumstances of these cases were different ---- many of the recent cases have involved biographical articles concerning pornographic performers, which we have tended to delete, and I'm reluctant to apply the same standards to a scholar There are good reasons why Wikipedia tends to be kindly to academics. So I think that if we allowed this article, we could rightly be accused of being inconsistent. I also think that on balance, a bit of well-reasoned inconsistency isn't a bad thing and it wouldn't be wrong of us to allow an article to be written.—S Marshall T/C 11:23, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist and notify previous participants. Let these new evidence be scrutinized by the wider community. Also notifying all relevant WikiProjects is mandatory here. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

The deleted page is Mesut Kurtis. He is a Macedonian of Turkish origins singer who has three music albums and sings in Arabic, English, and Turkish. He has a Wiki page in Arabic and Turkish and he has 798,000 results on google (in English only). His albums are being sold on itunes and Amazon.com, and he is giving concerts in France and UK in October 2014. Last music clip was featuring artist Maher Zain. Why is his page prevented from creation again then?

Please note that the administrated who protected the page on wiki is no longer available here. Halslomy (talk) 13:27, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It was protected nearly 5 years ago and my mind reading powers are feeling a bit feeble over that distance but I have now unprotected the space to let you have another go at making a viable article. I see no point spending any time rehashing such an old consensus. Maybe someone should just close this?
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse per Spartaz. This should have gone to
  WP:RFPP; the page logs indicate issues other than notability led to the creation-protection, and those issues likely no longer apply. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:39, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:J04n&oldid=628619245 Hello. A little while ago you closed an AfD at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Kardashian_Index with a decision to delete. You said "The examination and comments made by Bondegezou most convinced me to close as delete." who had argued that it was just a one-off joke article, never to be calculated at all, and was briefly mentioned in new sources before interest died. But I've just noticed at sciencemag.org that was published today a new article entitled "Twitter's science stars, the sequel". It goes on to say:

And now we’re doubling down on our recent list of Twitter’s 50 most popular researchers with a revision that names 100 of the most followed scientists on the social media platform. (See below for that list, or download our updated spreadsheet, which marks the additions in red.)

The first list—in case you missed it last month—was part of a story examining the use of Twitter by scientists, prompted by the furor that had erupted over the so-called Kardashian Index (K-index). This metric, whose inventor says he meant it in fun, compared a researcher’s number of Twitter followers with the number of citations to his or her academic papers.

It goes on to list the top 100 K-Index scientists, complete with photos and details. So there seems to be momentum continuing over the Kardashian Index, which was originally published in Genome Biology on 30 July 2014. In light of the continuing interest, do think that perhaps the AfD should be restarted? --Mrjulesd (talk) 17:57, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please feel free to make your point at Deletion review. J04n(talk page) 09:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  Mrjulesd (talk) 09:59, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• article history temporarily restored for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The information could be added as a subsection to Altmetrics. — fnielsen (talk) 23:52, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• To a certain degree this was a one-off joke, but I believe the correlation of Twitter followers and scientific citations has some merit for investigating altmetrics. I did a plot on some data I had [29] and there seemed to be some correlation. — fnielsen (talk) 00:09, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd support a merge if felt appropriate. I made a number of comments on the AfD, please read them if interested. Its obviously satirical in nature, but it is taken seriously enough to have the values calculated in notable publications. "For years, reality has been nipping at the heels of satire. Now, it's finally caught up. I don't need to make this stuff up." (Paul Krassner)--Mrjulesd (talk) 08:37, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and optionally relist. I think it's become notable satire. Like most such, there's a touch a reality about it as well. DGG ( talk ) 18:17, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore. Here are the sources I found about the subject:
  1. Francisco, Mikael Angelo (2014-07-31). "The Kardashian Index: A scientific measure of unwarranted fame".
     reliable sources to allow the Kardashian Index to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

     Cunard (talk) 00:54, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

     ]

Windows 9 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• Endorse redirect. Whilst I agree it probably should have been dealt with by an admin, my opinion is that the decision was correct. Despite there being other options such as retargeting, the majority of 'keeps' were in favour of a straight redirect. The redirect with hatnote at the top of
  0 10:38, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep article and argument should be speedily closed. This was already discussed here and it was voted to be kept not even a week ago: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 September 30#Windows 9. Pointless opening of this topic again. srsrox ^{BlahBlahBlah...} 15:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is Deletion Review, not Redirects for Discussion, and the page you linked is the RfD that this DRV is reviewing. We're here to determine whether the closure of the RfD was appropriate (rather than, directly, whether the redirect should be kept); in other words, the outcome of the RfD is not binding here, as the purpose of DRV is to determine whether it was correct. If XfD outcomes were binding on DRV, then we'd have to speedy-endorse every single closure brought here, which would not be in the best interests of Wikipedia. (Or in other words, if this issue is going to be brought up, here is the right place to do it.) --ais523 08:02, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
• Endorse - An overwhelming majority of the participants were in favor of the outcome. Many participants did explicitly state that they think the redirect should remain pointing to Windows 10, and there is no reason to believe a significant number of people would instead be in favor of retargeting. Retargeting is a common outcome of RFD discussions, and anyone not suggesting that position can reasonably be assumed to not want the redirect retargeted. I do believe the closer was wrong to discount votes that said things like "it is useful" and "likely to be searched by thousands of people", since those are valid reasons for keeping a redirect (the closer was erroneously applying the criteria that should be used at AFD to RFD, when the RFD criteria are different). However, the discussion was still closed with the correct outcome, so discounting those votes didn't matter in the end. Calathan (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the redirect as is. The technicality of the closure being done by the wrong person with the wrong stated rationale doesn't invalidate the clear consensus it reflected: that a redirect to Windows 10 was useful, logical, and addressed the fact that yes, it was widely called "Windows 9" (both inside and outside Microsoft) before it was branded as "Windows 10". Reopening the question just to get another consideration of the (very weakly supported) suggestion to retarget to Windows 9x is unconstructive. -20:15, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
• There's no reason at all why you had to be an admin to close that debate. We should certainly overturn closes when they're wrong. We should not be overturning closes because the closer lacks some irrelevant technical tools. That's intolerably bureaucratic and wasteful.—S Marshall T/C 21:28, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse – Hi.
  WP:NOTDEMO, consensus is not decided by head counting but by the strength of the arguments made and the supporting policies if any. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse a quality NAC close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:29, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the plainly accurate and appropriate NAC close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the consensus was clear.--76.65.42.142 (talk) 00:21, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Non-adminship should be no big deal. The close was well-reasoned (probably better than many admin closes are), and although not explained perfectly, it would clearly have been inappropriate to close the RfD any other way. Non-admins are discouraged from closing XfDs as "delete" because it doesn't save anyone any work (an administrator will have to recheck the close and delete the page), but apart from that, there's no reason why they shouldn't help maintain XfD. (Also, it'd be crazy if non-admins are supposed to assign different standards to closes than admins, because then whether a page gets deleted or not would depend on who happened to close it.
  WP:VOTE is applied could affect the actual outcome, but that hasn't happened here, no matter what you do with the potentially dubious !votes.) --ais523 07:57, 11 October 2014 (UTC
  )
• Endorse but
  talk) 19:38, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Abuja Declaration (1989) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hoax, per

• Request temporary undeletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC) It is reasonable to make the history accessible, even if a copyright violation, temporarily, for the purpose of determining whether it is a copyright violation. It is copyright paranoia to believe that non-live page history versions must never be seen even to determine whether there is a problem on the mere voiced suspicion that there is an unfixed copyright issue. The question of whether it is a hoax, or about a hoax seems a real question. Few copyright issues are unfixable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:38, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse speedy deletion based not on

WP:CSD#G12, unambiguous copyright infringement of http://www.nairaland.com/1840446/abuja-declaration-oic-1989. There have been two Abuja Declarations (1989 and 2001) and the hoax tag was by placed by someone confusing them. The earlier one, which this article purports to describe, is discussed here and here and, somewhat, here. The WP article's editing has been flagged up here (a web site with the alarming tag line "Nothing but the Truth") The article was a copy and paste from this which seems to be an entirely biassed statement about the declaration. So, if we should have an article on this topic (and I think it is a notable topic) the present article is an entirely unsatisfactory starting point. The edit by Greg Abdul[30] was a good faith attempt to improve the article but far more needed to be done to make the article acceptable. Thincat (talk) 08:28, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• Undelete with revert — The article needs to be reverted to either the edit by Greg Abdul here or the edit before here . All the listed "copyright infringements" , (which are not) occurred because the article was deleted from Wikipedia based on
  WP:CSD#G3 (which it is not). Please note that the external websites copied this article from Wikipedia before it was edited and were used as sources (I'm presuming by people unfamiliar with how Wikipedia works) to recreate the edited/deleted article. Please confirm from the creation date on the external websites here [1] and here [2] and see that they were created after the one on Wikipedia here. (i.e. if they haven't been manipulated). There is currently an ongoing research to improve the article and hopefully we'll get a better/satisfactory starting point. — Aijosh (talk) 11:22, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

::You may well be right about reverse copying. I had interpteted "Aug 02" as 2002 but it probably means 2 August of an unspecified year (2014?). However, it seems to me unreasonable to criticise changing the statement "Africa should become completely Islamic"[31] to "Africa should fairly represent Islam in government and civic life".[32] Didn't this better reflect the Declaration?[33] The article started off in a bad way "with the goal to win the whole of Africa for islam"[34] and when it was deleted was again in a bad state "with the goal to win the whole of Africa for Islam"[35] However, there may have been an acceptable version in between that I had not spotted. If there is I agree it should be reverted to (and then sent to AFD). Thincat (talk) 12:10, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: No copyright violation that I can see. [36] links back to Wikipedia as the source (see the bottom of that post for "Source"). This one [37] which is dated Aug 02 is almost certainly from 2014: click the name of the poster to view his profile and you see the registration date of July 22, 2014. Crow^Caw 22:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment Yes, neither G3 nor G12. However, I can't see any acceptable version in the history to revert to (I've now looked). All versions seem to include unattributed commentary on the declaration alongside parts of the declaration itself without making a clear distinction. So maybe a fresh stub. This site claims to be reproducing the declaration verbatim but the web page as a whole gives an entirely different (and antagonistic) gloss on what was really going on and what was meant. I suppose this is the horse's mouth but it isn't claiming to be a Declaration or a Communiqué. I won't strike my !vote above because some of it still seems to apply and I'll leave it to someone of great wisdom to sort all this out. Thincat (talk) 08:37, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion. The deletion was based on the assumption that this was a copyright violation. There seems to be clear agreement here that this is not the case. Therefore, the
  WP:G12 deletion was in error. There may be other problems with the content, but as much as AfD is not for cleanup, DRV even more so. So, I would say restore the article and allow people to address the content problems through normal editorial action, or even bring it to AfD if anybody feels that's what's needed. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

PS; it should be restored to the last pre-deletion version, minus the administrative templates. It's not DRV's place to be cherry-picking which prior version is the "right" one. Let editors figure that out as they work on the content. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)*[reply]

• Overturn speedy The material turns out not to be a copyright infringement or a hoax. I have struck my previous irrelevant comments (however, the article is, and has always been, seriously bad). Thincat (talk) 10:21, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2011, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:D:B480:ED2:607E:F0AD:58D4:817E (talk) 18:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse it was deleted based on the idea that the references didn't indicate notability for a biography, the references added since seem to do little to improve that situation with none of them writing directly and in detail about Sotelo herself. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• keep deleted for now. I'm not seeing any significant coverage. If you feel there is some, could you point out what coverage you feel is significant about her and/or her work? Hobit (talk) 04:43, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Anyone can move it to mainspace The main title is not protected, and there is enough material added to pass G4, recreation of deleted material. Whether or not this is a wise move I cannot say, as the field is not one I know anything about, but anyone moving it should bear in mind that another deletion at afd will make it more difficult to restore. DGG ( talk ) 15:55, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Heir Chronicles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Back in 2009 this article was deleted over a lack of coverage. A month or two ago someone came to

• Allow re -creation / move to mainspace. New sources overcome the 2009 AfD. Stuff the AfC/Draft stuff, those places are for people who don't know what they are doing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:07, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to mainspace this is a tougher one, since I believe some of the sourcing would have been around at the time of the original deletion and references to some of it don't seem to have been convincing, however it's a while back and series are likely to gain coverage over time. No prejudice to someone wanting to AFD it of course. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I did a search and added the sources I found to the copy at
  (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:10, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Permit recreation, by moving to mainspace. Essentially, I agree with 86.2.216.5. At least some of the sourcing seems to be new; some might also have been around in 2009 but ignored by the AfD participants. I don't really know to what extent these sources are reliable or count for notability purposes -- I'm a bit rusty in my knowledge of the teenage fantasy genre -- but it's surely enough to set aside a 5-year-old AfD. No prejudice to a second AfD, of course. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 11:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy close this discussion. Tokyogirl, you are being too impatient. Please wait for your draft space submission to be reviewed. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• mv to mainspace clearly above the bar IMO, certainly overcomes any speedy. If someone wants to send it to AfD they can, but AfC isn't really needed here in any way. Hobit (talk) 04:40, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to mainspace - has been sitting at AFC for almost a month. I like it when people come and ask for community consensus to overturn an AFD, even an old one. SNOW-close this and watch DRV do in a few days what AFC couldn't do in a month. And then send the admins who suddenly have time on their hands over to AFD to delete some of the stuff AFC has approved in the last month. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:39, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Move to mainspace, to save it from the slow and dysfunctional blight on the project that is AFC. The sourcing in the article looks good enough that I think it would have a decent chance of survival at AFD now. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 07:51, 6 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]

&Speedy Move to mainspace. Actually, it should never have been deleted; the closing was in my opinion a clear error, ignoring the existence of substantial published reviews and NYT bestseller status. This was back in 2009; I don;t think it would be deleted today. (the reason this might come here is the main title was protected; but any admin could have moved it on their own. I have added a good number of drafts to mainspace when the previous article had been deleted, and in a few cases, protected. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:PGA CBS 2014.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Looking at the discussion page, I thought that I made a very strong case to keep my file. The two users who were in favor of deletion did not take into account any of my convincing arguments, and then ignored the last point I made, which I had believed to be a slam dunk for it to be kept because it tied together all of my points. The file is used as the primary on air identifier for the program in question. The other users repeatedly brought up that it could not be found online thus they did not believe that it could possibly be used on air. The fact is that CBS does not use its current on-air logos online, a practice I cannot explain but is nonetheless the reality. I told the two users to watch any PGA Tour on CBS broadcast from 2014 to witness the logo's use, to which one user retorted "I don't get international stations", which would seem to me like it would disqualify that user from taking part in the argument about a program he cannot even watch. Thank you for hearing my appeal, I am sorry for appearing so frustrated, but it is a frustrating situation.

• Endorse since this isn't xFD part 2 and the nomination is merely try to continue the discussion and not identifying procedural errors etc. As the burden of proof is on those wishing to keep such images it us up to them to demonstrate (even to those who don't watch the programs) why their position is correct. "...did not take into account any of my convincing arguments" so you mean you believe the arguments were convincing, that they didn't convince the other participants means that they couldn't possibly have taken them into account? Perhaps the arguments simply weren't as convincing as you think? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:13, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presented proof including a link to a complete broadcast and to the studio that created the logo. This is solid evidence. The users simply did not reply to this. It is my responsibility to provide proof and I did. It is not my fault if they choose not to reply to or comment on the proof. This is a procedural error because I provided the proof that I am required to.
    Talk-Cont 20:08, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • That's not a procedural error, no one is required to come back and say "I still disagree". If it helps you though something which you had to hunt down and appears for a few seconds is hardly something used for identification - put simply your argument wasn't compelling and didn't require any further response --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:25, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This would apply if it were true, since the logo is used throughout the complete duration of the broadcast. The logo currently on the page has not been used since 2006, the 2007-2013 version was never even uploaded for some reason, so I uploaded the 2014 version, which for some reason no one believes follows in direct succession from the logo we have up here already on Wikipedia.
        Talk-Cont 21:18, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
        ]
        • Again this is not xFD part 2, I was trying to indicate why your argument may not be convincing, not trying to continue the debate. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:15, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not trying to make it part 2, I am not trying to get the file restored from here, I'm just trying to get the fFD discussion reopened because I believe it was closed and the file deleted prematurely.
            Talk-Cont 16:47, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
            ]
• Endorse as an accurate reading of the FFD consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address defects in the process followed by the closer. It is not a location to advance new arguments (nor re-advance old ones) that ought to have been put forward in the FFD. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 14:57, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

I am requesting that the decision be overturned as delete. I've discussed this with the administrator at User talk:xaosflux and given it a lot of subsequent thought, and I'm not in any way criticizing the administrator, but I just think that this is a difficult case that requires consideration of policy, rather than simply looking at !votes, and I ask editors here to look beyond the surface. (By the way, I do not think that relisting would be helpful, in that we would just get more comments that are entrenched on one "side" or the other.)

• The closing administrator said in the close and again at his talk page that there was not sufficient consensus to delete. I agree to the extent that the comments in the discussion were approximately equally divided between "keep" and "delete", but per
  WP:VOTE
  what matters is the strength of arguments. No number of !votes in a local discussion can override policy.

• Editors arguing for deletion agreed that the purpose of the page was to collect sources that would be used to push a
  WP:NPOV
  .

• In the discussion, every argument for keeping was responded to by arguments refuting it. Although some editors favoring keeping responded to editors favoring deletion, the major deletion arguments were not refuted, except by arguing either that the WikiProject has the prerogative of setting its own policies or that NPOV does not matter if sources pass
  WP:RS
  . This is an additional reason not to simply count !votes.

• The close noted that some delete comments tended towards criticism of the WikiProject as a whole, and that this is beyond the legitimate scope of the deletion discussion. This is basically correct, but an examination of the discussion shows that a decision to delete can be reached even after discounting any comments that go beyond discussion of the specific page.

• Taken as a matter of policy, the correct outcome is "delete", and not "keep" or "no consensus".--Tryptofish (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

• Comment (originally closing admin) - I do not believe that consensus to delete this page emerged during the deletion discussion. I am open to retraction or redaction of my additional closing comments if they alone are at odds. Other then closing the MFD, I have no interest in the specific topics and welcome review here. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. No sound policy-based analysis compelling deletion. No credible claim that a policy-compliant list of resources on the subject cannot be compiled, or that the defects on the current list are irreparable. I don't see any crucial difference between what's supposedly wrong here and the Socialism Wikiproject's encouraging "using reliably sourced material from socialist-oriented academics and experts" to improve articles. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:06, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  It sounds to me like you are offering an additional comment in the original discussion, instead of evaluating the closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the closing admins rationale shows no obvious errors in process or judgement. --Jayron32 05:38, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, seems to me as a reasonable close given the relative strength and policy relevance of the arguments made. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:09, 3 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse The close was a good one and I am sure the closer was just being polite in not mentioning that the MFD nomination and delete !votes were exceptionally inapposite. Thincat (talk) 10:53, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  And clearly, you are not being polite. If this is the way consensus is going, I am perfectly comfortable accepting that, but your comment reflects very badly on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:57, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• That discussion raises two questions in my mind. Firstly, why did the closer say "keep" when his own closing statement explains why "no consensus" would have been better? And secondly, on what basis does the DRV nominator contend that "No number of !votes in a local discussion can override policy"? I think this is a non sequitur, because IAR says the exact opposite and IAR's always been policy.—S Marshall T/C 19:23, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  I think it was borderline between keep and no-consensus; I included closing statements to attempt an explanation. Are you suggesting relist as the outcome for THIS discussion? — xaosflux ^Talk 20:41, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Here is my take on S Marshall's two questions. About the question to me concerning IAR, I certainly am not disregarding IAR. Instead, I am presenting here the argument that was made in the XfD discussion, that one particular policy,

  WP:NPOV, cannot be replaced by editors at a single WikiProject who decide – and freely agree in the XfD discussion that they have done so! – to violate that policy by promoting one POV. That has nothing to do with IAR, and I continue to maintain that I am correct about it and that the editors here who favor endorsing have failed to grasp that point. As for the closing statement, it seems to me that it tacitly acknowledges some discomfort or uncertainty on Xaosflux's part about whether the close was really correct, as do the statements at his talk as well as here that he would be willing to strike or redact the reasons for his close. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  (edit conflict) I genuinely don't know what to think at the moment, Xaosflux; I'm still reading people's views and mulling it over. But I'm not strongly tempted by the "relist" argument. I can't really see how a relist could bring up any arguments that we don't already have before us.

  I think you were bold to make a decision rather than a compromise. We could discuss whether your close was overreaching but I'm not tempted by that, because the only place that could go is to overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus", and that makes so little real difference that it's not worth spending editor time on.

  To my mind the interesting thing here is Tryptofish's point about how NPOV interacts with WikiProjects. I think it's an open secret that WikiProjects can and do have an advocacy role. If you try to delete an article about a role-playing game, then WikiProject RPGs have a habit of showing up to !vote "keep". If you try to delete an article about a pornstar, then WikiProject Pornography frequently turn out in force. And so on. This is where I think that Tryptofish's argument does have some bite, because these WikiProjects often do have their preferred sources, and allowing WikiProjects to pick and choose which sources they apply could indeed represent a NPOV issue, if these sources contain inherent bias.

  But I also wonder if that whole question doesn't belong at RfC, because it's got quite a lot of ramifications.—S Marshall T/C 21:35, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  (And after reading Tryptofish's point): Xaosflux indicates that he's willing to consider the possibility that his close was wrong and to amend his close; that's correct behaviour for an administrator and I wholeheartedly approve. But the fact that he says this doesn't mean he's been persuaded to amend his close by any of the arguments he's seen at the moment and I don't think it should be taken as a sign of wavering or hesitation.—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you, S Marshall, for your thoughtful comments. About the WikiProjects, I couldn't care less if a Project shows up to argue for keeping a page that is in their content area. The issue is when a WikiProject maintains a list of sources for the purpose of taking pages that are sourced according to NPOV, and changing those pages to only be sourced to a POV on one side, removing the other POV. That's not my speculation or assumption of bad faith. If you look at the XfD discussion, multiple participants said there that, yes, that was the purpose of the page, but that it was OK because the WikiProject has the right to do that. As for the close, I fully agree that it's correct behavior to be open to review, and I think that Xaosflux's behavior has been beyond reproach; I'm just disagreeing with the interpretation. But where he offers to redact or strike his reasons for the close without changing the conclusion, that strikes me as uncertainty about those reasons; your mileage may differ. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  To be clear, I've yet to see anything in this review that would persuade me to decide this was a "delete" consensus. Additionally, my closing statements should not be considered binding on any other discussions--was never attempting to set a precedent. If there is an issue that projects members are steamrolling (unrepresented) overall community members regarding content that is the type of issue I was alluding to as being well beyond the scope of if a project can maintain a list of third party sources or not. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:57, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  You and I agree that problems with editing pages should be dealt with at those pages, and not at XfD. You and I disagree about the nominated page being what you call "a list of third party sources". By way of analogy, XfD has often led to deletion of "attack pages" in user space, whether or not the attacks were carried out in main space or Wikipedia space. And we also disagree about the extent to which your close should have weighed the various comments in the XfD discussion, because surely the simple numbers of "keep" and "delete" were similar. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You say: The issue is when a WikiProject maintains a list of sources for the purpose of taking pages that are sourced according to NPOV, and changing those pages to only be sourced to a POV on one side, removing the other POV. That's not my speculation or assumption of bad faith. If you look at the XfD discussion, multiple participants said there that, yes, that was the purpose of the page, but that it was OK because the WikiProject has the right to do that. That's quite serious and if found to be true, it would certainly merit some re-weighting of the arguments. Could you be specific about which arguments you feel this applies to?—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  [38], [39], and bottom of [40]. In each case, these "keep" comments accepted as fact that the sources carry the POV that they do, but argued that it was within the WikiProject's rights to promote the use of these sources in order to balance out the "systemic bias" that they attribute to Wikipedia as it is now. That balancing is framed as "like-minded editors" presenting sources with a POV as representing the mainstream of reliable source material; see the bottom/third part of this: [41], where it is argued that

  Breitbart.com is to be used as a "mainstream" source. None of the other "keep" comments disputed or contradicted this. Please understand that I am not saying this in a way that could be generalized to WikiProjects in general. WikiProjects about, for example, socialism, may collect sources about socialist writings, but they are not doing it to make sure that socialist opinions are reflected in pages where multiple opinions exist in the source material. Rather, I am saying it in the context of using sources reflecting a particular POV within present-day United States politics for sourcing pages that are not about that POV, but about factual events, such as things that have happened. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• I see in those posts the view that Wikipedia defaults to representing the centre-left. I don't seem to see this suggestion that other sources not on this list should be purged to remove alternative points of view. Could you point out where that occurs please?—S Marshall T/C 00:38, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I see now from your question that my use of the phrase "and changing those pages to only be sourced to a POV on one side, removing the other POV" sounded like I was talking about deletion of other sources. I'm not claiming, for purposes of the discussions here, that this is happening, and I'm also not claiming that it isn't. What I was trying to say was that the organized promotion of sources with only one POV tends to lead to pages where the sourcing is skewed towards that POV. When I said "removing the other POV", I meant decreasing its presence on pages more than deleting it. (Although one can "remove" a POV by deleting the content that reflects it, one can alternatively "remove" it by giving significantly more weight to the opposing POV.) When an editor said that the source list was intended to be helpful in "countering 'systemic bias' eg leftism found in en-wp", that is clearly an argument that the purpose of the nominated page is to foster making edits that will shift the POV of pages in a particular way. One editor's correction of an existing POV can be another editor's pushing of a POV; but there is a problem when the "correction" is organized around the premise that all of the correction should go in one POV direction. It's the difference between a source list about politics that provides sources reflecting all POVs, and a source list that focuses on a single preferred POV. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm failing to follow a step in this argument. I can see that the purpose of the list is to help correct articles that editors feel to be biased. I can't seem to see any suggestion that all of the correction should go in one POV direction in that debate?—S Marshall T/C 08:16, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject defines itself as being about conservatism. The POV opposite to conservative is liberal. Nowhere in the discussion is there any suggestion that the sources are intended to increase the liberal coverage or decrease the conservative coverage on pages where there supposedly would be over-emphasis on conservatism. The uniform assumption is that many Wikipedia pages carry a liberal POV and the purpose of the source list is for the WikiProject to "correct"/shift that POV towards a conservative direction. That's what "systemic bias" means in this case. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:33, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse with leave to renominate. I think this is best dealt with by renominating the MfD in the not-too-distant future. Perhaps the closing admin can put a note on the top of the MfD to say there is no prejudice to this being done. As for this MfD, I just don't see the delete side of the MfD as being so overwhelmingly strong as to mandate a delete closure. Sure,
  Mkativerata (talk) 08:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That's an interesting idea, especially because the MfD instructions that I followed required notification of the WikiProject, and thus may have skewed responses towards editors who would want to keep. My hope in this deletion review was that we would not just count

  WP:RS, but that was never an issue in the arguments for deleting.) --Tryptofish (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, I certainly understand the RS point. I suggested RS/N because, as a page ostensibly about reliable sources, that noticeboard would be a logical target for a wider notification process. I think a wider discussion might be better than you fear. The recent List of banned users MfD was a pretty good example. --

  Mkativerata (talk) 20:45, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think that you are making an excellent argument, so thank you for that. @Xaosflux: how would you feel about revising your closing statement to say that, per this DRV discussion, there is no prejudice against renominating the page? --Tryptofish (talk) 19:00, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  @Xaosflux:? --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Consensus can change, all pages kept in deletion discussions are eligible to be re-examined for deletion in the future, so I see no need for this. If you are looking for a speedy renomination blessing, then "relist" is a possible outcome of this DRV that could be decided by the community discussing this already. — xaosflux ^Talk 00:30, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  Oh well. No, I am not particularly concerned about the time frame, so there is no need for this to be speedy. And, as I said earlier, relisting, which is not the same thing as a new nomination, is unlikely to generate anything more than just additional entrenched opinions on each "side". --Tryptofish (talk) 14:39, 9 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

XfD|restore

)

Deleted 2 Years ago, the event has since become very notable for being the first event in a seven year deal between the UFC and FOX. Also loads of sources are now available that wasnt back when it was deleted, so the article is now notable and very sourced. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a copied discussion i had with am administrator:

[cquote added 14:48, 4 October 2014 (UTC)]

• Comment - if you want this DRV to go favourably, it would behoove you to list the new sources here, eh? Cheers, WilyD 09:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - thanks for the comment, there is a rough copy of the page to be created here and it includes a full page worth of sources all of which have been added since the original page got deleted. Lukejordan02 (talk) 09:44, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but remove protection. This would have better gone to RFPP. All of the other events on the yearly list now have individual articles, indicating that consensus has changed about the notability of the individual events. No reason to overturn the original, accurate AFD close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:RFPP seems more appropriate. The original AFD was appropriately closed, so there's nothing for DRV to do here. DRV is for overturning out-of-process deletions, not for re-evaluating articles when new information becomes available. If the article has a raison être today it didn't have when it was deleted, fine. But DRV is not the process to handle that. --Jayron32 05:42, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This wouldn't pass through that as this was deleted through the article for deletion process. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:49, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As the requester already noted, the admin who deleted it is not currently active; in that case, DRV is an appropriate alternate venue. WilyD 07:03, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think a sysop should just unprotect and allow this article to be created and no further community time should be spent on this bureaucracy. Poor Luke has jumped through enough hoops. He is just trying to create needed product. Anyone?

• Note that the above contribution is from an editor who participated in the initial AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  I'm not sure that this needs any discussion without first seeing the statement from the closing admin.  Regarding the preparation above, the initial XfD is missing in the Template:DRV links template, there was no deletion at the AfD (although admin tools were later used to protect the redirect), the closing admin has not "retired years ago", and the previous DRV discussion was not a "keep" result.  If there are sources to document the claim that this event "has become very notable", and/or that "loads" of sources are available, such sources need to be identified.  As per [42], the article was not deleted, except for one minute.  Note that the first DRV closing states "deletion endorsed", although, again, admin tools were not used until five days after the closing, and that was for page protection, not deletion.

I took a look at the first ref at the new page, and the ref, link, is a dead link.

As stated by

WP:NOT."  I would add to that, nor have they tried to refute the WP:NOT arguments.  There is no dispute that the topic meets WP:GNG, so there is no need to repeatedly assert a point that is not disputed.  Unscintillating (talk) 07:20, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• @
  Spartaz: Please review your DRV close of 24 November 2012.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• @Scottywong: Not sure that you have been contacted yet that this DRV exists.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the ref links now so everyone works. Lukejordan02 (talk) 15:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose unprotection - Thanks for pinging me, I was the AfD closer on this one. I honestly don't see any significant difference between the original article that was nominated for deletion and the proposed new article. The original article didn't make it through the AfD because it wasn't notable enough for its own article, judging from the available sources. The proposed new article suffers from the exact same problems: all of the sources are from MMA fan sites, with the exception of one source from Fox Sports that is more about the announcement of a long-term television contract than it is about this specific event. I don't believe that the proposed new article would survive another AfD. ‑Scottywong| chat _ 16:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse original deletion: Shouldn't be at DRV, nor have the

WP:NOT based arguments been addressed. The UFC articles were not deleted because sources couldn't be found, so finding sources isn't the cure. Misrepresenting the consensus at the DRV in combination with the nonsense with claiming that the various admins involved "retired years ago" when, in fact, they are all quite active indicates that the claim here is not being made in good faith.—Kww(talk) 16:11, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

• I'm not seeing decent enough references in the draft. Sorry but sources win prizes and yours are barely bantamweight....
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

@Scottywong: - If you looked further up the page you would see i listed a handful of sources for the article by none MMA sites, the only reason they arent in e article yet is I have yet to place them in it. Fox, CBS, Yahoo sports

, SPortsillustrated/cnn and Chigaco Sun times. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So, we're somehow supposed to know to look for some other sources higher up in the article? The original article was deleted because it couldn't be shown that the subject is notable. Why would you bring this to DRV and request that the page be unprotected when you haven't even substantially changed the original content of the article? This request is a waste of time and should be closed. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 17:40, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@

User: Mtking) administrator has long retired, so what are you talking about? Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:22, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

The list of admins involved with this article doesn't show any involvement from

User: Mtking.—Kww(talk) 16:27, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

I wasn't looking at that, I was looking at the pages history and the fact that it was Mtking who nominated it. - [43] If they would of had there way all of the UFC event pages would have been deleted. Lukejordan02 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As well they should have been.

WP:NOT still applies to them all.—Kww(talk) 16:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And, the more I look at Lukejordan02's edits, the more obvious it is that JonnyBonesJones is back once again. Blocked.—Kww(talk) 00:44, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm striking my comments above. I am not on a computer that makes it easy to check into things, and have largely made my decisions in good faith based on what Luke has said. I was under the impression that there had been a broad new consensus to make all these redirects into articles, and that this one was the last to be done. I no longer think this is so. I will leave it to others to handle this. Sorry to be a bother.
  talk) 08:52, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Clear endorse both AFD and last DRV close - disclosure, I closed the last DRV.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:46, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Draft:Seven the General (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The draft was deleted by

• Overturn since the user was given a good faith unblock use of G5 isn't appropriate here, and in any case the page was created almost a week before the any of this person's accounts were blocked so they weren't evading a block by posting it. Hut 8.5 19:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

Article has been userfied and improved

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Ron_Duncan

• Move to mainspace  Article is improved enough for mainspace.  Needs work on the format of the references.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:56, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline restoration at this time. No opinion about the sourcing, but the article and the references are very poorly formatted. If the editor can't even manage to write a formally correct article, I have great doubts about the quality of the substance of their work.  Sandstein  07:49, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and relist at AfD. DRV is about fixing procedural errors. Requests like this; where an article which was deleted several years ago has reappeared in an ostensibly improved draft, really don't work well here. The question before us is whether the current draft meets our requirements, and that question is best answered at AfD. So I would temporarily restore the draft being proposed and list it on AfD. If the references are badly formatted, that's a reason for cleanup, not for deleting (or declining to undelete). -- RoySmith (talk) 00:24, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If you want to get articles into AfD without doing the nomination yourself, I suggest that you start a page for "WP:AfD/Requests for AfD nominations".  As I've said more than once, if there is no editor willing to do the work to prepare an AfD nomination, there is no need for an AfD discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can the article be moved to mainspace? CrazyAces489 (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore to mainspace and let AFD look into all this. Thincat (talk) 10:58, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline restoration at this time  The AfD volunteers have other things to do than "to do" projects to find out if there is anything wrong with this article.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:07, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion I see a giant wall of references, but even at a quick glance they don't appear to be reliable sources by encyclopedia standards. I spot-checked 5 at random and none were reliable sources for our purposes. There may (or may not) be a core of notability here, but it's being done no favours with ridiculous nonsense like trying to use Tumblr(!!!) as a source! Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:22, 18 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

This article was deleted despite what appears to me to be an unambiguous consensus to keep it. It was relisted twice due to lack of consensus, after which four editors voted keep. Believing the result was clear, I participated minimally in the discussion, merely endorsing another editor's position. After it was deleted, I addressed my concerns to the closing admin, Drmies, who suggested that I appeal the decision here. He explained that he found the "keep" arguments flimsy, but as only one editor voted "delete" and the comments of the six "keep" voters included what I perceive to be legitimate arguments which were dismissed without explanation, it's my feeling that his decision amounted to overriding the discussion rather than interpreting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• An understandable concern. I hear "flimsy keep arguments", and am familiar with a porn-inclusionist group who argue hard to keep the broadly discredited guideline WP:PORNBIO from realistically providing guidance as to what makes a pornstar Wikipedia-notable. In short, it is whether independent others have published secondary-source commentary on the subject. Mere nominations, even awards, reported without commentary, don't support encyclopedic content. Wikipedia is not a directory of pornstars and their statistics. There are other online, contributer-welcoming outlets for documenting pornstars. Wikipedia is particularly sensitive about this subject, not because it is unpalatable or anything like that, but because the sources are promotional.

Could someone please temp-undelete the article so that this case may be reviewed specifically. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:46, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't say "flimsy keep arguments", those are not my words--but it captures something of the spirit, yes. Drmies (talk) 16:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. There wasn't ever anything on Talk: besides wikiproject templates. —Cryptic 08:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. AfD is not a vote, it's a discussion based on policy. And the article does not in any way prove any notability, as clearly stated in the delete !vote and by the closer. Thomas.W ^talk 08:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Had I seen this, I would have voted delete. We weigh votes and arguments against policy rather then count them and a keep argument that has been discredited has less value then policy based delete arguments. Sources win articles not uncredible assertions pulled out of thin air. Good close.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore I vote to restore the article. I understand that there is a policy regarding "notability" however, I believe there is more to a Wikipedia article than whether or not it meets specific rules. Phoenix Marie is a very popular performer within this industry. She is very well-known to those that enjoy this medium, to the point where she is recognizable outside of the industry. But what I would consider the value to keeping the article on Wikipedia is whether or not she is worthy of being remembered in future generations - to which I vote yes. Hobbamock (talk) 12:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse this is a clear example of AfD not being a vote. WP:PORNBIO is clear in its application and the keeps were looking for an exception (nominations vs. wins). The Big Bad Wolfowitz made an argument for deletion based on our inclusion guidelines, this was only refuted by claims that the article should be included despite not meeting said guidelines.--kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per arguments presented in AfD by keep voters. Keep voters used
  WP:COMMONSENSE and suggested we WP:Ignore all rules. It is ridiculous to disregard Phoenix Marie's many accomplishments throughout her career just because she didn't win an award. As several AfD participants said, Phoenix Marie is one of porn's most well-known stars. She is notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

She may be notable among porn fans, and in the porn business, but she's clearly not notable by Wikipedia's standards. And there's no such thing as "ignore all rules" when it comes to notability, if there was Wikipedia would be turned into a resumé site like LinkedIn and similar. Thomas.W ^talk 15:24, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This just proves that WP's notability guidelines are too strict. You just admitted that she's notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't. I explicitly wrote that she is not notable by Wikipedia's standards, which is what matters here. And why should we make an exception for Phoenix Marie when we don't make exceptions for professors, businessleaders, stars/starlets in mainstream movies and television, singers etc.? Thomas.W ^talk 15:54, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We have articles for all of those--except professors, haha. Also, you can't really invoke IAR if you argue for "regular" notability based on awards and coverage etc. Drmies (talk) 19:12, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Non-notable adult "actress", as noted by the votes in that AfD that actually matter; minor award + simple nominations no not add up to notability. "Keep per IAR", coming from one of the perennial porn POV-pushing editors in the project, carries zero weight whatsoever. Tarc (talk) 15:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have !voted delete too if I still hung around AFD, and I think this was ultimately the correct outcome, but I'm really not comfortable with this discussion. It's not unreasonable at all to pass by a deletion debate that looks like it's strongly tending the way you want, especially if it's unanimously so after a relist—and that's essentially what the DRV nom did. So, @
  WP:GNG than subject-specific notability guidelines, and WP:PORNBIO in particular is poorly regarded; in-depth reliable sources are far and away the best way to convince us. —Cryptic 17:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:IAR, and though I can understand the motivation to dismiss as a fanatic the editor who invoked this nuclear option, I view her passionate statements as the rational response of a person who has invested considerable time and effort into work which may be suddenly lost. Of course we cannot base decisions on traffic statistics, but the fact that this well-written and well-sourced article was read by nearly 1000 people per day is evidence that there is something wrong with the standards we use to judge such articles, and cause for concern that thoughtless and mechanical application of these standards can seriously interfere with the ability of editors who work in this area to usefully contribute. I can also understand the tendency to trivialize the subject matter as lacking long-term educational significance. I feel this way about the innumerable articles about actors, musicians, and television show episodes as well, and in fact I'm personally indifferent to the question of whether Phoenix Marie has a page on Wikipedia. That is not why I made this appeal. Rather, I am concerned about the chilling effects on editors who may not want to contribute to articles that might be deleted at any time. These editors need to know, at the very least, that admins will not act autocratically. --Sammy1339 (talk) 06:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

My entire comment after the first sentence related to the AFD close. Essentially this BLP was badly sourced and Drmies correctly applied the prevailing requirement for BLPs to be properly sourced against really pathetic non-policy based IAR type bollocks arguments. You lost because you had no sources. Stop processwanking and go find the sources if you want this back.

Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply

]

And my entire comment in this review was related to the AfD, stating that the delete !vote in the AfD and the closing statement there were all about policy (while nothing else was; bringing up IAR in an AfD is really pathetic...). Which is what AfD is about. So stop misrepresenting the comments made by others. Thomas.W ^talk 07:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this debate had people accurately citing notability guidelines on one hand and appeals to
  WP:COMMONSENSE, hit counts and arguments that the notability criteria should be rewritten on the other. There's only one way a debate like that can be closed. The closing admin didn't dismiss the comments without explanation, they wrote a closing rationale. Although PORNBIO is widely disregarded as a suitable standard the argument in the AfD was that the subject didn't even meet that minimal standard. Hut 8.5 19:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'd invite my DRV colleagues to re-read PORNBIO. It was widely-disregarded. There was a time when it was an utterly defective SNG and we refused to enforce it. Since then it's been rewritten, and it's improved quite a bit. I think it should now be treated with a little more respect. However, I don't take any issue with this particular close because there was a good case made that the subject didn't meet PORNBIO.—S Marshall T/C 09:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist It's hard to argue that 1-2 votes = consensus, unless you also count the closing admin; but the closing admin isn't supposed to have an opinion or feeling. I do agree that the keep votes are weak, but in this case we don't have enough participation to judge consensus either way. At worst, this should have been relisted to generate additional comment. --Jayron32 05:47, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, IAR to my mind shouldn't apply to contentious situations. The "Keep" arguments were pretty feeble, and the "Delete" ones were more rooted in policy; the closer made a good decision. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:12, 3 October 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse. I suspect that had Drmies instead made a firm and compelling delete !vote, it would have strengthened the hand of the next admin to come along and close as delete, and might have even avoided this DRV. Nevertheless, it is clear from a combination of this AfD and this DRV that (a) the outcome was objectively correct, and (b) the consensus (including that of DRV participants) is that deletion is appropriate. --
  Mkativerata (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I don't think consensus is determined by adding AfD !votes to DRV !votes.  If you add 18 to the keeps for the 18 other Wikipedias who include this topic, you will get yet a different result. Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• That is a good point about posting a !vote, but if an admin felt that a Penthouse Pet is not wp:notable on Wikipedia, I would think the first thing that would come to mind is to consider a !vote of Merge to a list of Penthouse Pets.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to keep or let another admin close  I wish there was more time to prepare this, but the seven days is just about up.  I found 5 sources on Proquest, 2 in Australia, 1 from Mexico in Spanish, and one in the Los Angeles Times.  I'm not saying here that these sources combined satisfy WP:GNG, but four of them contribute to WP:GNG, including a picture and caption in the Los Angeles Times.  Note that the requirement in WP:N to source an article was removed in early 2008.  This topic was a Penthouse Pet, and imdb reports appearances in over 200 films.  The topic has two stage names and was born in Arizona.  Few people would dispute that porn stars significantly attract the attention of the world at large over a period of time.  I found that 18 other Wikipedia's have this topic, and this should have been mentioned in both the nomination and the closing.  Also, commons has a couple of dozen media on file.  If the community objects to pornographic topics, this should be a provision of WP:NOT, but since such does not exist, WP:N and WP:V apply.  The nomination makes no attempt to provide evidence that the topic fails WP:GNG, just a personal opinion.  There is a book using WP:BEFORE on the first page that the nomination doesn't mention, so the nomination !vote must be discounted, and with only one supporting !vote this is inside the
  WP:NOQUORUM bounds which say that one to two editors do not create an AfD consensus.  So even if we allow the closing admin to find a delete consensus, this must be a soft delete.  Even if the nomination is allowed to claim non-notableness, what happened to the policy WP:ATD in this nomination and in this AfD?  Unscintillating (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment I think you got your bolding wrong there. You have a relatively lax interpretation of the GNG but accept that this article does not meet it. Ergo for the BLP this means that the outcome has to be to remove the unsourced material and delete the article. Its got nothing to do with liking of hating porn and for once it would lovely to have a discussion about a porn related BLP where the keeping side don't try to tar the deleteing side with anti-porn arguments - like that's a mark of shame or something else I have never got. Honestly, this is the bizarrest argument I have seen for a long time even before we get round to examining the contention that we should discard the AFD nomination because the nominator is required to prove that the article does not meet GNG when the
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:00, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Simply having one's picture in the paper is not an establisher of notability. Tarc (talk) 17:06, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse per the accurate and generally consistent analyses of the endorse !votes above. The fact that some other-language wikis have laxer standards is no basis for discounting our well-supported by consensus, more rigorous, practices. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]