Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June

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

)

• It's a mystery to me why this attracted so much vandalism, but I certainly can't see any reason not to create the redirect. If it attracts more vandalism, the redirect could always be protected. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation per KGirlTrucker81 66.87.64.113 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this appears to be referring to Wikipedia:Articles_for_creation/Redirects#Redirect_request:_Cluebot -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• If this redirect is created,
  ClueBot should also redirect. It was redirected after discussion, but that was before the proposed target page was created. Peter James (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow recreation and reevaluate if future problems develop. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

article|XfD|restore

)

• Overturn to No consensus, with no prejudice agaisnt relisting if anyone so Chooses, but no automatic relisting. While not explicitly citing the NFCC, those in favor of keep did make policy-based reasons clear enough that they should not have been discounted, in my view. I must agree with the nomination on the issue of "precedent" here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to keep Sandstein, there are a number of editors who believe that NFCC questions should default to delete, because copyright. It's unfortunate that they're trying to impair our coverage of current events based on their own particular interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closing administrator. Please see my initial response to Sandstein's query.
  bludgeoning the process in doing so. Sandstein stated: "It's normal practice to illustrate biographies of significant public figures" in the context of articles about the incidents and not the perpetrator. This is, to the best of my knowledge, not true. This also not policy, nor does it address policy – NFCC or otherwise. Philosopher and Doctor Papa Jones cited Dennis Brown's keep argument, who was addressed the wrong criterion to begin with, and Sandstein's keep argument, which failed to address any policy to any agree, for his own keep argument. AGreatPhoenixSunsFan's argument boiled down to "just showing a picture of the attacker in question shouldn't be a reason for deleting an image altogether", and again failed to cite policy for this. zzuuzz's "replace" comment and El cid, el campeador's "remove" argument were both misguided, so I discounted those entirely. What I was left with: Fourthords's (nominator) arguments citing policy, George Ho's argument citing policy, and Quackslikeaduck's agreeing with George. I did not see a discussion that would have resulted in "no consensus", let alone "keep". ℯxplicit 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is no need to quote or address NFCC policy explicitly as long as you are making an argument that is itself encoded in the policy. Sandstein argument that "his appearance (e.g., his age, skin color) provides potentially significant context for the shooting" *is* the NFCC#8 criterion, yet you didn't recognize it as a policy-based argument in your close. Diego (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to non-consensus (which defaults to keep) though my own actual view is keep. The NFCC restrictions on article use are very restrictive. In interpreting them, we need to avoid making them yet more restrictive beyond the bounds of a reasonable interpretation. I've always though WP should make some attempt at consistency, but one previous afd discussion is not sufficient for binding precedent in a general interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Just for reference, I am aware of one other discussion about this type of non-free use at
  WP:FREER are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse NFCC is absolutely not an obscure policy, it's just one that is not always easy to understand. The closure was correct in light of the arguments: there is no standard practice of including non-free images of non-notable perps for crimes (if you can get a free image, that's different), because that fails NFCC#1. If the perp becomes notable on their own and they're going to be incarcerated for life, making a free replacement likely impossible, then we could take about an image on the standalone article. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • But he's not incarcerated for life... he's dead. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I think the close was rather defective and the closing administrator should have participated in the discussion rather than trying to close it. Most of the closing statement talks about an "established precedent" which doesn't seem to have been mentioned up to that point. This would be a reasonable thing to do if this "established precedent" was a policy, guideline or even a major RFC but it's just something the same admin wrote while closing a similar discussion 18 months ago and therefore isn't much of a precedent at all, much less an "established" one. I do think that discussion was leaning towards deletion, if only because there wasn't much effort to rebut the NFCC#8 concerns, but that was largely down to the number of other issues raised (such as NFCC#1 concerns, which were addressed). A relist would help to focus on that issue. Hut 8.5 06:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, reasonable outcome of a debate where no strong arguments were made that
  WP:NFCC#8 was met. —Kusma (t·c) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak endorse. This is not an area of expertise for me, but my reading of the
  WP:NFCC
  says to me that in close cases, we should err on the side of deletion. That page says:
  • using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law
  • only where all 10 of the following criteria are met

Given that, its seems to me that no consensus (which you could reasonably argue would have been a better close) in copyright cases, really should default to delete, not to keep, as it usually the case. Adittedly, that doesn't appear to be the official policy, and given that, the next best thing would be to err on the side of deletion.

On a different point, i'm a little concerned about the appeal to precedent in the close. Not so much because I think every decision needs to stand on its own, but because the precedent being cited was the closer's own. A change of wording from precedent to something like, as I said in .... would have been more transparent. That's not a reason by itself to overturn the close, but it is something that could have been done better.

Lastly, I'm concerned that nobody appears to have done the research to see if we have permission. Write to whoever we believe to be the copyright holder and ask for permission to use it. One of three things are likely to happen. One, permission will be granted. Two, permission will be denied. Three, copyright will be disavowed. In any of those cases, we'll have an authoritative answer. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion There's several pertinent issues here, all of which point to a clear cut case to delete and keep deleted. (1) NFCC no consensus does not default to keep; This is in fact codified in the policy, though it may not seem clear at first pass.
  reliable source that indicates his visual appearance is somehow important to the crimes he has committed such that we have to have an image to understand that visual appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse deletion In addition to the policy arguments raised above, particularly failing
  WP:NFCI #10 notes the appropriateness of using "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." (emphasis added) The article versus section distinction is a good one for judging the contextual significance and usefulness of providing a non-free image. Note that a photo of a deceased perpetrator can become contextually significant where the photograph itself has become part of the story. See, e.g., Boston_Marathon_bombing#Release_of_suspect_photos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Relist I found that discussion to lack much of any direct reference to policy and the close itself should have been a !vote. Given the high visibility of the topic, I think we need a better discussion. And can expect one after this listing at DRV. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I know people are concerned about the closure and the need to use the non-free image of the perpetrator. However, as said, we should not display an image to treat the current event article as a page of images. Instead, we should encourage readers to take free content seriously and to realize that Wikipedia is a free-content
  MOS:LEAD), let's focus on those wanting to read the section about the perpetrator himself. Actually, readers who want to learn about just the perpetrator and not more about the event may not be the article's main target. Indeed, the article intends to target those who want learn more about the event, not about the perpetrator. That's it. Those reading the article to learn about the event would already understand the event without this image, which still doesn't increase their own understanding of the event. If the event receives a lot of press coverage, then readers would already know about the event and find the perpetrator image unnecessary. Meanwhile, there are other free multimedia contents, like the videos. Also, there are free images of Scalise and the baseball game itself. No big loss to me. --George Ho (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I think that the particular relevance of the image is that it (immediately) illustrates that the perpetrator was a white man - something I think not touched on in the text of the article – and perhaps for good reasons: maybe there are no sources addressing that issue in particular, which in itself might be indicative of how much "white man" is still considered the default state of humanity in the US and elsewhere. Given America's difficult racial history and politics, and the political nature of the crime, the perpetrator's skin color can't help but color - pardon the pun - readers' assessment of events; it should therefore be included in a comprehensive treatment of the event.  Sandstein  13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• While potentially interesting, unless you can provide
  reliable sources indicating his racial background is somehow pertinent to this crime, including his image solely for the sake of demonstrating he is white is a non-starter. As is, there's nothing in the article indicating race as being pertinent. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I think the above post only goes to show that this close was the correct and only one that could've been made. The reader does not need to see any image of Hodgkinson to understand he was white any more than the reader would need to see an image of him to understand he was male. That information can be more than adequately expressed by text alone. As for the stuff about the "white man" being the "default state of humanity", I agree with Hammersoft in that such a thing might be an interesting take on this terrible event, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be about promoting interesting takes on things. The reason for using the image should only be that there was something about it which was specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources; it should not be that we hope that the reader sees the image and then decides to interpret it and the event in a particular way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, no. We use images, generally speaking, where they are useful to illustrate or complement the text. Fair-use images do need to additionally pass the
  WP:NFCCP, but the image being "specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources" is not as such required. What the policy requires, to the extent relevant here, is "contextual significance" (#8), and it is this significance that I think the FfD discussion and my comment above establish. Even absent any racial or political aspect, "what did the guy look like who did this?" is such a natural impulse of readers to want to know, especially in our media-saturated age, that I think any serious treatment of the issue is just fundamentally incomplete without an image; and it is this editorial consideration that establishes the required significance of the image.  Sandstein  16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Such a justification, that we should illustrate where we can due to media saturation in this age, would justify the use of any non-free image in any context on the project. Regardless, such discussion as this is moot; DRV is not a second chance FfD. Discussing the merits of the image in the context where it was is not appropriate for a DRV. The issue at hand is whether the deletion discussion was closed on reasonable grounds and enacted properly. The closer concluded there was consensus to delete. Some might read that FfD and conclude there was no consensus. I dare say nobody would conclude there was consensus to keep. Closed as delete, it was deleted. As established by myself and others above, a no consensus on a non-free image defaults to delete. If it were re-closed as no consensus, the outcome would be the same; the file would be deleted. The FfD was closed on proper grounds, and the image was deleted in accordance with appropriate procedures to that effect. There's nothing to act on here. If you would like to discuss with me why this image fails
  WP:NFCC #8, I invite you to do so on my talk page. You would of course be welcome to ping anyone else to the discussion that you think is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @
  WP:UNDUE; very few sources emphasize his race... well, I found The Root writer's article better written and more eloquent than the other. However, they're not worth including yet. Also, as said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia's intent is giving readers general knowledge. In this case, the article's intent is giving readers general knowledge about the shooting itself. It does not intend to emphasize the guy's ethnicity, and the image does not add anything to effectively help readers understand the event but to distract readers into looking at his ethnicity. I could include the phrase "white male", but that doesn't help make the image more effective either. Meanwhile, any one of you can read Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and other articles related to them. Therefore, their ethnicities are better covered in those related articles, while Hodgkinson's... aren't. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The close was not terribly unreasonable, but has some weaknesses.

"there is also an established precedent (links Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2015_November_26#File:Chris_Mercer.jpg) from January 2016".
The closer is citing himself. Citing yourself for support in your decision is never good.

", in general, ".
I don't read a consensus in the discussion that this situation is a general situation. The need to include the image of a *white male* is important here, without overstating the point, is important, as people have mentioned.

I think this is not a "general" case, due to being very high profile, with the image of the perpetrator all over the media. The perpetrator may not have his own biography, but he is singularly important in this incident. He has motive, it was political, it was not a random madman shooting of random victims.

I think the conversation at

2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting#Perpetrator

is in need of an image.

In this DRV discussion, and looking back at the FfD, it is hard to know what image is being talked about. I see five images all over the internet, I guess we are talking about number 4? Number 5 is possibly free, but is argued to be excluded from consideration.

1. https://cbschicago.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/james-hodgkinson.jpg
Unsmiling portrait, back against a wall, tinted glasses. ASHI home inspectors branded shirt.

2. https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/sue-hodgkinson-3-e1497472216868.jpg?quality=65&strip=all
Relaxed informal happy smiling shot with others

3. http://www.straitstimes.com/sites/default/files/styles/retina_large/public/st_20170616_wogunman16_3212111.jpg?itok=ahfLMEut
In front of a poster presentation, possibly speaking, looks like is thinking "who are you are why are you photograping me?"

4. https://static01.nyt.com/images/2017/06/15/us/15dc-suspect/merlin-to-scoop-123487568-194570-master768.jpg
Protesting image "TAX the Rich". Dark sunglasses. Is the message board relevant? Obscured person behind.

5. http://www.bnd.com/news/local/ffwxm9/picture156390909/alternates/FREE_640/HODGKINSON
Mug shot? Why are there two fives?

A new talk page consensus to use on of these, or another, should not be constrained by the close of

WP:NFCCP exceptions require consensus, and "no consensus" defaults to delete for non-free images. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:13, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• No policy provides that no consensus defaults to delete for fair use images. The general rule therefore applies: no consensus defaults to keep.  Sandstein  04:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. "No consensus" for fair use images defaults to delete or keep? It was my understanding that it was delete. Checking this discussion, I see the question is in clear dispute. "No policy provides"? What does policy say? Has this question ever been the specific subject of discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The deletion policy,
  WP:DPAFD, reads in relevant part: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." That is, absent a consensus to delete, the outcome is keep. This applies to all forms of deletion discussions (AfD, FfD, etc.)  Sandstein  11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The discussion should be relisted, so that the above NFCC#8 arguments regarding the relevance of his visual depiction and the section where it should be placed (which have no place in this review about the closing argument) can be properly discussed. Diego (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. For NFCC discussions deletion is the default in the case of no-consensus, as the NFCCs are a foundation-level policy that cannot be overridden by local consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• That would make sense if there had been a FfD consensus to keep for reasons that clearly contravened the NFCC. But that is not the case here. Nobody submits that the NFCC do not apply, or should (or can) be overridden. Editors just disagree how to apply them, as is possible in any discussion on how to apply policy. There is no provision in the NFCC or elsewhere that indicates that the default in cases of disagreement is "delete".  Sandstein  12:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, there is. I noted it above. If there is no consensus that a rationale can be provided, the image must be deleted. This is the common practice, and dates back at least as far as 2008. With all respect and no intent to cast aspersions, you are not a regular at
  WT:NFC, which is the discussion page for the NFCC policy and NFC guideline. You've made just 7 edits there with the last being over 4 years ago. I encourage you to not make definitive statements about the response to a no consensus on an image without spending considerably more time around WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The NFCC text "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" does not amount to "no consensus about the validity of a rationale equals delete". It just means that if there is no rationale, or a manifestly invalid one, then that is a strong policy-based reason for the FfD closer to discount "keep" opinions, in the process of assessing the strength of the arguments made. But it does not mean that if there is good-faith disagreement about the merits of a rationale, as here, then the closer should presume the rationale to be invalid.

  As a "normal" editor, I frankly don't care what is being said on project talk pages, nor should I have to. What matters to me is the (already overcomplicated) NFCC policy itself as it is written, not reams of talk page threads by random people. What you propose is, in effect,

  WP:OWNership of the NFCC by the very few people inclined to argue at length about it, which I guess is what gets us discussions such as this one here.  Sandstein  17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sandstein, I don't know at what point our discussion became hostile. If in any respect you interpret my words as being hostile, please accept by apologies. I did not mean to indicate ownership of NFCC. I don't own it anymore than a brand new editor making their very first edit here. My intent was solely that I have more experience in that areas than you do, just as you have more experience in other areas than I do, and that making authoritative statements about NFCC without that experience should likely be avoided. That was the only thing I proposed. Consider how you would feel if I were to make authoritative comments regarding Game of Thrones, an area of very significant experience for you and where I have no experience. I hope that makes what I said more clear.
• If you would, allow me to show you the logical path of default to delete. Much of if not all of this you are aware of, but perhaps the dots haven't been connected before. Please don't take this as hostile; I'm simply trying to be clear, not speak down to you or anyone else.

1. When a person uploads a non-free image, they are required to include a non-free rationale for each use of the item. That is codified in WP:NFCC #10c.
2. If there is no rationale for a non-free image's use, it can be removed from that use or a rationale can be added to explain that use in accordance with other aspects of WP:NFCC.

   Historical note: (really, 2a) It used to be the case that if a person contested the use of a non-free image, they could take it to

   WP:FFD
   .

3. If there is disagreement over a non-free image's use, it is now taken to
   WP:NFCCE
   notes, the burden of proof in providing a valid (emphasis mine) lies with those wishing to use the non-free image in the desired way. I.e., if consensus can not be achieved that a valid rationale can be created for a given use, the burden of proof has not been met by those wishing to use it. Therefore, the rationale can not be created for that use.
4. Somewhat returning to (2) above, if a rationale is removed as being invalid then the use of the image for where the rationale indicated should also be removed, as such use becomes a failure of 10c as noted above.
5. If a non-free image is not used in article space on the project, it is referred to as "orphaned". According to NFCC, non-free images must have at least one usage in article space, else face deletion in accordance with WP:NFCC #7. Orphaned non-free files can be tagged with
   Template:Di-orphaned fair use, and this is often done by a bot such as with this edit
   .

• Now, let's walk this through in this case.
  WP:NFC#UUI #7). This image could have been speedy deleted as was; no sourced commentary on the image. Fourthords did you a favor in taking the image to FfD, giving you an opportunity to prove a valid rationale could be created. He could have just as well tagged it with Template:Db-f7
  . Anyone reviewing the use of the image would have seen there was no sourced commentary on the image and deleted it.
• The short version of all the verbosity above; The image had a rationale as required by
  WP:F7
  applies as the image in question is a commercial image.
• As an aside, I would like to note that the instructions at FFD have never been properly amended to address the closure of
  WP:NFCR. In essence, NFCR was just dumped into FFD. The instructions should be corrected. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Of
  repeat[ing] arguments already made in the deletion discussion", I will reiterate that none of the discussion contributors who wanted to keep the file explained how using the non-free image was "necessary" to understand the content of the article: the article which made no mention of (and certainly didn't rely upon seeing) Mr. Hodgkinson's appearance, clothes, or anything else in the image to understand what was written and reliably-sourced.

  I find that explicit correctly interpreted the discussion's consensus regarding the application of the NFCC policy, and I endorse their close. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

  ]
  • This is an excellent analysis though I would like to add just one caveat.
    WP:NFCC #2 specifically makes the policy more strict when we are considering commercially produced non-free content, such as the image in question. As was discussed in the FfD by a few, a mugshot would be less burdensome to us. While it would not be any less non-free than a commercial image, our burden to satisfy NFCC would be less. Though, even if we did upload a mugshot under a non-free license, it would still not be usable in this case without pertinent, reliably sourced commentary regarding the image itself. If people truly want a second chance FfD, they could try the route of uploading a mugshot, though, I don't recommend it; the arguments against usage would be effectively identical. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse I find it somewhat ironic that the lister comments on wikipedia not having binding precedent, whilst their initial argument in the original discussion was essentially an appeal to precedent. I think claiming NFC to be technical and obscure is a stretch, a huge proportion of the policy page is lent to examples, further documentation etc. Regardless obscure or otherwise in individual points the statement on the policy "where all 10 of the following criteria are met." seems pretty unambiguous, merely arguing that other points of NFC are met amounts to little more than a straw man argument and so rightly given little or no weight in that discussion - perhaps even more so when the issue is highlighted to a participant and rather than correct it gets forcefully rejected. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Hammersoft said more or less what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Getting to a "delete" outcome from that discussion stretches closer's discretion a little farther than I think it really ought to go.—S Marshall T/C 20:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject is notable per WP:GNG. There are Wikipedia articles about works of art that have received much, much less coverage. This article was nominated for deletion very soon after its creation, and editors voted to delete the article as a stub. The draft has been expanded, and sourcing clearly shows notability. I anticipate several editors who participated in the AfD discussion will return to reiterate their previously expressed opinions, but I'm hoping some uninvolved editors will cast a vote to overturn the deletion after assessing sourcing. --Another Believer _(Talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - DRV is not a place to re-hash the same arguments already made at AfD. The consensus in the discussion was pretty clear cut, so absent any new information there is no reason to overturn this decision. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Absent any new information? The draft has been expanded, and there are more sources on the talk page, and there has been more coverage since its unveiling. And these are just the English-languages sources. Not to mention, the artist has since created a bust of Gareth Bale, so there are many more recent sources revisiting his earlier work. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 15:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure - It still does not make it notable. Kante4 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What, sources don't make it notable? That's our definition of notable, yes? Hobit (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure It's still not notable. Number 57 16:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure Still not notable. No actual addition of substance since AFD, the majority of the article is verbatim quotes from mostly minor outlets, and the few major outlet quotes are a simple review of social media's reaction to the bust. No real mention since a couple of days after the reveal, indicating the AFD wasn't too soon. --SuperJew (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - good close. GiantSnowman 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse closure - uninvolved in original discussion, and can tell you right now that at best this gets a by-line in Cristiano Ronaldo's main article. I have serious misgivings that even then, on the scale of things, this is not a particularly notable feature of CR's career. Koncorde (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Expanding on entry seeing as there are some new comments.

• 1. There is an awful lot of art in the world, and an awful lot of bad art. Wikipedia is not a repository of bad art.
• 2. The piece was crafted for
  Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport
  and it's notability is associated with that airports renaming and the ceremony. If the statue is referenced, it should be merged with that article (and doesn't need anywhere near the amount of cruft).
• 3. People talk below about Michael Jackson's statue outside Fulham. This is another example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. It wasn't notable to the club's ground in particular beyond kitsch value, and ended up being forced into a stub of its own which collected dross. Its strangeness of location lent it some degree of notability, which is why I could kinda see how it got argued through. Jackson's statue for HIStory meanwhile should be a stub for the album, but as the artist is notable and it went on a notable world tour of its own, then it has a different set of criteria.
• 4. The editor contributes a link to other banal art, of which very few have their own article (I don't believe any do) somewhat undoing the argument.
• 5. Any argument regarding the Gareth Bale sculpt should also take into consideration that it is an advertising ploy by a major betting chain. It is again not notable art, nor notable to Bale, it is perhaps relevant to PaddyPower, or if the artist was to have his own article.
• 6. Filling an article with lots of words is nice and all, but it's a bad article, and very poor from an encyclopedic point of view. It is a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM as are most arguments in support.

At most this article is a sentence or two at the Airport, and references under Rinaldo's a page by the airport being named in his honour, but we should not be crufting this kind of stuff. Koncorde (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: @Kante4, Number 57, SuperJew, and GiantSnowman: Thanks for revisiting this discussion.

• @Number 57: In the AfD discussion, you said, "Whilst the bust is hilariously bad and has received quite a bit of media coverage, it isn't separately noteworthy to the subject." Here, you say, "It's still not notable." Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
• @SuperJew: In the AfD discussion, you said the subject was not notable enough for a standalone article. I suppose you provide some further explanation for your vote above, but I wouldn't call the publications used in the draft minor. In fact, I don't think any of the sources used are inappropriate or non-notable, and they all have Wikipedia articles of their own. How are these minor publications?

Most of these articles are just re-iterations of the same comments,

published in the few days after the reveal, and round-ups of social media trying to be funny about the bust. The article doesn't actually have content - it's mostly verbatim quotes from the media. Minor I meant things like Hindustan Times, Daily Beast and tabloids. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Kante4: In the AfD discussion, you said the subject was "not notable enough", and above you said, It still does not make it notable". Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
• @GiantSnowman: In the AfD discussion, you simply said, "does not merit a separate article". Above you say just "good close". Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?

IMO, this work of art has received a suitable amount of coverage in reliable sources to justify a standalone article. This draft is much longer than the article that was marked for AfD, and there are quite a few additional sources posted on the draft's talk page. Not to mention, there are more sources to add that have been published since April. I'd appreciate more detailed reasons why this draft is not appropriate for Wikipedia.
I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm frustrated that I'm having to fight an uphill battle to publish an article with this much sourcing when I'm not seeing detailed reasons, based on policy, for its removal. I know I'm probably coming across as a sore loser, and here I was told to "move on", but I have been through the process of saving a deleted article before (which was promoted to Good status), and I do mean well by coming to this venue to request reevaluation. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Support Overturn - the varied and extent of the coverage the topic of the article has received passes
  WP:GNG in my opinion although its overall significance to Cristiano Ronaldo's carrier is another matter. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @Inter&anthro: could you be more explicit about which side you're arguing? In these discussions, people generally either say, endorse, which means they think the deletion was correct, or overturn, which means they think the deletion was in error. It's not entirely clear reading your comments which of those you're arguing for. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi RoySmith I apologize I am unfamiliar with the process, I meant to say that I was supporting the recreation of this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. No worries about being unfamiliar. We're happy to have new people get involved in the project. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support reinstatement The notability is mainly based on the avalanche of mocking comments in the mainstream media and social media that followed its unveiling. This was an noteworthy phenomenon, and it has made this sculpture notorious, which is a form of notability. We should not be swayed by this being called "bad art". It might be considered part of a movement of kitsch or banal art, which could include:

• Statue of Michael Jackson
  outside Fulham Football Club, London
• Michael Jackson HIStory statue
  in Los Angeles
• Arguably, Jeff Koons' Banality series, such as Michael Jackson and Bubbles

This is to give some context to Santos's sculpture, which I do not rate as having the quality of Koons' work. This sculpture follows a style that has been established for other football-related sculptures, see here.

Santos's sculpture of Gareth Bale opens the possibility of covering both these sculptures in an article on the sculptor. However, his sculpture of Ronaldo is more notable than its sculptor, and I support the promotion of Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo to article space. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot You don't need to be at DRV to put this back into mainspace. Several new references have been added since the close, including New York Times, BBC, Independent, and Telegraph. That appears to solidly establish the GNG is met for the topic just with the new references! Several arguments made in the AfD were non-policy-based (e.g., NOTNEWS never applied at all), and I am not convinced by the arguments supporting the original AfD close. I'll further note that the original AfD closer is not an administrator, and likely should not have closed the contested AfD in the first place... Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist or recreate there are enough new sources that it shouldn't be speedied as a recreation. So I'd say just recreate it. But, I'm going to guess that _someone_ will still speedy it. From an editorial viewpoint, I don't think we need this article. From a policy viewpoint, there is no policy preventing it from existing as WP:N appears to be met in spades. I personally would prefer we leave this merged into the biography with a sentence or two. But DRV is about policy, not my preferences. Recreate it and watch the merge discussion on the talk page result in a merger again. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - the sources in the article, whilst numerous, basically cover just two days and the remaining sources above provide little information other than rehashing previous comment. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion notability, not sourcing, was (and remains) the primary problem here. A dozen, a hundred, or a thousand sources all saying basically the same thing don't change that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lely (Company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page was in Draft, still actively work in progress. I worked according to Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, and have no intention of breaking them. As explained to admin, I was drafting a page about a notable company which I can further explain. This is an internationally active company which already has Wikipedia pages in other languages. Attempt to reason with the respective admin failed, unfortunately, I have not heard back since. I feel disappointed and slightly offended. I do not see any reason why this company does not deserve a page on English Wikipedia, nor do I understand why any chance to draft such a page should be nipped in the bud. Dvanleerdam (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• The page was deleted under
  conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'd have speedied this if it were in mainspace, though I'd have thought it was borderline. In draftspace, it wasn't so promotional that it needed to be tagged within two minutes of creation and deleted within half an hour. —
  Cryptic 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and Restore to draft space. Those statistics, while possibly serving a promotional purpose, are presumably objective facts, and "leading" while a judgement, is the kind of judgement often included in valid company articles (although it should be sourced, as should the stats). Had I seen this tagged for G11 in mainspace, I would have declined the speedy and warned the tagger, and I am surprised at
  Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi for tagging this in draft space, where somewhat more leeway should be given. I am even more suprised at Jimfbleak for doing the dewletion. There does seem to be a COI here, but that is not a reason to delete, speedy or otherwise. G11 is for blatent promotionalism, requiring a total rewrite, which in my view this was not even close to. That said, Dvanleerdam, deletion for promotional content never reflects on the validity of the subject, merely on how it is being described. A more objective version should always handle a proper G11 deletion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• secondary sources. Before starting an article on any company, be sure to have multiple such sources, each all of (1) contains significant coverage; (2) source is reliable; (3) source, author, published are independent of the company; (4) the coverage is secondary source coverage, meaning it is commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, and is not just repeating facts. A yet better way to get started is to find coverage of the company in existing articles, and improve content making mention in those articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and restore to draft While I appreciate the vigor with which some admins go after promotional material, draft space is the one spot where we should have borderline cases (NOINDEX'ed, obviously) in the process of refining promotional copy and making it encyclopedic. Do we actually need to change CSD to say G11 doesn't apply to draft? We seem to be overturning a lot of these. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse. G11 applies to drafts just as much as to any namespace. We do not want any part of Wikipedia to contain advertising. Such content can be stored offsite if really needed. While I wouldn't have deleted this text, as it doesn't strike me as blatantly promotional, the deletion was, I think, within the deleting admin's discretion because there are certainly ways in which the text can be read as promotional.  Sandstein  07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The character is an

• I suggest you just write another article about him, there isn't anything preventing you from doing that as long as your version addresses the reasons why the page was deleted. The deleted article consisted of two sentences of unsourced prose followed by a short list of notable fights he's officiated at. The only source cited which wasn't a user edited wiki was [4] (which was an external link). If we are going to restore this it should be to draft space first so it could be brought up to acceptable standards there. Hut 8.5 18:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Restored as closing admin Sorry to be late to the game here, I think there is substantial evidence that the editor here has provided that the subject does meet BASIC, some of which would not have been available at the time of the AFD, and I've restored it, I would appreciate the article being improved. Hut's right that this could have been simply written from scratch, but I understand the desire to see if there's material that could be repurposed. --joe decker^talk 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  (I have also attempted a bit of cleanup.) --joe decker^talk 18:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you. The article will be improved in the coming weeks with additional info and references as required.
  talk) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

John O'Hara (musician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

Notoriety since deletion in 2009. Significant new information has come to light. Billboard chart #1 Jethro Tull: The String Quartets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_–_The_String_Quartets. Other albums include Thick As A Brick 2. Homo Erraticus, conductor/arranger Quadrophenia Theatre production UK, 2009. Quadrophenia theatre tour. Jethro Tull Orchestral DVD and more. As a composer: Welsh National Opera, U.K.- title, I Had An Angel. Three Choirs International Music Festival 2013, U.K.- title, The Bargee's Wife: http://seenandheard-international.com/2013/08/the-bargees-wife-closes-the-three-choirs-festival-impressively/. Cheltenham International Music Festival 2017, U.K. - title The Gloucester Magnificat. Theatre Music, Bristol Old Vic, U.K. title Trojan Women 2016. More…The article need updating once reinstated. LucyLou2002 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, while normally a charting album is a pretty good case at DRV, this isn't actually a John O'Hara album. It's an Ian Anderson album on which is heard a string quartet conducted by John O'Hara. The important thing is: is there in-depth biographical coverage in multiple independent reliable sources on this person from which we could write a BLP article? As far as I can tell, there isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The afd's eight years old and was closed as a
  Cryptic 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Restore. We weren't using the term soft delete at the time of the AfD, but that's essentially what this was, as Cryptic points out. That process says, the article can be restored for any reason on request, and we have a request here, so we should restore it. Starblind is correct that it still needs proper sourcing, but that question should be decided at AfD, and after restoration, anybody is free to bring it there. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I'm a little concerned that the nom is a

WP:SPA (contributions) but since the request is perfectly reasonable, I can't find it in me to make much of a fuss over that. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Restore and maybe put in draft for a bit until appropriate additional sources are added. This is a BLP, after all. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Promo Language Bulle Shah (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC) Comment It was the first time I had written on this title while being aware it's previous deletion records. The matter was with the language, my article was labeled as no different from the previous ones. But I have never seen how previous ones were because they were actually deleted. I wrote the article after having a good read around the other articles of the similar kind. I was ready to improvise but it was speedy deletion so I was left with no choice. The company passes

• Question and Comment This was present in slightly different form as a Draft and as an article, and it was speedy deleted from both. The speedy deletion from mainspace was unquestionably valid, because whether or not it meets the more subjective G11, it certainly meets G4, Regardless of whether G11 was valid, the speedy G11, the speedy deletion from mainspace should have been for G4, recreation of deleted article, because it does not meet the prior objections. We do not usually use G4 in Draft space, because the point of draft space is to get the article improved. I am not sure that it meets G11--the purpose behind writing the article was surely promotional, but the draft article was basically descriptive. There is no point moving it out of Draft, for it will surely be deleted in mainspace at AfD in either version even if it passes speedy. More to the point, however, is the question of whether you are in violation of the our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. I ask because all your previously created articles have been either deleted as promotional/non notable, , except for Dreamcatcher (2016), which seems to have a confused history, with deletion tags having been removed, but which I have just nominated for G11 DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Reply What on earth makes you think I created Dreamcatcher(2016)? I requested a delete on it. And even asked some admin to help me with it. As I found the quint article to be written by the author herself.Bulle Shah (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll endorse the G11 in articlespace. The article had twice as many words describing the company's startup funding as for what it actually does, and half again as many about its competitors. Making the article neutral would have left it on the order of two and a half sentences long and, contra the claims above, the page got more promotional during the ten hours between being tagged and being deleted. The version deleted at AFD is worded differently, but makes all the same assertions almost point-for-point, and was better referenced besides; so - as DGG says - a G4 would have been completely justified too. —
  Cryptic 18:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  • Comment Reply So is it too much to ask for when I want to improve on my end and let this article be created in accordance with guidelines?Bulle Shah (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Also deleted today was a different version at
    Cryptic 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • There was a version of it deleted at
    Cryptic 05:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • @Cryptic let's not rely too much on what Seems to you. Bulle Shah (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What on earth keeps a notable topic away from having a Wikipedia article? when it clearly passes
    WP:GNG.Bulle Shah (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • There is nothing keeping an article about this buisness from beign created, provided it can be done
      undue promotionalism. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• The previous version, or at least its last revision, was perhaps not blatantly promotional, but at best it needed significant work. I would not oppose restoring it as a draft, but perhaps it might be better in this case to start over, again in Draft. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I requested an Admin to discuss on moving it to draft but I was ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara I was trying to edit it to make it neutral but it was deleted like in a couple of hours and it left no room for me to edit the same. On the top of it, it was salted by the admin who paid no heed to my request for help. Nobody was in a mood to help but to excercise their powers. Bulle Shah (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I would at last like to request admins to move it to Draft Space and unsalt it so that I could improve it and get reviewed by an editor.Bulle Shah (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• leave deleted Anyone interested in creating an article on this subject should start fresh from
  WP:Paid? I don't recall seeing an answer.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not Paid sir, nobody has paid me for any contribution here. I hope that answers your question. And I have beein saying the same. To start a fresh by having it unsalted. Thank you. Bulle Shah (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Draft:UrbanClap is salted. That would be the place to attempt to compose an article that remedies the past problems. Once submitted to the AfC people, progress could perhaps be shown. I would start with a simple declarative statement without wordage like "offering" and "provides" and "constitutes". I would use fresh sources, if any, that treat subject in depth. Believe me, I know how hard that can be. Sometimes, the sourcing just is not adequate and the subject does not meet notability requirements. But that is a problem that needs to be remedied before the article can be.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you @Dlohcierekim this was the most helpful comment so far. Bulle Shah (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Please conclude been 7 days. Regards. cosnis 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC) my previous nickname was bulle shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxnix (talk • contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

This was a U20 footballer deleted as NN. Since the deletion Arkorful has played (rather unsuccessfully) for

• Be
  WP:BOLD. The AfD was four years ago. If things have changed since then, you don't need a DRV to recreate the article, as long as the new article addresses the issues from the AfD. And, of course, somebody could still bring it back to AfD. But, no need to discuss it for a week here. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I'm not interested in writing a football article myself, and if I wanted to be bold, I would just undelete it unilaterally. There is also the small matter of who should get the credit for creating the page in the page history. SpinningSpark 14:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to restoring the old article to draft space, and once there, see no problem with moving it back to mainspace after improvements to demonstrate

WP:N. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• The article was very short and what was there would need substantial updates if undeleted. I don't see much point in restoring it unless someone is prepared to make those updates. Instead I suggest we either wait for someone to write a a new article or to restore it to draft space pending an update. Hut 8.5 06:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Permit Recreation if there are new developments that would push this past the GNG. I'd be happy to restore to draft space for someone to try and salvage something, but as noted by User:Hut 8.5 there isn't really that much there to restore and you'd probably be better off recreating from scratch. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Restore to Draft per RoySmith Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Big Fish Theory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

With roughly equal numbers of editors favoring redirect and delete, and with no strong policy-based arguments made that favor deletion over a redirect, while some such arguments were made in favor of redirect, it is hard to read this as a consensus to delete, and deletion requires a consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, after all. In short there was no agreement to delete this, and so no agreement to delete the history. Besides, if this does become notable shortly, as one editor suggested, an undelete and history merge would be in order, so why set ourselves up for that extra work. Besides, the previous deletion review was inappropriately closed early. It doesn't matter who brought a review, or what that editor's motives were, when uninvolved editors i good standing have found enough merit in the case to favor overturning the close. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't even matter.
  Cryptic 00:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closer's comment: This review still looks pointless to me because the article has been recreated with what look like substantial improvements. Unless the request is to revert the article to a redirect, and why should we do that?  Sandstein  04:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect and restore the history per reasons given at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 12#Big Fish Theory. That the article has been recreated does not mean the AfD close was correct and it does not bring back the article history. The purpose of this review is to address the incorrect close and restore the status quo ante before the recreation. No one is proposing to revert the current article to a redirect.
  On a side note: Like DESiegel writes, closing the previous DRV was the wrong decision. Jax 0677 had every right to request the review. Saying the nominator cannot request a review of a delete-close implies that a nominator has to stick by their proposal even if they are later convinced that consensus is different. That's the opposite of how consensus should work and RoySmith should know better. If in the course of the AFD people convince me, that I was wrong to nominate the article for deletion, I can change my opinion and argue for keeping. And if the AFD is then closed as delete even though consensus was to keep, I have the same rights as any other editor to request a review. That Jax 0677 was blocked for a different reason later does not change that at all. Regards SoWhy 06:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Looks like a duck to me -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment At this point, i would suggest a formal note that the original close has been overturned, and a history merge, and a small trout for the early close of the previous DRV. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Question. Redirect to what? No one actually says, which is a good reason to have deleted. "Redirect" !votes require checking that the topic is covered at the target. I think the title is ambiguous with Big-fish–little-pond effect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Albums non-notable on their own are redirected to either the artist's article or their discography article, per
  WP:ATD-R. Also, if the reviewing admin had been unsure whether a suitable redirect target exists, he should have relisted the debate instead to allow for clarification instead of closing it as "delete". Saying "delete because redirect target was not explicitly mentioned" ignores the consensus at the AFD which was to redirect. Plus, at the time the AFD was closed, the album was explicitly mentioned in this artist's article, so the redirect target was pretty clear. Regards SoWhy 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• User:SoWhy, the complexity of that answer while failing to answer the simple question speaks to my point. I suppose it means Overturn (relist for clarification of "redirect" !votes). The dearth at Vince_Staples#Discography implies that the redirect target should be Vince_Staples_discography. At that article, I see, matching the deleted article lede, that this album is three days short of its scheduled release. So isn't this all a waste of time, just wait one week and the ground will have changed. It this a short term promotion-antipromotion battle? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it does, SmokeyJoe. That two viable redirect targets might have existed does not change the fact that the consensus was to redirect. As I said above, if the reviewing admin is unsure where to redirect to, he should relist the discussion to achieve clarification, not just ignore the consensus and delete the article. As for the rest of your comment, it's not a "short term promotion-antipromotion battle", it's just the process we have to determine whether an admin acted correctly when closing a XFD discussion. That new information makes the prior discussion moot does not mean the prior decision was right. The point of this DRV is to restore the history to the current article, not to restore the article to a redirect, but that requires overturning the wrong delete-close. Regards SoWhy 06:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• SoWhy, I think we are in 99% agreement. The discussion was unclear on the redirect target, and could use more clarity on that point. I proffer that the lack of clarity on the redirect target may have caused the closer to shy away from finding the consensus to redirect. This DRV, like all DRVs, serves to provide ongoing education to all closers, to encourage correct decision making, and to ensure best outcomes, including on questions of a clean available page history. Only as a tangential aside, do I wonder whether the original AfD listing, and then the DRVs, are partially motivated by concerns of promotion for an album to be released in three days, and while noting
  WP:REFUND request for the history would be an obvious approve, and I agree that the history should never have been deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (
  Cryptic 07:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

Discussion was only open for two hours, before non-admin-closure as "Speedy Keep". Due to the fact that the article page history [7] involves multiple admins redirecting the page, it should've been allowed to either run its course for the full time for a

• Self-Endorse deletion decision: The two admims were only involved only removing POV fluff as Deletion is not cleanup. KGirlTrucker81 ^{huh? what I've been doing} 22:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I don't know why we are here. The AFD nominator (also DRV nominator) never advanced a reason to delete the article. The nomination statement started off with "Article subject is a person who appears to be notable" and ends the nomination with "Notable biography". This is an example of WP:Speedy keep#1. Four people put in their opinions and none of them thought the article should be deleted. AFD is not a venue for cleanup. ~ GB fan 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Aaron Bastani of Novara Media has appeared on Sky news multiple times during the run up the United Kingdom general election, 2017. Novara Media has recently hosted Jeremy Corbyn , Paul Mason, Yanis Varoufakis,John McDonnell, Lily Allen, Caroline Lucas, Alex Salmond and more on their various video articles.

They are one of the few media commentators that correctly predicted the results of the election. They are a vital voice for left wing politics which is otherwise ignored by much of mainstream media.

I genuinely believe this article's taken down for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron on Sky News [8][9] Jeremy Corbyn Interview [10] John McDonell Interview [11] Alex Salmond Interview [12] Paul Mason Interview [13] Caroline Lucas Interview [14] Patrickbettington (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Aaron Bastani: As I noted on my talk page, being on the news multiple times on its own is not enough to have an article - people need to actually talk about someone. I also do not know this individual at all nor what political viewpoints they might have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to find sources that talk about these people, not just sources where they are doing something (interviewing someone). See
  WP:PRIMARY. Endorse deletion for now. Happy to shift if you find good, independent, third-party secondary sources. If you have doubts, come to my talk page. I'm very much an inclusionist (I like to see us cover as much as we can within our rules) so I'd be happy to see the articles exist if the sources exist (I'm also fairly liberal, so no bias against these folks seems likely, but I'm American and don't really know a huge amount about English politics.). Hobit (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Aaron Bastani has over 33k Twitter followers [1] Novara Media has over 28k ^[2]

Guardian Article from last September listing both Novara Media and Aaron Bastani as part of New left movement ^[3]

Mention in Recent BBC article ^[4]

Mention in Daily Express ^[5]

Canary Article ^[6]

Spike Magazine ^[7]

Aljazeera ^[8]

The Sun ^[9]

The Mirror ^[10]

Patrickbettington (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At what point does it change from being on the news a few times, to people talking about them? He is a political commentator running and representing a media outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

openDemocracy interview with co-founder James Butler about Novara Media as a project ^[1]

Expression of support for a Novara Media fundraiser on the Verso Books blog ^[2]

Discussion on BBC 4's The Media Show about new media organisations, including Novara Media, and their effect on the

Endorsement and description of Novara at the start of Jacobin's radio interview with Richard Seymour ^[4]
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cooombs (talk • contribs) 14:48, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• send back to AfD. The sources above aren't great, but the OpenDemocracy interview is pretty good coverage (I've never agreed that interviews were somehow not useful). The other sources largely don't provide much discussion about the topics. I suspect we'll end up with one article with the other merged in. But yeah, I think the discussions didn't really touch on the sources (likely because they were unaware of them), so it's worth trying again. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist at AfD per Hobit since the AfDs did not discuss these sources. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• While most of the sources that have been listed here are either utterly insubstantial or taboid horseshit, I think that some of the sources relating to Novara Media are enough to establish notability, and that the organisation has clearly become more high-profile and thus more widely-discussed since the 2015 AfD, and my !vote is to allow recreation or failing that relist
  Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and especially to remember to assume good faith, i.e. to refrain from the very tiring insistence that Wikipedia editors are motivated by political grudges rather than an interest in building and maintaining an encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:Arms &amp - Apologies. The timing of Aaron Bastani page coming down was unfortunate, 3 days after an election in which he was extremely vocal, I was aware of the principles, but thought they may have been circumnavigated. I've been sufficiently convinced by a number of users that it was not political. What would be the next step in order to "relist" Novara Media? Patience?Patrickbettington (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Has the press lost its power? - BBC Newsnight video with section about Novara Media's and Bastani's influence on
  United Kingdom general election, 2017 5:00 into film "Has the press lost its power? - BBC Newsnight"
  
  

Are further references required, or is the a consensus on Notability and move to relist ? Patrickbettington (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

2032 Summer Olympics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

In the very near future, these will be the first Summer Olympics to have no official host city. By now, there should be at least SOME information so that the 2032 Summer Olympics will actually have an article. For anyone who thinks this article should stay deleted, please reveal exactly what you support waiting until before re-creating the article. Georgia guy (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion the discussion was clearly calling for deletion. I personally think there are probably enough sources and information to justify an article, but that's not where the discussion went and the reasons for deletion were, well, reasonable. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I'm an idiot and missed that this AfD is two years old. My own searching made me think this was a reasonable topic for an article, but not clearly enough to override that discussion. So yeah, I'll strike that. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Unsalt I don't think the OP here actually wanted a review of the closure of a two year old deletion discussion. However the major argument for deletion was
  WP:TOOSOON and people noted that the 2028 games hasn't been awarded to a city yet. That games is due to be awarded in September of this year, at which point this will be the next games that hasn't been awarded yet and anybody looking to host the Summer Olympics will be bidding for this one. This change in circumstances has made the 2015 deletion discussion less relevant. Hut 8.5 18:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Unsalt per Hut 8.5. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The article was submitted after thoroughly going through and following all the guidelines specified by Wikipedia. I strongly believe that Wikipedia encourages people to make valuable and informative contributions and that is exactly the reason why I attempted to create this article of a company which has been in operation for more than 16 years. Kindly have a review and guide me on the steps I should follow in this regard. Imorningstar85 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I take it you mean
  Cryptic 11:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

More info on my talk page. Can't see the screen well enough to format the links. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion as obvious spam.
  WP:SPA nom is probably worth blocking. Also, see related Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Altimetrik. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Related how? I haven't had any coffee yet, but the only connection I see is that they're both IT consultancies in India. Those are... not exactly uncommon. —
    Cryptic 12:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Oh, sorry, I should have mentioned that it's linked from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITC Infotech as an example of being created by the same original author (although, now that I look closer at the article histories, I'm not sure that's correct). -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion, blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to even begin to meet our criteria. Not that I'd object to an article about the company written in a neutral fashion, but this isn't it. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]

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

• Sure it was: it was deleted immediately after the discussion was closed, then deleted again after it was recreated two days later. What action are you asking for? —
  Cryptic 05:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment, looks like a fairly straightforward case of the article being recreated after being deleted at AFD, and then (quite properly) deleted via G4. The article texts were identical, right down to grammatical errors. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Sorry new to this, hadn't realised page had already been deleted twice. Was asking for it to be deleted again because I had seen the discussion about deleting it, see that it has now been done. Thanks
  ^(talk) 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Big Fish Theory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

removing the page was agreed upon, deleting the article history was not agreed upon Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Is there some specific action that you're proposing? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  Comment - Reinstate redirect with article history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Simply put, as a reply to your DRV request: yes, actually, it was agreed upon. That's what deletion is; it both removes the article and deletes the article history. See
  SkyWarrior 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply - Actually, @Gongshow:, @Another Believer: and I all agreed to redirect instead of delete. This implies no consensus to remove the potentially useful article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to redirect. With roughly equal numbers of editors favoring redirect and delete, and with no strong policy-based arguments made that favor deletion over a redirect, while some such arguments were made in favor of redirect, it is hard to read this as a consensus to delete, and deletion requires a consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, after all. In short there was no agreement to delete this, (
  SkyWarrior's comment to the contrary notwithstanding, and so no agreement to delete the history. Besides, if this does become notable shortly, as one editor suggested, an undelete and history merge would be in order, so why set ourselves up for that extra work. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I'm unsympathetic to the nominator here. If you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it for deletion. Forcing people to argue against a position you don't hold is disruptive.
  On the merits, this has already been recreated as a redirect, and that deletion discussion doesn't make it a G4. The deleted history looks
  Cryptic 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Reply - @
  PROD}} was removed, and two of the potential results of AFD are "Merge" and "Redirect with History". Unless it is agreed to delete the article history, that history should be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Endorse- I agree with Jax 0677 and Cryptic. Reyk _YO! 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Why are we even here? The album has apparently been released, and a seemingly reasonable article appears at that target. Can we put the past article history back underneath the current article? I don't see why not: no reason NOT to came up in the AfD. So assuming this article is on the same album, and no objectionable (e.g., copyvio, defamation, etc. as opposed to simply non-notable) material was present, then can someone just undelete the past history and us all move on? Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - @
  WP:HISTMERGE should take place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn to redirect and restore the history per Jclemens. The AfD was incorrectly closed as delete with both delete !votes failing to take into account
  non-applicable essay) while a majority correctly favored redirection; even the nominator was in favor of a redirect. I cannot see a policy-based reason to delete this article and none was mentioned at the AFD. Overturning the deletion also restores the history, so two problems solved at once. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep the page due to this interview from a significant source about album as well as various sources about the upcoming release of the LP. editorEهեইдအ😎 17:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect per SoWhy. I see a consensus that the article shouldn't exist, but not a consensus to delete the history and the alternative of redirecting was raised and effectively argued for. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment: Requesting deletion and then contesting the requested outcome is frivolous, and responding to such requests is a waste of time.  Sandstein  22:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Also the requester is now apparently blocked for disruption, so maybe this was all trolling?  Sandstein  22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Support- This sounds reasonable, but the new redirects would need to be protected for the same reasons the originals were salted. Reyk _YO! 08:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, and definitely protect them to stop the inevitable vandalism. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, sounds reasonable to me although I emphasise that the redirects would absolutely need to be protected to stop them becoming targets for vandalism once more. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Support and protect per the above. It's a reasonable target, but without protection, we will have problems. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support with protection. The two titles seem like an absolutely plausible search target, so I don't see any reason not to have a redirect. I don't think this even needs to go the full 7 days. The Wordsmith^{Talk to me} 13:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

We need to review whether G11 is really appropriate. This article was actually kept at

Comment.It was also deleted four times prior to the AfD. For the record, by

^{semper crescis, aut decrescis} 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• Can't see the article, but looking at the Wayback machine, it didn't look like a G11 candidate to me. Given it has made it through AfD before, it needs to go to AfD. So overturn speedy and list at AfD as desired. The sources in the article that I saw were weak enough there may be a WP:N argument. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, maybe list at AfD. The deleted text is simply not promotional - it's borderline A7, but one of the references lists it as the largest of its type in the country[15] so along with everything else it's probably not a speedy. The db-spam tag was added with this parameter: "reason=This article is about a recent tuition centre in India, which is not notable enough to have an article on an encyclopaedia. Specifically, the reasons for its non-notability are: Limited interest to the public, Lack of independent sources (non-routine coverage)", which is not a G11 reason. It's also worth pointing out that all of the recent deletions and undeletions are the result of tagging by the same one editor. That alone should be enough to list it at AfD. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• comment from most recent deleter AGREE w/ restore. Not sure how back that should go. I should have more closely looked at the history. I make note that Specialpage (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) had previously tagged for CSD and had it declined more than once. If someone had appealed on my talk page, I'd have restored. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• I just looked at the version from 8 June 2017, at 06:24 (ET). It is somewhat promotional, but I would not have accepted (would have declined) a G11 on this text. Overturn to normal editing. Do not automatically list at AfD, if it is to be listed, there should be an actual nominator to make a proper case for deletion, and to do
  WP:BEFORE searches on it first. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Looking at the log files, this looks like a mess. Is it possible that we're dealing with a paid deletion tagger, someone acting in bad faith to delete the competition's coverage? Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with a small {{
  not eligible for speedy deletion. Even if it had been, G11 did not apply since multiple revisions contained neutral text. I believe the deletion policy allows Dlohcierekim as the last one to delete the article to reverse their decision without this having to go the whole 7 days. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I've pushed the restore button twice to no avail. Not awake yet. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dennis Brown provided a novel analysis, in which he discounted every single !vote and agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted. While his detailed rationale and cordial response to my raising the topic are commendable, the fact remains that the numerical !vote was 5 vs. the nominator to not delete the article. Dennis Brown erred in counting the 2 merges and redirect as opinions favoring deletion, based on his own reading of how future editing might look. Multiple sources and another merge target had been raised in the discussion, and while it pains me to call it that, the close amounts to an inappropriate supervote, and as such either a relist or a no consensus outcome would have been preferable. Discussion with closing admin Dennis Brown concludes here Jclemens (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Affirm my close This is less controversial than it seems. The target for merging was just a single name "list of" without any significant additional information. The name had already been added to the list, so there was no more material that could be merged; it was by all definitions, complete. By asking for a merge or redirect, the three editors (plus the one nominator) are in effect saying the article should not exist as a stand alone article. The two keep votes were completely void of any policy basis. There were 4 people saying the article should not exist as it stands, and two people using invalid rationales for keeping it. Not one policy based "keep" vote was cast. No matter which particular words are used to express it, since there was nothing left to be merged before deleting, the only logical interpretation was that the consensus of policy based responses was to make the article go away, ie: delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... except that one editor had already proposed expanding the identified target/character list from mere mentions to summaries. Should someone decide to do that in the future, they now have zero access to the previous revisions of the article to do so. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • One person of 6 participants casually mentioned that it was merely possible to expand the target. He wasn't volunteering. In fact, he flatly said "but I think it's sufficiently covered at
      WP:PRESERVED. He was still saying Simon Stagg should go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
      • Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been - when I said that, I was only meaning a specific portion of the article - the section on the character's television appearance. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And much like your opening statement, saying they have zero access is hyperbole. I've never refused a userfy request, which I have yet to receive on this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • My sincere apologies if you thought I was saying that you, or any other admin, or REFUND, wouldn't provide access to the deleted content on request. But until that happens, yes, non-admins have zero access to the content. I can't see it, you can, and that is why
        WP:ATD-R are so important, because by your closure as delete you have removed all that content from user-accessible sight, and I daresay most admins are too busy to work on random fictional elements topics like this one. As a curationist, I certainly don't have time to go around requesting access to random deleted fictional elements just to see if there's anything worth merging, and that's why DRV'ing this likely-not-very-important content is important for the overall health of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
• Overturn I do not see a clear consensus to delete here, and that is what is needed for deletion to happen. Also, there appears to ahve been a serious lack of
  WP:BEFORE searching on the nominator's part. When he wrote "As for Google, that also doesn't mean a thing he was correct that numbers of google hits don't make a topic notable, but overlooked that google is a good place to find sources, and if the sources exist, even if not yet in the article, deletion is improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Overturn to Redirect - As Dennis said, the policy-based !votes clearly do not favor keeping the article. I read consensus as redirect, though. Although some said merge, the proposed merge target is nothing but a list of names that already includes the subject in question. So it's already "merged" to the extent it can be with that list's format, and the merges should just be considered redirects. As long as the name is listed there, a redirect seems meh, even if there's no other information. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to redirect while the Keep comments were not based on policy and were properly discounted, I don't agree with discounting the redirect/merge comments. While the target article is currently just a list of names that does not mean that we can't expand it to include other information, and redirection leaves open the possibility of merging relevant material if desired. The redirect as it stands would still give useful information about the subject (he's a DC character). Redirection is also more in keeping with the rough consensus of the discussion, as nobody except the nominator supported deletion and the nominator didn't express any sort of opposition to redirection or merging. Hut 8.5 10:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no argument for deletion or wrong forum  The AfD nomination hasn't made an argument for deletion, since GNG is only a sub-standard of a guideline to decide if a topic is to be standalone or covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia.  There is no dispute that this topic remains on Wikipedia after the deletion, nor were there WP:DEL-REASONs in the closing that justified the removal of the work product in the edit history.  The remaining issues are content issues, which as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT such discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, or if necessary at RfC.  Note that the AfD nomination stipulates that single-sentence reliable content is available.  Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

The actress is not a one film wonder as described, she has 1 movie, 1 short, 2 commercials and multiple music videos to her credit. There is ample news generated and I can tab articles, she is also signing new movies so think this should be undeleted. Shyamkrishnan2k (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Consensus was a unanimous delete, so there's nothing to be faulted about the close. Has anything changed since January that would make this person notable now when she wasn't then? Reyk _YO! 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

There were far more votes for Keep than Merge. Consensus was wildly misinterpreted. Mishigas (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Also, "covfefe" garners more than 22 million hits on google, conferring notability.Mishigas (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]

I count over 100 votes for keep/covfefe. Admin did not even provide a rationale for closing. I think this was a case of

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

)

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

)

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

)

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

)

I am not clear, George Ho. Do you want these redirects undeleted? If so why? Or if not, exactly what do you want done about them? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 20:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Undeleted if necessary. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, for consistency, if one re-created page should be kept, then "undelete" them all; if the re-created page should be deleted, then "endorse" deletion. We can't have one kept and the rest deleted. Sorry for not explaining more clearly, DESiegel. I don't mind undeletion if no one else objects. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see, George Ho. Consistency is a virtue, although not an overriding one, in my view. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But since you brought these here, what is your view? Do you think they should all be deleted, or all undeleted? What purpose should they serve, if any? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects are cheap. If anyone can type "good article" or "good articles", he or she can be redirected to "Wikipedia:Good articles". Some people don't have to type in "Wikipedia:", so "good article" is easier to type. The redirects can have their potential use, even when

WP:R#DELETE says, let's use "common sense", make exceptions, and undelete them all. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

• New RfD The old RfD was clear, that mainspace redirects to projectspace are not appropriate. However, consensus may well have changed between now and then, so I agree that a G4, while technically permissible, is inferior to a new discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects seems to cover this quite clearly. On the other hand, as Jclemens points out, the last AfDs on these were years ago and consensus can change, so there's no harm in another RfD. But I honestly don't see how that would end in any different result from the previous ones. This seems like a rather basic policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion,
  WP:CNR still has consensus rather than picking at individual examples. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 04:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Endorse, feel free to list at RfD per RoySmith. Consensus can change, but I doubt it has. But given the time since the last discussion, it's not unreasonable to check to see if it has. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse without prejudice to a new RfD.
  WP:CNR has broad consensus but it is not an open and shut case as recent discussions have looked not just at age but at factors such as how useful they are to very new users, how likely they are to be confused with an article, and what the nature of the target is. If anyone feels these redirects should be created (its not clear to me whether the nominator here does or not) then a new RfD would be the place to explain why. If the arguments are clearly presented then the outcome of the discussion is not a foregone conclusion. A muddled mess with no clear reason why they are beneficial despite being CNRs to project space will just waste everyone's time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow redirects to Wikipedia#Wikiprojects, and assessments of articles' importance and quality, where good articles are mentioned. This was suggested by Thryduulf (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 January 29#Good articles but no editors in the RfD discussed the excellent suggestion. This addresses the Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects concerns and points readers to a mainspace article that discusses and links to Wikipedia:Good articles.

  Cunard (talk) 05:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about the above suggestion, Jclemens, RoySmith, Lankiveil, and Hobit? Would that work better than leaving the redirect as retargeted to the project page? --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• It certainly addresses the cross-namespace issue. But, I'm vaguely of the opinion that we should be covering real-world topics in mainspace, not things internal to wikipedia. WP:Navel-gazing kind of supports that feeling, but it's only an essay. So, I'm having trouble forming a strong opinion on this one way or the other. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse without prejudice to a new RfD. I'm mostly responding to
  Good articles, which I was pinged about after deleting it in February 2014. Except for really egregious stuff, I wouldn't object to a "retrial" for anything deleted that long ago. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

)

This article is about a Grammy Award winning producer. There are over 20 articles that should link to this deleted article but instead link to the wrong Mike Mangini who coincidentally was born in the same year and is also in the music industry.

Wikipedia articles that incorrectly link to the wrong Mangini include: 43rd Annual Grammy Awards, The Best of Joss Stone 2003–2009, Don't Cha Wanna Ride, Mind Body & Soul, Raymond Angry, Righteous Love and many more.

See: https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/mike-mangini https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/michael-mangini 147.9.66.69 (talk) 01:02, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone please temp undelete this so we can see if G11 actually applied? This appears to be another JzG deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done. This stinks, frankly: the article did have a promotional tone, it was written by someone who's been banned for undisclosed paid editing and it was edited by one of the subject's children (who showed up a day after it was created). Hut 8.5 04:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... and then it was cleaned up by a well-respected editor in good standing, Beyond My Ken. Overturn G11 as I see nothing sufficient to trigger G11, let alone something that could not have been removed through regular editing. I'm afraid JzG's militant stance against paid editing has prompted multiple improper deletions, of which this is one. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn, optional reslist We do not at the moment have a firm policy about whether articles originally created by undisclosed paid editing should be deleted, regardless of what subsequent work by good faith editors has since gone into them. I can see very strong arguments for each view. The argument from deletion is to award rewarding the editors, but equally it discourages people who may not have realized their origin from improving articles . I am quite clear that it is not good policy to improve the articles: they should rather be immediately removed. But once they have been improved, it is a different matter. I think what to do at that point depends both on the importance of the article and the extent of improvement; Certainly we should want to do everything practical to discourage the undeclared paid editors, because their work leads to the destruction of a NPOV encyclopedia ; but it is not wise to destroy the encyclopedia in the process. However, in this case, the improvements, though certainly very good improvements, had not yet entirely removed the promotional nature of the article. My experience is that it is quite difficult to do that without either stubbifying or rewriting most of the sections. For example "Identifying a need to develop and nurture young artists, " and the repetition of the phrase " a multi-Platinum award-winning", and some unnecessary adjectives. But I say overturn in the end for two reasons: the deleting admin should have contacted BMK as a courtesy to an established editor, to give him a chance to improve further. Second, by the standards of articles on this subject, I'm not sure whether this really does count in its present form as entirely promotional , as further improvements were feasible, leaving the actual basic facts. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctant Overturn, with no prejudice against the deleting admin. The article is promotional, although not enough to meet G11 in my mind. I would really like a way to deal with undisclosed paid editing that did not result in articles like this surviving, but as a community we haven't come to a consensus on that yet, hence this speedy was not valid. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 08:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn  The standard for G5, to protect an AfD nomination created by a banned or block-evading editor, is that ONE GOOD EDIT prevents the G5.  The issue of undisclosed paid editing is related.  The case here is one with multiple good edits in the article.  It is policy (see WP:Editing policy) to improve articles with problems.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 does not apply just because the article is a result of paid editing, it also needs to read like an advertisement. If the deleting admin feels paid editing alone should be sufficient for speedy deletion, they should propose a change to G11, not just apply it anyway. Regards SoWhy 12:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, painfully. I'm torn between two things I feel very strongly about. One is that paid promotional editing is anathema to the basic concept of wikipedia. Even if the article is subsequently cleaned up by a good wiki-citizen, as
  WP:G11
  no longer applies.

On the other hand, what I think should happen is not policy.

On the third hand, policy here is as much a codification of what we do in practice as it is law handed down from on high, so maybe if we got more serious (effective, etc) about policing violations of our

WP:PAID

, post-cleanup deletions would indeed become policy, and that would be a good day.

The second thing I feel strongly about is that admins need to be very conservative about how they apply

WP:CSD is not. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

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

)

This isn't to say that this message template should remain under the old (lack of) naming convention. Indeed, I would be in favour of reinstating this or a similar message as {{uw-blank1}} (replacing the existing redirect to {{uw-delete1}}), and writing a new message for {{uw-blank2}} along the same lines. — Smjg (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• I tend to agree with Smjg about the merits of the issue. However, since this was implemented with a redirect rather than a deletion, wouldn't a simple template talk page discussion be sufficient? If the consensus agrees with Smjg, the redir can be undone with normal editing, including a move to a better name if wanted. I don't see any procedural errors in the TfD discussion which would justify DRV overturning that discussion. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Had I been asked on my talk page, I would have basically said what DESiegel said above. If you want to change these back from redirects to warning templates, then you should feel free to do so. Just make sure any new version substitutes cleanly. Thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for making them redirects in the first place, Plastikspork. That makes understanding the issue much plainer, and makes backing out the change that much easier, once an actual rationale for maintaining them as separate templates was brought up. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It was my understanding that, once action has been taken as a result of an AfD, TfD or whatever, one can't just go in and reverse this action. Are you saying that this isn't the case, or is this basically an authorisation to go ahead and restore it?

Anyhow, I'll start a discussion on

WT:UTM on the best plan for this template. — Smjg (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply

]

Smjg, When the action is "Delete" this is somewhat true, although a recreation that cures the problem does not always need formal permission. (For example a bio deleted because of insufficient sources to establish notability, later recreated with several additional good sources is not a violation.) But where the result was "redirect", that is technically an ordinary editing action that anyone can undo, although it is better if there is some new consensus -- that is why I suggested talk page discussionfirst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Change the redirects back to templates without prejudice against a TfD renomination because Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 28#Template:Blank had very little discussion and the closing admin wrote above, "If you want to change these back from redirects to warning templates, then you should feel free to do so." Cunard (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not spam; the company's main claim to notability arises from the

• Restore although some parts of the article were spammy (particularly the second paragraph which reproduced sales brochures), this was balanced by negative material such as the company's collapse and the fact that "returns after the first year dropped dramatically". As the company went bust in 1991 there is no promotional motive in creating this article and we can be more lenient than we would otherwise be. Hut 8.5 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn deletion, Restore and do not automatically list at AfD. I am surprised at the deleting admin, this doesn't look remotely close to being so "blatantly" promotional that a "fundamental rewrite" would be required. Even had this been a currently active company, this was not within the G11 speedy delete range in my view. It needs more sources and from them, more details, but in this case I will be astounded if those sources can't be found. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn
  WP:CSD clearly doesn't apply here. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • On a procedural note, it doesn't look like the nom made any attempt to discuss this with the deleting admin. It's really a good idea to do that (and part of the instructions for listing something at DRV). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The deleting admin has resigned his adminship and retired from Wikipedia. Compy book (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Wait, really? Bummer. clpo13_(talk) 23:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes see this. JzG has not edited since that edit. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:56, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Any perceived promotionalism - and I don't think this would have been a valid G11 even had the last revision been the only one - could have been solved by reverting to the version before
  Cryptic 23:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Well i must say, that "gutting" does seem to have removed mostly unsourced content, some of it rather POV, although I wouldn't be surprised if it could be supported by sources. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources were removed in the same edit. Inline referencing was almost unheard-of when the article was written, and it had never been updated. —
      Cryptic 08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Overturn. Allow listing at AfD. Someone wants a discussion, let them have it, it should be a right for any contest of G11 and many other speedies. The article should have been considered speedy-proof as a previously contested PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, G11 was an odd choice given that the company is apparently no longer in operation and the article discussed their poor investment returns and other financial woes; not typical subjects for marketing copy. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
• SNOW overturn Not only did G11 not apply at all, no other speedy deletion criteria did. JzG essentially wheel warred when he used the tools in an inappropriate manner and without (that I can see...) discussion to undo what JohnCD had dutifully done by restoring a contested PROD a short time prior to the out-of-process speedy deletion. No other editor had tagged the article for speedy deletion, which makes the against-policy G11 that much more outrageous. There's no excuse for that conduct. Refer to AfD as desired, no prejudice against it. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Dated (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I used this, and it worked. If the creator of {{

• Relist to allow more discussion of these technical matters by template experts. This review request is technically invalid because it does not attempt to show why the TfD was wrongly closed, but the TfD had very little input and could use a second round of discussion.  Sandstein  08:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as nominator of the TfD. This nomination makes so sense. {{
  refimprove}} is irrelevant here, because it has more than one significant contributor, which makes it inelligible for G7. Pppery 11:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• (edit conflict) Closer comments - The example given in the nomination is a bit off - the creator didn't want it deleted, they said they were fine if it was deleted, because there was something better that could be used. Also, it's not like the template was just going "poof" and disappearing; it was being replaced by a method that doesn't involve a third template.