Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 2017 Deletion review archives June 2017 >

31 May 2017

30 May 2017

  • Template:La Reine Margot – Endorsed. There was some suggestion of further discussions to clarify the underlying policies, which seems like a good idea, but there was also clearly a consensus in favour of endorisng the outcome in this particular case. – Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:La Reine Margot (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Userfied version: User:TonyTheTiger/Template:La Reine Margot

Recently

Robsinden, and Frietjes) that the template (which can be seen at User:TonyTheTiger/Template:La Reine Margot) was redundant with {{Alexandre Dumas
}}. There are 16 links in the template at issue. At the time of the discussion 4 of those links were included in the Dumas template and a fifth has been added since the discussion closed. All of the disscussants ignored the 11 historical characters and a consensus resulted that ignoring the 11 historical figure links, the other 5 were largely redundunant with the Dumas template making the template unnecessary.

The closer made no evaluation of whether the historical figure links should have been ignored. My issue is that the reason for ignoring the other 11 links when evaluating redundancy contravenes a well-honed guideline on

WP:BIDIRECTIONAL
directive to include such language since 2013 and has been using his expanded version to delete templates since that time. For an understanding of the longstanding and well-supported consensus against such language is as follows:

  • Overturn Given the history of the
    WP:WAWARD) 00:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Tony, as I pointed out in the discussion, the first line of
talk) 08:19, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
RobSinden, we have gone over this again and again in the six previous discussions at BIDIRECTIONAL. An article linked in a template need not include that template the template still provides navigation to all articles as a hub. It is much like the airport hub and spoke system.--
WP:WAWARD) 19:50, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
BIDIRECTIONAL states this, "Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox so that the navigation is bidirectional." Note that it includes the word "normally".
Are you taking "normally" there and "should" in your comment above in the RFC 2119 sense? i.e. that in most cases they will apply, but that it's recognised that there are exceptions? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAWARD) 00:42, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 May 2017

28 May 2017

  • Cryptic 05:23, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Isik Abla (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted against

WP:STALE and in spite of discussion then occuring on [User talk:Isik Alba1] Newimpartial (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

If it's a real problem, then it must be dealt with. My issue was procedural, since the article in question was deleted without discussion, and against my Prima Faciae objection. I have no sympathy with actual spam generators. Newimpartial (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm trying hard to believe that because you recently found a new wiki career protecting spam by trying to close MfDs with "procedural close", seeking to have spam undeleted, and now removing speedy tags from obvious spam cases. I'm thinking of going to ANi over your nonsense when I'm on a computer not mobile. Legacypac (talk)
You can believe what you want, but you are the one repeatedly violating
WP:CONSENSUS, Legacypac, not me.Newimpartial (talk) 04:10, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

I am fine with this to be closed, per

Cryptic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newimpartial (talk • contribs) 05:21, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx – No consensus. Opinions are divided about whether this text was spammy enough to warrant the G11 deletion. For lack of consensus to overturn, the speedy deletion is maintained by default. The deleted text is in this thread, so an immediate (perhaps less spammy) recreation is possible. An undeletion and listing at MfD is therefore unnecessary. –  Sandstein  13:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deleted against

WP:STALE and in spite of discussion then occuring on User talk:BucaFan3/Shy Kidx Newimpartial (talk) 02:19, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Prior to the SD, I looked at the userspace draft and did not see any evidence of

WP:SPAM; I therefore removed the SD tag which the nominator, Legacypac, then re-added. Admin then SDed the Userspace page in spite of the discussion ongoing on the talk page. CSD G11 is unambigious advertising, and I don't see how this deletion could possibly have met that standard. Therefore I am calling for a review. Newimpartial (talk) 05:30, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

after looking at it, I would say "justified deletion"--it is stretching G11 a little. But I should state very emphatically that I do not consider bringing it here disruptive. This is the proper place for questioning discussions on deletion. DGG ( talk ) 17:03, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, if you think so, but it wasn't a
bad faith nomination. I hope you can see that. Newimpartial (talk) 06:18, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
While I would normally provide the tempundelete, in this case I'm going to decline. The article was clearly of no value to the encyclopedia. It consisted of three external links to commercial sites where the subject's music could be purchased, and just enough text to hang the ref tags on. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The text was "Shy Kidx is a EDM project out of Italy.[1] They have released 3 tracks for sale on iTunes[2] through Epitaph Records.[3]", last edited (except for addition and removal of a db-g11 tag) in 8 November 2013. RoySmith's characterization of those three "references" is accurate. —
    Cryptic 15:40, 28 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Nominator's footnote: just so that everyone is on the same page: I do not support the retention of this particular draft; I nominated it originally in large part because as non-admin I couldn't see it, and was trying to assess a wave of draftspace MfDs, several of which seemed to stretch criteria. Today my attention was drawn to this, [13] the text of which seems to encourage CSD-tagging and AfC submission against prevailing policies, in order to "resolve" stale draft tags. Newimpartial (talk) 00:27, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You untagged the page before it was deleted. How is that not being able to see it? —
Cryptic 00:30, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry, Cryptic; I waw confusing it with another case that I requested thst the admin undelete but which I didn't take to this forum. I should have re-read my own request.
This one I untagged without checking the referencing, and then it was gone. Honestly, I thought at the time that it should have been discussed, but I also wanted to see the content because I couldn't remember what it had been and wanted to learn from the case (which I sure have). Sorry for confusing the matter with my earlier post. I do think the Category description reveals the process by which these overly enthusiastic CSD tags, mainspace transfers and AfC submissions are being generated. Newimpartial (talk) 01:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Newimpartial it is puzzling you are seeking to undelete something you don't want to retain. Many experiemced editors have counciled you to stop fighting deletion process and policy. You said you would, but here you are again, trying to say the long standing guide conflicts with policy. Roughly half your total edits concern telling everyone else the no one else understands MfD and CSD process and policy in favor of SPAM. Seems you
WP:NOTHERE Legacypac (talk) 04:26, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I was seeking to undelete something I no longer want to remain. Does that make more sense? And the "long standing guide" quite clearly conflicts with the results of last year's consultations and the resulting
WP:STALE
, as I believe you know.
And the majority of my edits are both unreverted and in articlespace, thanks. Many of the rest are talk page participation, etc. I don't tell anyone that "they don't understand" anything, and I have been even more careful with issues of tone, recently. Newimpartial (talk) 04:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If it is true that the role of participants is to research and locate a discussion with the deleting admin, why did DGG not make the report as the first respondent?  You yourself state, "...it was mentioned early in the discussion, if I am not mistaken."  This is a rather short discussion that you can't find the mention. 
Why is the discussion on the talk page of the deleted article only being reviewed by admins? 
I think you are dismissing the big picture, which is that if you are willing to give a blind eye to process irregularities at DRV, you weaken your objections to process irregularities of CSD.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:33, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As the person who initiated this deletion review, Unscintillating, I do not understand what you are saying. Both the article and the talk page of the article on which I originally commented were deleted. As a non-admin, I could then no longer see them. This is therefore the context of the review as a whole. I can't see anything out of the formal process whatever. Newimpartial (talk) 23:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ADMINACCT. If we had admin recall, this would surely be grounds to use it. Note that even if there had been a process irregularity here (which there hasn't), it would not involve misuse of admin tools, and so would be far less serious. DES (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
as to "experienced editors let us look a bit. DGG wrote: I should state very emphatically that I do not consider bringing it here disruptive.. DGG is an editor with lots of experience with deletions, speedy deletions, and deletion review. Hut 8.5, Thryduulf, Jclemens, Cunard, SoWhy, and myself all called for the deletion to be OVERTURNed. All of those are editors with significant experience of deletions and deletion review, if I am not mistaken. AS for myself, I patrol Category:CSD regularly (as my deletion log and contributions log will show), I have participated in quite a few DRV discussions over the years, and I was one of the group of editors who created the current DRV process out of the old VfU process. I really think all that should be enough to absolve the nominator of having made an out of process much less a disruptive nomination here. DES (talk) 08:52, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, also, please restore draft. The artist is notable as per WP:MUSICBIO and included in other versions of Wikipedia, such as the Portuguese version. Wikipedia is a global community, not reserved for US artists only. Pbigio (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Per Pbigio's argument that the draft might meet MUSICBIO, which means that there is a reason for the MfD beyond just process, which I did not see raised until now. As for my comments about disruption that others have mentioned: I've struck them because I do believe this nomination was in good faith, but at the time was a part of a set of behaviors that got the nominator warned against participation in the deletion process without more experience when it was brought up at ANI using this as one of the examples, and it was in that context that my original comment was made. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:37, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn without prejudice to an MfD if someone wants to. I don't feel this is overly promotional once the links are removed, I also think there is a credible a claim of significance. I don't think this has much of a chance as an article, but I don't really grok our music guidelines, so I could be wrong. Hobit (talk) 20:25, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Given the entire two sentences that were on the page have been posted in the thread, an overturn is not really helpful to anyone wanting to write an actual article on the topic. Legacypac (talk) 02:21, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Ignoring the article wizard boilerplate, you have to remove ~60% of the wikitext to get rid of the promotional material. That counts as a "fundamental rewrite" in my book. T. Canens (talk) 05:53, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 May 2017

26 May 2017

25 May 2017

24 May 2017

  • Draft:Maritime science fiction – Pretty clear consensus that G4 deletion was incorrect here, it is thus overturned. I note by-the-by that while they are not completely hopeless there are some serious questions in this discussion about the suitability of the draft for mainspace, however, so I expect that they'll get deleted again at MFD if notability is not established. As noted here, if editors were misbehaving on the drafts ANI is the right place to go to – Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Maritime science fiction (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

<When the article was deleted with conscientious (lack of reliable sources)

Draft:List of maritime science fiction works were deleted without warning and consensus. We tried to have the drafts un-deleted at Wikipedia: Requests for undeletion, but were instead asked to come here by the deleting administrator User:Orangemike Taeyebar 22:22, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion/Archive 268#Draft:Maritime science fiction and here for reference. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I echo what Lankiveil points out in his comment below. Draft space is a tool for improving the article, which means addressing head-on the issues raised in the AfD. It is not a quick path to side-stepping the AfD consensus; moving back into main space needs to be strictly conditional upon finding good sources to establish this as an accepted genre. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The harm comes from the fact this draft is from
    List of maritime science fiction works and the category. Consensus was Maritime science fiction is a setting, not a genre, and there is no academic coverage of it as such. Taeyebar was using it to edit war, inserting it into the lead of multiple articles. Taeyebar put in the same disputed genre change three times in a row, despite having no consensus and having been repeatedly warned against changing longstanding primary genres to his preferred subgenres. You should be aware that Taeyeaar's history as a genre warrior goes back years, as can be seen by the multiple previous warnings posted on his Talk page. Taeyebar may find other sources that talk about it, but they won't be academic and they won't establish it as a proper genre or subgenre. It is very likely Taeyebar will reinstate this draft as an article again, and there is every reason to believe he will then again use it to change the genre in the leads to multiple articles against consensus, taking up other editors' time yet again. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:05, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Restore draft. rDraft space is a place where articles can be improved to the extent that G4 will no longer apply. Every opportunity should be given for this, unless the draft is actually harmful (advertising, copyvio, serious BLP problem, and the like--none of which seem to apply here. DGG ( talk ) 07:23, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore draft per DGG. Note that if the user is so problematic that they've been banned, then G5 would apply. Failing that, no CSD operates on the basis of who is editing the content in question. Jclemens (talk) 18:26, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 doesn't apply to pages in draft space for improvement, and it doesn't make sense to use it on them. Hut 8.5 19:12, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - "[
    G4] excludes ... content that has been moved to user space or converted to a draft for explicit improvement". — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:34, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse the AfDs. They were clear decisions that the topic is unsuitable. Pretty significant new sources are required to overcome the deletion reasons. DraftSpace should not be allow to serve as a shadow-Wikipedia for deleted topics. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that is exactly one of the things that draftspace is for and should be used for. When an article is deleted as having insufficient sourcing, moving the content to draft space to allow editors to work on it, specifically including finding and adding sources, is explicitly allowed by the tems of G$, and is common practice, and benefits the project. I have made such moves myself in several cases, as well as moves of things tagged for speed deletion under A7 (or A1 or A3). And what we are endorsing or overtunring her eis the G4 speedy, not the AfD result. Of course, a mov back to mainspace is conditional on improving the sourcs to the point tha tthe old AfD does not apply, and is subject to a further AfD. If done when clearly improper, that would be disruptive editing. DES (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Draft space is suitable for bringing a Notable topic up to par, not so much for a non-notable one. Legacypac (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
10 years is a realistic estimate of how long it will sit in [16] before being deleted again. I should have been more clear. Legacypac (talk) 18:08, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what harm would be done if this did sit in draft space for 10 years? I see none. DES (talk) 23:08, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore draft and trout the deleting admin! G4 clearly says that pages "converted to a draft for explicit improvement" are excluded from its purview. This draft was being worked on, and at least once source had been added. Whether enough sources could be found to restore to mainspace no one knows and, it does not matter. (In any case a small edit could describe "Maritime science fiction" as a setting rather than a sub-genre, thus negating the argument that it isn't a sub-genre, with the rest of the draft unchanged.) There is really no such thing as an exhaustive search for sources, particularly in the field of SF where sources can be both highly reliable and quite obscure. So the argument that no sources exist and this can never be a valid article falls to the ground. And if someone does want to make that argument, it should be done via an MfD -- speedy deletions are for clearcut cases. I agree with the comments by RoySmith, DGG, and Hobit above. DES (talk) 23:28, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore draft per DES and DGG, and trout the deleting admin for a wildly inappropriate speedy deletion. G4 explicitly excludes content that is being worked on in draft space, this is content that was being worked on in draft space. Thryduulf (talk) 01:55, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore draft it is common for admins to restore copies of deleted articles to user or draft space for improvement. That wasn't the explicit case here, but the same principles apply. No clear reason for the G4, and it falls within the exclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore draft per User:RoySmith, with an added caveat that said restoration is not a licence to move the article back to mainspace without addressing the concerns raised in the AFD that caused it to be deleted in the first place. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore draft G4 does not apply to draft space works in progress. per DGG. per DES. The thing needs to be reviewed at AfC before returning to article space. Dlohcierekim (talk) 05:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia – soft redirect to wikt:hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia. I don't have much experience with soft redirects, so please feel free to correct any technical errors I made implementing this. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Suitable as a {{wiktionary redirect}} as a page repeatedly created but has no encyclopedic value. May be fully protected if necessary. feminist 03:27, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am unconvinced that the word actually exists, assuming that a "word" means not just a sequence of letters that somebody has made up, but something which is actually used in real language. A Google search turns up blogs, Twitter, wikis, etc, and online dictionaries, all defining the "word" or commenting on its existence, but I have not found even a single example of anyone actually using the word, nor even of anyone referring to any example of the word being used. At least some of the hits have used either Wiktionary or Wikipedia as their sources, and in view of the lack of any examples of actual use it is highly likely that all of them ultimately derive from such unreliable sources as Wikipedia, blogs, etc. I will not be totally upset if the outcome of this discussion is that the page is restored as a link to Wiktionary, but I think it is better not to do so, because my belief is that for Wikipedia to give any support at all to such a fake "word" is unhelpful. The editor who uses the pseudonym "
    talk) 15:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • If you search for Hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia insted (notice the extra p in the middle) you get a somewhat higher number of results, but again there are pretty few of them pre-2000. And of course it's not a word the people normally use, it's a made up word, yes, and one that has been made up specifically as an example of self-referential humour. And that's what it's known for. – Uanfala (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I did search under both spellings, and it is more than just "not a word the people normally use": can you give me one example of anyone ever actually using it? The editor who uses the pseudonym "
        talk) 08:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
        ]
      • Here is a 1980 book source about "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia":
        1. Coon, Dennis (1980). Introduction to Psychology: Exploration and Application (2 ed.). St. Paul, Minnesota:
          ISBN 0829903038. Retrieved 2017-05-30.

          The book notes in a footnote:

          *Obviously by combining the appropriate root word with the word phobia, any number of unlikely fears can be named. Some are acarophobia, a fear of itching, zemmiphobia, fear of the great mole rat, nictophobia, fear of backing into doorknobs; phobosophobia, fear of fear; and hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia, fear of long words!

        Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be reasonable as a soft redirect to a sister project due to it being a topic with a less-than-encyclopedic scope that has been repeatedly recreated. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 09:04, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What a joke. A non-existent word being suitable as a redirect, whether soft or hard, merely on the basis that someone tried repeatedly to push it into Wikipedia? Keep deleted with prejudice. Bishonen | talk 11:56, 26 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • @Bishonen: I can't view the deleted history. Was the page repeatedly recreated by the same user or IP address or different IP addresses? If so, I'll reconsider. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 12:10, 26 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does anyone object if I temporarily restore the article for study by DRV reviewers? Since 2006 there are about 100 edits, with plenty of vandalism and joke edits, and occasional good-faith ideas. If we are mainly concerned about abuse, then leaving the article deleted with the title permanently protected against recreation is about as useful as replacing it with a protected redirect to Wiktionary. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tempundeleted for review (and semi-protected). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The word "hippopotomonstrosesquipedaliophobia" has been discussed in seven reputable book publishers:
  1. West
  2. Routledge
  3. Penguin Group
  4. Oxford University Press
  5. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt
  6. John Wiley & Sons
  7. W. W. Norton & Company
Cunard (talk) 01:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2017

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Duncan Pescod (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Detailed timeline

History
21:53, 07 May – I create the article Duncan Pescod and edit it twice.
22:15, 07 May –

G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement. I exchange several messages on the article's talk page
with Chrissymad. I edit the article two more times.
23:08, 07 May – Chrissymad removes her citation of the G11 criterion. I edit the page once more.
23:55, 07 May – Article is speedily deleted by
G12
.
00:11, 08 May – I speak to SouthernNights who directs me to Deletion Review.
13:26, 09 May – I create a Deletion Review for the article. It gets 2 responses, both recommending sending the issue to
AfD
.
22:22, 09 May –
Cryptic
closes the Deletion Review, noting "Copyright violations are never restored."
22:29, 10 May – I begin a conversation with Cryptic. We exchange several messages between the 10th and 19th.
22:43, 19 May – Cryptic suggests I ask SouthernNights to temporarily restore the article without quotes. I do so.
03:14, 22 May – SouthernNights temporarily restores the article without the offending notes under the Sources section so it could come to Deletion Review.

Evidence for notability

PRESS HIGHLIGHTS Pescod takes the WKCD underground (2016), Pescod elevated to top post at West Kowloon agency (2015), Wrong man for the job? Artists express fears over appointment of new West Kowloon CEO (2015), Illegal structures found at housing chief's property (2012).
Please note that I am only including English written media.

Further argument Providing information about prominent public officials is one of Wikipedia's noblest achievements.

Is the man running Hong Kong's most ambitious ever arts project (including the building of M+ Museum, which will house biggest & most comprehensive collection of Chinese art in the world) really less notable than Robert Hammond?

See also

Talk:Duncan Pescod
User talk:SouthernNights#Speedy deletion of Duncan Pescod
Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 9
User talk:Cryptic#Duncan Pescod DRV

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 03:19, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 May 2017

21 May 2017

20 May 2017

  • Waking the Tiger – The debate over whether this is in scope notwithstanding, nobody seems to have any issue with moving this draft back to mainspace. Whether it is then taken for a subsequent deletion discussion is left to individual editor's discretion. – Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:33, 29 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Waking the Tiger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I discussed my rewrite with the closing admin.

Discussion with closing admin

Hi BD2412. You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Waking the Tiger (2nd nomination) as delete. In the AfD, I provided one book review:

  1. Newton, Ruth P. (March 1998). "Book Reviews: Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma". Psychosomatic Medicine. 60 (2): 233. Retrieved 2017-05-17.

    The review notes:

    For me, the most interesting part of the book is its neurobehavioral approach to trauma, implicating the survival routines in the protoreptilian brain. The case material is also interesting as one can see how he uses his theory to guide his clinical work; however, the theory and case material are entangled by a self-help format that weakens his presentation and jeopardizes the overall organization of the book. I found it necessary to ignore the self-help aspects of the book to appreciate this interesting hypothesis and useful application, and I believe the book is more appropriately used by professionals rather than directly by patients or clients.

After the AfD was closed, I found a second book review:

  1. Roden, Ann (September 1998). "Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma: The Innate Capacity to Transform Overwhelming Experiences (Book Review)". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 4 (3): 340. Archived from the original on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2017-05-18.

    The review notes:

    The book is divided into four sections. Section I: The Body as Healer; Section II: Symptoms of Trauma; Section III: Transformationand Renegotiation; and Section IV: First Aid for Trauma. Section I describes the triune brain—reptilian instinctual brain, the mammalian or limbicemotional brain, and the human brain or neo-cortex, the rational brain. Peter Levine explains the ideal fully resourced 'present time' situation of an antelope on the African plains to the smell of lion. There is a fight or flight reaction and the antelope returns to the ideal state when the danger goes away. If the fight or flight response is inadequate, the antelope may 'drop down dead,' a catatonic state resulting in dissociation and immobilization, a highly charged imploded state. The animal appears dead and the lion walks away. The antelope reassociates, blinks, shivers, trembles, gets up, discharges excess energy, orientates, looks for the herd, and starts grazing as though nothing had happened.

    ...

    As a Craniosacral Therapist, I have found this work of Peter Levine invaluable in helping me to help my clients to resolve long forgotten traumas that are stopping them from living a fulfilling life.

From
verifiably meets, through reliable sources
, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases,
    flap copy
    , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

The book has received reviews in two peer-reviewed journals: Psychosomatic Medicine and Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. It therefore meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #1. Would you restore the article?

Only one editor commented after I posted the first review and didn't address it in his or her comment. No editors have commented about the second review because I did not find it until now.

Toddst1 (talk · contribs) and Mackensen (talk · contribs) cited Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria in their comments. I can add those two sources to the article, and I hope Jondel (talk · contribs) and Jclemens (talk · contribs) will be fine with taking a look at the new sources too. Thanks,

Cunard (talk) 02:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I would propose creating a new page in draft space. I can restore the deleted page to a draft title. bd2412 T 02:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't intend to. It should go through the usual process for submitting drafts. As the closer of the last discussion, I will remain uninvolved in this process.` bd2412 T 11:14, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have restored the draft to mainspace at
    db-repost}} is not applicable. Cunard (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • What submitting drafts process did you want me to use? Wikipedia:Articles for creation is for unregistered editors or editors with a conflict of interest. I am a registered editor and do not have a conflict of interest. Cunard (talk) 02:40, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would have preferred some process to obtain community consensus to do this. bd2412 T 02:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have rewritten the article at Draft:Waking the Tiger.

Here are two reviews about the book:

  1. Newton, Ruth P. (March 1998). "Book Reviews: Waking the Tiger, Healing Trauma". Psychosomatic Medicine. 60 (2): 233. Retrieved 2017-05-17.
  2. Roden, Ann (September 1998). "Waking the Tiger: Healing Trauma: The Innate Capacity to Transform Overwhelming Experiences (Book Review)". Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 4 (3): 340. Archived from the original on 2017-05-18. Retrieved 2017-05-18.
From
verifiably meets, through reliable sources
, at least one of the following criteria:

  1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases,
    flap copy
    , or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.

The book has received reviews in two peer-reviewed journals: Psychosomatic Medicine and Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. It therefore meets Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria #1.

Only one editor commented in the AfD after I posted the first review and didn't address it in his or her comment. No editors have commented about the second review because I did not find it until after the AfD close.

Restore Draft:Waking the Tiger to Waking the Tiger.

Cunard (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: This should not be at Deletion Review, which is to appeal AFD decisions. User:Cunard's new version of article includes 2 new sources (one mentioned late in the AFD) and is a new article in effect. Cunard does not dispute the validity of the decision. Cunard, you should withdraw this and simply move the article to mainspace. Anyone can create a new article at the topic of a deleted article; there is no requirement to get a new consensus. Of course if it is very similar to the deleted one then persons who participated in the AFD might notice it and object, which would be a ding to your reputation i suppose, but that is not the case here. --doncram 03:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is what Cunard originally did. I advised him to withdraw the move and seek consensus for moving the rewritten article to mainspace. I think the best outcome would be a consensus-based determination of whether the draft merits inclusion in mainspace. bd2412 T 03:56, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then your advice was suboptimal. Anyone can put anything in mainspace at any time, with the caveat that some things are obviously disruptive and should be dealt with as user conduct issues. If the article is not G4 eligible, which this one isn't, then anyone who continues to disagree can seek a further deletion discussion. DRV is not a required--or even encouraged--stop when the reason for any previous deletion has been addressed in good faith. Jclemens (talk) 04:52, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Having some process to obtain community approval for a new article on a recently deleted topic prevents editors from being accused of evading the outcome of the deletion discussion by, for example, adding just enough new material to claim that the article has overcome whatever objections constituted the basis for deletion. Conversely, such a process would prevent spammers and advertisers from engaging in exactly such tactics. I am not suggesting that this revision falls into any of those categories, but it is useful to preempt potential objections. bd2412 T 20:36, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • That sounds a tad bureaucratic. One important consideration, which I think could be considered critical if there were to be guidance written around this, is that Cunard had no prior history with the article (I'm assuming this is true, it would be checked by checking the article history). If Cunard were to improve the article, move it back to mainspace, to see it deleted again at AfD, he should be precluded from ever moving it again, unilaterally, back into mainspace. Until precluded, as a previously uninvolved editor with the article, I think he should be about to put it back in mainspace on his own judgement. I think article rescuers should be encouraged, subject to a pattern of bad rescued evidenced by deletion of their rescue products. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:52, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Cunard believes the reasons for deletion are overcome, I advise that he should move it to mainspace, notifying AfD participants, and see if it gets nominated again. If re-deleted, recalibrate what you think constitutes overcoming deletion reasons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This says that Cunard is a strong inclusionist, but not with seriously aberrant !voting. I see no reason to say Cunard is unqualified to decide when reasons for deletion voiced at AfD have been overcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore draft, or possibly overturn AfD close to relist. The new draft is substantially different from the one that was deleted. The major objection at the AfD was that there were insufficient sources. New sources have been located. Some of them were presented during the AfD, but nobody evaluated them. If I were reviewing the AfD discussion with an eye to close it, I almost certainly would have not closed it, but rather relisted it, with a relisting comment that the job over the next week was to evaluate the sources that had been presented. I have no opinion on the quality of the new article, or of the sources presented. My objection here is that the process seems to have gone off the rails. Our primary function during an AfD is to review the sources. That was not done. Therefore the AfD is defective. And the events after that have just been pointless bureaucracy. So, put the draft back into mainspace, and if anybody is unhappy with the sources it now has, they are free to bring it back to AfD for another look. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's right to put the improved draft into mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 15:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I might well !vote to delete (or merge?) this in an AfD (I'm not sure I buy that those sources are reliable though I've not looked closely I've got grave doubts about the level of peer review in alternative medicine), but doncram et. al. are right, this doesn't belong at DRV--it should just be recreated. I suspect Roy is right about the original discussion, but given it doesn't really matter, I've not thought about it much. Hobit (talk) 00:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move this out of deletion review ASAP User: Doncram wrote: "This should not be at Deletion Review, which is to appeal AFD decisions. User:Cunard's new version of article includes 2 new sources (one mentioned late in the AFD) and is a new article in effect." I concur with User: Doncram. Knox490 (talk) 03:11, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok, let me do this tomorrow, 1 more day for further comments. I am hesitant as it may indeed be brought to another AFD and possible repurcussions.--Jondel (talk) 13:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Cunard: If I restore it , it will look like I wrote it. --Jondel (talk) 13:25, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the draft is moved into mainspace, its history will be moved along with it. It will look like you moved it, not like you wrote it. bd2412 T 15:15, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might be best to wait until Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 May 20#Waking the Tiger is closed by an uninvolved admin, who will move it to mainspace. The deletion review will run for at least seven days. Cunard (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I won't be restoring it then but will be watching the progress of this review.--Jondel (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, this would appear to be in scope of DRV, which according to the blurb at the top of the page may be used "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Given that we're talking about new sources, that would seem fair. I haven't had a look at the draft myself and remain neutral as to whether recreation is justified in this case. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:28, 27 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Yes, DRV can be used for such cases. But it is not required. If it were, we'd protect every title deleted at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2017

18 May 2017

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Jill Saward BBC interview 2013.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

With all due respect, I believe this is an appropriate use of non-free content. The subject is not a particularly high-profile individual and is deceased; procuring a free image does not seem to be realistic. I am requesting a community review, because the deleting admin has refused to restore the file. Thanks, FASTILY 05:45, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn deletion and either keep or list at FFD - The image was captured from BBC video. If anyone has a problem with the content, please take this image to FFD. If FFD is unnecessary, then reinsert the image to the article as fair use image. Prove that BBC puts commercial interests on this screenshot per terms of use. Otherwise, removing the non-free image and pressuring an editor to find a permissible free image illustrate disregard on common practice of uploading non-free images of deceased persons. --George Ho (talk) 06:28, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    – Further note: In regards to NFCC#1 (irreplaceability criterion), the issue is no longer about the image alone. The issue is also the subject. She experienced a very disturbing trauma that had affected her life. Since then, she had fought injustice and addressed the issue similar to her experience. (Forgive me for euphemisms.) Sure, asking for a free image very soon after her death is highly inappropriate, especially in the time of mourning. However, I was convinced that it's sometimes inadequate not to seek a permissibly free image. Nevertheless, after a failed RFC on setting up a waiting period in a "hard wording" manner, I was close to fully believing that there is nothing wrong with uploading the image soon after a person's death. Unfortunately, after the deletion of Robert Miles image, I guess case-by-case basis is... our only way for now, i.e. status quo. However, if this is taken to FFD right after DRV, I would expect same ol' arguments on the whole image itself and the subject, Jill Saward. Then I would expect arguments saying that she was a very low-profile person, even with some televised appearances, like BBC. Back to Saward, I had asked some of her relatives to lend me permission to use one of the photos of her one month ago or so. However, I've not received one reply since. Maybe the nature of procedures to obtain a free image is very difficult to apply to the subject. And even her tragic past and her hard campaign to fight injustice make the ability to obtain a free image very highly sensitive and difficult. Still, trying to raise the general issue would lead to perennial proposals or failed attempts to reach compromises, but I'll leave the whole general issue to the community. Meanwhile, in the case of this image, re-removing and deleting the image without discussion is less productive than re-discussing it over and over, which is... up to others. And orphaned images get deleted in seven days. I think the use of this image should be acceptable to help readers not only identify Saward but also consider how her life went. --George Ho (talk) 22:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost forgot: commons:File:Jill Saward 080627b.jpg was uploaded on Commons and was awaiting a verified permission, but then it got deleted because the permission has been still missing. Also, Commons is "severely understaffed" and backlogged for months. The projects and Commons are interdependent on each other, and such issues with Commons would affect all projects in general. --George Ho (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    – Switching to unsure per S Marshall. George Ho (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I deleted the original image, and I have no objection to anyone else restoring the image for any reason. I am under the opinion that
    WP:NFCC #1 has not been established as of yet, which was the original rationale for deleting the image, but if others disagree, I hold no problem with them restoring the image. I do note that there are plenty of red herrings being thrown around, such as NFCC #2, which I have never (as in not once) ever invoked in any manner with this image. So that argument holds no water, and is a worthless rationale for restoring this image. If, however, any other admin has reason to believe that the situation has changed regarding NFCC #1, I raise no objection to undeleting this image. --Jayron32 11:46, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I could not raise the NFCC#1 issue because... it's been gone over a bunch of times and pointless to me. Also, there have been too much disagreements over how replaceable non-free images of deceased persons are. I found the NFCC#1 issue more tiring to argue anymore as it's not yet resolved. George Ho (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe not pointless, but the whole community is divided over the issue. It happens to every FFD nomination on such images. Maybe I can argue NFCC#1 again, but you'll hear same ol' arguments again and again. Non-free images of deceased persons have become a general issue, yet we are still using case-by-case as status quo, which is... becoming slowly less effective. George Ho (talk) 14:20, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on when they were deceased. A person who died prior to the prevalence of copyleft licensing is far less likely to have had properly licensed images created of them while they were alive, also people who died before the advent of digital photography also have a greater claim to NFCC because photographs were harder to come by (there are more pictures taken per day nowadays than were taken during any given decade of the print photography era). Claims of NFCC for a person who died in 1975, for example, are more likely to hold water because a) there was not a licensing structure (like GFDL or CC) which allowed for easy sharing and b) There was much less likely to be photographs (unpublished or not) which could be now released under such a license. For someone who died in, say, 2010, the likelyhood of finding and/or licensing an image becomes much easier. That's my position on NFCC #1. Again, I don't claim that any other NFCC criteria has been missed here; only this one. Free images of this person could be reasonably expected to exist or obtained given that they lived in an era of such images. --Jayron32 15:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore non-free images of dead persons are generally assumed to pass NFCC#1. This person has been deceased for a decade. That is not a reason for speedy deletion though... the reason for speedy deletion should only be misuse of a press photograph when that use harms the press agency's ability to make money. However, the BBC is non-profit, making the question murkier, and the photograph old enough that NFCC#2 doesn't apply. At least this should be restored and brought to FFD. At most, it should be restored and not brought to FFD . Magog the Ogre (t • c) 22:30, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... Magog, my apologies. The person was deceased in January 2017, i.e. four months ago. George Ho (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was deleted 4 months ago, why the delay? Stifle (talk) 11:21, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the user talk page of the admin who deleted the image, Stifle. Also, the images were discussed in general, yet a proposal to update NFC failed. George Ho (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I respectfully disagree with Magog the Ogre that there's any murkiness. The BBC's operations in the USA, which is the jurisdiction that matters to Wikipedia's lawyers, are not non-profit. It's a commercial operation out there. BBC images are not crown copyright, they're copyrighted in the same way as any other news broadcaster. It's reasonable, in this case, for editors to to contact the subject's estate asking them to release an image on a compatible licence and this should be the first resort.—S Marshall T/C 15:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep picture deleted. Wikipedia is not above the law. If BBC's operations in the USA is a commercial operation and not a government operation, then Wikipedia needs to consider this matter and not violate the law in terms of posting this picture unlawfully. My guess is that the picture was posted due to ignorance of the nature of the BBC in the USA as I myself thought the BBC is an entirely government operated operation. Knox490 (talk) 03:05, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    No body is suggesting Wikipedia is above the law. The question is whether the use of the image complies with the NFCC @Knox490:. Amisom (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore As the subject is dead, replacement with a free image is inpractical and NFCC is therefore met. Amisom (talk) 13:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    NFCC covers more than just one point, so no merely being dead and taking a free image being impractical doesn't mean all the NFCC criteria are met. NFCC#2 respect for commercial opportunities for example, as it's being used in exactly the same role as commercial organisations perhaps wouldn't be met, and to pass NFCC it has to pass all criteria. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. NFCC1 is probably met, but this image won't meet NFCC2. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse since "not particularly high profile" and "deceased" are not NFCC criteria. If a free image or not can be procured is one of many issues and other such as NFCC#2 not substantially addressed. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 May 2017

  • Brian Levine (judge) – No consensus, deletion maintained by default. A majority would endorse the early close deletion, but there is not a clear consensus for this outcome. The closure is nonetheless maintained by default. I do not relist the AfD because this proposal was discussed here and did not reach consensus, and it appears very unlikely that a relist would come to a different outcome. –  Sandstein  09:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brian Levine (judge) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was speedily deleted one day into an Afd discussion. I sort of forgot about it at the time but then the subject came up again the news again I decided to follow up.[17][18] [19] The basis for speedy deletion was "Fundamental violation of the spirit of BLP" - not one of the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. This is not a g10 because it is impeccably sourced.

I never got a chance to defend the article at the afd. Notability is not so much of a question here. He has been a New York City judge for a long time and has received continuous coverage throughout the years from from various secondary sources, some better (ABA Journal) and some worse (NY Post). I can obviously relate that it is mostly negative article about a BLP. However I combed all available sources for something positive but could not find anything. I invite anyone to find something positive about him published in any sort of source and I would not object to its inclusion into the article in order to create some sort of balance. However if the only available news coverage is negative it is not my fault and deleting the article because it does not say something nice about him amounts to censorship. I can try to tone it down some but can't make up counterpoints that can't be found in any available sources. brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

an impeeccably sourced article can still be a g10. This was an article on a very minor political figure--a traffic court judge -- who has been challenged in the local press for irrationally harsh decisions. I do not consider it encyclopedic material. Unlike what I normally do, I am not restoring it for discussion. If any wants to see what it is about, they will find the information via Google, published in the local borough newspapers and the most disreputable of the NYC newspapers. It might be in the mirrors of deleted articles, but if so, I'm not even going to link to them on-wiki. As I see it, this is not a matter of trying to RIGHTGREATWRONGS, but of trying to right little wrongs. But of course my judgment may be off, and I leave the matter to others. DGG ( talk ) 16:23, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was, as the nominator states, a "mostly negative article about a BLP". But more than that, an extremely minor public servant for whom we wouldn't normally have an article, and certainly not one that reads more like an angry Yelp review than an attempt at a neutral encylopedic treatment. Now, I get that there's a possibility that some people have grievances against this subject which are perfectly valid; that may indeed be true. The problem is that the place to address those grievances isn't Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:36, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"extremely minor public servant" is itself an extreme description (for lack of a better word). Admittedly the man is not supreme court judge but he is a judge nonetheless. Besides, a person's profession does not determine whether they are notable. The determinant factor of notability is consistent coverage in secondary sources. Furtermore for purposes of this discussion the issue isn't even whether he is notable.The issue is whether this was speedy deleted on proper policy grounds. And it wasn't. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's well sourced and not biased in it's coverage, I don't see how it can be a G10. And I don't think the deleting admin should be endorsing their own speedy here without noting that they are the deleting admin. (Struck false statement--I'd misread) So list at AfD unless there is an actually claim of unsourced negative material. Hobit (talk) 22:19, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Looking at the deleted article, it's a reasonable candidate for a
    WP:BLP speedy, even with sources. And, if the AfD wasn't closed early, there's no way anybody would be arguing that the existing comments didn't constitute a clear consensus to delete.. Having sources is a necessary, but not sufficient, requirement to keep an article. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Beg to differ. It was open for around one day. I did not get a chance to make my case. Of the 5 deletes, two were IP's with pretty much no other edits. I would have voted to keep obviously if it were not closed early. Not fair at all to describe this as a consensus. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 01:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to a full AfD. A traffic court judge is a
    WP:DUE on a notable figure who has solely negative coverage in RS'es demands that we write a correspondingly negative article about that figure: the misconception that such an article would be an attack page or against BLP is unfounded. Mind you, I have no view of the original article, so I am assessing this based on the content as described here. Also, can someone link the actual, if aborted, AfD above? Jclemens (talk) 04:33, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
It's unclear if
WP:PUBLICFIGURE apply here? Possibly, but not with any certainty. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
So, I've read that a bit closer, and discovered it has a New York specific section, but reading that, I see that it includes things like, officers and employees of state departments. That's an extremely wide definition, and I don't think anybody would take that to mean that
WP:BLP doesn't apply to every employee of every state department. So, that's sort of a dead end. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
He is in New York and your link with 8 states is not New York. He is a public figure in the most practical sense. He sits in a public courtroom and decides a few dozen cases in front of hundreds of people every day. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:07, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
1) He's a public figure. He's a public official receiving coverage for doing his public job. It's not even worth arguing because 2) Public figure doesn't mean "that
WP:PUBLICFIGURE. This isn't Star Wars Kid here (see the talk page if you don't know the history), this is a grown man who has been repeatedly accused by other New Yorkers (!) of being too rude. If he's truly NN, let's indeed delete the article, but a speedy isn't appropriate and BLP isn't a justification for deletion of a public official's unflattering article based on DUE RS'ing. Jclemens (talk) 04:13, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
AfD link fixed. The actual content has been courtesy blanked, but it's still visible via the history link at the top of the AfD page. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Now, having read the discussion in detail, I am even more appalled at the arguments advanced both there and here, which have absolutely nothing to do with BLP as written. I challenge everyone who thinks the article is a BLP violation to cite specific clauses in BLP which they think apply. I'll wait. Jclemens (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Specific quote from
WP:BLP: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid. It's telling that the major source used in the article is the New York Post, which *is* a tabloid. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The BLP policy has specific criteria, taking a random quote from the page doesn't speak to the specific criteria of the policy. Also saying "major source used in the article is the New York Post" doesn't make it true. The major source utilized in the article is the Staten Island Advance, the newspaper of record for an area of a half million inhabitants. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:55, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the AfD for this article was heading for an overwhelming delete consensus even without the speedy deletion, so I'm not sure what relisting will accomplish. It's also likely that G10 was the correct call in any case. Reyk YO! 07:57, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was open for around one day. I did not get a chance to make my case. Of the 5 deletes, two were IP's with pretty much no other edits. I would have voted to keep obviously if it were not closed early. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 14:16, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Surely, you're not putting Roy Bean and Brian Levine in the same bucket? I know it's a crappy way to measure anything, but searching for Bean generates 286,000 hits. Searching for Levine generates 5,000. And, looking at the Levine results, on the first page of ten results, there's only a single one in what would qualify as a
WP:SOAPBOX. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:26, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
PS, it fails
WP:10YT as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The ghits prove the point you are trying to oppose. In the Levine ghit page, links 4,5,and 6, are reliable sources. In the Bean ghit page not one of the links listed is an RS. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 13:17, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except (a) Bean died more than a century ago so the BLP issues are different, and (2) we are not here discussion the merits of the decision but whether or not it was properly made. Amisom (talk) 21:40, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. I think given he is a public figure (all judges are public figures, even low-level ones), and the article is based on coverage of him in reliable sources, that speedy delete/premature close was inappropriate. If an article on a public figure is purely criticism, then so long as that criticism is found in reliable sources, there are two possibilities: (i) there exists positive coverage in reliable sources that should be added for balance, or (ii) reliable sources are purely negative, in which case a purely negative article is compatible with WP:DUE. I appreciate the argument that even if he is a public figure, he is a rather minor one, and that while the sources used are strictly speaking reliable sources, they are not the highest quality reliable sources. That said, I think the matter is sufficiently borderline that permitting the AFD process to run to its completion, and allow all the relevant issues to be fully debated, would have been more appropriate. I think speedy delete should be reserved for open-and-shut BLP violations, and I don't think an article about a public figure (even a minor one) repeating criticism of his public acts from reliable sources (even if not the highest quality ones), falls into the category of an open-and-shut BLP violation, whether or not the article should ultimately survive the AFD process. All the criticism of him is about his public acts as a judge (with the exception of the allegation which he himself violates traffic laws while driving, which while not strictly speaking about his public acts, is at least relevant to them, since if true it would imply that his public acts were hypocritical)–if the criticism of him was about aspects of his private life that had no relevance to his public acts, e.g. private family matters, then I think the question would not be so borderline and it would be much of an open-and-shut case in which speedy delete would be appropriate, but that isn't the case here. SJK (talk) 09:42, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a lot of confusion in this discussion. What we're reviewing is the only thing we can review: DGG's decision to delete the article out of process. DGG's grounds were that this was a slam piece. And the fact that this was the decision that DGG made has consequences, which are:-
  1. We aren't reviewing the AfD, which was curtailed long before it could be said to have reached any conclusions at all; and
  2. Anyone can create a fresh article with this title, provided it isn't a slam piece, without a DRV.
If your position is that you don't think a good faith editor should be able to write any article about Brian Levine the judge, then I think you'll need an AfD that runs to completion and reaches a consensus to SALT. The alternative is to convince the editing community that a judge isn't a public figure, and although I admit that Wikipedian decisions have been surprising me of late, somehow I don't think you'll do that.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm afraid I can't seem to connect DGG's actions with a discussion close about inherent notability.—S Marshall T/C 21:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
    WP:DUE article based on all of that, and then if it's entirely negative, let it be an entirely negative BLP, because BLP is not about being nice it's about being right. BLP is about avoiding un- or under-sourced negative pieces, or alternatively having no article at all on a marginally notable person. It's not a filter through which articles should be run, it's a process by which we assure that we do the right thing, which is not always the comfortable thing. Jclemens (talk) 20:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2017

15 May 2017

14 May 2017

  • Eastern Alliance (Battlestar Galactica), and redirected it to Battlestar Galactica (1978 TV series), where notable content should be added. Other notable uses of the phrase, "Eastern Alliance" should be collected on a disambiguation page at the now vacant title. bd2412 T 15:58, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eastern Alliance (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As discussed with the closing admin here I believe the closer improperly considered the trailing delete votes for the following reasons:

  • The nominator both cited a lack of notability in the nomination statement, and later acknowledged "no prejudice against merge".
  • WP:ATD-M
    "Pages about non-notable fictional elements are generally merged into list articles or articles covering the work of fiction in which they appear."
  • Several sources were brought up during the discussion. After relisting, five delete !votes were added, only one of which addressed merging ("Most of the article could be into the episode lists...") and favored it. Two delete !voters, posting before sources had been added to the AfD, argued against a merge.
  • In interpreting these, I believe User:Sandstein clearly erred in assigning weight:
    • To the extent that these delete !votes were interpreted as "don't keep as a separate article" there was no policy-based reason to interpret them as opposing a merge.
    • On the other hand, to the extent that these delete !votes were interpreted as "delete and don't merge a thing", they each failed to articulate a policy-based objection that would overcome
      WP:ATD-M
Either way, reading consensus as 'delete' when a merge argument had been advanced and never refuted is inappropriate. For this reason, I believe the proper reading of a policy-based rough consensus in this specific case should be merge, and ask that it be Overturned to merge Jclemens (talk)
  • Just setting aside issues of process for a moment and looking for the right outcome, I think that someone who types "Eastern Alliance" into the search bar could plausibly be looking for a whole lot of quite disparate real world things, including but not limited to (1) the insurance company of the same name, (2) the
    WP:PATT (and I'd suggest the dummy edit with the list of contributors). So you get to a bluelink and a compliant content merge without an undeletion... because the outcomes the two sides are seeking here are not mutually exclusive.—S Marshall T/C 20:37, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 May 2017

  • WP:AFD if desired, but this forum is for challenging previous deletion discussions. –  Sandstein  08:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
National liberalism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article didn't improve since 2009, and I can't find any reliable source that say that National liberalism is diferent than Liberal nationalism (Civic nationalism), the sources that I found use national liberalism with the same concept of liberal nationalism, it seems that is a synonymous, but I can be wrong. I think it should be redirect to Civic nationalism Rupert Loup (talk) 02:04, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Rupert. This AfD is so old (2009) that the right thing to do is to list it at AfD rather than DRV. Hobit (talk) 02:59, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • National liberalism is a variant of liberalism, while liberal nationalism is a variant of nationalism. The words say it. The article could be improved, but deleting it altogether is not a solution. Btw, there are some sources specifically on national liberalism. --Checco (talk) 05:47, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 May 2017

11 May 2017

10 May 2017

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This had 3 valid entries at the time of deletion and was only a goddamn prod in the first place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rex Iudaeorum (talk • contribs) 14:48, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Done - as a contested proposed deletion, the article has been restored upon request. -- Tavix (talk) 02:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete as contested prod. Nothing wrong with the original deletion, since it was an expired prod. Next time, OP should contact the deleting administrator first before coming here. Reyk YO! 03:21, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Korea Kent Foreign School – No consensus, defaulting to maintaining the status quo. There are many passionately made arguments here. They boil down to a subjective disagreement as to whether weight of numbers in an AFD discussion ought to outweigh arguments that consider guidelines and policy. While a majority here argue for overturning based on a numbers argument, there are enough well put arguments on the other side that I find there cannot be consensus on this in either direction. My suggestion would be that given the similar recent DRV for Magdalena Zamolska, an RFC or wider call for discussion to be made on this topic outside of the adversarial nature of DRV, may stand a better chance of determining where community consensus lies. – Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:32, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Korea Kent Foreign School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This appears to be a clear keep or at the very least a no consensus. It seems to have been already pretty much established at another DRV for a very similar school that the much-cited RfC does not give carte-blanche to AfD closers to ignore keep opinions and delete secondary school pages when the discussion has clearly not reached a consensus to do so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:53, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Necrothesp very kindly gave me a heads up before coming here so I thought I'd drop my two cents in.
Generally speaking, I do my utmost to not discount any editors' !votes when assessing XFD discussions, but in this case, the keep arguments seems to run up against
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
.
I don't think anyone here will defend the sources in the article in question: they were terrible, ranging from a mostly-blank listing on a spam website to an apartment rental website. One reference pointed to the school's official website, which is only proof that the school exists, and made no claim to notability. Both
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES
state unambiguously that a school should meet the GNG -- and there is simply no feasible argument that this school does based on the sources we have.
If my decision is overturned, then that is because (despite all evidence in policy and guideline pages) secondary schools are exempt from the GNG. If that's what the community wants, great -- but we need to amend
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES to actually say that, because at the moment they do not. A Traintalk 12:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
And that was what the RfC was actually about, despite claims by the deletionists that it was about the longstanding consensus that secondary schools are notable. Unfortunately there was no consensus to amend the guidelines themselves, but that doesn't undermine the existing consensus or the right of editors to cite such consensus without their opinions being discounted. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't participate in the RfC so I won't comment about what it was or wasn't about. I just know that I took it upon myself to close an obviously contentious AfD that had been overdue for resolution. In doing so, I consulted every relevant guideline and policy page, and they all told me unambiguously that the keep !voters were making arguments that did not fall within those rules. If an administrator is expected to make decisions based on unwritten arcana then we're in a very weird place. A Traintalk 15:22, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even before the RFC, the notability guidelines—e.g.,
ORGSIG—rejected the premise that schools were automatically notable. So, if, as you claim, the RFC changed nothing, it left in place the guidelines which require schools to have received significant coverage by independent, reliable sources. Rebbing 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Just FYI: Anyone can write for Huffington Post. Blog posts from HuffPo have long been considered unreliable unless written by an independently notable writer. A Traintalk 16:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That discussion from RSN does not conclude with that statement, and it's from five years ago. Moreover, the author may well know what they're talking about, they've published a number of articles in the Huffington Post, and guess what, they have an article, Emanuel Pastreich, which isn't bad. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument for overturning the close below—schools should be kept because we've usually kept schools—contradicts the "schools" RFC, which explicitly found that the community rejected that circular reasoning. Rebbing 17:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note that I have restored the article pending this discussion. Drmies (talk) 17:05, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I think what Necrothesp means to say is that inclusionists have been jumping onto discussions like these in order to RIGHTGREATWRONGS and they feel their hobby horse deserves to be exempt from the consensus of the larger community. Rather than accept that SCHOOLOUTCOMES is invalid they intend to fight each of these deletions. A Train made the right decision in this AfD (in keeping with GNG and the related RfC) and it would seem that politically-powerful administrators now seek to bully their way. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Insofar that assessing consensus is about strength of policy/guideline-based arguments, it was clearly accurate. I hadn't made up my mind yet, but the keep arguments were almost entirely based on the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which is explicit in its incorporation of the RfC outcome. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:58, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been a policy. A Train's explanation in the closing note was clear, well reasoned, and consistent with policy. I encourage editors to take particular note of A Train's lack of "prejudice against re-creating the article with superior sourcing." Rather than disputing the deletion, the encyclopedia would be better served by a well sourced article about this school, if one can be constructed. Pburka (talk) 00:23, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep as there was no serious attempt at actually consulting or finding such independent sources which the users here are suggesting, therefore it's WP:Systematic bias and something we shouldn't take so lightly. To even absolutely eliminate the possibility of Drafting as we have before, speaks for itself the bias, and something that is inexcusable. While I will say there would need to be changes, again, that's something explicitly available for Draftspace. While WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES has never been a policy. To quote one relevant thing: "Even if one interprets the RfC as saying there is no consensus about what should be done with schools, it still leaves it as true that 99% of all high school AfDs have in fact been closed as Keep for many years , even before we wrote the disputed guideline" in which reversing everything is not explaining how we're any different now. Simply stating that Wikipedia is changing is not a defense as the same could be said for actually deleting advertising, not defending it, regardless of the large or detailed arguments some may give, since that itself is in fact not policy. Like with schools, there's never been a serious concern aside from apparently needing better sources which once again can be consulted in by speaking to local users, not some random English-speaking person. To disect the School Outcomes RfC, it absolutely never said it could never be used at all, simply that there were questions about it. Once when sign into policy that any school can be deleted onsight will be a different matter, but that itself was never concluded at all. To actually quote the School Outcomes, it has strongly been clear that such time-wasting AfDs are no use to anyone, including any opponents since that's not the optimal goal of Wikipedia: To delete schools, yet defending such blatantly abusive advertising. SwisterTwister talk 00:36, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"To disect the School Outcomes RfC, it absolutely never said it could never be used at all". Actually, that is precisely what it says: Rationales that cite SCHOOLOUTCOMES are discouraged, and may be discounted when the AFD is closed. A Traintalk 07:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There's no "must or will be discounted" there at all, so all we would have are suggestive notes, not confirmation; even then, because of it, we would still consider that vague (what is "may be" and are convincing exceptions entirely excluded?) Even then, the quote itself never says anything about barring all attempts at still making an argument. SwisterTwister talk 02:17, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn This request is indeed an example of bullying--by those who have their own private misreading of the RfC and wish to impose it on everyone. Fundamentally, the compromise under discussion was not that we accept all high schools as notable, but that we make an exchange, that we treat all high schools as notable (with some rare exceptions) and simultaneously that we consider all lower schools as not notable (again, with some rare exceptions). The point of it was not to change the notability requirements, but to deal with these particular subject areas in a different way, in order to avoid just this sort of discussion, whee every individual school will be challenged and argued exhaustively all the way to deletion review. Doing so is not a good use of AfD,and not a good use of deletion review. This can be shown by the results. The RfC said only the schooloutcomes did not have enough consensus to be quoted. It also said there was no consensus to change the practice of considering schools notable. I consider the RfC conclusion remarkably unhelpful, but if we are to go by it, it is open to argue that every school should be considered notable, and also open to argue that they should not be, there being no consensus either way. It would have to be left to the interpretation of the people at the individual afd and the closer. So what do we see here: the zealots are, first of all, listing for deletion not the least likely schools, but international schools in countries where there is known to be a difficulty in sourcing: in other words, they have selected those articles which are most likely to be justified but where there is a strong cultural bias about sources--they are trying to take advantage to known and admitted cultural bias to delete as much as they can regardless of merits, and regardless of the probability that print sources could be found in the appropriate languages. And then, when the decision in a particular case goes for them, they argue the closer had the right to choose, and when it goes against them, they argued that the closer did not have the right to choose. Personally, I do not have any great interest in high schools as a topic--I have always tended to be considerably deletionist about local topics, as was noticed as far back as my RfA ten years ago. What I do have a personal interest in -is consistent decisions, and in being able to concentrate discussions of cases that actually need them-- such as the often ambiguous question ofwhether something is too promotional to be fixed. DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 11 May 2017 (UTC) adjusted wording DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bullying? A few experienced administrators (et al.) repeatedly stonewall discussion of various schools, repeatedly dismiss policy/guideline-based arguments, join in all of these discussions where something is contested, and declare that all must abide by a past compromise that runs contrary to our notability guidelines -- and those challenging them are bullying? There may have, at one point, been consensus to keep all secondary schools that verifiably exist, but I see no evidence of that now. Consensus can change, and many aspects of notability have indeed evolved. In fact every time this has been put to the test in an RfC, guideline proposal, etc. (those that I've seen, anyway), the result has been that there is no consensus or that the community leans in the other direction. When there is no consensus, the same group declares that the purported status quo should continue rather than the discussion being evidence there's no consensus to operate according to this firm rule (based at least in part, ironically, on an argument that there are no firm rules). NOTBURO, sure, but IAR is for exceptions, not a systematic undermining of the policies and guidelines that have achieved broad consensus in order to implement a measure that does not have that kind of broad consensus -- and a kind of measure we are fully equipped to work with should that consensus actually exist (i.e. SNGs). they are trying to take advantage to known and admitted cultural bias is also an offensive assumption of bad faith. I've not nominated any school, and have trouble thinking this is actually part of the nominators' motivations. I do want to be clear that despite these unfortunate word choices, I don't think you're acting in bad faith or trying to force something (or at least not intentionally). I've found many of your explanations for how the compromise came about to be reasonable. But I don't think it's tenable, and I don't think it has the kind of support any broad measure like this should have. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:59, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. So just to be clear, Herostratus: you want this Deletion Review to find that I improperly closed this AfD because I followed the current guidelines as written? A Traintalk 19:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's correct. Herostratus (talk) 19:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like I'm in Catch-22. This is nuts. A Traintalk 19:17, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC actually did close as no consensus to the question asked. The closers then gave commentary as to what the felt this meant. It has led to some confusion in my opinion. There actually isn't a guideline on schools. You have two essays:
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It is up to the participants in an individual AfD to decide whether or not each secondary school brought up for discussion should be included. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:35, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
"There actually isn't a guideline on schools." That is not true, sir.
WP:NSCHOOL
states: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. The guideline then suggests consulting SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which currently recommends discounting SCHOOLOUTCOMES arguments in AfD discussions.
It's comments like this that make me feel as though people voting to overturn have not actually put themselves in my shoes and are making purely tribal arguments. A Traintalk 19:46, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NSCHOOLS doesn't present a separate SNG from ORG or N (it is part of ORG, unlike NMUSIC or NSPORTS, which are not a part of BIO). Sorry for not making that clearer in my statement. N makes it clear that the existence of sources not their presence is what constitutes notability, which has been the historical argument behind OUTCOMES. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry,
WP:N explicitly expect "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" -- something that the article in question clearly did not have and not one single person arguing to overturn has yet even attempted to argue so. A Traintalk 20:10, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
ORG and N are the relevant guidelines, but it is up to the participants in an AfD to decide whether or not something should be kept based on them. As Hobit has pointed out, no one seriously contests that schools in Asia are likely the same as schools in North America in terms of sourcing. The argument for keep here was and is essentially applying
WP:SYSTEMIC and Wikipedia's general consensus that North American and European secondary school have enough sourcing to be notable. This is in line with the second bullet of the RfC close which was References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
"The argument for keep here was and is essentially applying
WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Can you please show me where in the AfD in question that argument was made? A Traintalk 20:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Not using my words, but DGG's and SwisterTwister's !votes were along the same vein. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that. SwisterTwister's argument is impossible for me to parse so I won't try to interpret it here. I think it is much more accurate to describe DGG's argument as essentially channelling "long-standing precendent", as was every other Keep !voter (except for the one who cited
WP:NSCHOOL
, an argument that was effectively rebutted during the AfD.
But even if we give you the benefit of the doubt and agree that ST and DGG both made your argument, that still leaves the majority of Keep editors making arguments based on SCHOOLOUTCOMES, which (again) is explicitly rejected by SCHOOLOUTCOMES itself as it stands. So how exactly is an administrator who isn't a partisan in this particular fight, and is just following policy as written when closing this AfD supposed to arrive at your desired outcome? A Traintalk 21:12, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ORG and N are the relevant guidelines, but it is up to the participants in an AfD to decide whether or not something should be kept based on them -
WP:LOCALCON. ("Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale.") ORG and N are guidelines that apply to schools. SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not. When the subject at hand is notability of a school, based on N/ORG, the result shouldn't be "yeah but this handful of editors has decided not to do that". In one instance, you could call it IAR, but when it's applied systematically to every instance, that's just going against the established consensus (which, on Wikipedia, is reflected in policies guidelines). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 21:31, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Sorry Cunard, but how could there be a rough consensus based on that one Huff Post article that you yourself say that "No one at the AfD addressed"? A Traintalk 07:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When a source is put forward as counting toward WP:N and A) no one disputes it and B) it is a reasonable source on the face of it, then yes, I'd say that the discussion should to be interpreted as having accepted the source as counting. If you, as closer, think it should not count, then that's a reason to relist (requesting further discussion about the source) not to just assume that the source doesn't contribute toward WP:N. I realize you have arguments above about why you think it isn't a reliable source, but that's really an argument for the discussion, not one the closer should be making. And that's important, because it would give people an opportunity to dispute that argument (I do think your argument is flawed). Hobit (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article had already been relisted twice.
WP:RELIST says that third relists are an extraordinary measure to be avoided. The person who posted the link didn't even say that they were using it to make a Keep argument. A Traintalk 15:32, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
I realize that closing a discussion like this is difficult, and I do appreciate the fact you chose to do so knowing nearly any close could generate problems. That said, I am seeing a lot of problems here. There is what looks to be a reliable, in-depth source in the discussion. No one disputed it and I'd argue it is in fact a reliable, in-depth source. As a closer, you just can't ignore it. Next, WP:RELIST specifically gives permission to relist for a 3rd (or more) time if needed. "Users relisting a debate for a third (or further) time, or relisting a debate with a substantial number of commenters, should write a short explanation...". Finally, him saying "keep" or not isn't hugely important. In this case, I agree it would have clarified the thought. But heck, maybe he wasn't sure the single source was enough. The point is that there what appears to be a reliable in-depth source provided in that discussion. Your close indicated otherwise. Again, I appreciate the work (really), but I feel you made a number of mistakes here _irrelevant_ of the SCHOOLOUTCOMES discussion. No matter how this goes, I just hope you take those thoughts and issues on board. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or Relist: The closer's comments about Huff Post show they should have participated in the discussion not closed it. The closer came to a conclusion, independent of the AfD about the Huff Post - so were not closing, and that conclusion appears to be extremely faulty: 1) Their own Quora source (which they apparently did independent research for) contradicts the closer's claim here, that "anyone can write for the Huff Post", as that source explicitly says the editors of the Huff Post choose who to publish; and 2) The closer then goes beyond the AfD to unaccountably take issue with the author of the Huff Post piece, Emanuel Pastreich, an academic in South Korea. A closer should not misrepresent sources as they have. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:56, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Huffington Post link has nothing to do with assessing the consensus of the AfD. I did not do any research when closing the AfD: the role of the administrator is to assess the policy arguments and the consensus. The HuffPo article was posted late in the debate as an "FYI" and it was ignored by every editor in the debate -- it had no impact at the time.
It's true that I don't consider HuffPo blogs to be a particularly reliable source, but my opinion on that is irrelevant when discussing if my closing decision was correct. A Traintalk 15:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, you have failed, because you imposed your view of the Huff Post on the close when the issue in discussion is notability, which always hinges on view of sources. Not only is AfD not a vote, you just cannot claim per policy that "information" about sources is "irrelevant." - Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The role of an administrator closing an AfD debate is to determine whether consensus has been achieved by determining a "rough consensus. I did not impose my view of Huff Post on the debate -- I noted that it was irrelevant to the debate, because no one cited it to make an argument. Not even you, the person who supplied the link, used it to deploy an argument. You just wrote "FYI". A Traintalk 15:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Huff Post source on the school is not in the AfD discussion because it is irrelevant and only incompetence by the closer could could imagine such a thing: a source on the school as a matter of policy and guideline is relevant. In your own close you hinged your argument on your claim that the school merely exists, and has no sources, so to claim that school sources brought forward in the AfD are irrelevant is impossible. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, so is the role of the closer to robotically count votes or is the role of the closer to extrapolate arguments based on vague argumentation? It seems to me that for some folks in this debate (I'm still thunderstruck by this) the only role of the closer is to ignore policy and arrive at their pre-determined conclusion. I'm going to step away from this discussion before I get jaded. A Traintalk 16:26, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You're the one who decided to defend your close by editorially evaluating a content source and its author and misrepresent or mistake both in doing so -- in the future, don't do that. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Different question. Let's say that article found in the discussion was a NYT 4000 word piece that was just wonderful and perfect as a source. Would you still have closed this discussion in the same way? Hobit (talk) 21:14, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:A Train, I have your answer! I wrote down my analysis, and it is here: User:Herostratus/Understanding SCHOOLOUTCOMES. It's very long, and not recommended. Here's the nickel summary:

Therefore your closing statement of "Firstly, I think the new language at WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is unequivocal: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist" isn't valid. I don't fault you. It does say that. It's just that it was put in wrongly. It wasn't determined in the RfC, it was just some person's (or people's) opinion put there under the aegis of the RfC and I think that that's incontrovertibly demonstrable regardless of one's opinions of the merits. How or why this happened doesn't matter. People are imperfect. I'll work on rolling back this mistake, but I'll need to get some fighter cover first, so we'll see.

It is a conundrum because you were given a bum steer. It's not your fault. But even so, we need to do what's right without fear or favor, so with no disrespect to you or your service I stand by my vote to relist. Herostratus (talk) 01:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn Per Cunard and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Blatant, textbook, WP:Supervote. The close does not reflect the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It would have been preferable for admin to relist given the newly provided source, and taking it upon themselves to (incorrectly) assess the source, which was otherwise not discussed, and close the discussion with a !supervote was wrong. In any case, there was clearly no serious effort to look into Korean sources (Google is admittedly not very good at this), many of whom exist and deal with the school in depth:
  • Endorse. The article about this school had no reliable third-party sources. No such articles must exist about any topic, per
    WP:V. The closing admin properly considered our basic sourcing policies determinative, especially now that it has been clarified, as explained in the closure, that they also apply to schools. If there are now better, third-party sources, the article can be recreated based on them.  Sandstein  10:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I think you are confusing WP:V and WP:N. In any case, WP:N only requires the sources exist. Which they do. And at least one was known to at the time of deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • WP:N requires that sources exist. But WP:V requires that they are cited in the article, because only this makes the content verifiable to the person reading the article. At the time of the closure of the AfD, no reliable third-party sources were cited in the article, just a bunch of iffy-looking or dead websites. This made deletion effectively mandatory.  Sandstein  17:03, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • This means all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. Additionally, quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by inline citations. The key phrase is "must be attributable" not "must be attributed". And now that sources exist you are saying the old version must be tossed away rather than used as a starting point because at the time of the AfD there were no reliable sources in the article? I don't think I've ever seen that argument before. Hobit (talk) 03:25, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus is not a vote, and the closer followed accepted practice in discounting illogical votes (e.g., an unelaborated "Keep per NSCHOOL") and those that flatly rejected community consensus as reflected in the notability guidelines and the recent "schools" RFC. I find it interesting—and I think the closer was entitled to take into account—that not one of the "keep" voters thought the Huffington Post piece was worth mentioning in the discussion. (Disclosure: I voted "delete" below.) Rebbing 17:09, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And not one of the delete !voters said anything about it either. So we've got what looks like a good source that no one disputed. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist.
    WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is a circular argument recently rejected by the community to be a guideline, it was right to discount those. The source added late to that discussion provided a new argumentation venue that should have been mentioned as reason for relist.Burning Pillar (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Overturn and keep Consnesus was clear. AfD closers can't override consensus just because they don't like it. Smartyllama (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smartyllama Explain this. You only say that there was a consensus to keep, something that does not look like it is there on the first glance, and when discounting
      WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, well, then... it definitely does not go to the keep side.Burning Pillar (talk) 20:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
      ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2017

  • Cryptic 14:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Duncan Pescod (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion Article was speedily deleted by

WP:A7: No credible indication of importance (individuals, animals, organizations, web content, events). The original speedy deletion tag added by user:Chrissymad did not cite criterion A7. I exchanged a couple of messages with Chrissymad before the page was deleted, then spoke to SouthernNights who directed me here (see user talk:SouthernNights#Speedy deletion of Duncan Pescod
).

Evidence for notability

  • His appointment to the Authority was covered in the media, in a move seen as entrenching of
    pro-establishment
    interests in a highly visible and increasingly embarrassing project, as was his promotion to chief of the Authority.
  • He was the most senior non-Chinese civil servant when he was working directly for the government.

Press highlights: Pescod takes the WKCD underground (2016), Pescod elevated to top post at West Kowloon agency (2015), Wrong man for the job? Artists express fears over appointment of new West Kowloon CEO (2015), Illegal structures found at housing chief's property (2012). Please note that I am only including English written media.

Further argument Providing information about prominent public officials is one of Wikipedia's noblest achievements.

Is the man running the most ambitious arts project (including the building of M+ Museum, which will house biggest & most comprehensive collection of Chinese art in the world) Hong Kong has ever seen really less notable than Robert Hammond?

—A L T E R C A R I  ✍ 05:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturn speedy with leave to list at AfD as desired. May meet WP:N, clearly over the A7 bar IMO. Also worried the deleting admin was citing notability requirements in an A7 discussion. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AfD its a notability concern, so it should be sent to AfD procedurally since there seems to be some argument for
    WP:N. That's where further discussion belongs, not on DRV or user talk pages. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:13, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2017

7 May 2017

  • Gyeonggi Suwon International School – Endorse. Even the people arguing to overturn the AfD close are arguing that it should have been closed as No Consensus, which still ends up keeping the article, so it seems pointless to try splitting hairs here. – -- RoySmith (talk) 11:30, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gyeonggi Suwon International School (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Despite an RfC declaring SCHOOLOUTCOMES an invalid keep criterion, Dennis Brown closed this AfD agreeing to the "appeal to tradition". If SCHOOLOUTCOMES is an argument to avoid, then I would think closing an AfD based on that rationale is also invalid. Chris Troutman (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the closer's reading of the consensus to keep, and there was no mention of OUTCOMES in the closing rationale. Votes, and strength of argument leave little doubt as to the consensus. OUTCOMES only has a marginal, secondary, and incidental importance in AfD closures. It may or may not be an argument to avoid but its use purely as a work of reference is not governed by policy and irrespective of what OUTCOMES actually documents, there are plenty of other ways of demonstrating that the general practice not to delete high schools clearly exists and is evidenced in long-standing precedent. That practice will will almost certainly continue until it is banned by policy - which was not the result of the cited RfC. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:25, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Written policy is merely an echo of actual practice at Wikipedia, or at least it should be since we are not a bureaucracy. Written policy doesn't force our hand, and is simply documenting what is already consensus, and Wikipedia has always been this way. Most policies did not have RFCs to be established, for instance, they were common sense. Here, it isn't a case of using OUTCOMES as a document, it is about my knowledge of community expectations and consensus that guides me, and my experience in understanding how the community as a whole views cases like this. While I can't ignore a single RFC (held in a place most Wikipedians don't go), I would find it insufficient to completely undo all tradition as consensus is more than a single discussion. Consensus is based on real world practice and precedent. My job as closing admin is to understand previous similar cases and overall community sentiment and weigh votes accordingly. In this case, the keep arguments were stronger than the delete arguments when compared to recent and not so recent cases. In short, I stand by my original closing. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:03, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't unreasonable, of course, but regarding I would find it insufficient to completely undo all tradition as consensus is more than a single discussion -- what would be sufficient to override the inertia of tradition, if not a well-attended RfC that was advertised in
    WP:CENTRALIZED? It seems like what goes beyond that would be formally proposing a policy or guideline to contradict that which already goes against our guidelines. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 19:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
WP:N makes it perfectly clearly that we can decide on notability in each case according to the consensus at the individual discussion. Even were we to have a guideline that schools were always notable, it will still be open to an argument that this particular one should be an exception; even if we had a guideline that high schools were never notable, it would still be open to argue that this particular one should be an exception.
This discussion makes clear why we have this practice: it is not because of intrinsic notability , or any principle of content inclusion. It's a simple matter of a working compromise to avoid having every one of the hundreds of thousands of potential high school articles be argued individually--and fought, just like this one, as far as possible--and with the results , as they were before we had the compromise, depending mainly on who showed up for the particular debate,--notability depending on endurance. Remember, this is a compromise--the other side of it is that no elementary or middle school will ordinarily be considered notable unless there are special factors. If the compromise falls, those will go right back to AfD also just as they used to. And then, in addition to going to great trouble to yield only essentially random decisions, we will have so much less time and energy at AfD to deal with the material that really needs to be dealt with: promotionalism, puffery, thee pushing of special interests. Everyone will lose. Even if I thought it would be better that we have very few high school articles, I would still prefer to have the compromise and accept them rather than to have WP suffer through the arguments. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DGG: You say: "The RfC was self contradictory" but SCHOOLOUTCOMES says "Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES should be added to the Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions" and the RfC said that while sources on schools may be harder to find, the subject would still have to pass GNG. Your ILIKEIT argument, couched with terms that the aggregate has adhered to OUTCOMES for 10 years because they were told to remains invalid. I encourage the long-time editors to embrace the fact that Wikipedia is changing. You cannot either hold onto how things were or insist that institutional momentum cannot change. I find this behavior to be an exceptionally bad example and really raises questions of competence for me. If, however, we're just going to make stuff up and keep or delete articles based upon the mob we can mobilize, I will quickly disassociate from AfD, as it's becoming a court without statute run amok with ill-thought calls to precedent, which is really just making the same mistake over and over again because we always have. Chris Troutman (talk) 04:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
ILIKEIT is an argument agains fans, it would apply if I said I wanted to keep the article because I went to the school. But if you are misusing the term to say that I like article on this topic in general, I don't actually like many of the weakest of the high school articles--my argument is just that keeping them is a practical compromise. I could as easily say that using an ambiguous situation to remove the relatively strong articles of a type instead of the weakest is an IDONTLIKEIT argument about the type of articles. As for "without statute," you are right that we actually have almost no statutes--essentially everything is in fact subject to IAR. I think you're wrong not to accept the compromise, but I do not say that your refusal to recognize that WP runs by consensus which usually requires compromise is getting close to a question of competence. Is everyone else opposed to you also incompetent? I don't think I have ever referred to an opponent in a WP argument in that manner. DGG ( talk ) 05:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't claim that you like this article specifically or articles about schools generally although you seem to be an inclusionist. You seem to think that your viewpoint is the consensus, little people like me be damned. You like the "political compromise" of OUTCOMES because it lets editors like you and your ilk force your will in contravention of guidelines when you think it useful. Your invocation if IAR (which I think shouldn't exist, at all) proves my point. Perhaps I should make an ad hominem attack and claim IAR, too? The compromise to which you refer is not mine to accept. I abide by the community consensus. There was an RfC and they decided. Had it gone the other way I wouldn't have made this argument at DRV. I don't care either way. Just to illustrate, I have supported
WP:DIPLOMAT. The community disagrees. I have since !voted to delete articles about diplomats over and over, again and again because unlike you, I don't offer what I would like as if it were the law. I remind you that although you are a member of ARBCOM it's not your place to offer opinion at forums like these and claim it must be so. For that reason, I find you and many of your fellow admins incompetent to the task and worthy of public rebuke. Please confirm for me that DGG thinks that Wikipedia should just operate upon the chaotic aggregate's opinion at the time rather than have any sort of documented best practices as determined by the majority. Because if you're just going to make stuff up then perhaps we as a community need to ask if we want to tolerate that. I know I don't. Chris Troutman (talk) 18:01, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Endorse per DGG. The consensus in this AfD was to keep the article, and the arguments made explained the reasons why we normally keep secondary schools, not just OUTCOMES. The RfC reached no consensus on the actual question asked. This has been one of the essential missing pieces of the conversation: it was a no consensus RfC where the closers explained what they thought the implications of that no consensus outcome was. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and keep. According to
    WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, "Most independently accredited degree-awarding institutions and high schools have historically been kept except when zero independent sources can be found to prove that the institution actually exists." Therefore, it seems reasonable to keep the article. The school has about 600 students too. It has solid backing too. The article indicates: "The school is the result of a partnership between the Gyeonggi Provincial Government and Suwon City with Dr. Thomas J. Penland, Headmaster of Taejon Christian International School."Knox490 (talk) 04:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    The result in question already is "Keep", so that would not be overturning it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:37, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus--We have two category of opinions:1) the school does not meet GNG--So let's delete it! and 2) the community commonly keeps articles on high schools and sources may be found--So let's keep it!.When the head-count leads approximately to a tie,(K-7,D-6) I don't see how the closer closed as keep;with no explicit reasoning.Winged Blades Godric 10:13, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus. Probably should be no consensus. Certainly isn't delete. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse though a NC reading would have been a fair close too. That said, I'm strongly in the "we keep high schools" camp and anything else, is, IMO, kicking a hornet's nest for no reason I see as having a useful outcome.
    WP:POINT etc. etc. Hobit (talk) 13:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse per Hobit and DGG. Jclemens (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have closed as no consensus, but that's functionally the same as keeping. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Strictly speaking "no consensus" would probably have been a more accurate close, but keep is not so egregiously off that we can call it totally out of the realm of admin discretion. And both would have had basically the same result. If you feel very strongly about it, consider renominating at some future point if it doesn't gain additional sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:35, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close reflected the discussion. "Delete" was not a plausible close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Several endorsements mention that "no consensus" may have been most accurate. I would argue that in a matter as contentious as secondary school notability, there is an important difference between no consensus and keep, despite the immediate practical effect. The core of the problem is that there is a group of editors claiming there is consensus for a particular view. That claim is rejected by others, who point out that this consensus only exists as that group's claim, rather than via any typical consensus-building processes we rely on for matters of e.g. presumed notability. In fact, it has been proposed and failed (most recently in the RfC, which was closed in a way explicitly rejecting the presumption of notability). Closing as keep because people said keep without even attempting to address the reasons for deletion feeds the problem and validates the already-rejected "keep because we keep" approach to AfD. If you don't think those arguing to delete effectively made their case either, no consensus makes sense, but don't endorse just because of the practical outcome. If you endorse, it should be because you believe the closer was correct in saying that the keeps presented the more compelling arguments according to policy/guideline. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:26, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is probably a difference here. And the closer made that determination. I would also have endorsed a NC close, but keep is perfectly reasonable given that discussion. And it's not "keep because we always keep" it's "keep because US high schools almost always meet WP:N. Overseas schools generally do too, but finding sources is a lot harder (may not be on the web, sources likely not in English) and systematic bias is an issue." That's a large part of what references to SCHOOLOUTCOMES are about. Hobit (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There's plenty of daylight between keep and no consensus for this type of article; I don't see how you can take a discussion that divided and say keep, without further explanation in the close. Dennis Brown is more impressed then the "keep" voters than I would have been; they didn't engage with relevant policies and didn't address the complete lack of sourcing. There's a lack of perspective in that discussion from editors who should know better. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for reasons similar to what Hobit has expressed. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a fair reflection of the discussion. There seems little point in overturning to NC if the ultimate outcome (keep) is the same.--Pawnkingthree (talk) 13:34, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • SMX-25 – "Delete" closure endorsed. Nobody here supports overturn to keep. The now-created redirect can be challenged separately if somebody has a problem with it. –  Sandstein  21:49, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
SMX-25 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
) -

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SMX-25 - On the topic of the article there are a large number of authoritative sources in different languages (on the delete discussion page), so the removal of the article in general is unclear. And yes in the rules (as an example Wikipedia:Notability) there is no explanation that non-created ships are automatically insignificant. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 16:33, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (to "Redirect to
DCNS (company)#Submarines and underwater weapons"). The delete arguments did not counter the notion that the topic should be worth mention at this target, and did not assert that the history needed deletion, and multiple participants made this reasonable suggestion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:07, 12 May 2017 (UTC) "Redirect with history deleted" is probably a good outcome from here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Authoritative sources are sufficient for a separate article. --Vyacheslav84 (talk) 12:38, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not relevant here, as we are not re-running the AfD discussion, we are only reviewing the analysis of consensus when the AfD was closed. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no question that consensus was against a separate article. It was between "redirect" and "delete", and on the redirect side there was not even much of "merge". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:06, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete or possibly Redirect. I think delete is a reasonable reading of the AfD, though a redirect would seem like a reasonable reading too, so I think this discussion could be closed as either. These was certainly no consensus for keeping the article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Just another thought - the delete result was to delete the standalone article, and I think recreating as a redirect would not be a violation of that. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. But given that people proposed a redirect, no one gave any reasons to not redirect, and a redirect on the face of it seems reasonable, it probably should have been closed as redirect. Not something I'd bring to DRV, but since we are here, I think it's a reasonable thing to be pointing out. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done the
    WP:CHEAP. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 May 2017

  • WP:DRVPURPOSE, DRV looks at failures to follow the deletion process, not mere disagreements with the outcome. – Stifle (talk) 09:24, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cebuano Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think the Cebuano Wikipedia needs a article as they are the biggest Wikipedia without article witch was deleted for a bad reason when its notable for having lots of articles Flow 234 (Nina) talk 11:41, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2017

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gray Routes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I have gone through WP:CORP of wiki and I strongly feel this company has got enough coverage in independent and renowned third party news sites like Silicon review, Tech Circle and Bloomberg. I understand some administrators are not aware of these sources but I request them to consider my request for undeletion. I tried contacting administrators who deleted our page and but no satisfactory response was received. I also wish to highlight the fact that the page is a very basic outline about the company which I wanted to publish because of its renowned credentials. I appreciate if someone peruses the latest page I have created and suggest changes such that the page gets displayed on Wikipedia. Vamshidhar.18 (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Endorse We JUST had a DRV on this less than a month ago. Please don't open another unless your company's level of notability SIGNIFICANTLY changes. Repeatedly renominating for no good reason is disruption. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 07:50, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse per above and no attempt made to discuss with deleting admin. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 May 2017

  • WP:GNG. The closer determined through interpretation of both guidelines that the GNG takes precedence. In this DRV, there is no consensus about whether this was a correct weighing of arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, or a "supervote" (i.e., a mere personal preference of the closer and not a correct application of policies and guidelines). As DRV closer, I can't determine by fiat who is right in this controversial matter. The AFD closure is therefore maintained by default for lack of consensus to overturn it. –  Sandstein  09:04, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Magdalena Zamolska (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was clear consensus to keep page, or at least close as "no consensus" by virtue of a 10-6 vote in favor of keeping, which cannot plausibly be interpreted as consensus to delete. Additionally, the subject clearly meets

WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Closure was clearly a supervote, as there was no way to interpret consensus the way it was. Smartyllama (talk) 20:13, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Endorse Overturn- completely agree with Smartyllama, seems like an illogical result given the discussion that was generated XyZAn (talk) 20:25, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't that be overturn, then, XyZAn? Smartyllama (talk) 20:33, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, my bad Smartyllama,! XyZAn (talk) 11:31, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We had a similar situation some years back where WP:PORNBIO was pushed through with ridiculously lax requirements, resulting in articles about people who appeared in movies but without speaking parts and whose real names weren't even known (WP:PORNBIO has since been reformed). And people attended the AfD and argued "meets WP:PORNBIO", which was true. And they were ignored and the articles deleted anyway because who cares what a few enthusiasts have managed to get "enacted"? And this was proper IMO.
I submit that this is the situation here. In in a situations like that, the closer is justified in standing on
WP:GNG. It's not a vote, and the suspicion is that too many of the 10 keep votes were acting as cycling enthusiasts rather than strictly as encyclopediasts. The closer was justified in ignoring what may be an overly broad special notability standard. And cycling enthusiasts are advised to reform the rule so it covers articles that are actually going to be kept. Herostratus (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Also I see this discussion has been pinged at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Cycling, which, fine, but its not a vote. Lets approach this as Wikipedians and not cycling enthusiasts. Herostratus (talk) 08:19, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No. because this discussion had extensive research of sources including by a Polish writer, who nominated it for deletion, the closer most certainly did not say just because someone raised the GNG. No sources researched were found or presented to show that we can write actual biography article -- they are all, including that book, just routine sports statistics of all participants in an event, not about her life. And this person competed several years ago plenty of time to generate and find GNG sources. You have created an iron rule of keep based on routine sports statistics, and you have construed it as no "presumption" at all, because such a presumption has to have a way to fail or it is an iron rule to keep and V requires the burden and the onus be on those seeking to include content. No amount of Original Research that says "I don't know, maybe" saves content on Wikipedia -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:58, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's pointless to wave your hands and say
there might be sources out there somewhere, especially when others have looked and found nothing. Reyk YO! 23:06, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Of course you have stated an iron rule. Your argument is that consensus is majority vote and that is contra Consensus, and per N and V, merely asserting there maybe sources, without proof cannot suffice to make an article nor any content. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:02, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you claiming an "iron rule" that an article which meets the SNG but not the GNG cannot be kept no matter the consensus of the discussion? My reading allows for consensus to matter, yours seems to want a rule independent of consensus. Which seems like more of an fixed rule? Hobit (talk) 16:20, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The position your argument in reality champions was stated several times in the discussion and has been re-stated, here: 'Wikipedian's can't in good faith delete, nor even nominate, this article' - and that is precisely an iron rule to keep. Whereas, the BURDEN and ONUS of anyone wanting content in the pedia is produce the sources, and here to do so per N (including WHYN). The 'presumption' or 'likelihood' of GNG has to be able to fail or be supported by the showing of actual research, or it is not a presumption at all, but an iron rule. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stating what is standard around here: WP:IAR. Other than key policies (WP:BLP, copyright law, etc.) local consensus can overcome guidelines. Local consensus was that the SNG applied and was enough to keep the article. Hobit (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: "he met the SNG and that that is enough for keeping the article". How do you square it with the SNG itself saying "If a sports figure meets the criteria specified in a sports-specific notability guideline, does this mean he/she does not have to meet the general notability guideline? No, the subject must still eventually meet the general notability guideline."? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:54, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
7 User:Severo
3 User:Lugnuts
2 User:Hydronium_Hydroxide
1 User:XyZAn
1 User:Sander.v.Ginkel
1 User:Mkativerata
1 User:Fram
1 User:Buzzards-Watch_Me_Work

and most of the single-edit contributors are boilerplate maintenance. That few contributors can't set inviolable policy for the entire encyclopedia. All of these notability guidelines include the word presumed, which means, Suppose that something is the case on the basis of probability.. That's good enough to create an article in the first place, and good enough to get you past

WP:CSD, but once you get into a specific AfD, that presumption is being challenged, and you need to be able to back it up with real sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

Redirect or Merge per SmokeyJoe below also sounds like a good option, but unclear what's the right target. Perhaps Polish National Road Race Championships, but that's not entirely satisfying because there's other plausible targets too. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:24, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's not quite the case, there was a suggestion mentioned during the RfD to put the sports statistics (which is all there is) of this person in another article, but you say they are already there. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:40, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, can you help me find this? It sounds like you are saying the information is already elsewhere, which means a redirect is in order. RfD? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:43, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Help you find what? During the RfD it was said that the persons sports statistics may possibly go to a list article or in article list on the event. And I thought you said, she is already so listed (thus, there would be nothing more to merge). It does not seem actually helpful to redirect the name. The search function finds the name, regardless. Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:52, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alanscottwalker, help me find what you are talking about in your answer to me. What RfD? Did you mean the AfD? I have read of your comments and you wrote of neither redirects nor RfD. You !votes are definitely in keeping with a "merge and redirect", or "redirect" if the information is already there, but the discussion failed to even consider which article would be the best target. I said the woman's name "Magdalena Zamolska" has hits in Wikipedia mainspace, but none appear to the obvious target, and addressing the question of a merge and redirect is a BEFORE onus on the nominator. The closer was wrong to close because this remained undone. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You wrote: "Some of the person's statistics info might go to an appropriate list article, per ONEEVENT and LIST, or to a list-in-an-article on notable cycling events.-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:06, 25 April 2017 (UTC)" That goes directly to my point. While this remains possible, the simple "delete" close decision is inappropriate. In consensus decision making, the "Keep"ers and "Delete"rs need to find common ground and compromise. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:16, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes AfD. Is that your only question? I don't think there is a best target, where the info is already in the other lists, there is nothing to merge. Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:23, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On my search for all information on this cyclist, I find there is no suitable article. She is known for a few cycling competitions, but articles covering these competitions don't list competitors, let alone non-winners. Better to let any attempt to find this cyclist invoke the interneal Wikipedia search engine. I remain concerns that a lot of similar articles exist. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:00, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Although the discussion of a possible redirect target was missing, to the best of my research, there is no acceptable redirect target. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but the decision as to whether the arguments based on the possibilities of sourcing and the implication from SNGs are persuasive is to be determined by the participants of the AfD. They are the ones who get to decide whether or not the policy-based arguments are persuasive in a particular case. They did not come to a consensus either way on that here, and discounting the opinions of those who !voted keep when it does have at least some grounding both in
WP:N and in the SNG was not the right call in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
The "persuasion" as a matter of policy (V) and guideline (N) comes from producing actual GNG sources. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:38, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning that they're looking at the essay WP:NOTAVOTE and not the actual guidelines found at WP:N? Yes. Very. From WP:N - "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1) It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". And the box on the right links to the sportspeople subject-specific guideline. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTAVOTE is not meant to be used to ignore a valid guideline in favour of another. Having one person decide what guidelines apply rather than working this out amicably in a discussion is not something I would like to advocate either. Fuebaey (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When NSPORTS says it has to meet the GNG or a subject specific guideline, and then the subject specific guideline says it has to meet the GNG, we're back where we started: it has to meet the GNG. That's what most of the keep voters were not noticing, and that's why it is correct to not give those votes as much weight. Reyk YO! 19:42, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was the minority opinion given in the AfD. What I find slightly bemusing is that a lot of the discussion above (including the close) is simply a rehash of the AfD - whether NCYC or GNG prevails. Would it not be reasonable to simply relist the AfD, which originally ran for ten days, to incorporate the (uninvolved) statements above? Fuebaey (talk) 13:45, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 May 2017

  • File:Kervaire spectral sequence.jpg – Endorse. Other than the nominator, unanimous consensus that the FFD close was correct. Despite the low turnout (which is apparently normal for that venue), the discussion was open for several months, many times longer than required. The bottom line here is that while we've got room for debate on notability questions, copyright issues require much stricter enforcement, and the nominator was unable to convince anybody of a rationale for using this non-free image. I strongly suggest you follow up on the suggestion here to seek permission from the copyright holder; it seems likely that it would be granted, and then all this drama goes away. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Kervaire spectral sequence.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closure was premature. Also, the closing admin did not seem to have actually read the discussion (the admin didn't respond to my request for the reopening the discussion). Taku (talk) 07:17, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • (closing admin) Quite quick to the DR here... didn't even have a chance to respond so here will have to do. (1) The discussion was open for two months when it should have been closed after two weeks. (2) Discussions regularly close at FFD with far less participation. (3) The consensus of the discussion is clearly against keeping the image. (4) Their logic was sound, as I repeated in the actual close: "delete. WP:NFCC#1: if a free use alternative is possible, no non-free content is accessible". There is no text-based rationale for keeping the specific
    their consent to use a Creative Commons license. And many academics already publish in open access/culture journals. The close is sound (and relatively common as far as FFD goes). I also don't see a compelling reason (e.g., new evidence) to warrant reopening the discussion. FFD has a backlog as it is. I am no longer watching this page—ping if you'd like a response czar 07:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • How can a closure after three months be in any way premature? Stifle (talk) 09:39, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse discussion was open for far longer than required, got the necessary amount of participation, the close reflected the discussion and the arguments supporting it were sound. I don't see anything wrong here. Hut 8.5 20:29, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually the single vote for the deletion was based on the misreading of my voting rationale. Thus it should have be discounted; so the total tally for the deletion was actually... 0. I said "premature" since what was needed was additional input. Relisting (or no consensus) would have been a correct procedure. -- Taku (talk) 05:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You have to count the nominator, they don't cease to exist just because they started the discussion. I don't agree that Finnusertop's comment was based on a mischaracterisation, it looks perfectly valid to me. You argued that the image is not replaceable because creating one of these diagrams requires a substantial technical expertise, and Finnusertop said that this only makes the image hard to replace and not irreplaceable. The discussion was relisted, it sat around for ages waiting for someone to close it, and the number of people taking part was adequate by FFD standards. Hut 8.5 20:17, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sorry, but I just can't quite wrap my head around calling a close after 3 months "premature". Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:10, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not like there was active lengthy discussion throughout that period. If there was not enough discussion, the closure is premature, meaning has not reached the point in which the closure is appropriate. (I hope my use of the English word is correct.) -- Taku (talk) 05:11, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If I'm understanding the arguments correctly, Taku is claiming that creating a free version of this isn't viable. If that's true, he's got a good case. But I _think_ creating a trivial instance is viable, it's just that this one is a lot more interesting. @TakuyaMurata:, is that a fair description of what's going on? Hobit (talk) 13:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Basically yes. The difficulty here is what one means by "one can create a free equivalent." Theoretical speaking, yes. But, practically speaking, no. Say, I create a free equivalent. All I need is to acquire necessary backgrounds (by spending several months to a few years studying hard) and then read the original paper (hopefully takes only several weeks) and then finally do the drawing (days work?). In other words, not happening in any practical sense :) I don't think the policy is clear on this issue of theoretical possibility vs practical possibility. So this case seems to be a pretty much of the gray case, something completely missed during the discussion as well as in the closure (see the above comment by the closing admin). -- Taku (talk) 05:55, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The data isn't copyrightable, is it? This is entirely not my field, but it seems to me like creating the data, not the graph of it, is the part that's unviable. That would make this a straightforward example of
    Cryptic 00:21, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Endorse I understand where Taku is coming from, but it sounds like we could probably make a free version without massive effort, even if it wouldn't be an ideal version. On that note, has anyone tried asking the copyright holder if we can get a CC BY-SA release of the original? For something like this, that seems quite likely. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2017

  • List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017 – No consensus. There's a plausible case made here that the AfD should be relisted to consider some new sources found, but it would be a stretch to say that there's actually a consensus for that. So, I'm going to call this NC, which means the original AfD close stands. As always, if somebody can write a new article which addresses the concerns raised in the AfD, they are free to do so. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:20, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Gaon Digital Chart number ones of 2017 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't believe the closure of

systematically biased; they expect English-language sources for a South Korean music chart. Gaon writes monthly reports of its charts (the equivalent to Billboard magazine's weekly articles): January, February, March. Third-party sources also discuss the weekly Gaon Digital Chart: since its inception (Newsen) and ever since (the following are for January 2017): imaeil.com, 10asia, News1, and so on. The sources exist, simply not in the language easily accessible to most readers and editors. ℯxplicit 06:31, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2017

  • Reem (singer)
     – Endorse, but relist. First, the original close is endorsed as being correct given the existing discussion.
Opinion is split here, but more than that, this whole discussion boils down to a whole bunch of wikilawyering, with the exception of the work Cunard put into researching some sources, which is really what should have happened during the AfD. Thank you, Cunard. There's no consensus here on whether those sources are sufficient (in fact, almost no discussion of them at all, which is disappointing), but they do deserve to be examined.
Theres also a lot of discussion of the relative value of
WP:GNG
vs the various SNG's, but no conclusion. That's an ongoing discussion which keeps coming up in many AfDs and DRVs, and deserves to be discussed further. Clearly, the current situation is untenable.
So, I'm going to restore the article and re-list the existing AfD. Please folks, this is about sources, let's concentrate on evaluating them. I'm also going to semi-protect the article, given the vandalism concerns. I'll leave it up to whoever re-closes the AfD next week what they want to do about the protection status for the long term. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Reem (singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore
)

I don't think this AFD close reflects consensus. The discussion was weakly participated and the borderline close appears to side with one argument. I realise that admins have discretion and can IAR in some cases, but am failing to see how this isn't a supervote. I wouldn't have an issue had the closer made that opinion as part of the discussion, or had more editors agreed that in this case the general notability guideline would trump the music notability guideline. But neither of these occurred in this situation. I have asked the closer to reconsider, but the only response has been a reiteration of the close rationale. Fuebaey (talk) 14:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, it looks like this one was explained very clearly: the presence of one song low on one chart is an indication that an artist may be notable, it doesn't guarantee an article. This was explained by the closer as well as two other participants. It also looks like the article was something of a trouble magnet, with vandalism, sockpuppetry and the like--while that isn't cause to delete on its own, people are less likely to want to keep an article that's going to need constant monitoring and waste time for admins if it also has a very minimal (at best) encyclopedic value. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:19, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist subject meets a SNG which is usually enough to keep an article in this area. The discussion was split after the SNG being met was found (1 keep, 1 delete). As an aside, if it's common that people meet the SNG and not the GNG in this area, we should take a deeper look at the SNG. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 1 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - I believe my brief closing statement at the AfD speaks for itself. The keep voters unanimously argued that the article should be kept because it meets one of the criteria in the SNG. However, as we all know, SNG's are simply convenient measuring sticks which are used to quickly estimate whether a subject is likely to pass GNG. They are not the ultimate measure of notability, and sometimes they are wrong. I'm not aware of a systemic problem with this particular SNG that would require it to be modified, but it's possible that it needs to be looked at. Ultimately, the 3 delete/redirect voters argued that it doesn't pass GNG, and the 2 keep voters did not provide an adequate refutation of that argument. If the community believes that the AfD had insufficient participation, then I'm ok with relisting it. ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 02:38, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Good close, that correctly discounted arguments based on the faulty presumption that meeting an SNG allows one to not have to worry about demonstrating that there are sources out there that get it past the GNG. Article could be restored if any of those sources that some are so sure are out there are actually presented. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Per GNG:
A topic is presumed to merit an article if:
  1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and
  2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy.
(my emphasis). If you don't discount them it would fall as no consensus due to lack of participation. Even if we were to discount them, only two (including nom) out of five editors called for deletion, and it was not the person who made a strong argument for GNG > SNG. How that can be construed as a consensus is beyond me. Your second point doesn't make sense (typo?). Fuebaey (talk) 16:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well spotted, I meant "restored", not "deleted". Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:43, 3 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • I think what we're looking for is "Endorse but Relist". Closing admin made a valid call based on the information available to them, but new information justifies taking another look. The closing admin can't be expected to factor in arguments not made during the discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:40, 3 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Thanks for the clarification. Hobit (talk) 12:34, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for this delay, I have been away for a spell. Yes, I am fine with saying Endorse but Relist, although I do have some reservations with #3's wording; where it speaks of "recreating the deleted page".--
    John Cline (talk) 03:16, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
thanks, fixed. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse--
    WP:GNG generally prevails over other policies.That's a good close.Winged Blades Godric 06:32, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Relist SNG's are a practical application of
    WP:N, the guideline that GNG falls under. Meeting a SNG means that the community has reached a consensus that it is likely that this article would pass GNG if someone had access to the sources, which as Cunard pointed out is probably true in this case. Relist pending the above sources and passing of an SNG is appropriate. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_May&oldid=777897046"