Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 March

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

Afds are not a head count, They are based on the strength of policy based arguments. No one countered the policy based argument of passing the basic tenement of general notability, coverage in independent reliable sources. The three delete !votes were that no sources had been found. Once four good sources were found and presented that reason no longer applied so those comments should have been discounted. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:00, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I voted delete, I saw the refs offered by the nom after my vote but none of them were searchable. If those refs happen to be OK then undelete is OK by me. The closer couldn't have closed any other way and has offered the nom a draft. Szzuk (talk) 07:19, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with relist as suggested below. Szzuk (talk) 14:25, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to relist. Sources were presented late in the discussion and nobody had a chance to evaluate them. The existing discussion should be reopened to let people look at the sources and decide if they are sufficient. That's AfD's job, and it should be given time to do it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:54, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to No Consensus and restore. Do not automatically relist, but no prejudice against a good-faith renomination. The only policy-based argument for deletion was lack of sources. When 4 reviews in what appea5r to be reliable sources are provided, even offline, those previous opinions should be discounted by the closer. There was no valid consensus to delete. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 16:36, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I have restored the article and relisted the AfD. Black Kite (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The only main character of

Pinging @Davewild, Maile66, Staszek Lem, and DissidentAggressor: as people that were involved in the deletion. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:54, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Peel I'm a little confused on this, as it was deleted twice. But I have restored it, and you can take it from there. — Maile (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk) 22:14, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

OK, thanks! I thought there would be more of a debate here first. :-) I've restored the other versions. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:18, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Plan 9 (startup incubator) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It should have been relisted so we could have a thorough discussion about the huge number of notable sources present in the article. Also, there was no clear consensus to delete as one vote only said 'per nom', other said to 'redirect', and I said to 'keep', keep in mind it is gov organization which works in Pakistani start-up ecosystem and is only organization in Pakistan. There would be plenty of sources surely in local language. I'm inviting few Pakistani users to review this one. Störm (talk) 07:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse closure which supported deletion. Relisting is only appropriate when there has been a limited number (e.g. 1-2) comments. We don't relist because it's "close". Stifle (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• This is a tricky one. Early on (in AFD discussion) I voted for it to be redirected saying that its hard for these pages to exist independently, however on thorough research, I have found out that there's nothing wrong for these pages to exist independently. Examples: 16 such pages are existing for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Business_incubators_of_the_United_Kingdom. & 8 such pages exist for https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Business_incubators_of_India. Therefore, I would overturn to keep here, as the article is in fact notable.  M A A Z   T A L K  09:53, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Invited here by Störm as participant in previous discussion. Apoart from the nominator, the deletion discussion had one valid !vote for and one against, so it is unclear how anyone could reach a conclusion that there is anything close to "consensus" here.

As to the article, agreed, it seems that Plan 9 has received much less online media coverage than, say, even regional sports events. A government programme, however big, is indeed rarely a good subject for lengthy media publications. However we see some high quality independent coverage. In the book Opportunities in the Development of Pakistan's Private Sector published by

WIPO website [1]

. Or the many mentions in Pakistan's national press referenced in the (now deleted) article.

Sure they are all cursory mentions (how to capture depth of a government programme?) and it is understandable that

WP:GOOGLEHITS doesn't score high. But I think that the quality of sources is sufficient to establish that the programme is indeed notable and should exist in an encyclopaedia of a scope as global as Wikipedia's. So, continue the discussion and reverse closure for me. — kashmīrī ^TALK 10:58, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Weakish Endorse. The closing admin has to work with what they've got, and here we have 3-1-1 in favour of deletion (with one "keep" and one "redirect"). I might have been tempted to close this as no consensus myself, but I think that delete is also within the bounds of sanity. Much of the discussion above is simply trying to relitigate the AFD without bringing any new information to the table. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Also, just want to Endorse Stifle's Comment above concerning relisting. There was adequate discussion in the AFD to come to a close of some sort, a relist would not have been appropriate. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:46, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

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

The Wikipedia admin who initiated the AfD for Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry, User:Prince of Thieves, was discovered to be a sockpuppet account of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver. Both of these accounts, as well as all of the other sockpuppet accounts of User:A Den Jentyl Ettien Avel Dysklyver, have been permanently banned from Wikipedia. Given the fact that this user was violating Wikipedia policies and using fake accounts, there is reason to believe the move to create the AfD for the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry was motivated by Dislike Of The Subject WP:DLS, a personal vendetta, or some other invalid reason for deletion of a Wikipedia entry, rather than a valid reason for deletion and an honest desire to improve Wikipedia. There are additional reasons why Komodo (cryptocurrency) should be undeleted. (1) The sources used in the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry were called into question but those very same sources are cited in other prominent Wikipedia entries, such as the Ethereum entry (source #84 cites themerkle.com; source #87 cites cointelegraph.com) and the Bitcoin entry (source #67 cites themerkle.com; source #72 cites cointelegraph.com). Furthermore, there are more credible sources to support the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry that were neither listed in the references on the original page, nor brought into consideration during the AfD discussion. Here is one example: https://in.finance.yahoo.com/news/forget-bitcoin-12-cryptocurrencies-following-150000996.html (2) If the Komodo (cryptocurrency) article was too short, then it should have been flagged as WP:TOOSHORT. There are many other cryptocurrency entries on Wikipedia of comparable length and quality to Komodo (cryptocurrency) prior to its deletion. Some notable examples include: NEO (cryptocurrency); IOTA (cryptocurrency); Zcash; and Cardano (platform). If all of these pages are considered notable and their sources are deemed credible, then it would be wildly contradictory to support the deletion of the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry. (3) All of the points made in (1) and (2) were articulated to User:Sandstein on his/her talk page. At first, Sandstein made the suggestion that these arguments should have been made during the AfD discussion. However, they were not. This does not invlidate these valid arguments. And they are now being put forward here, along with the request that either (a) the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry be undeleted, or (b) the AfD be re-opened so that a balanced, objective discussion can take place, without the conversation having been started by a sockpuppet admin with quesitonable intentions. Sandstein subsequently refused to address these points directly and instead made ad hominem attacks. (4) These ad hominem attacks were made in the form of repeated accusations that my motivation to have the Komodo (cryptocurrency) page undeleted is a desire to market a cryptocurrency. Sandstein offered no evidence to support this accusation, despite repeating it twice. In the interest of COI, I should make clear that I am a paid representative of Komodo. However, I am not attempting to edit the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry; I'm simply making a request for the page to be undeleted because I believe its deletion was not made in accordance with Wikipedia policies. The Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry was neither created, written, nor edited by members or affiliates of the Komodo team. Komodo Platform is a notable blockchain company and Wikipedia readers should be able to learn about Komodo on Wikipedia. In any case, my arguments for undeleting the Kommodo (cryptocurrency) page deserve to be addressed on their own terms. (5) Even if Sandstein believed the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry to be written in a marketing tone, that is still not grounds for deletion; it should simply have been marked as such. Here is a quote from Wikipedia's Valid Reasons to delete page: "An article about a notable topic that is written like an advertisement, with a promotional tone and style, but which does qualify for an article (under WP:N, the Notability policy) should not be deleted, but should be marked {ad}, notifying others to change the writing style to give it a neutral tone." However, this was evidently not the concern, as Sandstein only made claims and did not provide evidence or examples of text from the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry that were thought to qualify as "a promotional tone and style." (6) In light of all the arguments made in (1),(2),(3),(4), and (5), it's extremely important to bear WP:BATHWATER in mind. The Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry is not perfect but it is a notable topic about a prominent blockchain company that is likely of interest to many readers. The existence of the Komodo (cryptocurrency) entry surely improves the Wikipedia project. 174.109.79.2 (talk) 23:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)Komodo Platform[reply]

• Endorse yes, the nominator was a sock, but even if we ignore their comment three other people supported the article's deletion and that would be enough for a delete closure.
  The existence of other articles doesn't mean this one should exist, and there is a flaw in the argument that because they both cite the same source they must be treated the same. Notability depends on the existence of suitable sources, that doesn't mean that every source the article cites has to meet the standards we use for this, just that at least one does. The article wasn't deleted for having a promotional tone, or for being too short, it was deleted on notability grounds. The only source presented here is [2] and I doubt that would have made any difference to the discussion. And the idea that you're not here to promote something you admit you are a paid representative of is not credible. Hut 8.5 06:52, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Closing admin comment: As noted on my talk page, I am of the view that per
  WP:G4, and others are then free to nominate it again for deletion. Sandstein 07:28, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Unanimous decision could not have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 08:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, as per Stifle and Hut 8.5. It is unfortunate that one of the participants in the discussion was later found to be a sock, but unless there is any evidence of abusive sockpuppetry in that discussion itself (and I see none), then I don't see any reason to overturn. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:42, 26 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse valid close as good faith editors felt deletion was merited. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:43, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse unanimous AfD and although the nominator was a sock, that does not appear to have any bearing on the unanimous result of this AfD. SportingFlyer talk 01:54, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse--Dlohcierekim (talk) 11:01, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as not meeting
  WP:DRVPURPOSE. The AfD was unanimous. The participation level was less than I'd like to see, but adequate, and well argued. I might be tempted to relist this to get broader participation if a good policy-based argument was put forth by an established editor, but not on the anonymous COI ramblings above. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

File:Ronald Skirth (1897-1977) seated.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Deleted at FFD in 2010 because a PD replacement was found. The replacement has subsequently

• Restore the reason for deletion is no longer valid and AFAICT it would be reasonable to use this image as fair use. Hut 8.5 22:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore per nom. Jclemens (talk) 06:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore speedily; this could just as easily be handled at
  WP:UNDELETE. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:12, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• On the surface, this seems like a no-brainer to restore, but I'm looking at the comment, No evidence is given of the research into the author's identity, required for the UK license in the Commons FFD and wondering if that same issue would apply to this photo? I'm also looking at the deleted en file page where it says, I have the permission of Jean Skirth, the copyright holder, to distribute the image. If that's the case, then it seems like forwarding that permission to OTRS would give clear rights to use this and we wouldn't have to do the fair use thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RoySmith: judging from the file name, the photograph in question is this. It also appears on the cover of Skirth's autobiography, The Reluctant Tommy. I'm confident that the editors of that book have got the right man on the cover; it's not just somebody in plain clothing that looks like him. Regarding the alleged permission, I think you should contact the uploader on their talk page or ping them so that we can find out if the permission is adequate for a free license. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to clarify, I'm OK with restoring. Just raising these questions to make sure we've done due diligence around a copyright issue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Massacre of Brzostowica Mała (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• I refer to my comments in the closure and at User talk:Sandstein#Wrong place. Sandstein 11:58, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:BLUDGEON responses. Poeticbent talk 19:20, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Note - Not only was there a lack of English sources, there was a lack of Polish sources that treated this at length in a secondary INDEPTH manner. The google book linked above in English by Marek Jan Chodakiewicz was published by Fronda, and not by a reputable academic publisher, and is by a highly polemical source/author - and from the snippet view it does not appear to treat the subject INDEPTH (seems to be less than a page from the snippets)) - it also was not discussed at the AfD I believe. Most of the Polish language sources are blurbs or single sentence mentions. The PRIMARY IPN decision not to pursue this is a paragraph, leaving us with one INDEPTH source - a newspaper account in the conservative Nasz Dziennik. For historical topics to be standalone articles we typically require multiple, secondary, indepth and independent coverage - typically a few journal article or books by academic publishers covering the topic with a few pages each.Icewhiz (talk) 19:32, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Request temp undelete. Szzuk (talk) 20:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I don't envy Sandstein for trying to close this, and I'm not sure I agree with the rationale, but I think the result is justifiable. The common thread running through most of the Delete comments is that the available sources (at least the scholarly ones) give the subject a passing mention in the context of a wider event or don't cover it at all. This is a good argument for deletion, or at least merging, and I don't see a convincing attempt to rebut it in the discussion. If the topic is notable I don't see why we should be considering articles in news media in order to prove it. The Second World War has a good claim to be the most analysed episode in human history and if an event is significant then I expect it would have been covered in depth by academics. Hut 8.5 21:17, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy for this to be merged to another article. Hut 8.5 20:50, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I just read the Polish wp page and it says the official investigation into this massacre 15 years ago was closed due to lack of evidence. There is a big pov template on the page. The closers first sentence basically says "is this verifiable" and I can't see how it can be given the official investigation was closed. If this article was called 'Massacre Investigation' or similar there would be no problem. Szzuk (talk) 21:23, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• I was disappointed by the regrettable premature closing of the "
  Massacre of Brzostowica Mała" article (which, as I suggested on its talk page, should have been retitled "Brzostowica Mała massacre", analogously to other massacres such as the Malmedy massacre). Most accounts of notable crimes begin with fragmentary, confused, and inconclusive information (the Watergate scandal comes to mind). The very fact that the Brzostowica Mała event has been a subject of considerable interest in Poland makes it notable. Werewolves and vampires have their Wikipedia articles, though, as those articles make clear, such folkloric beings have never even existed. Jack the Ripper has his Wikipedia article though, as in the case of the Brzostowica Mała massacre, the perpetrator remains unknown (and is a perennial subject of interest). And, as other editors have noted above, the language of the sources is not a controlling consideration; bilingual editors can provide, confirm, or correct English translations. Less notable topics than the Brzostowica Mała massacre are available for consultation on Wikipedia. Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 00:18, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• How is a 19th century mystery serial killer who has been analyzed for over 120 years comparable to an incident which has only been mentioned in bits and pieces? The canonical five and countless sources are testaments to the Ripper's legend and, more importantly, notability. That is the only thing from your argument I will address; the vampires and werewolves part is just pure nonsense.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I can't believe we are still hearing arguments 'but there are not enough sources, this is not notable/verifiable'. This event has been discussed in at least several sources, through the extent of this is not always clear due to limitations of Google Books snippet view. Clearly, some sources dedicate at least several sentences to this event, and likely, paragraph or multiple ones (And yes, 99% of them are in Polish - but
  WP:NOENG
  makes it irrelevant). :
  • Marek Jan Chodakiewicz: [6]: "On the night of 17/18 September 1939 r., urged on by the Communist Zak Motyl (Motek Zak?) of Brzostowica Wielka, a pro-Communist criminal gang led by Koziejko and Ajzyk (Icchak?), consisting of Belorussians and Jews, attacked the estate of Brzostowica Mała near Grodno and the nearby village Brzostowica Mała, where the administrative authorities were loca- ted. It appears that they slaughtered a large number of, if not all, the ethnic Poles in those localities. This massacre..."
  • Polish historian pl:Krzysztof Jasiewicz in [7] (in Polish) called this "likely the best known massacre in the North-East Kresy" ("do bodajże najgłośniejszego mordu na Kresach Północno-Wschodnich doszło z 17 na 18 września 1939 r. w Brzostowicy Małej w pow. Grodno ")
  • a brief mention of the massacre is [8]. pl:Dzieje Najnowsze is a peer reviewed journal by a reliable academic outlet (pl:Instytut Historii im. Tadeusza Manteuffla Polskiej Akademii Nauk) and the author is another reliable Polish historian pl:Mieczysław Bielski
  • Institute of National Remembrance has spent ~5 years investigating this event. It has concluded ([9]) that there is insufficient evidence to identify the perpatrators, or most details conclusively, but has accepted the fact of the massacre with dozens victims as a fact. I think one or two IPN sources were present in the article, and I might have cited another one on the talk page, but the article is gone and I can't easily find them (they are in Internet Archive and not easily google searchable)
  • pl:Marek Wierzbicki (historyk) in [10], page 66, seems to dedicate at least few sentences to this
  • one more book by one more Polish historian pl:Wojciech Śleszyński mentions this: [11]
  • yet another book, this one by [12] (can't find his bio), [13], discusses this at similar length at least; this author discusses this topic in another book too: [14]
  • [15] on p.370. That said, the author (pl:Ryszard Szawłowski - KL is a pen-name) is called by pl wiki a amateur historian, nonetheless he is cited in a number of other sources, and the review of his book in what seems an academic outlet at [16] is positive. Also his name is sometimes spelled Richard, and there are mentions of "Richard Szawlowski, a young professor of the University of Calgary who has studied the communist world for a long time" - but those may be two separate people
  • [17] - another brief mention, through this one is in a minor if seemingly peer reviewed Polish journal ([18] through this may be because it name has changed [19]). Couldn't find a bio of the author but she has published several books on history: [20]
  • I limited myself to academic sources. I am not (re)listing Polish media, but this event has been discussed at length in several if not 10+ Polish media outlets, and mentioned in passing in more, and that alone should be enough to establish its notability, too.
• There is no single source where the very fact that people died there is disputed (there is some controversy over whether attribution of perps by Chodakiewicz and some others was done correctly, this is the bone of contention). But you cannot seriously say this event is not researched, not verifiable, and not notable. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  The survey above (which includes some marginal sources quality wise) clearly shows this is a

  WP:BIASED from one nationality (and many of those are from hard nationalist elements in that nationality).Icewhiz (talk) 05:10, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  • Since when does WP:V require a death toll? Also some sources talk of dozens dead. Since when does WP:V require one then more page? And due to snippet view we are unable to judge lenght well, some of those sources MAY be over a page long. You cannot assume either way. Several paragraphs have been usually sufficient for such topics to be seen as notable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 15:17, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is possible to assess length in snippet view. No one has been able to produce an academic RS here with more than a paragraph, and most are less than that (one liners or paragraph fragments). Articles written and assessed for AfD per the sources we know are out there, not what may be there. This is a clear
      WP:INDEPTH fail.Icewhiz (talk) 21:01, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
      ]

  While the exact perpetrators of this crime haven't been put to justice due to time involved, the massacre is sufficiently covered in reliable sources allowing it to be described.I see no reason for deletion of the article.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 13:55, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Read the AfD and this discussion so far and given the nature of the article (potentially controversial event, verifiability based on non-English language sources, POV issues with non-language sources as per native language Wikipedia page) it seems as if the closer has taken a difficult AfD and arrived at the correct result. Furthermore, the delete or weak delete votes appear to have made better arguments, or at least have done better work on nutting out exactly what happened here, especially the thread started by Smmurphy. SportingFlyer talk 21:34, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and re-list at AFD for a better consensus to emerge, hopefully this time without the disruption that occurred last time. The lack of consensus seems pretty clear to me. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:43, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but userfy. When I first read this page, it was about a killing of 50 people on a single day in a single village, including a count (hrabia) and his family. Looking through the sources, I found none that suggested the death toll that day in that village was above 10 (if I remember correctly, the number was 6 or 8, depending on the sources), although over a series of days in a number of villages the death toll may have reached 250, although that number was said to be not accurate in the source where it was given. My understanding is that there may have been a killing of some members of the petty nobility, who may have been upgraded to the rank of hrabia or may have actually held that rank, I don't know. There are enough sources that say they existed that I feel they are verifiable, but the sources about their killing as a significant event on a particular day were a bit one-sided and may not be NPOV (I don't remember for sure, there may have been mention of the murders on both sides of the spectrum). That said, there were many sources across the POV spectrum (the spectrum is Polish nationalist academics seeking to explain Polish violence towards Jews to Western European and US academics seeking to explain local support for Soviet invasions in the region) which discuss revolts and uprisings in this village and a number of villages nearby. During the AfD, a Icewhiz, myself, and an IP edited the article, moving its POV towards the Western European and US academic direction and the focus of the article towards the revolts in general across a number of days and in a number of villages rather than a massacre on one day in one village, and Poeticbent added some sources and changed some language which moved the article's POV towards the Polish nationalist direction (I apologize if these labels are offensive, I am using them based on my understanding and my need for a quick description). Other users edited the article as well, some significantly although I don't remember who and to what effect. By the time it was deleted, the article had improved in my opinion. Given the divisive nature of the subject and the flagging interest in the AfD, putting the AfD out of its misery was not a bad decision. Sandstein's rational for closing seems fine to me and I do not think it should be overturned. In the closing, sandstein noted the possibilities of userfication. I support using the material from this article, including mention of the murder of the hrabia and his family, in an article about the uprisings in general - either as a stand alone article or as a part of one or more existing articles. I do not think the old article should be rewritten in a NPOV form, as I don't think there was a clearly encyclopedic "massacre" in that place - there was an investigation of a particular killing as a part of a series of investigations of many killings, but the exact details are based on long-after-the-fact reports). An article on the series of revolts in general would mention a number of the more well documented particular events, noting when that documentation is more or less partisan. I still have my notes, but it would be useful to have the article itself userfied or draftified to help this work. Smmurphy^(Talk) 22:32, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am striking a particular sentence from my remark. The main source of the statement that there were a number of revolts around this period is here, a chapter by Marek Wierzbicki in a 2007 book. This is an English version of an argument he makes elsewhere and lists 16/17 locations of revolts (which does not include Skidel and lists neighboring Wielka Brzostowica but not Brzostowica Mała). I found another article from the same end of the spectrum that gives more detail and is based on Wierzbicki and on Wierzbicki's mentor, Strzembosz and a few other articles (Chapter 3 (p59-74) of this non-neutral book: Paul, Mark. NEIGHBOURS On the Eve of the Holocaust, PEFINA Press Toronto 2016). These sources give a list of villages and places. I do not know that revolts did not happen in these places, but I looked for information about pre-Soviet occupation violence or revolts and I only found evidence in one case, at Motol [21], and that case was far from a revolt and didn't strike me as encyclopedic. As such, I no longer think an article about pre-Soviet occupation communist (or Jewish or Belorussian) revolts in Poland is encyclopedic, as there I do not think there exists broad enough POV of sources on them (I'm happy to change my mind but would need evidence beyond memoirs, preferably published by an academic press or in a peer reviewed journal). Noting User:Piotrus's comment below, I still think userfication (to their userspace) would be fine. I'm unsure about eventual return to article space as a redirect to preserve article history, but weakly support that proposal, too. I think material in the article could be merged with the Skidel revolt and, maybe, with Soviet invasion pages or elsewhere. Smmurphy^(Talk) 20:47, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. If this is is not restored/relisted, I would like to request this to be userfied in my userspace, to consider what can be salvaged/merged/etc. I'd also like to suggest that this is undeleted then softly deleted (by redirecting to Skidel revolt), to preserve edit history of future merge attributions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• As closing admin, and as somebody completely disinterested in sports, I have no opinion to express. If this guy now meets whatever criteria are applicable, go ahead and recreate the article. Sandstein 10:34, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I endorse the AfD from November as a proper close. After several months, he now passes
  WP:NFOOTY, and the article can be recreated without fear of deletion. A deletion review isn't the right forum for this. SportingFlyer talk 21:38, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I suggest we restore this to draft space so that the evidence of notability can be added before it's moved back to mainspace. I don't see any reason to make the OP rewrite the content which was in the old version. Hut 8.5 22:08, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I tried to discuss with the closing Administrator, but he did not provide any factual arguments immediately suspecting that I was instructed by Iorio himself because of my alleged few edits and going around with points not pertinent to the topic giving the strong impression that he has some sort of personal conflict of interest or bias against Iorio. According to NASA/ADS, Iorio,'s h index is 38, he has over 3200 (non-self) citations, he is the Editor-in-Chief of a journal which has in its Editorial Board the Nobel Laureate George F. Smoot, who cited him several times in a paper of him, Sir Roger Penrose, Lisa Randall and other big names. He was cited also by the Nobel Laureate Kip Thorne in his latest book. The absence of Iorio from Wikipedia seems unjustifiable if standard notability criteria have to be used. It seems that the only concern by the Administrator(s) is to make Iorio a sort of pariah because of alleged past bad behaviour in Wikipedia, sockpuppets issues, and so on. Redwheel (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Original deletion discussion is here. Deletion review is not for arguing 7 year old deletion discussions (where consensus was assessed correctly anyway). If in the intervening time the subjects notability has changed, a new article can be written, but it will have to go through the draft/afc process as the page has been protected due to persistant recreations by sockpuppets. Or you could write a new article in your own sandbox then ping an admin to check its substantially different to the deleted article. At a minimum has more material that indicates his notability has increased since 2011. Only in death does duty end (talk) 17:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your suggestions. I did so, and prepared the article in my sandbox. Please, feel free to look at it. Regards. Redwheel (talk) 15:59, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Notes: 1. Article was created and edited by SPAs / socks, and deleted at AFD. First undeletion request was by an editor now I think indeffed for sock puppetry. Second version was also edited largely by SPAs and socks and deleted at AFD. Current requester has very few edits and went ballistic accusing me of COI when I asked if the subject had requested he take this up. So I think this us yet another go at a years-long vanity spamming campaign. Guy (Help!) 19:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. To be honest, the reaction to the very reasonable question posed by the deleting admin makes me pretty suspicious. The deletion and salting were sound, any new article on this individual can go through AFD to ensure that it's just not another case of the dreaded
  WP:VSCA. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:42, 25 March 2018 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The AfD was in 2011 and appears to be a correct decision. If something changed, a new article can be created - and subjected to AfD if need be. SportingFlyer talk 01:52, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

  Please explain to me why Hungry Hub got deleted as A7, the page clearly had reliable sources. -Rusboot (talk)

• Because as
  WP:RS. Most of them are blogs, interviews, rehashed press releases, directory listings, etc. I wouldn't have any objection to this being sent to AfD, but it's hard to imagine the end result would be any different. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

User:RoySmith, I feel like a AfD would be necessary. Can this please be sent to AfD. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rusboot (talk • contribs) 18:37, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine sending this to AfD. I would have restored it and made the nomination myself if you had asked. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Golden Lotus (musical) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is a page I deleted based on the consensus at the AFD at the time.

Comment: It is not necessary for DRV to overturn the original AFD result before a new article can be recreated about a previously deleted topic, so long as the new version makes a stronger and better sourced case for notability than the first attempt did. AFD is not a permanent ban on a subject ever being allowed to have an article, but a judgement on the quality of the article that was written. If somebody can make a better case for notability, with better sourcing for it than the first version, they do not need DRV to give them permission before they're allowed to do it — the only thing an AFD discussion prevents is recreating an article without significant improvement to the substance and sourcing. So DRV is entirely unnecessary here: if John99Wick can

properly source that Chiang or his plays clear our notability standards for writers or their works (he hasn't gotten there yet, but he is sincerely trying), then DRV does not need to overturn the original AFD result first. DRV is for cases where there are arguments that the original result was improper in the first place, such as a closer incorrectly evaluating the consensus of the discussion itself — DRV does not need to overturn an AFD result before somebody is allowed to take a stab at a better version of an article about the same topic. Bearcat (talk) 14:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, per

WP:DRVPURPOSE Deletion Review may be used: [...] if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page; which is why I brought it here. Regards SoWhy 15:04, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse deletion. Unless something factual has changed, no. The grounds for non-inclusion weren't that the article creator hadn't gathered the right set of magic words that fulfilled a checklist, it's that the subject isn't notable; i.e, has some reason to be noted. --Calton | Talk 15:30, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn with respect to
  train wreck; time to get the musical train back on track. Thank you, User:SoWhy. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The problem with the musical wasn't that it didn't claim notability — it's that it didn't

reliably sourced before it actually passes a Wikipedia inclusion standard, and it (a) wasn't, and (b) still isn't, in the draft in question. Bearcat (talk) 15:35, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I have added a list of new sources for all 3 articles that were bundled on Bearcat (talk) . On there I explain the sources you questioned and gave information on the credibility of the new sources.John99Wick (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 15:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 15:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And I've already explained to you why some of your new sources still aren't cutting it. Bearcat (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed your comments on my latest posts today on Bearcat (talk) . I think they adequately explain the sources including the links to Facebook which are posts of original articles no longer online. But they can been taken down and I can just list the source itself with no link. Some of those sources are the top English and Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong.John99Wick (talk) 16:03, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just addressed your latest comments about the sources on Bearcat (talk) It can take down the Facebook links and just cite the source itself.John99Wick (talk) 16:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's one of the things you have to do here. Bearcat (talk) 16:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All of the Facebook links have been removed from the Golden Lotus (musical) page and the sources properly citedJohn99Wick (talk) 16:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and keep deleted until 2-3 sufficient sources to show Wikipedia-notability are present. The articles were deleted due to lack of proper sourcing. The draft presented is
  WP:Reference bombed, the the first three sources I checked do not come close to demonstrating notability. The onus should be on the proponent for the article to present the minimally required sources, which does not mean throwing every source at us. Suitable sources are reliable, independent, and comment directly on the subject. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:13, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The StandardHK is a very credible source as the leading English newspaper in HongKong. Sing Pao is one of the top two Chinese newspapers in Hong Kong. There are two references from STandardHK and one from Sing Pao that comment directly about the subject and they are referenced in the article. MaddBuzzHK and wenweipao sources are also reliable sources in English and Chinese respectively. John99Wick (talk) 23:43, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed 7 reference sources from the article leaving only the reliable sources.John99Wick (talk) 23:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That is not ideal. Ideally, you you list here the 2-3 best sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

[22] I do not believe that this is independent. It is a feature interview, intended to be promotional.

[23] I'm not sure. It may be fair to very week. It doesn't actually say anything about The Golden Lotus, it reports facts about it. There is some commentary on the author.

[24] Again, weak to fair, it is a good review, but it is a promotional review as evidenced by the link to another site advertising the event. A post-run review of or commentary would be much stronger.

But OK, two of these three are arguably sources, so I believe that this deserves another day at AfD. Allow recreaction. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn ::::: In addition to those you memtioned above here are other sources from top newspapers in Hong Kong for Golden Lotus (musical)

白健恩激情戲成重點 Ronan Pak Kin Yan's Passion Play, SING PAO, September 25, 2014 A Woman Pursues Her Passion in Life and Dance, The Standard HK, September 10, 2014 A Modern Interpretation of a Chinese Classic Tale, The Standard HK, p. 23 September 26, 2014 Rebirth of an Epic Tale of Passion, The Standard HK, page 4, September 5, 2014John99Wick (talk) 23:51, 22 March 2018 (UTC) John99Wick (talk) 23:02, 22 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I also think that the AFD shouldn't have bundled the 3 articles together because they deal with completely different subjects: George Chiang seems more notable as an actor than a composer/playwright or an author. That said, I think
  WP:COI and his relationship with User:ZHAN sUN first. Timmyshin (talk) 06:42, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I am not paid by (anyone for that matter) nor have any COI with ZHAN sUN. I am just a fan of Golden Lotus (musical) and believe it belongs on Wikipedia as it has broken ground in a way that no other exclusively Asian-English language musical has. But in doing the work I also found credible sources for George Chiang and The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing.John99Wick (talk) 14:33, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment If So Why would allow me to edit the articles for George Chiang and The Railroad Adventures of Chen Sing I will edit them and include the newly found sources which will show greater notability from properly sourced reliable sources than before.John99Wick (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Are you related to George Chiang (family, friend, himself)? I hope this isn't rude, but I don't believe that you are just a fan of the musical. Timmyshin (talk) 07:28, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist The musical appears borderline notable to me. I think it's better to discuss this at AFD than here. Timmyshin (talk) 07:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I saw the musical in Hong Kong and I really liked it. My partner, at the time, knew one of the performers in the Hong Kong production of Golden Lotus. I just went to see the musical and became a fan after seeing it. I am no longer seeing that partner and I have no connection other than that to the musical or George Chiang. The answer to your questions are "no, no, and no." John99Wick (talk) 01:56, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isophene Goodin Bailhache (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore

)

This article was speedily deleted on 9th March 2018 under G12 but the copyright violations were minimal, and could easily have been removed and rev-dels performed. I am querying the decision to delete. The article has since been restored. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:10, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are now asking for a DRV for a page which has already been restored (by Megalibrarygirl), and where I already stated two days ago in

I had the title of the page wrong so I have corrected it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:40, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat: "what exactly is this DRV supposed to achieve?" Two days prior to your listing here, all history had been restored, and the deleting admin (me) contacted the restoring admin and admitted that the restoration was a good thing because the deletion had been "overzealous". There is nothing left to do in this DRV.

Fram (talk) 11:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• @Cwmhiraeth: I'm also rather confused what it is that you're requesting. As pointed out above, the article has been restored, and the admin who deleted it has admitted they made a mistake. So, as far as I can see, there's nothing left to do here from either an operational or educational standpoint. You've been here a long time and have been an extremely valuable contributor to the project, so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt. But, please respond here and clarify what specific action you would like to see happen. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not now seeking any action. I thought the deletion was wrong so I asked the deleter earlier today to explain why the article was deleted, but they refused to tell me. They could have said "I made a mistake and have restored it" but instead added this unhelpful reply "I will no longer waste my time to entertain you about deletions where you don't understand or accept any response anyway. Fram (talk) 12:23, 20 March 2018 (UTC)" (Note the misleading timestamp) Cwmhiraeth (talk) 15:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the "misleading timestamp" is because I quoted myself from my previous reply in that very same discussion: [25] was repeated in this (with the edit summary "repeat"). I refuse to entertain your witchhunt and harassment any further, as no answer is ever acceptable to you, and doing some actual work (like, oh, checking in the log for that page who actually restored it instead of saying "Isophene Goodin Bailhache which was deleted by you under G12 but seems to have been reinstated (by someone else?)." Your reply here doesn't explain why you ignored my reply and question here twice, and why it needed another admin wasting his time to get you to acknowledge that you are "not now seeking any action" about an article you had no prior involvement with and which was restored long before you asked about it on my talk page anyway.

I have explained one deletion you asked about repeatedly, both on my talk page and on yours, and you opened a DRV anyway as my answer was "unsatisfactory". The lone comment so far indicates that my deletion and explanation was spot-on. I have explained another deletion you asked about on my talk page and on your talk page, with example copyvio lines and the external, copyrighted site they copied the text from, and you replied "A failure to provide correct attribution then, hardly a reason for a G12 speedy deletion.", which indicates that you don't read my replies or don't understand the copyvio rules. Your motivation to post these kind of requests is "My concern is merely with the competence (and motivation) of the deleter."[26] Good luck with that, but like I said, I will no longer answer to your questions on my talk page, as it is a pointless waste of time and an indulgence of your harassment.

Fram (talk) 15:33, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There actually was (and is) copyvio in the article, by the way, although like I said it probably didn't warrant deletion: "In 1941 she composed a family history to replace one that had burned during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake." vs "In 1941 [...] composed a family history to replace one that had burned during the 1906 San Francisco earthquake."[27]. This is a typical example of the sentences copied identically or nearly identically by the article creator from copyrighted sources in many of her articles, which caused the copyvio blocks, the checks of her articles, and the deletion of quite a few of them (though many more seem to be okay). Again, as has been said before, in this case the deletion was over-the-top, but it wasn't some imaginary violation or random deletion.

Fram (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2018 (UTC)John99Wick (talk) 01:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

John Tylney, 2nd Earl Tylney (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was created by Elisa.rolle on 1 January 2018 and deleted as G12 by Fram on 8 March 2018. It was recreated by me on 18 March 2018 and deleted by Fram as G12 on 19 March 2018. Finally it was recreated by Fram as a stub later on 19 March and has since been expanded. It is the second deletion I am querying. I had partly rewritten the original article, with Elisa.rolle's cooperation, so as to remove the copyvios that were originally there. I asked Fram in what way my version fell foul of the G12 criteria and got no satisfactory response. The main issue seems to have been that I did not attribute Elisa-rolle in my edit summary. I am not looking to revive my version, but I am hoping that others will agree with me that G12 deletion was inappropriate in this instance. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 21:10, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse we allow for this use of G12. I hate doing it, but it is within admin discretion for cases where curing the attribution error would create other issues. In this case, the article was created by a serial violator of the copyvio policy who after it was recreated by Fram added more copyvio content that had to be revdel'd, removed the revdel template, and then reverted to restore the copyvio. Considering that the source text was written by someone who should have a CCI opened when our volunteers there get around to it, I'm fine with Fram's G12. Well within discretion. (Also, see my further explantion here.
  WP:DCV is the relevant policy. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:18, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Overturn G12 deletions should not typically be used for cases where no attribution was provided. Per
  WP:CP as they don't qualify for speedy deletion. Hut 8.5 18:42, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Fram had cleaned the article (see Talk:John Tylney, 2nd Earl Tylney.) We would be restoring only to revdel everything we restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • I don't really care whether using G12 for attribution issues is common or not, it's still an abuse of G12. The issues on the talk page relate to at best close paraphrasing over a couple of sentences, some of which is a bit tenuous. It certainly doesn't justify a G12 speedy deletion and I think the revdel is a bit of a stretch. Hut 8.5 21:19, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A related discussion on G12s is User talk:Ritchie333#G12; in my opinion, totally unsalvageable G12s are often G11s and / or A7s too, for other cases where the article has sources, trim to a stub keeping the sources, move to draft and redact the old revisions. Then rewrite. In the case of my redactions here, I was simply erring on the side of caution - the article is still visible and can be worked on by anybody.Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:22, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to side with the practice is policy philosophy, which is why I am hesitant to overturn, but I certainly get your point: under most circumstances, attribution issues should not cause G12, and I don't think I would ever do it myself. Regardless, at this point, I see no practical reason to restore revisions where RD1 is justified, which I think it probably is from a precautionary standpoint. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:55, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia is, very arguably, over-cautious with copyright. Wikipedia tries to do best practice, not just minimally allowed practice. G12 gets used generaously. Copyright zealotry is not frowned upon. The thing with G12 deletions is that the problem is easily fixed, there’s no lasting damage. Just move on. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:55, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I think the CSD criteria should be interpreted strictly – they themselves certainly say this, "They cover only the cases specified in the rules here." Like Tony I "hate" it when these rules are broken. I can see that sometimes a forced deletion is overwhelmingly desirable (I am not commenting on the current case) but it would be best to invoke
  WP:IAR explicitly rather than stretch a CSD criterion. If the criteria are thought not to describe established practice there should be an attempt to change the wording of the rules – such attempts rarely succeed. I can think of a couple of serial offenders who consistently and knowingly make speedy deletions contrary to policy. I think it is they that are at fault rather than the rules. Thincat (talk) 08:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak endorse. I'm normally a
  WP:G12. Most of the CSDs are of the form, We allow this shortcut because it supports our editorial policy. But, G12 is, We allow this shortcut because it keeps us from breaking the law. Yes, sometimes all it takes to fix the problem is a retroactive citation in the history. In this case, it sounds like that wouldn't be enough, and somebody would have to go through and audit individual revisions. At some point you just say, that's more effort than it's worth, and it sounds like that's the case here. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• weak overturn Only weak because I'm not certain I'm understanding the issue in its entirety. If the issue is that a Wikipedia author of the text isn't attributed, that's solvable in a number of ways. A blank edit would generally work where attribution is given. I don't see what part of the CC BY-SA license this would violate. Nothing in that says your exact contributions need to be noted. Could someone tell me what I'm missing here that makes this case so complex a blank edit with attribution wouldn't solve it? Hobit (talk) 01:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A nicer history is produced by a deletion and then doing it properly. A null edit summary requires looking for it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

August 2005 in sports (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is a little different from your normal review as I am not looking to overturn the closer on their close, but more on the practical implications of the close. I came across

Just realised that the nominator and merge !voters are not the same person, but socks individually. The similar names threw me off. AIRcorn (talk) 05:44, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a relist would be quite appropriate. I see that I was the only valid merge vote and, looking back at the article, I probably would have just voted to keep today. In any case, merging these articles would be such a massive undertaking that strong consensus should be required to set that into motion. CapitalSasha ~ talk 15:55, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist I agree that there may not be a need for merging. It would take a very good reason to be worth that much work. DGG ( talk ) 20:47, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I agree with the above comments. SportingFlyer talk 05:29, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am writing posting on this page for the first time as an article I first published in 2014 and have been adding to for 4 years was recently deleted. The reasons for its deletion were unfounded and it seemed those who contributed to its deletion did so with vague evidence and little knowledge of subject. @Malcolmxl5, the administrator who deleted the page, Suggested creating a discussion on this subject. I would like to opportunity to recreate/republish this page.

I have been in the process of publishing pages about English cricketers who have retired from the games in that’s five years and have had careers of note and distinction. The page on PM Davidge (just one of 30 players I have been compiling information on to publish onto Wikipedia) was deleted as it was suggested this cricketer, who has in brief, played over 50 Minor County matches, first class matches for the MCC and A Grade Cricket in Australia. The argument had been put forward that this career was not worthy of note on Wikipedia as the matches this cricketer had played in were all ‘minor’ in nature and these were not worthy of publication.

This argument is in itself flawed as Wikipedia recognises Minor County Cricket in its entirety as worthy of publication as are the counties that this Player has played for. I have also found numerous players who have been written about for their careers in county second XI and Minor County Cricket. The references I used to publish this page were also brought into questions. ESPN cricinfo and cricket archive show information on this subject, which again in itself means this player is a cricket of notable standing. If a player appears on ESPN cricinfo then they have been recognised by a worldwide sport specific website as being notable. The fact that the most reliable source (as referenced by one of the contributors of its deletion) classes the teams the subject played for as ‘major’ also reinforces this argument that the original publication should have never been deleted. It is worth referencing some of the games highlighted. MCC vs. Durham MCCU, both of these sides have first class status are there is a scorecard on Cricketarchive detailing this match as are games involving Oxford MCCU, Cambridge MCCU and Cardiff MCCU all teams with first class and List A status, again as referenced on Wikipedia. Other matches that were mentioned from time this player spent in Australia are referenced on the mycricket website.

There was also reference to my publication making claims about the level of cricket this player had performed at, which again are unjustified and unfounded. All of the matches I have referenced are evidenced on either ESPN, Cricketarchive or mycricket (Australian version of ECB play cricket), therefore none of my claims are false or exaggerated as previously suggested.

I would like to be able to republish this page and continue my work researching and recognising sports people who have completed notable careers in their chosen sport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silvercar82 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation. Cricinfo states he played a first class match for the MCC and Ncricket states any participation in a first class match qualifies for inclusion. This was known to the participants in the afd but ignored. The relevant page is - [28] - you just need to look for "M.C.C". The close per se is OK. Szzuk (talk) 22:54, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Szzuk: Where does Cricinfo say he ever played a FC game? His page here has a bunch of non-FC stuff there, but other than that his career seems to be grade cricket level. Combined with the utter lack of reliable sources that are actually about him, I have to concur entirely with the argument raised by the sockpuppet. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:40, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
    • The table says - Team: MCC, Opposition: Minor C, Ground: Sidmouth, Date: 25 June 2010. Szzuk (talk) 07:20, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Cricinfo does not list this as a List A game though. I suspect it was either a demonstration game or not played under the usual List A rules. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 23:39, 20 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
        • I'm not pursuing suspicions. Szzuk (talk) 08:00, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strike own vote. Nom blocked for sock puppetry. Szzuk (talk) 15:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from the deleting administrator. I deleted this page on 20 January following the deletion discussion. Two things have since come to light: the nominator was a sockpuppet and the author of the article, Silvercar82, was not informed. Had I known that the nominator was a sockpuppet and had Silvercar82 been able put forward arguments to keep the article, with only two arguments for deletion other than the sockpuppet, I would not have closed the discussion as delete, probably I would have relisted it to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. The discussion and hence my closure were thus flawed and I would support reopening and relisting the discussion. I would have done this myself except that several weeks have passed since closure and I thought it better to bring it here. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:19, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I personally would just undelete and relist this without waiting a week for people to agree. You couldn't close any other way but you are right that the discussion is irredeemably tainted and we need to redo it from scratch.
    Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:09, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • The sockpuppet contributes mostly to cricket articles and was undoubtable aware of the mischief he could cause by invoking the quaint and arcane tradition that is the MCC. Indeed I can vaguely remember having this exact discussion about another cricketer in the past - probably with the exact same sockpuppet. Szzuk (talk) 08:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sockpuppet refers to 'unreliable sources' as cricinfo and cricketacrchive which are the two main sources of cricketing information. Cricketacrhive also refers to games this cricketer has played whereby he has captained the MCC against FC opposition. Although not highlighted in cricinfo it is archived. Flinders12 (User: talk:Flinders12) —Preceding undated comment added 20:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. I completely agree with these comments. It is quite clear that this cricket player has played at a required standard. I have delved a little deeper and it would appear he has played for multiple teams who are all included on various pages of notability.
  Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:31, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow recreation or barring that, reopen the AfD, based on the above comments by the closer and Flinders12. SportingFlyer talk 05:27, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and Keep Deleted. Looking aside the obvious socking and COI going on around this DRV, there was no procedural problems with the close that invalidate it. Notifying the original creator of an article is specifically not required. Those arguing for a relist here are trying to re-prosecute the AFD, but are relying on the massive piece of
  WP:CRIN, which is plainly not true. There is no new information that would justify allowing the recreation of an article on this individual. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:13, 24 March 2018 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Close with no further action. What is it about cricket that encourages sockpuppetry? First the AfD. Now the OP is blocked for engaging in sockpuppetry in this very discussion. I suggest we close this with no further action. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:11, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, I would like to re-open the page of Andrea Ribeca again. Actually his page is merged with Nu NRG, but in fact he is doing a solo career. Nu NRG was just a project 2001 to 2005. Andrea produced before and especially after this project successful and also headlining some club-nights globally. He deserves an own entry. Tolya (talk) 18:42, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Moot. The AfD was 8 months ago. If things have really developed to where there are now sufficient
  WP:NMUSIC to review what we're looking for in the way of sourcing. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:14, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Per User:RoySmith I would suggest a draft as a way forward. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was previously restored by

• Endorse; copyvios are not restored. If you want to start a new article from scratch on this topic, you are free to do so in the draft space. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:33, 17 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse. User can start from scratch in userspace if they wish. Szzuk (talk) 12:11, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Non-admin closure, and possible misunderstanding of consensus due to discussion not being updated after edits. The template was revised based on the deletion discussion and then I received a March 14th notification of thanks from the nominating editor, potentially meaning the edits were satisfactory to them and the template was improved enough to be retained. However, neither one of us added to the deletion discussion after the latest revisions, so the discussion appeared concluded without factoring the improvements in. Liontamer (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Nom didn't inform the debate he'd updated the template. I saw the template after updating and still prefer delete, it just isn't a useful or worthwhile template in my opinion and will end up a mess again. Endorse and Relist is also ok because it did change but I will be voting delete in that case. Szzuk (talk) 11:55, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. The changes to the template were mentioned, and both the nominator and another editor commented that they still preferred deletion. The edit and subsequent comments happened four days before the discussion was closed, so there was more than adequate time for other vested editors to make their comments known. I would likely have closed the same way. Primefac (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment--:
  WP:DRVPURPOSE states Deletion Review should not be used, when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination.So, in a sense, the DRV could not be allowed to stand on a procedural basis.Anyways, I endorse my closure, per PFac's statement.~ Winged Blades^Godric 05:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

there was no reason given as to why the page was deleted or a chance to remedy the problem. If the page did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, the appropriate changes to the page would have been made Chbeaini (talk) 00:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC) -->[reply]

• See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Venuklet -- RoySmith (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closing admin accurately assessed the policy-based consensus when this AfD was closed back in January.
  Lepricavark (talk) 04:42, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Close as not meeting
  WP:COI from obvious socks. Article read like a resume; I pretty much stopped reading when the lede told me he was a notary. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse no reason given as to why the page was deleted - the AfD nominator gave a reason, which looks perfectly fine to me. or a chance to remedy the problem - the AfD was open for a week and nobody posted any sources which might have addressed the problem, you're also not posting any here. If the page did not meet Wikipedia's requirements, the appropriate changes to the page would have been made - the major problem is that the subject
  doesn't have the right kind of source coverage, if you can address this by finding better sources you are welcome to do so. Hut 8.5 21:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. I will change the content and set out and add better reliable sources. how do i make these changes to the page when it has been deleted? User:chbeaini (talk) 22:9, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
  • It might be possible to restore the page to a draft version for you to work on improving it, you can ask the deleting admin for that. It would help if you posted the sources you're thinking of adding here. Hut 8.5 22:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Reasons, sufficient reasons, were given. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Looks like a garden variety AfD to me without any error on the closer's part. SportingFlyer talk 04:25, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. If you really think you can do better at properly demonstrating and
  reliably sourcing his notability under a Wikipedia inclusion criterion, you're free to try again in draftspace or your own user sandbox — but nothing was improper about the discussion: valid reasons were given and the debate was open for long enough that you did have ample opportunity to remedy the problem. Bearcat (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

The page was taken down for failure to adhere to WP:TOOSOON and WP:GNG because of the supposed "lack of sources" and because it is "too soon". However, WP:TOOSOON states, generally, that "It is an encyclopedia that must be reliable. If sources do not exist, it is generally too soon for an article on that topic to be considered." The remainder of the page discusses film and actors, so I am going with this statement as being represented as the policy as a whole. Sources do exist, more than 10 of them (if I can remember correctly) that are highly notable and prestigious in the region that this company operates. I hope that Wikipedia hasn't evolved into a place where western news corporations like Fox News and The Guardian are considered the only sources to draw evidence from. From this, WP:TOOSOON doesn't state anywhere clear reasons why Tueetor would be deleted. Secondly, accusations that Tueetor failed WP:GNG mostly suggested that the sources "seemed" to be from press releases. After going through my sources, only two of them looked like they could possibly be press releases with involvement from the subject, but they didn't have any evidence anywhere in the sources that confirmed this. That accusation was riding on implications and the editors' "gut feeling", which shouldn't be deciding factors in a deletion case. Secondly, they questioned the sourcing notability. As stated earlier, all sources were taken from news organizations that are prominent in East Asia, where the company is centrally located (Singapore, to be exact). A company that has more than 100,000 users and has had prominent positions in notable news articles should not be considered too "small" for a Wikipedia article or too lacking in sourcing, especially because many other east Asian companies have established accepted Wikipedia pages while being smaller, having less sourcing, and much shorter Wikipedia pages. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope we can come to an agreement soon. WikiSniki (talk) 02:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The closer,
  User:Spartaz should have provided a one sentence summary of why it was deleted. "TOOSOON" was part of someone's extended explanation, but was not the critical reason. WikiSniki (talk · contribs), how many accounts have you previously controlled? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @SmokeyJoe: One other account a few years ago. It was called "RoadMaster" or something like that. I don't remember. WikiSniki (talk) 20:05, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. There are no keep votes. The nom possibly wants a draft or pointing at AfC. Szzuk (talk) 14:12, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Szzuk: Well, no one said anything until the last couple of days before it closed. Two other people made deletion votes. It was hardly up long enough for the decision to have any sort of debate.
• Endorse. Deletion review operates as a venue for dealing with failure to follow deletion process. It is not a second bite at the cherry if you merely disagree with a valid deletion decision. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 14:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This should be speedy closed as not meeting
  WP:DRVPURPOSE. Also, WikiSniki should stick to policy, instead of making ad hominem arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 15:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • @RoySmith: I'm sorry, but I did reference policy quite a bit. I never insulted anyone. WikiSniki (talk) 20:04, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Maximo (software) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

User:Djm-leighpark/sandbox360 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion of about draft and sandbox pages.

• Comment: Actually, this is about the page Maximo (MRO), which was deleted after an AfD which I closed as delete and which Djm-leighpark is attempting to restore. --Randykitty (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn CSD. I !voted to delete in the AfD, with the complaint that it was lacking
  WP:AfC. That should be sufficient to provide some future-proofed quality control. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment Happy with the WP:AfC (good suggestions). Put my Love Productions article the same route after it got bumped to draft as not ready under a misused under construction template. If the backlog wasn't so great I would have done the same for this without hesitation .... as it was was determining to see how it looked to see if that could be avoided. But given the controversy I think WP:AfC is good.Djm-leighpark (talk)
• Comment My vote in the original AfD was to keep the Maximo (MRO) article, despite some flaws. I did note that "It also needs some better sources," but I didn't see this as a reason to delete the original article. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposal: Integrating RoySmith comments the position I would like to achieve is Maximo (MRO) restored as Draft: Maximo (software) with a entry in the protection log it needs to go via AfC. This is on the understanding I will rapidly replace content with that akin to my removed articles. This is very good for attribution history which is legally important. I'd prefer the name Maximo (software) to get IBM out of the title (and they might sell it to XYZ next week - though unlikely). There's a couple of logistics to this proposal. Firstly it would now be better if the existing version of Draft: Maximo (software) was restored to my own userspace under a different name. Secondly at DRV each page stands on its own merits and a DRV would likely need to be raised Maximo (MRO) to be restored to Draft: Maximo (software) (with AfC noted in protection log) to fulfill my proposal. Given RoySmith's comments I am now more confident such a DRV with that objective would be successful (I was not before) and would help ease Randykitty's very appropriate and good faith concerns. Providing someone supports this I will raise that DRV for Maximo (MRO). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 isn't intended to prevent people from working on draft articles for subjects which have been deleted at AfD, which is basically all this is. The draft article had completely different text and sources to the AfDed version. Even if that wasn't the case G4 doesn't apply to drafts at all, unless they are created "to circumvent Wikipedia's deletion policy", which this plainly isn't. Hut 8.5 19:00, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Nothing that would warrant speedy deletion of the draft has been brought here (so far), if it was a copyvio or sock problem OK, but that doesn't appear to be the case. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I like to add a slight defence of the admins who brought this here. At the time the draft was nominated for speedy delete a copy of the article from a google cache result was under a section labelled miscellaneous and I'd hiked in the references from that ... my intention was try to redeem something from the original article if possible and to do a gap analysis. I though under construction and a merge attributions requests might help. Given the offence that might of caused I deleted controversial bits before article delete occurred. I am 99% sure the second admin only deleted the sandbox article to prevent anyone else becoming emeshed. Both strongly have encouraged me to go to DRV for independent review of the situation and I thank them for that.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:43, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Immediate draftification after deletion is allowed, by consensus practice, absent copyvios, BLP violations, or other substantively unacceptable content. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist
  WP:CORP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:39, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment concerned about restrictions to drafting or sandbox on a subject for nearly any reason unless really stand out promotional. Sometime drafting may bring out different citations, ideas etc or an 'eureka' moment ... ah ... that would fit there. And it may be happen over time. I'm also concerned about a senario thay the draft/sandbox article get restored, Maximo_(MRO) goto to AfD (even perhaps while on I'm a Wikibreak) that (flawed) article fails on
  WP:G4 or whatever. But I've no objection to having a draft article tagged for needing to go through AfC. That said I will not object to your relist for that article but am unsure if a specific DRV would need to be raised for that page. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:52, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• What are the three plausible looking sources that Roy is talking about? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:12, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• The three plausible looking sources become universally visible if the DRV here succeeds in having the draft re-instated. Another source extremely link-rot susceptible becomes visible if the Sandbox DRV succeeds. I'm intention is these sources are used in a more product description orientated than in a promotionally orientated fashion. Additionally this morning I've also added citation to
  Enterprise Asset Management (EAM) article which in which the journalists gets in my opinion useful description of EAM from a (pre-IBM) Maximo (software) person.Djm-leighpark (talk) 12:44, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The three sources are [29], [30] and a book called IBM Maximo Asset Management The Consultant's Guide by Robert Zientara. Hut 8.5 12:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• They could be assessed either way. The no RSs claim at AfD was wrong. Relist. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn speedy deletion of draft and trout the admin who deleted it. The content of the draft article is nowhere close to being similar enough to the content deleted at AfD to be within scope of G4. That the draft is not ready for mainspace is irrelevant, it was being actively worked on in good faith. Thryduulf (talk) 13:06, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Nowhere near G4. I also want to add that DRV should not be used as a part of the AFC workflow, as the deleting admin, User:RHaworth has suggested. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:32, 13 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • That's an interesting thread. IMHO, both
    WP:BLP violations, etc) can get speedied even in those spaces, but this was none of those things, nor was it a G4. As I mentioned above, there's a large gap between what's good enough for main space and what's bad enough for CSD, and this fell squarely into that gap. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• RelistOverturn Only hours after I had closed the AfD as "delete", Djm-leighpark came to my talk page and requested "Please restore page Maximo (MRO) and history for attributions. I believe there is some possibility to slowly redevelop a suitable article addressing some of the issues under the name IBM Maximo Asset Management." I believe that such a request requires DRV. As they now claim to have new sources showing notability, I think it would be best to relist so that these sources can be evaluated. --Randykitty (talk) 15:57, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm curious why you think DRV is needed. I don't see anything in
    WP:DRVPURPOSE which says that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Criterion #3 ("if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page") would be applicable. Simply restoring a page after it has just been deleted after an AfD doesn't seem appropriate to me at all. --Randykitty (talk) 16:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • He asked for a copy to be put in his user space so he could work on it. That's a request which is commonly granted. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Restoring it to article space wouldn't be appropriate, unless you'd changed your mind about the AfD close. That would be tantamount to overturning the AfD, which an individual admin isn't supposed to do. Restoring it to draft space so someone can work on it is fine though. Hut 8.5 18:22, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• I stand corrected. I have checked the G4 guidelines again and they do indeed explicitly exclude articles moved to/recreated in draft or personal space. After I refused to restore the article in main space, I should have restored it to draft space and not tagged it for G4. I'm going to take a refresher on the CSD criteria... :-) --Randykitty (talk) 09:45, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn this does not qualify for G4 as it is substantially different from the article deleted at AfD.
  Lepricavark (talk) 04:46, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn speedy deletion of draft The original article was simply an example of the type of early-Wikipedia stub that would benefit from being fleshed out from more obviously independent sources. Theroadislong's assertions that Maximo is non-notable and the article was "a blatant advert" were excessive. Whatever. There was little valuable content lost by that deletion. But for an admin to then delete a good faith effort to draft a better article in userspace seems indefensible. Rupert Clayton (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn per all the above. That's not what G4 is for, and the application is egregiously outside both the letter and spirit of G4. Jclemens (talk) 05:46, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

Response by USER:Music1201 (discussion closer)"I couldn't have said it better than Semmendinger in saying that the deletion discussion wasn't concerning whether or not the people named on the article, but instead of the article itself. While I agree improvements need to be made to the article, the general consensus was to keep the article. — Music1201 "
I disagree, the article is about the three people and little else. And its hard to say there is consensus for keep when two of the four keep arguments are little more than personal attacks and the the third was extremely weak. The fourth argument for keep still leaves a lot of questions.

Endorse Apologies in advance, this is my first time at a deletion review so I hope I'm voting correctly. My comment in the initial AfD summed up my thoughts already, but let me try and elaborate here as that AfD was not linked. I don't think this page is a thinly veiled BLP article, and therefore I disagree with the notion that we delete an article just because one section in it may break Wikipedia's rules. It's simply a poorly titled page for the position of Atlantic County Executive. In fact, there are ongoing discussions on the talk page which bring this up, as well as Alansohn's own talk page where it's been decided that the current title was a poor decision. This is something that has been discussed ever since the initial AfD was brought up. If your argument is that the page is a BLP violation that's one thing, and, for a couple of sentences, there's merit to it. But just because a few sentences of the page are biographical and may break BLP, that doesn't mean the whole topic warrants an AfD. You're trying to delete a page whose subject has notability (the position of Atlantic County Executive, not its titleholders) just because of a couple sentences. It's like destroying an entire beehive just to kill one bee. We don't just delete entire pages when one section of them has a rule violation (at least, I hope we don't!). Obviously it's too late for it now, but it would have been nice if efforts were made by you on the talk page to try and work with the editors to remove the statements you think violate BLP. You have other editors (myself and Sporting) already agreeing that the current phrasing needs a change, that's why the talk page exists.

If we can get over the fact that we can fix the BLP violations elsewhere, the real question to address for this deletion review is whether or not "Atlantic County Executive" meets GNG. And to that I'd say the history section of this article does a good job in establishing notability for the position with a healthy amount of secondary sources on the matter. Especially when compared to other articles which cover the same topic, which usually only have a single primary source. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 03:46, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Oops, thank you rusf! I read through the intro to this page again and it seems I was a bit confused as to how that worked (fixed now!) Back on topic: I think the election-related information about the office holders does not break BLP, as it's pertinent to the content of the article. This means the "County executives" subheading and info is all appropriate for the page, but select sentences (like the one you mentioned above, and others like "Prior to his election to the Board of Freeholders he served as a Councilmember in the city of Northfield from 1982 to 1986.") are not appropriate as they're more about the person than about the executive position. Of course, this is just my interpretation. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist as per procedure or Endorse after changes. Even at a 4-2 keep vote (where at least one keep vote could have been struck), I was very surprised the closer thought consensus existed after a lot of text had been spilled after only five votes, with at least three votes being involved in a long-term AfD dispute over local New Jersey politicians. I asked the closer for an explanation out of sheer interest as I'm honestly not invested in the outcome.

My argument is largely semantic in scope, but this article is County Executives of Atlantic County, New Jersey, implying the article is about the people who occupied this position. I would vote for a procedural relist on the grounds no consensus existed, and I would believe that particular article should be deleted on

WP:BLP biographical information, and replace it with a list of officeholders, similar to King County Executive (it appears a couple of the officeholders at that King County link may be AfDable as well). This discussion is currently ongoing on the talk page and would possibly render this deletion review moot. SportingFlyer talk 06:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse Unfortunately the creator of

active discussion on the talk page and trying to find some Wikipedia:Consensus s/he's dragging it here. One can only question if this is part of the continued battle with the article's creator. (That may also explain why the article was nominated for delection @ 21:40, 25 February 2018, a mere 3.5 hours after it was created @ 18:13, 25 February 2018). That ongoing war is is the subject of discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Doreen McAndrew DiDomenico.) Dragging it to deletion review does not assume good faith and IMO is clearly a form of Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. The nominator has engaged in the ongoing discussion and rather than continue to do so has chosen a contentious approach to drag it here to (temporarily) block the title change (page move) under discussion. If one looks there the discussion, which properly should be and is taking place there, it has now spilled over to this, the inappropriate venue.Djflem (talk) 08:26, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

More personal attacks, but that's okay, its obviously your standard operating procedure. And if you want to move the damn page, just go ahead and do it. Neither I nor anyone else is stopping you from doing it (I already told you that I didn't care).--

Rusf10 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Djflem (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC) Djflem (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for the invitation Djflem esq., but I'm going to decline. I am not just repeating "arguments already made in the deletion discussion". What I'm saying here is your vote in the AfD should be disregarded because it was a personal attack and wikilawyering, not a policy-based keep argument. You never refuted any of my arguments in the discussion. In the AfD, you argued that was the improper venue, now this is the improper venue. You also tried to argue that the article could not be nominated because not enough time had passed after it was created, which is something you completely made up (show me any policy/guideline that says that).--

Rusf10 (talk) 20:16, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

FYI: The proper page for

Wikipedia:Feeding the trolls).Djflem (talk) 08:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Endorse. I think the close is OK, but this a new article and incorrectly named so BLP violations are likely to reoccur, if a common sense solution becomes apparent during this discussion the closer should recommend/require it in the close summary. Szzuk (talk) 13:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Despite Rusf10's efforts to
  WP:BLUDGEON away at another AfD, consensus was clear that the article should be retained; A look at the edit history for the AfD shows Rusf10 making twice as many edits as any other editor, a typical pattern for the nominator, and it looks like the same pattern of WP:Wikilawyering will be abused here at DRV. Sometimes you can't delete 'em all. It's well past time to accept community consensus on this article that the reliable and verifiable sources establish notability, Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. Alansohn (talk) 14:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If you actually addressed any of my concerns about the article rather than leveling personal attack at me, maybe I'd consider you Keep vote valid. The consensus was not clear when some of the keep votes (including yours) were complete garbage.--

Rusf10 (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse, there is no possible way that anyone could have closed that as "Delete". Subjective criteria require subjective assessments, which is what happened here and that is legitimate. It perhaps wasn't ripe for a NAC, but reopening and then getting an admin to make the exact same decision is pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:23, 7 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse as within discretion. Just a comment: the nomination says the article is " a WP:BLP disguised as something else" but there is no problem with biographical information on a living person being included in an article on some other topic. The problem is when material violating our
  WP:BLP policy being included in any article at all. In case it is helpful I have added {{BLP}} to the talk page. Thincat (talk) 09:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Consensus was clear that the article should be retained. Good arguments on the active discussion on the talk page should have been made. User:Lankiveil also makes some good points. The personal attacks and acrimony needs to end in this dispute.desmay (talk) 16:13, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

Rusf10 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

I don't speak for Desmay, but they way I read his comment was that the nominator should have participated in the talk page where active discussion were taking place before making this deletion review. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One can also note that

User:Rusf10, despite professed concerns. did not take part/contribute to the discussion at Talk:Atlantic County Executive.Djflem (talk) 21:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse the page has been moved to
  π, ν) 21:06, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. No consensus to delete for sure. The nominator should see advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:51, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Research and Analysis Wing activities in Pakistan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin disregarded the fact that there was no consensus and that votes were still coming in. The AfD should have been kept open to get a clearer picture. I don't get why it had to be a delete, it wasn't even merged, redirected or it should've at least been moved to draft space, as the main issue was the neutrality of the article. It could've easily been moved from draft to main page after neutrality issues are resolved.  M A A Z   T A L K  17:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse after reading the AfD. I personally think the closer did a commendable job in working through a contentious AfD. SportingFlyer talk 17:33, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer has obviously thought deeply about the close and given a succinct evaluation of the discussion. Szzuk (talk) 17:42, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Ma'az, see
  WP:STICK. Two of the keep votes were made by socks and I have now struck their votes on the Afd.[31] D4iNa4 (talk) 18:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse a fair call on a difficult discussion. The objections to the article are not things that could be addressed by rewrites short of rewriting all the page content. I suggest that anyone who wants this type of content to remain in Wikipedia start by adding a paragraph or section to Research and Analysis Wing, paying particular attention to the issues mentioned in the closing statement with neutrality and quality of sources. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that as usual it will depend on the quality

WP:RS and so far there are none. D4iNa4 (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse - good close to a contentious discussion. PhilKnight (talk) 00:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, good close. A relist under the circumstances would have been absurd given that there was already a large number of participants, and there was no indication that the "tide was turning" or that any major revelations had been made towards the end of the discussion that would have changed the outcome. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse Great rationale, well-worded close. I don't think we need to rehash the AfD, but Spinningspark seems to have appropriately balanced the arguments and accurately summarized them. I agree that the POV argument is most convincing, and the close lays it out well. You may not like the outcome, but the closing argument is excellent. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:15, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Review Withdrawn. Since everybody is endorsing, I would have to agree that
  WP:TNT in this specific case is a better option.  M A A Z   T A L K  23:59, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Maamaankam (2018 film) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe page has enough reference to stay Yourmistake (talk) 03:40, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse a simple review of the deletion log showed two distinct reasons why the article should be deleted: for being too promotional, and for being
  WP:TOOSOON. A non-promotional article upon the release of the movie may be a suitable article. SportingFlyer talk 08:07, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

*Endorse A version of the article is here I didn't really agree with the AFD nomination or any of the arguments, keep or delete, but they quoted guidelines in block capitals so I suppose they are to be taken seriously. Hence, the deletes have it. Thincat (talk) 09:04, 5 March 2018 (UTC) Struck after seeing Cryptic's comment below. When the article was sent to AFD it was indeed not demonstrating notability for its production so the comments were appropriate for the state the article was in. I am withdrawing my unkind comments. Thincat (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• That's not even the same article. I've temp undeleted it, and for my own part, while I would've speedied the version nominated at AFD as spam, the article was much improved after most of the commentary there. —
  Cryptic 09:24, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Uncontroversial. Szzuk (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. This is a case of
  WP:TOOSOON. I agree that a sensible solution is a non-promotional article after the release of the movie. Of course, a sufficient number of independent third party sources need to be used. And the sources should be in-depth articles.desmay (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Outline of self (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Contested speedy deletion. I always thought that it was out of process to speedy delete articles that have been around for years and years and worked on by multiple different editors. Don't really see how A11 applies here either, but the deleting admin seems confident that since the article was essay-like it should be deleted. Sro23 (talk) 18:33, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmm. I've tempundeleted this for review. Actually, just the most recent version; partly because restoring the full history timed out, and also because there's some copyright questions about earlier versions. I'm reasonably sure this would get deleted at AfD, but I'm not entirely convinced
  WP:A11 applies. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn and send to AFD. A11 is pretty clearly not applicable here. I think it should be deleted but I don't think it's so urgent to do so that we ignore our policies on deletion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Comment The article was created some twelve years ago. I believe that had it been nominated then A11 would have been non-controversial; perhaps the large number of edits since creation (530+) make this less obvious. It is, admittedly, not urgent. --
  ^"talk" 12:35, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • I think my concern is not about the age of the article, which isn't that relevant, as it is with the idea that this is "made up". The concept of 'self' is actually a pretty important one in philosophy and in psychology. I think that A11 would not have been appropriate at any date here. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 00:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn this page does seem to have tenuous and questionable inclusion criteria for most of the entries, but the idea of "self" certainly isn't made up by the author and I don't think we're in A11 territory. I doubt it'll survive AfD but that is the right place for it. Hut 8.5 18:56, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. After 500 edits and 12 years it should get a chance at AfD, I don't think it is a separate concept from Self but a few more eyes could go on it to be sure. Szzuk (talk) 13:18, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. There's certainly articles that have slipped under the radar for 12 years that deserve to be speedied, but those are typically ones that have little or no editing after their initial creation. Looking over the history of this article, there's not just 100's of edits, but significant participation from many editors. If that many editors thought it was valuable enough to invest time in, that should make it

WP:CSD-proof. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

There are many of these "outline" articles, most of which cover the same ground as another article, just take a look at Category:Wikipedia outlines. I remember they were all the rage a few years ago although the enthusiasm for them seems to have petered out. Still, if we're going to say that this needs to go because it is a duplication of self we are potentiallyopening a big can of worms. A discussion for the AFD, perhaps. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:20, 7 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Overturn Improper use of
  WP:CSD#A11, not what it was intended for, let AfD have it. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

List of Christian Nobel laureates (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Insofar as AfD is about strength of arguments and not a headcount, I don't think the close is right. This seems like a good example of "how to keep an article by no consensus by flooding an AfD with poor keep !votes". Nearly all of the keep !votes have either no basis in policy or fail to address the main issue (the notability of this list): keep because individual entries are sourced, keep because it's been kept before, keep because "atheists just want this hidden for no good reason", keep because it's not too long, keep because science and religion are connected (a surprising amount of this), and all manner of

• Hmmm...it seems that there was no consensus. It is what it is and considering the longevity, I would have to support the decision here for the close. This time around, this deletion nomination discussion was closed 3 times with all of the closers saying either keep or no consensus even after reopening a few times. Actually since numerous sources were provided that showed notability and of course connected the variables and even discussed them in terms of correlation (which is what a list does), not causation (which is where most of the delete votes lingered on even though a list does not really focus on causation [an article can focus on that, but not a list]), it seems that the situation is at least more complex for the closers and no consensus was reached. Furthermore, no one really seemed to be be consistent in making any attempt at nominating all other categories if the issues were really that grave. Some made claims to favor delete for other similar lists, but no one did any action towards that end. If the rest of the lists would have been nominated by people who made such proclamations, I think that would have shown that they really wanted to fix this lists situation (if it is even a problem). This inconsistency is certainly an issue. I could go either way in the end, but I hope consistency would be maintained in action, not just words. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• With no disrespect to Edgar closing as no consensus, I do think this could be a fair deletion review. This was a case where there were a lot of keep votes not grounded in policy, so one truly does have to be careful about assessing true
  talk) 16:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Nothing I said is out of line. If the issue is beyond this list and spills over to other ones with supposedly similar issues, then one expects that actions would have been taken by those who are complaining to co-nominate all the problematic lists (some made the claims and made no attempt to isolate the rest) since it would not be an isolated matter in that case. At least then a more comprehensive discussion could have taken place. By the way many opportunities were available to take action by those who feel there was an issue, and have a more comprehensive discussion, yet no one made any moves. It seems that many are putting lots of time and effort on one list and putting absolutely no effort on the other ones (when they have admitted that they see the same problems). This double standard is problematic. Even right now, all the rest can still be nominated for deletion and yet no one is making any moves towards that end even after they have admitted that they are just as supposedly 'problemaitic' as this one. With all the passionate resistance to this list, one would expect that the passion would be extended to the other ones if they really want to solve an issue as opposed to only one selective part of an issue. Since people interpret policies, sources, and the lists differently its no wonder no consensus was reached. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 04:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Closure although this could be Overturned to Keep -
  List of atheist Nobel laureates are present in this project without any complaint. desmay (talk) 16:50, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

This is actually a great summary of the inappropriate arguments I was seeing from keep votes trying to interject editors as having an agenda, sources not surpassing simple demographic stats, more otherstuffexists, saying this AFD couldn't be a delete because previous one were keep, etc. That's as much as I'm going to chime in at this point so not to rehash the AFD again, so hopefully the reviewer is up to sorting through all that stuff.

talk) 17:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

As Kingofaces43 says, this is a good example of the very low quality of keep votes. It has three parts, all of which came up many times in many keep !votes:

1. Point to a source that ostensibly covers this subject. When you actually look, however (here is a pdf of that article), you see that there is exactly one relevant sentence in the whole publication, "Our statistics show that about 60% of the laureates had a Christian background." The existence of statistics obviously doesn't make something notable.

2. Appeal to past keeps. Not only is this irrelevant, but it's a blatant misrepresentation of past discussions. Far from "all strongly closed as keep", it was deleted in the first AfD, then a no consensus, then a procedural keep, and then keep.

3.

WP:OTHERSTUFF, which has already come up in both of the above comments endorsing the close. As I've stated in the AfD, if this one were closed as delete, I'd almost certainly be !voting to delete the others. That nobody has actually nominated them while this discussion was ongoing, and that nobody added them part-way through a long discussion is just a sensible approach, though nothing was stopping anyone from nominating them. Regardless, it's not relevant to this subject what else exists. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:22, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually the source mentioned says more contextual things which signify notability between religion and noble laureates (which many have been saying is not there). At least in terms of correlations. For instance, the source says "Therefore, Nobel laureates in physics, as a group of people working at the frontier of physics, are a population worth studying regarding the issue of religion and science." It then goes on to note correlations with Jews, Christians, and no religion/other religions. The fact that it even has a section on called "Religion and laureates" shows that it is a notable topic. Just wanted to note that. Huitzilopochtli1990 (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as within discretion. The nominator is incorrect in thinking that our notability guidelines on cross-categorisation lists say that the intersection itself must be discussed by reliable sources. Please carefully consider
  WP:NOTDIRECTORY#6 policy requires such lists to be of an intersection that is of a "culturally significant phenomenon." Leaving aside opinions about the verifiability of individual laureate's religions, there also seemed to be no consensus about whether there was or was not cultural significance. Thincat (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• That opinions differ doesn't mean that all opinions are equally based in policy. That sentence of LISTN is in a section that starts with a statement that notability applies. We also have the rest of our policies and guidelines, so assuming such discretion doesn't extent to basing decisions on
  WP:OR, what is notable, as well as what we consider a "culturally significant phenomenon" (in order to avoid being considered indiscriminate) would have to be based on coverage in reliable sources rather than editors' opinions about what is merely true/verifiable. There are countless statistics that exist about any number of intersections of subjectively "culturally significant" factors. Regardless of the specifics of how we apply notability, we do apply notability, and do have to do so in a way that doesn't use OR. For example, the most substantial source that has yet been provided about this subject provides just as much coverage about the intersection of Nobel Prize winners and astrological sign. What, other than OR, says that the former is notable and the latter not? (not intended as an OTHERSTUFF argument, but to say that "different opinions of LISTN" doesn't mean "any opinion of LISTN") — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:35, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment. I think I feel too strongly about this one to have an unbiased opinion on whether the close was appropriate. I've said my piece in the AfD. I only want to say here that, if the keep is endorsed, I intend to follow through on my comment in the AfD that this list must be stripped back to the small subset of entries that pass
  WP:CAT/R. The only reason I haven't done it already is that I don't want to put that effort into something that I think should just be deleted. I think that in its current state the list is in clear violation of Wikipedia policy and I wish the close had actually addressed that issue. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Couldn’t have been closed any other way. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Broadly, the discussion there was on average as low in quality as the nomination statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as an accurate reading of the discussion. The deletion proposal was framed in terms of content, not policy or guideline, and therefore there is no reason to override the expressed community sentiment on a matter of editorial judgement. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since when do we ignore policy/guideline issues that arise during an AfD merely because they were not included in the original nomination statement? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturned to Keep Because:

1. There are more keep votes.
2. The article is quite notable as there are so many sources mentioned.
3. There exists other articles like this which are also notable like List of nonreligious Nobel laureates.
4. In today's age, the identity of an individual are strongly associated with things like nationality and religion.
5. These kind of debates often come up in religious discussions, and there is often a need to know Nobel laureates and academics association with religion.
6. This article has been nominated several times before, and each time the result was keep.  M A A Z   T A L K  01:32, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just commenting again to reiterate how !votes like this should persuade experienced editors to overturn to delete. Somehow a large amount of

WP:AADD combined with bogus claims (i.e. "each time the result was keep") and appeals to the same handful of poor sources -- all of which have been addressed already on this relatively short page, nevermind in the AfD -- if repeated enough times adds up to some amount of !vote weight when determining consensus. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 01:57, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• endorse I think delete had a significantly stronger argument, but given numbers I think NC is within discretion. Hobit (talk) 22:11, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I've read the entire argument, I've read the article, I've looked at the other related lists and their deletion reviews, and I really have little interest in the topic, but I do have an interest in a good deletion review.

The article for deletion review basically hinged upon the fact the Hindu list was deleted in an earlier AfD, but the Christian list was re-created without prejudice. I also think

• Endorse: Other editors, both here and at the AfD, have demonstrated that reliable sources exist that discuss the correlation between Christianity and Nobel Laureates. Because of this, the article without a doubt meets
  WP:GNG, and at the very least, there is zero consensus (or even argumentative weight) for deleting the article. The closing admin stated in the AfD that "in terms of the weight of arguments, ... there is a preponderance in favor of keeping the article", and because of this, I recommend possibly overturning to "keep". The weight of the "keep" arguments is strong enough for this. --1990'sguy (talk) 02:44, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. I do understand the sentiment of the nom for this DRV, personally I think this is a delete, but no matter how I read the AfD I can't find a delete consensus. Szzuk (talk) 13:13, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I've been stalking that AfD and I gotta say it was a good closure, although I agree with Desmay that this is closer to keep if anything else. There were reasonable arguments presented on all sides, but I can't find enough strength in the delete discussions to counterbalance those arguing to keep. This sort of thing is why we allow for no consensus. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 20:05, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Delete as, per the closer's admission, the consensus was interpreted incorrectly. The closer said he included counting "numbers in my evaluation of the discussion", which is not how we interpret consensus.

Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion: Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments.

Wikipedia:Deletion policy: These processes are not decided through a head count, so participants are each encouraged to explain their opinion and refer to policy.

Wikipedia:Closing discussions: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but neither is it determined by the closer's own views about what is the most appropriate policy. The closer is there to judge the consensus of the community, after discarding irrelevant arguments: those that flatly contradict established policy, those based on personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue.

I didn't participate in the AfD, but after just a cursory glance at the participants, I already see at least one of the Keep !votes was made by a sock of a banned editor - a perfect illustration of why we don't count votes when determining consensus. There is an additional concern with the close. This article has been through 5 AfDs, and the closer acknowledges that there will be dissatisfaction with his decision prompting a Deletion Review, yet he provides us no hint or clue as to which specific argument(s) or policy most influenced his decision. Instead, we get only "In terms of the weight of arguments, I think there is a preponderance in favor of keeping the article; however, I don't think it rises to the level of being clearly for keeping", which is cryptic and begs for an explanation. I could change the 'overturn' to 'relist' (or strike altogether if warranted) if Edgar181 could briefly point us to the most relevant policy/source-based argument(s) undergirding his decision. As it stands right now, after I weed through comments that are "personal opinion only, those that are logically fallacious, and those that show no understanding of the matter of issue", Delete appears to be the only compliant result. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Selectively quoting only a portion of my sentence and taking it out of its context is deceptive. Don't do that. To the contrary of what you have stated, there is no way that one can properly evaluate consensus without determining the extent of agreement. This necessarily includes being aware of the numbers of individuals advancing various arguments. If you are not doing so when you interpret consensus, then I believe that you are doing it wrong. -- Ed (Edgar181) 23:21, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't, and would never, quote you out of context. So rest assured I won't do that. To be clear, the statements in red above are not mine; they are Wikipedia policy. I also never stated anything about determining the extent of agreement (or not). So I will now.

If 5 editors argue to keep the Donald Trump article and 10 editors argue to delete the article on the grounds that he doesn't deserve one, the "numbers of individuals advancing" such an argument is not only irrelevant but must not be factored. The AfD or this article is replete with this quality of argumentation. With regard to competing good arguments, numbers of individuals advancing them do not determine which is the stronger argument. Wikipedia policy contends that to do so would be a violation. Would you be willing to elaborate on which relevant policy/source-based argument(s) most influenced your decision? Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 03:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It still looks to me like you are taking just half of a statement I made and basing your objection on that. I have not at any point believed or stated that numbers of individuals advancing an argument determine the strength of an argument. I do, however, believe that recognizing the number of individuals advancing the same argument is an essential part in understanding consensus and the extent of general agreement in a discussion. I also believe that considering the strength of each argument is an essential part of closing a discussion. You can't accurately evaluate the extent of agreement in regards to Wikipedia policy without considering both aspects. When I said "I included both strength and numbers in my evaluation of the discussion", this is what I meant. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:44, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that answered the question. If you express the weight of keeps as (weight of policy arguments expressed by keeps) * (number of people supporting those arguments), then your answer was about the second term of the product, but the question was about the first term. Which valid policy-based arguments did you see on the keep side that could plausibly make the first term non-zero? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

A new page I created from scratch using very reliable source material was deleted under G4 category of the Criteria for speedy deletion. This deletion was inappropriate because there was little chance that my creation was a "sufficiently identical" copy of the previously deleted page (BTW deleted with very little discussion!). I would wager a comparison of the two will show no similarity except for the subject matter, a notable person as demonstrated by the page I created. Sources showing notability: [32][33][34][35][36]

I have tried to raise the issue with the administrator who deleted the page and will post a notice on their talk page about this deletion review. ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 22:13, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I looked at the recreated article. It is indeed similar enough to the previously deleted version for
  WP:AFC. -- RoySmith (talk)uj 00:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment I'm on mobile which is why I hadn't responded on my talk page prior to this. I stand by my decision though given that an AFD had concluded the subject was not notable so recently. And if SHG is not a sock of an already blocked editor, I will eat my mop. SmartSE (talk) 13:40, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn and list if desired I can't see either the old or the current version, but the sources listed above (WSJ, Wired, Irish times) are solid enough to justify an article. Now maybe the article was too promotional or something (seems likely in fact given the topic and the AfD comments), but WP:N is easily met here. Either the sources weren't in the article during the first AfD or the AfD !votes were just bad (this is press release stuff? And being a VP has no bearing on notablity). Either way, I think this should be restored and, if anyone feels like it, listed at AfD. Hobit (talk) 22:20, 4 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tempundeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Roy. Yeah, this is a bit of a mess. Both deleted articles are a bit promotional. And both feel like paid pieces (or COI at the least). I'm never quite sure what to do here--deletion isn't a great way forward for a topic that meets WP:N, but I also don't think we should have halographies. And we don't deal well with issues like this. @ShadesHeroGurly: can you talk to us about your relationship with the subject? Have you disclosed a COI somewhere that I'm missing? If that's not the case, I'd be interested to hear what it is the brought you to write this article. Hobit (talk) 16:53, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hobit, I asked them about paid editing; this was their reply. I do not find their reply very credible as their editing (contribs)is not that of a new editor, is promotional, and is on the kind of topics that paid editors work on and specific subjects that have been a problem in the past. (I share Smartse's perspective). Jytdog (talk) 17:16, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So what do we do here? The topic is notable. The bio is a holography one might find on a corporate website. Roll back to something reasonable and protect as needed? I'm not really sure. I just don't think our current deletion criteria are met here. (I'm really starting to hate COI editing of bios and companies, it really hurts Wikipedia). Hobit (talk) 18:50, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think you mean hagiography?  :) Perhaps we could draftify and put through AfC to have the promotional stuff removed. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that looked wrong. Yes, that is what I meant. But even after AfC it will all come back. It always does. Hobit (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure there are enough RSs for notability : the Irish Times articles is a promotional interview where Jain says whatever he wants to; the fast company item is an advertorial for the3 company; the wired feature is more extensive, but is also promotional in tone--all obviously inspired by PR. It's more likely his organization is notable than he is personally. DGG ( talk ) 22:48, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Always hard to call articles in places liked Wired promotional. And the WSJ article is also pretty extensive. Hobit (talk) 07:02, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These sources are about Jain. He's the subject of the articles. Hobit (talk) 21:08, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:VOTESTACKING

? Because it is apparently working.

I was under the impression this was a place to discuss whether a speedy deletion was warranted and uncontroversial. The question I thought was simple:

Are the two versions

"sufficiently identical"

? Not sufficiently similar because of course they are going to be similar because the subject matter is the same.

• AfD version
• New version

When you compare these, especially their reference sections, how can you say they are anywhere near identical? ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 23:25, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as delete. Xxanthippe (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC).[reply]

• Endorse (as AfD nominator) - no encyclopedic relevance here, as shown at the AfD. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:35, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are five articles listed above. They clearly cover the topic in detail. WP:N is trivially met. Just stating otherwise isn't meaningful unless all we are doing is nose counting. Hobit (talk) 03:29, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here is how much detail is available about Ankur Jain in reliable sources:

• "At age 10 [Jain] got his first cellphone, a flip model that could only text one person at a time. He learned basic computer coding so that he could build a program that allowed him to text multiple friends from his computer..." -The Wall Street Journal
• "By seventh grade, Ankur had started his first Web company, Starnium, whose site offered desktop wallpapers, jokes, and games for young Web surfers..." -Inc.
• "At 11, he created his first company, MyOnlineQuiz, which developed Internet quizzes and surveys that you could take about your friends..." -Reuters
• "Some teenagers get summer jobs at Starbucks, or intern at a local business. At 17, Jain spent the summer before college in Hong Kong working for [Adrmiral William] Owens, who was then running a large private equity group. Jain shadowed Owens as he hammered out strategies for bringing large Chinese companies to the US..." -WIRED
• "Ankur’s father, Naveen, started InfoSpace, a big search engine pre-Google, in the late-1990s. Ankur’s mother sits on the board of the X-Prize. But he’s achieved a lot on his own..." -Fast Company
• "He founded the [Kairos Society] as an undergraduate at the Wharton School in 2008..." -Irish Times
• "Ankur Jain is 27 years old, is an elegant and smiling young man, who was born in Bellevue, Washington State, from parents of Indian origins..." -Pagina 99

This clearly demonstrates enough significant coverage to pass

WP:GNG. None of this was discussed at the original AfD

and, with the exception of the Inc. magazine article, none of them were even present in the first article. At the very least, this warrants a Relist for a more substantial discussion than the previous discussion involving a total of 3 users.

I am interested to hear if killiondude would have closed as delete if presented with such an argument and these new refs. ShadesHeroGurly (talk) 14:36, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The first deletion was clearly the right decision, and the recreated article was sufficiently identical to justify a speedy deletion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]