Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 December

R/AmItheAsshole (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was improperly deleted under A7 - the subject has received significant reliable independent coverage, making it notable (which makes it significant).

Not sure about the A7 but a previous version of this article was deleted by consensus about 6 months ago so the assertion that the subject is notable needs to be substantiated.--65.92.160.124 (talk) 04:58, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Since the deletion discussion, an article was published with significant reliable independent coverage.

talk | contribs) 06:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Temp undeleted for discussion WilyD 06:53, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - I'm not sure whether or not one article in Vice is really SIGCOV but it is enough that this should be allowed to go through AfD. --Paul ❬talk❭ 09:00, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist probably enough independent sources by now. Here is one from the Guardian in October. [1] --Salix alba (talk): 14:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I originally tagged it for A7 because the article itself didn't explain why it was significant, but I'll vote relist as the deletion clearly was not uncontroversial. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 16:20, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Why would people say “relist”? The AfD was over 6 months ago.

List at AfD. Strong arguments to delete, the last AfD was long ago, a contested speedy means a discussion is justified or required. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore The speedy deletion has been contested. It can go through AFD if desired. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - It doesn't matter whether it is called a Relist or a Restore or a List at AFD. A new AFD is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Do Whatever to hold a new AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - Can the title be changed to get rid of the special character? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk | contribs) 01:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• overturn speedy new Vice source is enough to overcome A7 requirements. Should also be moved to r/AmItheAsshole. Hobit (talk) 04:41, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

talk | contribs) 01:28, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Overturn and send to (a fresh) AFD. Not a clear A7 for me. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn an article which cites actual coverage in news media shouldn't be deleted under A7. Hut 8.5 19:25, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• Comment the copyvios were indeed introduced by User:AndrewMcD51 around October 2019, so it should be possible to restore versions from September 12 2019 and earlier WilyD 06:50, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• delrev and restore no idea if we should have the article, but sounds like the reason it was deleted is quite fixable. Hobit (talk) 19:21, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore with copyvio fixed. Allow listing at AfD.

The log says

• 09:22, 5 October 2020
  Draft:II-VI Incorporated (Multiple reasons: speedy deletion criteria G11, G12. Source URL: https://web.archive.org/web/20180829151804/http://www.ii-vi.com/about/about.html
  )

On G12, did Newslinger disregard where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving?

On G11, someone wants to discuss it, so send to AfD.

Forbid any further draftifications (aka back door deletion) unless tha is the consensus at AfD. Users want this in mainspace. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore edits up to 17:49, 12 September 2019 and toss everything after that beginning with AndrewMcD51’s first edit on 17:58, 26 September 2019. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:54, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

While

• Oppose as it appears that the local en.wikipedia consensus is clear, regardless of what Commons and others may wish to do. If you support or oppose a thing, do so in words, there's no need for pretty pictures. ValarianB (talk) 20:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @ValarianB: I don't care about the picture, what is the difference between your '''Oppose''' and {{oppose}} please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:43, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wrong forum. Yes, this is a (13 year old) deletion discussion. But really, this is a question for an RfC, not a DRV. If someone decides this is the right forum, then the right outcome here, from a purely deletion viewpoint, is endorse and allow recreation given the discussion and the time period that have passed. But I think the right outcome is, as stated, wrong forum. Hobit (talk) 03:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close explicitly lists this as the forum to go to, so it's hard to fault it. WilyD 11:28, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - sure, it's old, but we haven't deprecated
  WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, etc. so the logic of the close still applies. I don't see that anything has changed, so old or not, it should still apply. WilyD 11:30, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment The last time {{
  WP:G4 wouldn't apply. It is the content, not the name, that counts. Thincat (talk) 11:49, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse without prejudice to a discussion that revisits the consensus regarding these templates. I know this feels like being given the runaround after being told to come here, but that advice was wrong. There was nothing procedurally wrong with either the most recent G4 or the
  WP:SNOW deletion before that (2018), and when combined with the number of times this has been deleted there is no way DRV will allow restoration without an indication that community consensus has changed. I don't know whether versions without icons have been discussed or not, but at least some of the rationales expressing opposition to the template could apply equally whether there is an icon or not so I don't think that removes the G4 match. If anyone does propose a version without an icon, please be prepared to explain what benefits {{support}} has over '''support'''. Thryduulf (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Wrong forum, set up an RfC.

15:30, 9 June 2020 Plastikspork (talk · contribs) protected Template:Support [Create=Require administrator access] (indefinite) (Deleted so many times, please use WP:DRV before restoring to avoid controversy. Thanks!) (thank)

15:24, 9 June 2020 Plastikspork (talk · contribs) deleted page Template:Support (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_August_3#Template:Strong_support)

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted per CSD G4. This has been discussed so many times before. If, as Anthony suggests, that consensus needs to be reconsidered, the place to do that is

WP:DRV. Xoloz

14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

• @ValarianB, Hobit, WilyD, Thincat, Thryduulf, and Xoloz: thanks for the comments, I've now started an RfC and withdraw this DRV. Also pinging @Plastikspork and Xoloz: for info. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:12, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

I was looking for hyperlinking concepts today and from

Sure, it is an obsolete tool today, but it was a subject of at least 3 software implementations and a research paper describing a now-defunct MediaWiki extension. I have some trouble following the AfD discussion that "redirect is better". Neither at the time of the AfD process nor a year later (arbitrarily picked timeframe to "allow editors to merge information") there was no mention about this concept and its implementation.  « Saper // @talk »  14:47, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Here is more formal objection to the AfD decision: The decision was to create a redirect. The (very limited) discussion mentioned selective merge as a possible outcome.

• Endorse close - DRV is not the place to rehash AfD discussions. The close by Sandstein was properly done. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 14:57, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the proper place then? Both Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion seem to point me here.  « Saper // @talk »  17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:DRVPURPOSE. None of those would apply here. The simplest thing, which I have already suggested to you elsewhere, is to add the relevant information into the target article. Simply restoring the article, as you attempted to do, is not a valid course of action, since it overrides the consensus of the AfD discussion. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:20, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

    ]

    • Thank you. I must admit it is difficult to find the proper procedure here. For formal challenges, this seems to be the place to discuss, otherwise I am pointed to
      WP:REFUND which, in turn, clearly says that REFUND is not a place to challenge "deletions". I must apologize to Sandstein for not contacting him directly before. Having said that, however, the issue has been reported on Talk:Douglas_Engelbart#“Purple_Numbers” earlier and this has not been addressed at all. I have added few notes to my review request above to address some those formal issues as well.  « Saper // @talk »  23:05, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
      ]
• Question The original version was redirected because it was basically unsourced (one cite, to a wiki). Do you have evidence of sources that would allow it to be restored as a stand-alone article? Or even as a section in
  Douglas Englebart? Black Kite (talk) 15:01, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • So far I have found http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/kenb/pub/2008/16/public.pdf, http://eekim.com/2003/08/a-brief-history-of-purple-numbers/. The concept itself is also documented in [4] (but called "Explicit Statement Addresses" instead). Some discussion at http://eekim.com/2004/05/tim-bray-on-purple-numbers/ echoes more implementations of Purple Numbers - for Drupal and in JavaScript as well as one from Tim Bray - http://www.tbray.org/ongoing/When/200x/2004/05/29/PurpleNumbers. Some people find the concept not very useful: Mark Nottingham in https://www.mnot.net/blog/2004/05/30/fragid_redux or criticism from Evan Henshaw-Plath at the currently unavailable http://www.anarchogeek.com/articles/2005/10/14/purple-numbers-linkablity . Looks like the amount of implementations approaches six, which is quite a lot for an arguably fringe concept. Google Books search reveals that the concept has been discussed at least at one scientific conference [5] and made it into the proceedings (Found full text of a paper at [6]). I think small but standalone article will be best, since currently Engelbart's bio does not deal with fine details of the concepts of his work, referring rather to NLS (computer system) for example.  « Saper // @talk »  17:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note I've removed one of your links as it flagged as containing a Trojan, so I haven't looked at that one. Black Kite (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks, I have replaced the link with https://archive.is/Mp6Oi reference. I had a quick look at the page and the code it loads and it does not seem harmful to me, which tool is reporting this and what is the reason exactly?  « Saper // @talk »  14:34, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Malwarebytes reports it as containing a trojan. Might be a false positive but I'm erring on the safe side. Black Kite (talk) 15:24, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation as Draft. I don't see the problem doing this. Saper, if you want to do this it would probably be easier to move the existing article to Draft and re-create the redirect, so as to maintain the history. Black Kite (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse. I'm not seeing anything that looks like independent sourcing provided. I'm seeing tech reports from the folks involved hosted on single-user sites and stuff I can't tell is relevant. I've no problem with a draft (of course), especially as putting the sources in context might make it clear how they relate. But I'm just not seeing sources that can meet the WP:N bar. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I was alerted to this discussion on
  WP:RfD, respectively), so there's no convenient single place to express this opinion! YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 13:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Good close, correct close. It is not for the AfD closer to do the merger, or to have evaluated the merge. If the merge fails to ever happen, raise it on the talk page, as already done at
  WP:RfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:03, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If I believe we have some material to create a hopefully meaningful article, should I really request a removal of the redirect first?  « Saper // @talk »  14:16, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. While you technically can boldly re-create an article over the redirect, if you can overcome the AfD reasons for deletion, if you need to ask, you should not. Instead, go to the talk page of the redirect target, I.e. Talk:Douglas_Engelbart#“Purple_Numbers” or a new thread if you prefer, and get others’ opinions on whether your new material overcomes the reasons for deletion articulated in the AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• You don't need anyone's permission to create
  WP:AFC reviewers deem the new article substantially improved compared to the deleted version and the topic notable, the draft will be accepted and replace the redirect. ~Kvng (talk) 14:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • On my searches, I do not expect a “substantially improved” new version is possible, and I predict that AfC reviewers will not quickly review it and will eventually decline it, largely due to the negative AfD result. A MUCH BETTER path is to get others involved at the redirect target’s talk page. Personally, I think that if “purple numbers” is not worth coverage at Douglas Engelbart#PurpleNumbers, then it is certainly not worth a stand alone article, and drafting one is to waste everyone’s time. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Closer's comment: It's my practice to close AfDs where opinions are divided between merge and delete as "redirect". This implements the consensus that there should not be a separate article about the topic and allows those who want to retain the content to merge it from the history if consensus among the target article's editors supports that. If there is not even consensus to mention the subject at the target article, then I expect that interested editors will in due time make the redirect subject to a RfD, which is in my view not incompatible with the AfD outcome. In any case, I think this situation can and should be solved outside DRV: Either somebody merges content from the history to the target article, or at a minimum mentions "Purple Numbers" in the target article to make the redirect make sense, or they start an RfD. Sandstein 22:42, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

It was speedy deleted recently when I created. The AfD is very old. I put that as I found it in the talk page when I created it. It was tagged as promotional and I sought help for changing the content further if required but no one helped me. The software is a very old(since 2008) and popular diagram making tool. It has references in books, journals, reputed news sites like 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9. My article had more than 40 references but it still got deleted. It is very frustrating to see an article getting deleted which is truly notable. It needs a lot of time and effort to write something from an article with 50 references only to see it getting deleted. Please restore the article. Hareshamjadu (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment temp undeleted for DRV WilyD 16:39, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn but immediately send to AFD as part of the close. The article is not good, but in my opinion not so promotional for G11 to apply; neither A7 nor G4 are relevant. (I note that this may be paid editing; if that is proven G5 may apply.) Advice to the page creator - you should read
  π, ν) 19:55, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn per power. This article really is not that bad that it should have been deleted per G11, just from a brief look. However, I would also say that the referencing needs some cleaning up; though, there is definitely something there. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:19, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

This nomination was closed less than 10 hours into the discussion while discussion was happening and consensus had yet to emerge (though, granted, was heading in the direction of keep at that early stage). I believe the close was improper on two grounds: First, none of the speedy keep criteria were met and thus the discussion should have been allowed to run its course and closed as normal at the end of its week. Second, the closing statement is an argument for keeping the article and not a summary of the discussion. Posted as a vote, it would have been a valuable contribution to the discussion, but posted at the top as a closing rationale, it is a "super vote". El C has kindly offered a more detailed rationale on the AfD page, but I believe this to be incorrect as well, as it focuses on a procedural question (a red herring in my opinion; re-nominations are clearly allowed and there is no requirement to consult the closer of the previous discussion, especially after two years) but ignores the question of whether an article that meets the GNG can or should be deleted if it falls foul of policies such as BLP, and whether that is the case here. I and other editors have discussed this with El C on their talk page and they have respectfully declined to re-open the AfD so I'm seeking a review with the aim of overturning the close and re-opening the AfD to allow it its fullseven days for a proper discussion. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:26, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• the question of whether an article that meets the GNG can or should be deleted if it falls foul of policies such as BLP the answer to this is definitely yes, per
  WP:BLPDEL. Haven’t really looked into this particular case. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:44, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Sure, I realize my closing rational isn't the most focused or straight-forward. Sorry about that. I hope to be able to better explain my reasoning here. Because as far as this nomination goes, it ultimately comes across as a sort of POINTy social experiment. Of course, "re-nominations are clearly allowed and there is no requirement to consult the closer of the previous discussion, especially after two years" — I absolutely agree with HJ Mitchell there. That is my understanding, too. Where it gets murky for me with this particular nomination, however, is when it goes on to pose the argument that not only was the previous AfD's closure invalid, because the closer just liked the article, or something, etc. (a challenge for which that closing admin didn't even get a courtesy ping for), but also because this renomination was filed just after there has been a true avalanche of publicity about the subject like never before (following their recent arrest). So, it is this combination which, to me, simply confounded reason. Not only that, but this lengthy nomination also goes on to further raise certain broad and wide-ranging policy questions (about notoriety versus notability, and so on), when such a discussion clearly belongs on a policy page. As for the question about whether this article ran afoul of BLP, in any sense of the word, that is something I did examine, but ended up concluding that such a violation did not occur for this subject at this time. I suppose I simply do not see the point of going through the (7-days) motions here in light of all that. Looks like it'd just be an inevitable POINTy timesink for no good (or even that discernable of a) reason. Again, sorry for failing to articulate all of that coherently before. My bad. El_C 15:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC) Noting some not insignificant (but I think, ultimately, okay) refactoring. This is what Robert McClenon responded to. El_C 19:18, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and Allow AFD - I have read the closing statement, and do not see any basis for either a Speedy Keep or a Delete. The nominator has a right under our policies and guidelines as written to file an AFD, and has stated the case for the AFD well enough that it should run for seven days. Another editor might come along and provide a better case for deletion. Also, the closing statement still does read like a Supervote. I think that the case for deletion is weak, but is strong enough that it should continue to run. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow an AfD discussion to run for a full seven days. Mjroots (talk) 19:34, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and allow AfD discussion. This is a complex BLP, especially given recent events, and it should be discussed in full. SarahSV ^(talk) 19:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rumba kings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Requesting the page be undeleted due to significance to wiki member Johnny Bacolas. Juliusbear007 (talk) 02:05, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow Re-creation as draft - I haven't seen the article, which was deleted as
  credible claim of significance is made, namely whether the draft will probably survive an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Iridescent 15:32, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Allow re-creation as Draft only, but I'm really struggling to find sources myself - there is a section in Johnny Bacolas but that's unsourced as well. Not every band with a notable member is notable. Black Kite (talk) 16:07, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Decline restoration to article space, per explanation at User talk:Iridescent#Requesting review of your speedy deletion of The rumba kings. Restoration as a draft was already offered by the deleting admin, so there's really nothing else to review here. Oh, and it shouldn't need saying, but being significant to a Wikipedia editor is obviously not a valid justifitcation for an article. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:27, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  As the deleting admin, I did specifically advise

  Iridescent 16:47, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  Yes, fair point, no criticism for bringing it here. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's badly worded, but by member I don't think they are saying editor, but person with a wikipedia article Johnny Bacolas which lists Rumba Kings as an endeavour. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 19:06, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow draft (which Iridescent offered) but protect main space so editor can't move it without clearing AfC. StarM 19:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment for users with OTRS access, 2020112110007191 may be of interest regarding this. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 23:13, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Juliusbear007, is there any chance that you could recommend some Wikipedia:Independent sources (i.e., not something put out by the band) for any of the content in Johnny Bacolas#The Rumba Kings? A newspaper or magazine article usually works. If there aren't independent sources about the band, then getting it undeleted here is kind of pointless. It'll just get deleted again before long. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow draftification the only thing which looks at all like an assertion of significance in the deleted page is the involvement of Johnny Bacolas, since he is apparently notable. However the deleted page was unsourced except for an external link to AllMusic, and it won't survive for long in mainspace unless that changes. A redirect to Johnny Bacolas#The Rumba Kings might be a better bet. Hut 8.5 13:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

request to have the article reinstated in Draft space. I also have an issue with the way in which the article was deleted ; initially it was labeled as possibly not notable - but was ultimately speedily deleted for being a 'puff piece'. Should I have added a stub label to it ? in any case I'm willing to work on the problem areas and have it reviewed prior to being added back to wikipedia. In this era of rare diseases and viruses such as covid a large cap company such as Ultragenyx would be an asset to wikipedia.Grmike (talk) 04:41, 25 December 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

I'd also appreciate suggestions. thank you and Merry Christmas.Grmike (talk) 04:51, 25 December 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

• Comment And a Merry Christmas to you and to all our readers. The deleting admin has restored (an edited version of) the article to main space. In my opinion if you want to move it to draft (or user) space to improve it there should be no objection. Thincat (talk) 11:16, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User Lettler has for the second time in 2 days added the speedily delete tag to the article. can I just remove it and quote what what you just said ?Grmike (talk) 01:15, 27 December 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

• Comment - If this were submitted in draft space, I would decline it as written from the perspective of what the company says about itself and not what others have said about it. If it remains in article space, I will tag it as having
  DRV item? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Don't delete, whether kept in main space or draft. I agree with Robert as to issues of tone, but not notability. Given the analyst coverage listed at [7] (which I haven't investigated in detail), current reference 3 in the article among others, and the size of the company, it is notable (see
  Martinp (talk) 02:04, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Not CSD#G11. Has already been undeleted. Anyone may take it to AfD, but it must not be speedy deletion tagged again. Nothing more for DRV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:24, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional armoured fighting vehicles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per

• Any admin may countersign the close, or revert it as a bad close. It looks more like a “no consensus” than a “keep” to me. I think most !votes were low quality. What “article”? “I don’t see much scope for expansion” immediately after someone has started expanding. Says who that eight is the qualification threshold? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. On review, a good close, and a good closing explanation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to ping The rationale was that there was only one entry in the category and no more were likely to be added. It seems that several were then added, which in my view answered OP's concern about the potential to have more articles in the category. The nominator proposed a merger; four others chimed in, two to delete and two to keep. @
  WP:SMALLCAT. If OP feels that the defining characteristics of this category are not worth pointing out as defining for a category, this should be implied in a nomination. In all, the only outstanding issues centered on SMALLCAT, which is now no longer applicable unless OP can depopulate the category with valid reason. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 23:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• For the record, I myself am neutral as to whether the category should be kept as is. I am not saying whether any other concerns OP has about the category have any merit, only that I felt the original rationale was answered and the category brought up to code. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) _{(Follow my trail)} 23:30, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the only argument for deletion/merging was that the category was small with no scope for expansion, this has been rebutted by expanding it (it currently has 10 articles), so the argument is no longer relevant. Hut 8.5 10:18, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per closer and Hut 8.5. For the record, my vote to delete was not invalid, I never suggested referring to a main article, all I did was saying that the one article in the category did not really belong there so the category was actually empty at the time that I was commenting. But meanwhile my vote has obviously become obsolete. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• My apologies. Thank you for clarifying. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 20:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as a valid close. (Either that, or have a gunfight between any two of these vehicles.) Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per above. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:25, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

It have mentioned in some newspaper in google, see here

Additional link: [8], [9].

StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 03:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Additional reason: It is meeting the

WP:BAND#C10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by J. Smile (Love & V.A.V.I) (talk • contribs) 10:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - My usual thinking is that any questioned A7 or G11 can always go to
  AFD. An AFD is no more disruptive than a one-week DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Can we get a temp undelete please? Thank you, Hobit (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And so, it is done WilyD 21:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with the A7. It is also copyright violation of [10], so a G12 also. endorse speedy. Hobit (talk) 09:46, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fandom is licensed by CC-BY-SA, so it's not G12-able. Licence attribution can be fixed. WilyD 11:54, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep, I knew is was CC-BY-SA, but for whatever bizarre reason didn't consider the lack of a cite could be trivially repaired. -3 internet points for hobit. Hobit (talk) 02:04, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The links found by following the nom’s link do not give evidence of Wikipedia-notability. See advice at
  WP:THREE. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:53, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  @

  StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 04:25, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  The DRV nom's statement did not mention that, they only provided a link to junk sources, which is a waste of our time. If these sources are the best, it will surely be deleted at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm the nominator of this DRV and also the creator of this article. I have put some other link to show it's eligible to have article.

  StayC, Bae173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 03:58, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Overturn A7 - In my opinion, it doesn't satisfy
  credible claim of significance. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • What claim are you seeing as meeting
    WP:CCS? Hobit (talk) 15:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Endorse A7 deletion. Contains no claim of significance; being a girl group is not one. Sandstein 11:23, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The deleted article contained a link to an Allkpop article here that said, "Bling Bling is MAJOR9's first girl group. The label is well-known for being home to ballad singers such as 4MEN, VIBE, and Ben, as well as Dongjun (ZE:A) and Kasper."

  Bling Bling is signed to Major9, the same record label as 4MEN, VIBE, Ben, Dongjun, and Kasper. Although that association is not sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, it is a sufficient indication of importance, which means that {{db-a7}} does not apply. Here are additional sources I found about Bling Bling:

  1. 안진용 (2020-12-09). "'반짝반짝 빛나는' 블링블링, 'G.G.B'→'너 나랑 놀래?'…후속곡 활동 돌입". Munhwa Ilbo (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  2. 서상현 (2020-12-18). "블링블링 아야미, '너 나랑 놀래?' 무대의상 디자인 참여". Top Daily (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  3. "ガールズグループＢｌｉｎｇ　Ｂｌｉｎｇ、１７日韓日同時デビュー". JoongAng Ilbo (in Japanese). 2020-11-02. Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  4. "［韓流］女性６人組Ｂｌｉｎｇ　Ｂｌｉｎｇ　１７日に韓日同時デビュー" (in Japanese). Yonhap News Agency. 2020-11-09. Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  5. 김수영 (2020-11-21). "블링블링, 김연자와 만남 성사…'블링블링' 공통분모".
     Korea Economic Daily (in Korean). Archived from the original
     on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  6. 이승훈 (2020-11-12). "'데뷔 D-5' 블링블링 아야미, "카리스마 래퍼..반전 매력 보여드리고파" [일문일답]". The Chosun Ilbo (in Korean). Archived from the original on 2020-12-31. Retrieved 2020-12-31.
  Cunard (talk) 13:06, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that being signed to a 3 year-old label counts as a claim of significance. The sources appear to be largely (entirely?) rehashed PR bits, but I can't read either language so am relying on machine translations. Hobit (talk) 03:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Being signed to a three-year-old label by itself does not count as a claim of significance. Being signed to a three-year-old label that has also signed 4MEN, VIBE, Ben, Dongjun, and Kasper is a claim of significance enough to pass the low bar set by {{db-a7}}.

While some of the sources contain "rehashed PR bits", they also contain independent analysis and reviews from the journalists. From the Top Daily article written by 이승훈 about Bling Bling's appearance on the Mnet TV channel (translated from Korean to English using Google Translate): "In the broadcast, Bling Bling drew attention not only with the perfect performance, but also with the watery visuals and sword group dance. In addition to a song with a strong charm, he drew attention by decorating the stage with a special white costume."

From The Chosun Ilbo article written by 이승훈 about a Bling Bling "personal concept teaser video" featuring Ayami (translated from Korean to English using Google Translate): "In the released video, Ayami fired a charismatic, intense glance and overwhelmed her gaze from the beginning. Next, a soft yet powerful performance was presented, further amplifying the expectation for this stage."

There is enough analysis in the reliable sources that a reasonable case can be made for Bling Bling's passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

Cunard (talk) 11:51, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This assessment of notability is irrelevant here. DRV is not AfD round 2. We do not address the article's merits here, but only the merits of the decision to delete, which was correct based on the contents of the article. Sandstein 12:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I addressed why I believe the low bar of {{db-a7}} does not apply to the deleted article (being signed by Major9 which has signed multiple notable musicians is a claim of significance) and further expanded on what I would say about the sources at an AfD if one is created. When there is disagreement over whether {{db-a7}} applies, that indicates that speedy deletion was not uncontroversial. Cunard (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse A7 does not require the deletion to be uncontroversial, only that the article itself has failed to substantiate its implicit claim of the subject's significance. My understanding is that this criterion implies that such substantiation is also not forthcoming, so that the article will continue to lack any rationale for its inclusion in the encyclopedia indefinitely. To say that rationale is forthcoming at this time appears to be
  WP:AFC and present as thorough a case as possible for having an article on this subject on Wikipedia. As the page has been restored from a deletion and is not currently available for editing, it is not possible for the author to insert evidence of notability that did not exist in the article's first incarnation, so I would like to gently suggest saving the article's current content elsewhere, possibly in a draft, and pursuing AFC as mentioned before, allowing this process to close as endorsing A7 and deleting the article as it currently exists. Any worthwhile article is worth the work it takes to write it. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I have copy it to my draft, you may see

  StayC, BAE173 and music fans [ My contributions | talk to me ] 09:55, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Overturn A7 because a credible claim of significance doesn't even have to be one which would plausibly ever reach N, and this one arguably does if given a bit more secondary support. Jclemens (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Speedy deletion was wholly in appropriate: this is long standing notable software with coverage in all major trade magazines (and presumably things outside of trade magazines). There are 177 articles on it in Sound on Sound (a print and online magazine) alone. The article's content wasn't great, but it also wasn't written in an overtly advertising voice, so a cleanup tag would have been in order. Scott.wheeler (talk) 07:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• This was essentially a 60 KB brochure for the software. Almost all the content is devoted to describing the features of the software, often in glowing terms, or to giving details of changes in releases. I suppose we can restore it to draft space but it needs major surgery. It had existed since 2005 and some of the earlier versions weren't as bad. Wikipedia isn't a software manual, a software brochure, or a place to publish release notes. Hut 8.5 08:55, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Long-standing article dating all the way back to 2003. It is inevitable that there is a reasonably neutral version in the history that could have been reverted to. Stifle (talk) 11:08, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - My usual thinking is that any questioned A7 or G11 can always go to
  AFD. An AFD is no more disruptive than a one-week DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:02, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Again, requesting a temp undelete. Thank you. Hobit (talk) 17:23, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, it's done. Jeez, it's the Christmas season, I was busying getting fearsome drunk and couldn't get to it all that fast. WilyD 21:45, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just in case this wasn't entirely in jest, the "again" was in reference to the request above, not complaining about things being slow. A greatly appreciate that WilyD has been doing these temp undeletes, that's for sure. Hobit (talk) 15:18, 25 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • No worries, eh. It was meant to be jovial; although it was all true, so I'm not sure it was truly in jest ;) WilyD
• Weak Overturn though I don't blame anyone for doing a CSD here -- the article is really bad, and the history doesn't show any good versions (I see the first version being in 2006, not in 2003 or 2005 as said above). Truncating this to a 1-paragraph stub might be necessary, though with some editing I think there's a bit more to save. If anyone here is interested in improving the article they may be best served to start from scratch.
  π, ν) 06:10, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Sorry, that was my bad, I was having timeout issues when temp undeleting. It does indeed date to 2003 [11] WilyD 06:14, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Overturn - previously kept at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reason (software), other than newly uncovered G12s, nothing kept at AfD should be speedily deleted. WilyD 06:12, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Not speedy eligible. But yeah, as it stands it is not a good article. Hobit (talk) 09:48, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy restore and AfD or edit as appropriate, Per WillyD. As an AfD-surviving article, there's really no need to continue this discussion. Jclemens (talk) 20:22, 23 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Send to AfD. CSD must not be used for something kept at AfD. Even eleven years ago. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:54, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G11 as noted by other editors. There is a lot of
  promotional content, but it is not purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy restore per WilyD and Jclemens. It is sad we haven't addressed the problems noted in the first AFD 11 years ago, but speedy deletion isn't the way to do it. (Bold editing, or AFD discussion both could be.)
  Martinp (talk) 04:13, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy restore: I agree with the concerns raised by WilyD and Jclemens; it should've gone to AfD first in my opinion. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 16:38, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birthmark On Temple (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I am in no way advising that this page is suitable for inclusion (I was the guy who PRODded it), but this page was deleted per G1, and that does not apply, as the text of the page was not nonsensical or incomprehensible, it was simply unencyclopedic. Please note that my PROD did not expire, the page was deleted a few hours after I added my PROD. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 22:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request temp undeletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse this looks like computer generated text - sentences which are individually sort-of comprehensible strung together without making any sense ("Just look straight into the soul and tell them: Thank you so much for adhering to the agreement in my DNA profile.") Hut 8.5 08:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The text certainly meets the definition of patent nonsense ("incoherent text or gibberish with no meaningful content or history"). The sentences are grammatical and correctly spelt, but they carry no more meaning than colorless green ideas sleep furiously. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the
  G1, based on the fragment quoted by User:Hut 8.5, which is syntactically valid and has no semantic meaning (just as User:Stifle says). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - My usual view, as noted above, is to allow AFD on any challenged speedy deletion as A7 or G11. This was not A7 or G11, and the fragment speaks for itself by not speaking for itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Note I have temporarily restored the page with the original text before I added my PROD tag. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:10, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the history to avoid any issues with attribution. Hut 8.5 17:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and I'm confused why it was felt that recreation was necessary. Even if you were to concede that there's some real meaning here, it would be
  π, ν) 17:36, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
•  Request withdrawn, as I failed to realize that, even though the page is not entirely nonsensical, the page's text is still incoherent to an extent. JJP...MASTER!_{[talk to] JJP... master?} 17:47, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

As the former lead announcer with the Voice of Russia World Service and the first and only person with full permanent political asylum in the Russian Federation, years before Snowden and Assange, it is a would be a crime against any proper recording of history to delete this person's page. As WikiPedia is a source of information for millions deleting such pages because of the reviewers political bias or because the reviewer does not "like" the person is an egregious crime and dirties the reputation of WikiPedia. The claim was made that John is unknown which is untrue in Russia. John has also been a WikiLeaks media associate and although you may not have heard about him is famous in Russia and certain geopolitical circles. Revising history and deleting people someone wants to be "unpopular" is not what WikiPedia is about. Per WikiPedia's instructions we contacted the person who closed the discussion and they said they can not help us. John is currently and has been the ONLY American with asylum in the Russian Federation and perhaps the world. Again the claim was made that John is unknown however he is quite famous in the Russian Federation and frequently appears on television as an expert on geopolitical issues. There are thousands of his articles all over the internet. We ask you to please undo the deletion. Thank you. Interceptor369 (talk) 17:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would guess you'll get the standard questions here, so who is the "we" you claim to speak for? Do you have a few (pick your best two for a start) references in

reliable third party independent sources which discuss the topic directly and in detail. I had a quick look at the cache and many of the references are not independent or not reliable (e.g. Veteran's today where the about information states "VT does NOT censor or vet their articles" and "Editors and writers are 100% responsible for the accuracy of their posts." regarding submissions. i.e. someone could submit any old rubbish without a level of fact checking, if the publisher of the site isn't willing to stand by the content being accurate we certainly can't) --81.100.164.154 (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Many sources are in Russian but I suppose the best two in English since my work is heavily censored in the West would be mentions in the Washington Post https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/us-asylum-seekers-unhappy-in-russia/2013/07/18/ced32748-eee8-11e2-bed3-b9b6fe264871_story.html and Foreign Policy https://foreignpolicy.com/2012/08/30/russian-press-rips-romney-and-his-promise-of-republican-hell/. I would mention "Alternative Media" sites but I understand it is your policy not to give them credibility as source, such as Global Research and many other smaller non-corporate sites. Thank you very much for your answer and I look forward to providing you with more information. It would help if I could do so in Russian. Thanks. I do keep a full archive of my hundreds of interviews and articles at the Voice of Russia World Service on my own site http://www.jar2.com/Articles/John_Robles_Entry_Page.html however I doubt WikiPedia would count my site as one to link to since I publish material that is censored in the West. I had always counted on WikiPedia being a solid place for a historical record so I was surprised after 11 years to see the page being deleted. Hope this helps and thank you again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would probably give the washington post article a little bit of weight towards notability but not much, it's not really about Robles. The foreign policy one is not about Robles at all, so the requirement to talk about "directly and in detail" isn't really met. If they are the best sources, then it seems you can't meet the wikipedia notability standards. Yes we won't accept Robles own website, since it fails to be independent for notability of Robles, and as far as I can see the site isn't notable in it's own right, everyone can create a website about themselves, it really doesn't show any level of genuine interest from the world at large. (And that's not looking to the issue of bias within how one tends to see our own situation.) In the end if the only person who wants to write about someone is that same someone it doesn't become difficult to question notability. You should probably also look to the

conflict of interest guidelines ad you haven't explained who this "we" is. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Phil Bridger (talk) 20:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Endorse. The administrator who closed the deletion discussion properly interpreted the discussion. I have no objection to this page being restored to draft space for improvement in the hopes of getting it up to article status at some point in the future. —C.Fred (talk) 01:03, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Given the unique status of the individual (myself), now having had asylum longer than even Fisher (over 13 years) and having been in exile since 1995, it would be an egregious dropping of the ball, were a historical record such as WikiPedia to simply delete the individual. I hope you will restore the page and will do my utmost to get it up to your full standards. Thank you very much for your time on this issue. Happy holidays. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia a tertiary source, we aren't a journalistic effort trying to cover what no one else does and therefore not intending to be the source of some historical record. --81.100.164.154 (talk) 09:43, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I simply wanted the page on John Robles restored as it was brought up to date and added to with citations in keeping with your policies but was deleted anyway. Did not want to get into some discussion about what an encyclopedia should be but in my opinion an encyclopedia should be full of as many facts as possible and not omit factual information that the public has the right to know but given the state of information warfare we have all been forced into I understand the massive attempts at censorship, political labeling and revisionism by omission that the corporate entities in the West are engaged in to support the demonization, marginalization and eradication of entire peoples, as a native American I deal with that daily. However I did not expect a supposedly open source encyclopedia to have become dead set on my erasure. Censorship is the issue here I think, and truly and honestly if it is allowed to stand it will be simply a matter of time when they come for each of you. I am not attacking anyone here, I merely protest the public erasure of an individual whose suffering and persecution has been beyond the pale. Have a great day and May the Great Spirit Bless You all. We had hoped (the team here at jar2.com) that you would simply restore the page which had nothing controversial on it except some tertiary facts on an individual. Very sad that WikiPedia is now engaged in such censorship. I used to recommend it to my students. Again no offense to anyone intended, just trying to get my thoughts on this across to all of you. Cheers and thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 16:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Allow draftification, with a grain of salt, and point to
  WP:THREE for advice on what to do. The subject exists, but I looked and didn’t find anything suitable for Wikipedia. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. The deletion discussion was properly closed in accordance with the consensus. Deletion review is not a venue to re-argue the AFD.
  long and repeated diatribes are rarely preferable. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

We have nothing further to add. Your outright open censorship has proven our case. Thank you and have a nice day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk • contribs) 14:42, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I was about to say to Allow a Draft to be reviewed. The appellant is now
  yelling censorship, which weakens any argument that they can make. They still can prepare a draft. They have not identified an error in the deletion discussion or the close. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Is it possible to undelete the page? Or do I have to make a new one (as a draft)? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interceptor369 (talk

Monday Morning (newsletter) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

The reason cited by the closer was WP:GNG. The Monday Morning page had SIGCOV from The Hindu, a newspaper of national repute. Also, it has a paragraph about it (close to SIGCOV) in another national newspaper, The New Indian Express. It also has an article in Careers360. Now, all these sources along with it being one of the largest student newsletters in India are pretty much the best a student newsletter can do. When Wiki pages of student newspapers like 'The Doon School Weekly' exist without a single issue listed, I see no reason why the Monday Morning page was deleted even after having 2 Keeps and 2 Deletes (that's a tie). Please look up Wiki pages of student newsletters, they don't even seem to have a single external media coverage yet they exist on Wiki (many of them as stubs). Compared to them, this particular page of Monday Morning is both extensive and cites at least 3 reputed sources, of which at least 2 pass GNG. I request a better discussion and expect people to support student newsletters. Not even asking for relaxation as the topic has at least 1 SIGCOV from The Hindu and another from The New Indian Express. Parzival221B (talk) 12:53, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC There was no consensus for deletion. As I see it, there was a 3 to 3 !vote (counting Parzival221B as a !vote to keep, even though there is no bolded keywords and the nom as delete) with the issue being if the three paragraphs (334 words per MSword) in [12] that solely focus on the topic count as significant coverage. That's a reasonable question to debate. But there is no consensus on the issue. I don't see how it can be claimed that the strength of argument can overcome the lack of numeric consusus. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:China Shipping Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

At the time of discussion, there is a lot of article is not properly categorized under the Category:China_Shipping_Group. For example, a lot of ships that owned or operated by China_Shipping_Group's subsidiary CSCL: "China Shipping Container Lines" (see also Category:Ships of COSCO Shipping). So, are the reason still valid for "empty" cat that only contain "few" article? Matthew hk (talk) 20:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarification (as CFD participant) The description above puts "empty" and "few" in quotes which is confusing since neither word was actually used anywhere in the CFD discussion nor was
  WP:SMALLCAT given as a justification more generally. Although the category was removed, the contents were merged into Category:COSCO so no navigational pathways were lost. - RevelationDirect (talk) 04:45, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• There is a lot of CSCL ship article is not cat under China Shipping, so you alleged "2" articles so that it is a small cat is not valid. Either it is by good faith people just forget to cat CSCL ship to the cat or other reason....navigation still lost as still need assumed knowledge that COSCO is the new owner of former CSCL fleet or finding China Shipping Group related articles required to navigate to its successor instead . While if Category:China Shipping Group still exist, you still need assume knowledge for CSCL, the CS stand for China Shipping, that is another thing. Matthew hk (talk) 08:39, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(replied to a

WP:SMALLCAT

? Note that 4 - 2 = 2, not including redirect.

Also note that Deletion review is not another place to discuss the cat itself, but the Cfd close should be endorsed or not, or as well as allow recreation or not. I suggest just revert the close (and restart Cfd discussion for people to discuss based on correct info to for a while) and restore the cat and to see people think it still "overlap" or too small or not if quite a lot of CSCL ship article are now correctly added to the cat. Matthew hk (talk) 12:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (but wait) due to the revert of the merge that drove the proposal. There are, in my opinion, too many articles and categories named “COSCO...”, and merging or other restructure is needed, but categories should follow their parent articles. Sort out the parent articles first. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:00, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Related Nominations

We certainly have a lot of balls in the air at once:

1. Requested Move of COSCO under discussion right here.

2. Requested Merger of

COSCO Shipping Holdings under discussion right here

.

3. Requested Merger of

COSCO (Hong Kong) Group under discussion right here

.

4. Proposed rename of Category:COSCO under discussion right here.

I'm neutral on all of them but encourage editors to weigh in whether pro, con or other to help bring consensus. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:59, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Sophia Barclay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore

)

• This is a bit ridiculous - a newly created article moved into mainspace too soon, AfD'd, moved to draft by its creator and added to AfC, and moved back to AfD by the AfD nominator. I will only support this if there's a good reason this shouldn't be in draftspace. SportingFlyer T·C 18:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I performed a
    WP:SPEEDY. ... discospinster _talk 22:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Procedural Comment - Is this the right venue for dealing with what is actually a
  WP:ANI are better forums, but it is less important at this point where action is requested than that action (move back, tag, move-protect) be taken. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn the
  gaming the system. An author may instead properly request draftification in the AFD, but that decision will be part of the close. The R2 should be overturned because the move should be reverted and the AFD should run. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• If I'm reading this right, it was created, AfDed, and then moved to AfC with the claim it was put in the wrong spot all in the same day. Given the editor in question seems to use AfC a lot, I'm prone to AGF here and just drop the AfD. If the user does this again, less good faith would be forthcoming. Weak endorse and move on. People make mistakes. Hobit (talk) 16:03, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn. Reopen the AfD, move the page back to mainspace. If the AfD results in “delete”, do not allow userfication or draftification for at least six months. Draftspace should not be allowed to escape AfD, and once an AfD decision is made, it should be respected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:01, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Close without action - given that Discospinster has already blocked User:Itaubrspxxx in order to win this dispute, there's not really anything to be done. Normally, I'd want to avoid this kind of bullying of new editors who're struggling a little with our bureaucracy, but obviously too late here. If someone else wants to pick up the article, great, if not, oh well. If an article ends up in the mainspace, it can be AfD'd, but there's no need to pre-emptively do it, especially after you've blocked editors you're involved in the dispute with to win the AfD. WilyD 07:33, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

XfD is not a vote, not much reasoning was given by parties vying for redirect, the AfD was relisted a third time without a substantial justification for doing so, and Asleep Next to Science, a sourced article which can be merged into the band page, still exists. --Jax 0677 (talk) 00:42, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The redirected article had no independent sources. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse if this is an appeal of the deletion. A poorly participated AFD, with Delete as the proper close, but also:
• Allow Re-Creation in draft, if the filing editor wants to submit a draft with better sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse but allow re-creation if independent sources are added. Also there's been a strange trend of relisting for a third time going on in the last month or so, and it needs to be curtailed - completely agree with the nom on that one. SportingFlyer T·C 18:26, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close, as it was done correctly. Regarding a draft version, not sure it's necessary, since the article still exists in history. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 16:28, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I just added the album article to the artist article with this edit, which adds to the number of reliable sources for the band, for an album article that has not been nominated to Articles for Deletion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• More comment after a fresh look. DO NOT allow recreation in draft. Good merge and redirect decision. Appeals should be lodged at the talk page of the target, not at DRV, and not via AfC. Do not reverse the merge without an explicit consensus at Talk:Ashley Ellyllon. Personally, I see not justification for a separate article. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SDSS J140821.67+025733.2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Requesting this article to be revived in light of changes related to the topic, such as this page https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4365/228/1/9 which mentions this particular object in Section 3 which I believed has not been mentioned in the discussion (with this article being deleted for allegedly not being mentioned by the author), as well as this link https://arxiv.org/abs/2007.03222 that mentions this object as well in connection with the previous link, establishing weight about its notability. SkyFlubbler (talk) 02:46, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The article is in existence and if those are new sources, it probably can't be speedied. Am I missing something? Hobit (talk) 10:29, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Wrong venue. This article exists and no review is needed. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree it looks like the wrong venue. An article at this title was deleted at AfD several years ago. A redirect was created shortly afterwards and then deleted after RfD. This year an article was again created (largely similar?), recently moved to draftspace, and now the remaining redirect is tagged for speedy deletion G4 (probably inappropriate). It is unclear which of the two deletions is being reviewed here and what the criteria would be to overturn those decisions. The title was not salted and can be re-created if desired. This is not a venue for (re-)deleting articles or redirects. Lithopsian (talk) 15:02, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for those who are out of context. By the time this was written, the article doesn't exist yet. I've decided to edit a draft version for it so that if there would be a decision here, it would just be accepted and be good to go. However, the draft was accepted way too early, and it already got its article. I would move the page back to its draft form, until a decision here has been made. SkyFlubbler (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• If you have new sources, just leave it. It shouldn't be speedable and the right place is AfD. Hobit (talk) 15:34, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Few days ago User:Rorshacma expressed concerns to me regarding this closure: "After its initial 7 days of being listed, it was relisted, despite there already being a pretty clear consensus not to keep. But, sure, there was not a whole lot of participation, and there wasn't a clear consensus to Delete or Redirect, so I can understand that. The relist was then just kept open for two days, enough time for several "Keep" votes to appear, and then closed early, by the same user that relisted it, as a "Keep". This is what strikes me as odd, as none of the previous "Delete" votes were given a chance to look over and comment about the suggested sources (which are all pretty terrible, honestly), and as the comments coming in after the relist were clearly in contrast to those before, it seems like this should have at least gone on for the entire full second week to allow more discussion.". I suggested they take this here, but they have not replied, so I am doing this myself before this gets too stale. This was closed as keep despite the vote tally being 3 delete, 1 redirect, 1 keep or merge, and 3 keep. I concur there was no good reason for this to be relisted, and then it was closed too quickly before a proper consensus could have emerged and/or discussion held. This should be at the very least relisted so that we can have a more throughout discussion (as I concur with Rorshacma that the sources provided are unlikely to be sufficient, and not enough time was given for most people to notice the new votes and react to them). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:38, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse.
  WP:WAF. The in-universe content should not exceed out-of-universe content. There is so little out-of-universe content that it needs to be stubified. From there, there are multiple possibilities of redirection or a DAB page. Deletion is not the answer here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question: Piotrus, it seems like your point here is that the AfD should have ended prematurely as Delete, instead of relisted. Then you say that after the relisting, it was premature to end after four Keep votes. Why was it premature to close before the Delete voters got a chance to respond to the Keep votes, but it wouldn't have been premature to close as Delete before the Keep voters got a chance to respond to the Delete votes? That seems like an inconsistent argument to me. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:45, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse The only procedural issue here seems to be Piotrus's failure to discuss the matter with the closer, per
  WP:RELIST clearly states that "A relisted discussion may be closed once consensus is determined without necessarily waiting a further seven days." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:14, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse. Deletion review addresses cases where the deletion process was not properly followed. As the OP will be very aware, it does not take cases where someone merely disagrees with the outcome. Andrew Davidson correctly notes that there was no early closure. Stifle (talk) 14:03, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The following questions should and can be answered:
  • • Were there any procedural errors? No. Relisting, and then closing after the relist had been open for less than seven days, is a valid procedure. The AFD should be kept open for at least seven days. It was open for at least seven days. The Relist is not required to be open for another seven days.
    • Was Keep a valid close? Yes. No Consensus would also have been valid, but Keep is valid.

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse it would perhaps have been better if a bit more time had elapsed between the last keep and the close but I think the close was all right. What bothers me more is when a poorly referenced article gathers a whole crowd of deletes followed by someone adding new references, followed by a delete close. To add insult to injury a recreation is sometimes speedied as
  WP:G4 because the references are still as they were at the moment of deletion. Thincat (talk) 16:18, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse I would have deleted or redirected instead of relisting, but that's not a reversible error here. I'm not sure why this qualifies for an article at all, but I can't fault the close. SportingFlyer T·C 18:04, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

More information has come to light since this article's deletion and does indeed pass the notability test (

Comment: Please find better sourcing than IMDb. Please see

WP:NOTYOUTUBE. Otr500 (talk) 03:51, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• Some quick notes: This was deleted back in 2010, so keep in mind that if new coverage came about after the deletion until now, that wouldn't really be pertinent to the deletion discussion in 2010. DRV is to overturn deletions that were done in error - meaning that there was suitable coverage to establish notability back in 2010 when it was deleted. Secondly, this was restored to the draftspace at Draft:Austin Powell yesterday. You had posted to REFUND and Muboshgu chose to restore it in Cirt's place, since he's since been blocked.

My recommendation at this point would be to work on the draft and run it through the Articles for Creation process (

WP:AfD). If it's moved live in its current state it would almost certainly be deleted, particularly if any added sourcing is very weak. The Film WikiProject has a resource guide that can be helpful here with sourcing. The Music WikiProject has a similar guide that would also be invaluable. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

• I agree with the suggestion to work on the draft and submit to AfC (or move to mainspace) when ready. The AfD is ten years old and only attracted one participant other than the nominator, it's extremely unlikely that it even could be used to delete a recreated version, especially one with new sources. A recreation would have to go to a new AfD. Hut 8.5 17:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Draft to Be Reviewed (which is probably already permitted) - The subject was not notable in 2010 and may be notable in 2020. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• allow recreation you really didn't need to come here first, given how old the AfD is. But the rules aren't hugely clear, so no worries. Might still get sent to AfD again, but shouldn't be speedyable. Hobit (talk) 03:11, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

"The result was delete. Consensus is sourcing is short and voting to keep on other grounds needs a policy basis to count"--"Consensus is" is not true. Also, I cited GNG, which is a policy. My argument concerning the three sources which qualified the article as meeting GNG (Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World) was not rebutted by anyone. Plus, the votes were evenly split between delete and keep, with three on each side. Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:29, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, and would love to be mistaken, but there are some errors above, 1)- There were 4 !votes for delete (I provided an ATD) and 3 to keep, and 2)- Sourcing issues were addressed more than once particularly concerning "in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources".

There were other issues that I felt were important. A source referred to the subject as a Reverend but shows the subject is a business man (which was not covered in the article) with a pony in the race, but I do not see WP:RELPEOPLE as being reached. I don't think the sources show enough notability for acceptance based on the fact he is a civil rights activist. One keep admitted the was "Nothing very in-depth".

I would think userfication and dealing with the sourcing issues a good ATD. It could even be submitted to AFC. I am past disgusted that an editor weighed in that Wikipedia in essence be held hostage and we should advance notability to somehow show no prejudice. Otr500 (talk) 03:30, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Temp undeleted for discussion WilyD 08:11, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse — As stated in my rationale, subject of the article doesn’t satisfy
  WP:SIGCOV. An individual argued to keep the article because if we did delete it, Wikipedia would be seen as racist & my question was and still is, since when did the community start to allow non notable articles be retained because of what “people would say”? That feels like blackmail right there. Furthermore, no the !votes weren’t split, it was 4 deletes and 3 keeps. The closing admin handled this appropriately.Celestina007 (talk) 10:06, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Overturn I was in the original discussion and took a position of Keep. I think the closer got this one incorrect because it seems to me the subject passes
  WP:RELPEOPLE which is an essay on notability but in the original discussion made a big deal about other users referencing essays as if they do not apply. I don't think this is intentionally misleading on the part of the editor, just a simple mistake. As to the number of !votes one way or another, Consensus is not determined by popular vote. We are looking for the correct answer here, not the popular one.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse the claim that the Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World sources show the subject meets the GNG was rebutted in the discussion, with the statement that these do not represent significant coverage. Looking at the actual sources in question [13][14][15] I'm finding it hard to disagree with this - all three just quote the subject in passing, which is a common example of trivial coverage.
  WP:IMPACT is an essay with no official standing and the closer would have been justified in ignoring it as a consideration. The same is true for the unsubstantiated claim that Wikipedia will be seen as racist if the article is deleted. Looks like a reasonable close to me. Hut 8.5 18:12, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse; I looked originally very closely in the subject's notability, did my own research, checked ALL the links in the article and did not see how he meets
  WP:GNG. I believe it was a right decision. Let's just move on. Kolma8 (talk) 18:27, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comments: I looked at this again, from the point of being wrongly closed as well as implications of "closer error" and considering participants in the AFD (including myself) are so far predominantly involved here. I looked at
  WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS pertaining to a "sense of the group" by looking at the "strength of argument" considering applicable policies. Informing the closer that a review is ongoing does not follow discussing issues with the closer "first" then bringing it here. Otr500 (talk) 13:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse based on reading the article. If I had been taking part in an AFD, I would have !voted for Soft Delete. Either a Delete or a No Consensus would be a valid close from the actual result. So Endorse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Delete's an acceptable outcome here - more delete !votes than keep !votes. I would weigh the delete !votes slightly greater on the whole, especially because one keep was basically an
  WP:ILIKEIT, and a couple of the delete !votes clearly refuted the sources. Furthermore looking at the deleted page it doesn't look like we're deleting something notable. Good close, easy endorse in the end. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• endorse I'd have closed it as NC, but delete isn't unreasonable given the discussion and quality of sources. Hobit (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment In the Christian Science Monitor article, he is quoted near the beginning, at the middle, and at the close of the piece. More than brief mention: Legal pot: Why minorities say they’re being left out of the money

If you will not the accept the Christian Science Monitor, New York Times, and Atlanta Daily World sources, here are three new sources not previously considered on the XFD or mentioned in the article:

• In 2019 Bachus received the 2019 Insight award. See page 15. Award was granted by the Citizens Housing and Planning Council.
• He was the main guest and interviewed for a podcast on buzzsprout.com. (This is a differently titled podcast than the one referenced in the article.)
• He was also the main guest for Global Gospel last April:The 400 Foundation Inc. - Rev. Reginald Lee Bachus--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:38, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've blanked the copy-pasted comments from the previous DRV for another article, from an IP who was trying to set up a DRV and failed. I'll close this if the IP doesn't add a rational for disputing the outcome soon. But I'm inclined to be forgiving to IPs trying to figure out how to use templates and such. WilyD 08:07, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

)

• endorse deletion there's no requirement to delete something through AFD or prod, and the G11 was valid. Praxidicae (talk) 17:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion was a clear G11, so I'm not sure why nom thinks there was no speedy deletion request (admin only). There is nothing to be restored. G11, G12 and COI (although not of course a reason for deletion in itself) all applied. StarM 18:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I was the deleting admin, and a new redirect as created by Jax 0677 seems appropriate. Otherwise, I'm not sure why this unsourced blatant spam, with some obvious UPEs, has been brought here, especially as I've explained to Jax 0677 here why it was basically crap Jimfbleak - talk to me? 19:23, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment just dropping link to parallel conversation at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Varidesk where Jax also raised the question. StarM 20:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Not sure what you're talking about here, it was tagged as G11 by Jmertel23. Regardless, an admin may delete things without needing someone else to tag it. Plus, looking at the deleted version, it was garbage. Just straight promotion, and looks like a copyvio to me. Turning it into a redirect but removing the history has been done and is the right answer. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 19:48, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - even if it hadn't been tagged for CSD admins are allowed to clean up blatant spam, copyvio, etc. without notice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:10, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse blatant advertisement. DGG ( talk ) 09:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, entirely reasonable deletion decision. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Not sure what the issue was, but it looks like a valid deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Thunderwords~zhwiki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was drafted by a known person of mine who works for a PR company based in Hong Kong. I'm hoping the page deleted to be undeleted and moved to draft, as it may let me review before really moving to mainspace or doing anything (e.g. suggesting him to edit more/add more reliable sources, etc.). Of course I will add the related COI tags. 1233 ( T / C） 12:51, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - Should this be here at
  Request for Undeletion? Do we need to make the call because this was a U5? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The page was clearly advertising the subject (
  WP:CSD#G11), and we don't allow drafts to advertise the subject either. It doesn't surprise me at all to learn it was written by a PR company. I suggest you start again and write neutrally this time. Hut 8.5 08:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• @Hut 8.5:That's why I really need to see. I'm just giving suggestions to the person (well I am not paid of whatever or have any conflict of interest) on how to meet the standards. But whatever.--1233 ( T / C） 17:39, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @1233: if you just want to see the contents then I can email it to you, we don't necessarily need to restore it for that. Hut 8.5 19:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hut 8.5: Ok then please email to me about the contents. Thanks. --1233 ( T / C） 00:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, done. Hut 8.5 08:04, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Martyn_Iles (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

article was deleted on a false assumption that I was asked to do so by other parties (COI), and was non-neutral? now firstly the article was never created on behalf of the ACL - why would I do that, I don't even know them, nor spoke to them prior to this 'incident'? - I was trying to find info on Martyn on the web and found it in other wikis, then went to the ACL page on wikipedia which linked to Marty, but the link from ACL to Martyn's page was gone. - a mistake imho, so it needed to be put back imho. Seems NickD made up a narrative, I have no idea why he had no respect for me a writer to discuss this or even ask if I had an association (which i didn't, and dont)? I didn't even know ACL before I posted it (and dont' associate directly with them now), then i reached out while it was a draft stage - isn't that the right thing to do when you post something publically about an organisation or person? I assume that is what any ethical human would do? The mod got their wires crossed here. I do not know Martyn, I do not have an association to ACL. I am a Christian - that is the only link, other than ONE, at most TWO phone calls with ACL AFTER the article was posted (NOT BEFORE, NOT SINCE) - I have also been told "You will be blocked from editing if this ever occurs again" - what is that? To ban a new user who wrote an article about a prominent figure, without feedback, talk - the only reason I am asking this to be reviewed now is that it really upsets me and I can't get it out of my head what a injustice has been done here. I DESERVE an written apology from NickD for the defamation of my character. I'm sure he's a valuable character here in wiki, but his unverifiable assumptions in this case undermine that. He assumed: he was wrong, then abused his power to double down on that terrible decision. The haste in this is something that needs to be reviewed also, not verifying his assumptions, instead just acting, and getting it completely wrong. I'm not going to let this go (i have strong reactions to injustice), this is just wrong and it needs correcting, for the sake of integrity if nothing else. Dawesi (talk) 00:54, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Before you continue please read

poison the well against your position. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:00, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

The article was closed as no consensus which I believe is the wrong decision. It should have been deleted. They're was no reason per

• Closing admin I was really torn whether to close this as Delete or No Consensus. The sources exist, but they are not great. Do they fail NCORP? I think it is borderline. In the end I closed it per the status quo, but of course leaving it open to a future AfD at any time. I would certainly have no objection if this DRV were to overturn the close to Delete. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse Vote is split. The key question is if the sources are so bad the closer has to step in. They are not. Many of the sources are independent, well known and reliable. Yes, a lot of this stuff is very positive, but that's not a reason to discount the sources. At the least it is reasonable to claim they meet the requirements of WP:N. I'd say there are plenty that are well over that bar. But that is a higher bar than needed to endorse. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the close of No Consensus:
  • • The AFD was a mix of Keep statements and Delete statements.
    • The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have done a more detailed, more rigorous sort of analysis than is the way AFD is done in Wikipedia. The appellant appears to be saying that the closer should have discounted the Keep statements. That would either be a supervote or would involve a lengthy close analysis that is not normally what is done in Wikipedia.
    • Maybe we should make all of our AFDs more formal, and should insist that all challenged articles meet a higher standard than we currently do. I don't think so, and it would slow down AFD, but it is a position that can be argued. It just should be argued at
      Village Pump
      , not in a DRV of an AFD.
    • The close is the correct conclusion from this AFD.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close of No Consensus, only because AfD guidelines do not require the closer to review the sourcing, only the arguments. And those do not show consensus. Otherwise, this would be a clear keep, based on
  WP:NCORP. A careful reading shows us that "a company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." The multiple, significant sources used to source this article are all reliable and independent, and clearly demonstrate the subject's notability. I'll put this company on a Google alert watch list and add more sources as they appear. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 04:09, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse No consensus is a reasonable close here - I think a delete close would also have brought us to DRV, and I would have endorsed that as well, though I would have expected it to be overturned from the "but there were sources!" crowd. Since this really should have been deleted based on the sourcing available not demonstrating notability, there's nothing wrong with trying again in five or six months if no new sources arise, but I have no issues with the close. SportingFlyer T·C 12:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address failures to follow the deletion process; re-arguing the AFD is not in order. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment How is it possible that the Afd decision can result in no-consensus when the references are so poor. Of the 10 remaining, 8 of them fail
  WP:NCORP, one is a passing mention, and one is paywall. Everybody seems to be endorsing it for non-consensus, when it was clearly shown through a detailed analysis there is no coverage for this small private company. Are you saying that NCORP doesn't matter? scope_creep^Talk 20:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• No, it definitely matters - it just didn't convince quite enough users in this instance, especially with a 3:4 keep:delete vote count, and the 3 keep !voters making arguments regarding the sources that couldn't be discounted easily, especially with the vote count that close, even though as I've noted I don't agree with them. As noted above this isn't a place to relitigate the AfD. SportingFlyer T·C 21:34, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:AGF. Where would be the best place to have a discussion? scope_creep^Talk 09:14, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Look, I understand you're frustrated, but this AfD doesn't seem to be the one you should be upset about, as it had seven attendees and was debated on both sides. Sometimes we make really stupid decisions about what to keep. It doesn't mean you can't try again later. If you still think it's an issue, maybe the village pump? SportingFlyer T·C 13:13, 8 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• AfD is broken for NCORP Here's what is currently happening at NCORP related AfDs. There is a handful of editors that go through each of the sources and point out which ones meet or fail NCORP guidelines. Most times the references will fail for reasons we don't have to go into or even care about here and these editors will !vote to Delete. Invariably, some other editors will !vote to Keep. Some will post links to references and cite from
  HighKing⁺⁺ 19:31, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Well in that case possibly

WP:NCORP no longer reflects community consensus. In my view it should never have been created as an additional guideline leaving people in good faith to follow (or not follow) WP:Notability and disagree about the quality of the references. It would have been better to have had a policy saying WP does not include articles of a promotional nature regarding start-up companies – regardless of references. It should have firmly focussed on the problem. Thincat (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I disagree but even if someone did not agree with the guideline, the place to test consensus isn't at each individual AfD page but at the guideline Talk page. There was a discussion recently at the Talk page of

HighKing⁺⁺ 22:08, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

It is not a case that

WP:NCORP no longer reflects community consensus. It simply a case that a select group of editors are wilfully ignoring it, which is itself against consensus and it needs to be addressed. scope_creep^Talk 22:17, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Lost a longer comment due to an edit conflict. But basic theme: the Washington Post article isn't an interview. It is a (fairly short) article that cites two different people and talks about the company. The WSJ one appears to be the same thing (can't see it all). These are fine sources to build an article around. I think this is a clear keep, but that's not where the discussion got to. And that's how things go here. But I'd say it's the delete !voters who are out of step with our sourcing requirements. Hobit (talk) 22:24, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to hightlight the above. This is a common misunderstanding among editors at AfD.

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

(

HighKing: who voted delete, and seem to be participating in many of the same discussions. Please ping me if you start a new discussion elsewhere - I have a different perspective to add. I'll leave you with this delete close as an example that suggests the process is broken in the other direction. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clover Health A $3.7B public company, which was tapped by Walmart to help the retailer get into the Medicare advantage business, featured in the NY Times, Wall Street Journal, Fast Company and Fortune, multiple times. It may have been targeted because there was a history of UPE. Had I written the article, I'd have taken it to deletion review. But it shows that enough delete votes can overcome clear notability, despite good sourcing. So the process goes both ways. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 22:38, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

I'll point to my comment above. The Clover Health AfD provides a detailed analysis of the sources and it has been pointed out to you why those references fail NCORP. You, on the other hand, chose to deliberately ignore NCORP. On my Talk page, you left this comment on a related issue:

The difference in our interpretation of what’s happening is that there are way more press releases issued than could ever be picked up and re-purposed, which is why I wanted you to take a look at the Businesswire site. My indicator of notability is based on which company’s announcements are picked up.

It is an admission that you don't accept NCORP and are instead substituting your own "indicator of notability". In my opinion, this is disruptive behaviour. If you don't agree with the guidelines or you believe they need to be changed, you should not !vote according to your own opinion - there is an assumption of good faith that when you discuss at AfD, you are not deliberately trying to subvert the process by substituting your own interpretations. It isn't just your fault though - the closers should be better at picking this up but there are many examples where this doesn't seem to be the case. As I said above, NCORP-related AfDs are borked.

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:06, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

This really is off topic, but the Clover Health article looks like a good delete to me. Not that this would have disqualified any articles, but articles stating "X raises €Y in VC" really shouldn't count for notability purposes. SportingFlyer T·C 12:51, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Het

HighKing⁺⁺ 14:28, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

@

HighKing: Respectfully, I've already taken this discussion down one tangent, I'm in no hurry to take it down another tangent. If you think the close was incorrect, discuss it with the closer and post it in a new DRV section; if you think there's an issue with how users are closing NCORP discussions, start a discussion. SportingFlyer T·C 19:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

WP:NCORP, but in many of my responses, I quote from the language directly to show how it is met by the articles. I haven’t seen this acknowledged. TimTempleton ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:11, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

Come off it. Agreeing to bits that suit at one AfD and then ignoring at the next. Posting on my Talk page your rejection of the guidelines and your own misguided interpretation. Even at this AfD you want to use the definition of "Independent" contained at

HighKing⁺⁺ 16:56, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply

]

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

There are substantial procedural errors in the deletion discussion. The page was relisted twice on November 8, 2020 and November 16, 2020 to obtain further discussion and a clearer consensus. No further discussion was generated after more information was added to the page on November 17, 2020, and a clearer consensus was not achieved. AletheaJavon (talk) 02:13, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — AletheaJavon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp |username}}.

• Endorse There is nothing procedurally wrong with closing a discussion that has been re-listed but failed to attract more participants. It was re-listed twice and in total was up for 26 days, yet noone in the AfD ended up !voting keep. It could also have been closed as redirect but I think the closer's reasoning against is fair. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation More information was discovered to substantially add to this page, thus addressing comments in the original deletion discussion. There are recent articles from mainstream media, recent professional endorsements, and recent career history that is verifiable on legitimate websites. I can work to add this information to the page. MikeDmilib (talk) 09:46, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — MikeDmilib (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AletheaJavon (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Allow Recreation There is additional information to add to the page that was deleted. There are articles from the New York Times and other mainstream media sources. The subject also has notable work history on IMDb. The subject meets the notability for
  WP:AUTHOR I can also update the page to reflect these additional sources and the unique contributions in their field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AletheaJavon (talk • contribs) 09:59, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — AletheaJavon (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply
  ]
• Endorse. Properly deleted. No procedural errors. Relisting is irrelevant. Advise interested people to contribute to https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0250284/bio. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:45, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow Recreation The subject of this page is listed as a cast member on a television series with other cast members. Each of those cast members on the aforementioned Wikipedia page has their own Wikipedia listing. EateWilkins (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — EateWilkins (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of AletheaJavon (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Allow Recreation EateWilkins raises a good point. Deleting one cast member's page while allowing the other cast members' pages appears biased. The archived deletion discussion also can be construed as biased, especially regarding a biography of a notable, living person. MikeDmilib (talk) 14:02, 5 December 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: MikeDmilib (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:11, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Sock votes struck. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AletheaJavon. Blablubbs|talk 15:30, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse There are no problems with the close and the closer could not properly close the discussion any other way. Now, it is possible that the article could be sent back to draft space and go through the AFC process, but the close of the AFD is correct. --Enos733 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close was correct. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • • This is a bad-faith filing, as is shown by the
      sockpuppetry
      by the filer, but there isn't a speedy close criterion that applies. If there is any more sockpuppetry, the master should be banned (as opposed to blocked 2 weeks).
    • The filer would have had more of a chance of getting a re-created draft accepted if they hadn't become a sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse and close clearly correct, bad faith DRV, we don't need to sweat this one out. SportingFlyer T·C 20:39, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have preferred this be a redirect and I'll probably add the redirect later. But yeah, otherwise endorse. Hobit (talk) 19:51, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello everyone,I am disagree with deletion article Pavel Stankevych. Because I think he meets criteria. He won a bronze medal on one of the biggest circus festival in Paris.Former artist of Cirque du Soleil.Now working in Las vegas with company Spiegelworld. He was an invited star on German Italian Spain Show Talent.Was invited to show Ellen Dedgeneres because of his viral video. He was working in famous shows in Europe. Behappy 29 (talk) 19:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse The discussion was properly closed though on the light side of participation, and I don't see anything that's changed between the closing of the AfD and now in terms of notability. SportingFlyer T·C 20:26, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• He is equilibrist.He won a bronze medal on one of the famous circus festival.He meets criteria
  WP:ENTBehappy 29 (talk) 15:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• We are not here to have a second AfD but rather to check if the original AfD was closed properly. If you think he's notable, you'll need to write a draft with reliable, independent, secondary sources showing notability. SportingFlyer T·C 10:09, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes i think he is.Sources were added to the article that confirm my words.It does not make sense to make a same draft.Behappy 29 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Deletion review is a place to deal with the deletion process not being properly followed. It is not a place to disagree with deletion decisions for reasons that were already (or could/should have been) raised at the debate itself. Stifle (talk) 14:38, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• If i am not agree with deletion where should i write?Sources were added to the article that confirm my words.Behappy 29 (talk) 15:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - The close properly reflects the consensus of the community. The appellant was tiresome in the AFD and is being tiresome in this DRV. Making the same statement over and over again is not persuasive. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I say the same thing all the time because I i think he meets criteria
  WP:ENT.And have a proof of this in the articleBehappy 29 (talk) 20:54, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Endorse - nothing wrong the close. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]