Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 2014 Deletion review archives January 2015 >

31 December 2014[edit]

30 December 2014[edit]

  • HPI Baja 5B – Just a request for userfication of an A7, so I've gone ahead and done it. No need for a DRV. WilyD 08:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC) – WilyD 08:47, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
HPI Baja 5B (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This might have been deleted in 2007, but since then according to an article in R/C Car Action, it described the car as a unexpected success, meaning that it is likely to pass notability criteria. So rather than create an article from scratch, I assume that it is better to bring this back. Donnie Park (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • XRAY Model Racing Cars – Only two other editors have commented, and none of them advocates overturning the "delete" outcome, so that outcome is maintained in the absence of a consensus to overturn it. There is also no consensus about whether the new sources proposed here are reliable, so any recreation should be preceded by further discussion. –  Sandstein  10:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
XRAY Model Racing Cars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Quoting I see no 3rd party sources to prove notability. So the question is did this editor do any research before considering this which I am doubtful they have. For a start, it won its second world championship title a month ago amongst other supporting links [1] [2][3]. So my rationale is that like a good number of pro-competition brand, also that it has its successes to help notability criteria. Any other articles to claim notability can be found here. Donnie Park (talk) 02:24, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Temporarily restored article history to permit discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:45, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - redrc.com doesn't give any indication I can find of who its writers/editors are, so it's unclear whether it should be regarded as a reliable source. liverc.com does somewhat better here. I think there's room for userfication if someone wants to fix it, but the original close can't be faulted - not sources, stacks of external links, a problem. WilyD 09:21, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The role of redrc.com, as it seems, is that they are more like the R/C racing's equivalent to Twitch.tv but much smaller. I tend to use them as reliable source since I don't buy R/C magazines and the sport does not get any serious news coverages out there, plus its the only way I rely on for racing news is this and RedRC.com and neobuggy.com as they are the other best bet out there for updated news. If not, the next best bet is Radio-Controlled Car Action's blog page, if not their hard copy magazine which isn't that easy to get hold of at where I live or any other hard copy publications, which shouldn't be difficult as they are like I said, a double WC winning brand. If that fails, then hobby shops would be the next best bet. Also, I thought news publications do not always credit its journalists. Donnie Park (talk) 17:54, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I read it like re-creation with those references wouldn't be G4-deleteable, but if they're not enough to meet WP:N, then it's perhaps not worth the effort of re-creation, AfD, deletion. Of course, I'm not familiar with the area, so I'm not positive about the value of the sources. But "Do they credit the author?" and "Do they name their editor?" are two questions, which if answered yes, go a long way to making me think a source is useful to showing notability. That's just like, my opinion, though. WilyD 11:23, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 December 2014[edit]

  • Ultraman_King – To the limited extent anybody other than the requester of this review has offered an opinion, it is to endorse the "redirect" closure. Absent a consensus to overturn it, that outcome therefore remains in force. –  Sandstein  14:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ultraman_King (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ultraman King is a very important character for the Ultraman franchise. He is THE ULTRAMAN , the God of them all. He appears in many Ultraman TV series and movies . Having pages on other ultramen and not Ultraman King is rediculous and is judgement from non fans , not even a tokusatsu fan! Ironically, the original erased Wiki info. on this character is all over the internet (but not on Wiki).

The information on both English and Japanese versions are authentic, they are the same even though they are written by different people (including Japanese, they created the Ultraman franchise) . Anyone who are the fans of Ultraman will tell you the info. on the original page are authentic. Sources?? Well, I can give you the third party sources for every single info. on that page.

"There is no current assertion for future improvement of the article,"

further improvement?? You can be sure there will be new info. regarding the character. Ultraman is a franchise, there will be new TV series , new movies , etc .

Deleting the article is like deleting stand alone pages for Luke Skywalker or Darth Vader for the Star Wars articles. 205.206.217.74 (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • The problem with the article is that Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to consist entirely of plot summaries from some fictional universe. If you're writing about a fictional character then you need to include something else as well. Take a look at our article on Darth Vader: although there is plot summary there it also has plenty of discussion of the creation of the character and its cultural impact, which is why any attempt to delete the article on these grounds would fail. Articles which are entirely plot summary get deleted or merged/redirected to another page about that fictional universe, as this one was.
    To address the problem you need to show that it's possible to write an acceptable article about this character which isn't entirely plot summary, in particular pointing to suitable sources we could use for the non-plot summary parts. That's the "improvement" the AfD was talking about. That there will be future fictional works to write plot summaries for or that the character is prominent in the fictional universe don't help. Hut 8.5 11:27, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no plot in the article , at least not in the Japanese version of the Wiki page.Unless there was something substantially changed in the article the last few months . The article I last read contained appearances of King in different episodes. It contained his power , weapons he used , his ability ,etc. The article had been on Wiki for many years. Suddenly , Wiki has a lot of "absurd" rules possibly dictated by some volunteers. No offense , that reminds me of someone is trying to look busy at work. Do we have people just graduated from some college? Whoever erased the Japanese version of this article, does he/she even read Japanese ?? The Japanese version of the article contains even more in depth info. than the English version, with references, now it is all gone , it is a disastrous decision, it will take a long time and many volunteers to submit those info. again.

The article to which King page is directed even has a complaint about it being too long. Come on, several paragraphs?? I read pages with hi-tech/scientific info. much longer than that. Yes, there is a plot, becuase it is a movie , what else the page can talk about with the movie name as the title of the page. My point is not only about the King article, it is the whole atmosphere within the Wiki volunteer group. Nothing wrong with improving the Wiki site, the information site; but lately, they are taking INFORMATION away in the name of some absurd rules. It is ironic that there are many Ultraman sites with King's info. based on (if not copies of ) the original Wiki page, but the source of the info. is erased from Wiki. I also think it is absurd that only one if not a few people decide which articles are to be erased , even they are not experts in or fans of those topics/subjects. These people don't think about the effect of erasing an article ; also, I can't only see a few people even taking part in the so-called discussion before the page was erased. I am only complaining about this for Wiki's benefits. I can easily goto other sites in which more info. are available. You guys are "taking info." away, the "pedia" part of Wikipedia is gone.


— Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.217.74 (talk) 21:19, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article did not contain anything other than an in-universe description of the character's role in various fictional works. That is what WP:NOT#PLOT is trying to prevent. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate collection of information, as you will discover from clicking on that link. This rule is not new and has been in place for at least eight years. Articles about films can and should have information beyond in-universe description of plot elements - things like information on the making of the film, reception, cultural impact, etc. Hut 8.5 23:34, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

RESPONSE:

"did not contain anything other than an in-universe description of the character's role in various fictional works"

Because whoever thinks that isn't a fan of the Ultraman franchise. Firstly , that is not the case, as I said, it has plenty of description about the character himself (power ability , some background); also whoever thinks that doesn't read Japanese. Secondly, that is what he is , the character was invented for such cases, he doesn't have any TV series / movie on his own, he sppears in other ultramen TV series , specials and movies; he is also an important character in the Ultraman universe, he helps and guilds others , in many ways , he is still mysterious. He is the God of all Ultramen and how can one talk about ultraman without a stand alone page on this character, he IS the ultraman. There are plenty of standalone Ultraman pages on Wiki (Noa , Leo , ....etc ), if they can have stand-alone pages, Ultraman King definitely qualifies for one.

You can't just use one rule for everything, rather robotic. As I said, it is like there are a group of students or recent graduates in the editor roles. Are you guys from some English/journalism department in some universities??

I do not know all the rules and guildlines in Wiki but I come to Wiki for the info. The Japanese version of the page is very imformative (even way beyond the English version) , some are even from someones who are true fans of the franchise. I can say that erasing the Japanese version of the page was a major mistake. Some of the Japanese references are hard to find. You are discouraging Japanese from submitting valuable information. They know best for these tokusatsu shows, they created them.

Even if that is the case (not comforming with all the stupid rules), one can rewrite the articles rather than erasing the pages.

I certainly have no problems with the articles and I do not see many readers who are complaining but only the "Jedi council" is, they make the decision for the majority of the readers. I understand there are rules to keep the place "clean and neat" but as I said, in this case, it is rather robotic. It is a shame that both versions of the page (among others of other topics ) are deleted , Wiki has thrown away a lot of valuable information which is what I and probably the majority care.

As I said , it is ridiculous that many other web sites have the information based on or are copies of the original Wiki pages, but Wiki has erased them. Anyway, I sense there is some politics behind erasing pages for this character and is wasting time here for so call appeal, it doesn't look like they are going to be reloaded and a waste of time to re-create them only to be erased again.

  • Endorse, the article was pretty much just WP:PLOT, and there doesn't seem to be any error with the closure of the discussion itself. If you want to write an article on this character, I suggest putting together a draft that outlines the real world notability of the character (the Darth Vader article, noted above, is a good example of what's expected), and then bring the draft here for recreation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:28, 1 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

RESPONSE:

It is impossible to write about the character in the same way as the Vader's article. Ultraman King wasn't written and created like that (The Ultraman franchise is not the Star Wars franchise, the former is a Japanese creation, the latter is a western creation, there is cultural differences). That's why I know you guys are not Ultraman fans and yet you guys determined that the article should be erased. Anyway, as I said, all valuable information is lost (particularly the Japanese version), impossible to rewrite even though I know where all the information comes from, but finding the details of the references is difficult . I have not saved the Japanese version of the article in which many references were included, or I could reproduce the English version from that, but I don't have the time to redo all the works input by others over the years. Although there are many English versions (copied from or quoted from Wiki) out there on the internet , most of them contain no references. This is a great loss of information for Wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.206.217.74 (talk) 14:31, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 December 2014[edit]

27 December 2014[edit]

26 December 2014[edit]

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

There was NO consensus to delete this article, in fact if you look at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jayden Jaymes the majority voted to KEEP. A couples of persons (a minority) voted to delete, and an other unilaterally decided to ignore all arguments to keep the article, and unilaterally decided the article should be deleted. This is NOT the way how this works. The result should have been no consensus or keep. I will thus appeal to restore the contended article. -- fdewaele, 26 December 2014, 23:59 CET.

  • Endorse I was also considering closing this and also decided for "delete", but by that time, it had already been closed. Correct reading of discussion. fdewaele is reminded that AfD is not a vote. --Randykitty (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Well known individual. I say keep them on wikipedia. Winner of multiple awards. GNG and Pornbio notable.

PornBio states
Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration. Yes AVN fan award, Best Group Scene [4] Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent. Undetermined Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media. Yes [5] [6] CrazyAces489 (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC) (note that CrazyAces amended his comment after my post below. [7] Spartaz Humbug! 00:13, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • CrazyAces489 if you want people to take anything you say here even the slightest bit seriously you are going to have to use a policy based argument instead of, frankly, worthless assertions. Spartaz Humbug! 22:00, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are having a laugh aren't you? You just quoted PORN bio excludes scene awards and then try to claim a scene award to say she passes it, the answer to 2 is no not undertermined and I don't you can seriously be suggesting that a youtube video is the same as being featured multiple times in mainstream media. This really is the most rediculous argument I have ever seen employed. Are you sure this isnt some kind of idiotic performance art? Spartaz Humbug! 00:09, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • sorry for trying I guess I will stick to martial arts articles. Sadly many people here don't like my articles in that genre either. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Although I voted Keep -lets be honest - Other than Rebeccas !vote - No one explained how the hell she passed GNG + PORNBIO, We all may as well have put "Keep - Because she's notable" .... Truth be told we all fucked it up spectacularly - I get the noms pissed off but it was all our own doing really!. –Davey2010 Merry Xmas / Happy New Year 00:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article: Jaymes passes WP:PORNBIO criteria #1; she won an AVN Award (which is well-known and significant) for Best Body - Fan Award (not a scene-related or ensemble category). The AfD only had two delete votes and only one of those argued that consensus determining this award is not well-known/significant existed, but did not cite a single discussion to prove it. As someone who has participated in or at least read nearly every porn biography AfD these last two years, I have never seen the purported consensus. The other delete voter claimed she failed PORNBIO criteria #3; "Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media", which Jaymes also passes (was the subject of a True Life episode; entire episode, not just a "brief appearance", appeared on LA Weekly, several appearances in mainstream films & music videos, etc.). Also, the second delete voter didn't even acknowledge PORNBIO criteria #1 or her award. Both delete votes are flawed. Rebecca1990 (talk) 07:17, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - not only is AFD not a vote, DRV isn't AFD: Round II. If you didn't make your case convincingly at AFD, DRV isn't designed to give you another bite at the cherry. When that's the case, coming here and arguing the closer got in wrong isn't reasonable. You'd be better off accepting you got it wrong and asking for permission to recreate the article. St★lwart111 09:07, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is not a problem of not making the case convincingly. We argue that we did. The problem is that the (ignored) majority clearly agued that she passes PORNBIO, even giving a reason as she won multiple AVN awards, amongst which an individual AVN award, and the closer just ignores all that and substituted his/her personal opinion for the majority view and closed the article, while there clearly is no consenus for that. How can a majority argue convincingly when the opposite side won't see any reason or accept contrary arguments? -- fdewaele, 27 December 2014, 10:25
The suggestion that the fan award was sufficient was comprehensively argued against. Yes it is vs. no it isn't and here's why (with little rebuttal). You might argue that you did but in ignoring the main arguments of the "delete side", you really didn't. St★lwart111 11:38, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's not true as it was argued against convincingly by Rebecca in the AfD. There is no consensus to exclude body awards or AVN's fan awards from PORNBIO. Plus the award in question is notable enough to be mentioned in a newspaper. This remains a case where the few impose their view/personal opinion on the majority which disagrees with it. Turning the tables I can say thus as easily say that the minority didn't convincingly argue against the majority view. -- fdewaele, 27 December 2014, 12:52
The closer wasn't convinced, nor is anyone here beyond you and the person you say argued convincingly (and someone who doesn't seem to understand the purpose of DRV). Even someone who opined in favour of keeping the article has endorsed the deletion decision here (an AFD regular, no less). That's usually a pretty good indication that the closer got it right. Saying it multiple times doesn't make it more true; nobody else seems to agree that the closer was at fault. A number of people, on the other hand, have agreed that AFD participants were. St★lwart111 23:45, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There was clearly no consensus generated by the AFD. Arguments Pro and Contra were made and a majority well argued pro, a minority contra. If you say the pro arguments weren't convincing, the contra arguments certainly weren't either. In the past when a situation exact like this in an AFD arose, the AFD was closed and filed under “No Consensus”. See for instance Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carmella Bing (2nd nomination) or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jessica Jaymes, which to be honest were far weaker articles than this one. The closer should have done the same for the contended article instead of deleting it. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:40
That kind of misses the point. The closer (with no prior knowledge and with only the comments in the AFD to guide him) came to the opinion that there was consensus among participants that the article should be deleted. You can disagree with that. Personally, I would have closed it the same way. You can disagree with that too. On that basis, my opinion is that the closer's opinion was within the bounds of reasonableness and discretion. You can (you see where I'm going here) disagree with that too. We appoint administrators do do exactly this kind of work - judge consensus based on arguments and opinions and policy. You can disagree with their assessment, but that doesn't make their assessment wrong. I should point out that the close also doesn't make your assessment wrong. It's just that in this instance, your assessment was different to that of the community and of the closing administrator. As I said originally, you may be better waiting and simply asking for permission (here) to recreate it later on. Borderline cases are likely to suffer other issues anyway. Best we just be merciful, let them go and work on some cool necromancy later on (I'm getting a bizarre zombie stripper vibe now). St★lwart111 10:54, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion discussions are not closed according to the majority vote. The closer didn't "unilaterally decide to ignore all arguments to keep the article, and unilaterally decided the article should be deleted". They decided that the arguments in favour of deletion were stronger than those for keeping the article, and closed the debate accordingly. This is what the closer is supposed to do (WP:DGFA) and it looks like a reasonable judgement in this situation. Hut 8.5 17:14, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: How were the delete votes more convincing than the keep votes? There were two delete votes and only one of those acknowledged her award win. This delete voter claimed that consensus excluding this award from PORNBIO exists, but did not provide a single discussion to prove it, all the closing admin had was his word and no proof. Here are all the AVN fan award recipients of non scene-related/ensemble categories (the only categories excluded from PORNBIO):
  • 2011: Jenna Haze & Alektra Blue
  • 2012: Riley Steele
  • 2013: Riley Steele & April O'Neil (actress)
  • 2014: Jayden Jaymes, Kagney Linn Karter, Riley Steele, James Deen, LittleRedBunny, Alexis Texas, Lisa Ann, Christy Mack, & Lexi Belle

All of them have WP articles except for LittleRedBunny and now Jayden Jaymes. An article for LittleRedBunny/Little Red Bunny has never been created and there is no AfD for her, so where could this purported discussion & consensus to exclude this award possibly exist? It doesn't exist. This delete voter also claimed that the award was created last year, which is not true. I agree that AfD is not a majority/minority vote, its about how convincing the votes are, but how could the closing admin consider a dishonest delete vote convincing? Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:12, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The comment you've linked to doesn't claim there is any specific consensus that this award doesn't meet PORNBIO. It said, much more generally, that "body/body parts awards have been regularly rejected in past discussions, whatever the awarding organization". Pointing to a lack of AfD discussions on recipients of this particular award does nothing to refute that. Pointing to the existence of other articles isn't considered a very good argument, here or at AfD, and the articles you linked to may well have other evidence for notability beyond this award. It is not true that PORNBIO only excludes scene-related and ensemble categories, it also excludes any award which isn't deemed "well-known and significant" (which I think was the argument here). Even if the comment is wrong about the year that's hardly reason to invalidate the close. Hut 8.5 11:47, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You are contradicting yourself. On the one hand you claim that we don't disprove his stance, on the other hand he (or you) clearly doesn't have to prove your points. Merely claiming something to be such or so, doesn't make it true either. The fact is PORNBIO states the following:
1.Has won a well-known and significant industry award. Awards in scene-related and ensemble categories are excluded from consideration.
2.Has made unique contributions to a specific pornographic genre, such as beginning a trend in pornography; starred in an iconic, groundbreaking or blockbuster feature; or is a member of an industry Hall of Fame such as the AVN Hall of Fame, XRCO Hall of Fame or equivalent.
3.Has been featured multiple times in notable mainstream media.
Nowhere does PORNBIO state that body awards are to be excluded. That is something which it clearly doesn't say, but is personal opinion or taste. In any case there is no consensus about excluding this category as well, so in that case the article should get the benefit of the doubt. -- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 12:53.
It's not that Rebecca1990's comment above "doesn't disprove his stance", it's that it completely misses the point. It takes a phrase from a comment left in the AfD, mischaracterises it, shows that there can't be any evidence for the mischaracterised version and concludes that the comment must have been left in bad faith. I admit I don't have enough experience in this area to say whether the original claim of consensus is right, but what you've quoted above doesn't show that there isn't one or that the idea isn't compatible with our notability guidelines. And before people get hung up on this point I should also say that this wasn't even the only argument offered against the award at AfD. Hut 8.5 14:19, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, HW's argument was that "body/body parts awards have been regularly rejected in past discussions, whatever the awarding organization". Here's the thing: while there may be several award ceremonies with body/body part categories in the porn industry, only two of those pass the well-known/significant criteria in PORNBIO; AVN and the Fans of Adult Media and Entertainment Award. Every recipient of the FAME award's body/body part categories (they're listed in the FAME awards WP article) also has a WP article. So, where are the discussions resulting in consensus to exclude body/body part awards from PORNBIO? Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:17, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Again the fact that we have an article on everyone who's won, say, "Favorite Ass" doesn't mean that all these people are notable or that they are notable because they won the award. They may have other accomplishments beyond having the "Favorite Ass". I don't think your claim that "well-known and significant" is equivalent to "AVN or FAME" is accurate. Hut 8.5 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you see the problem here? The closing admin deleted this article over a dishonest delete vote. One user's personal opinion is not consensus. I have provided evidence to prove that the purported consensus does not exist and the delete voter (who I assume is aware that this DRV is taking place since I can see him participating in Jerome Mackey's DRV below) has not even tried to refute it. He also didn't respond to my comment on his delete vote in the AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:19, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop accusing people of dishonesty. Even if this comment was wrong (which I certainly don't think you've demonstrated) that doesn't mean it was left in bad faith. Again this wasn't the only argument put up against the award in the AfD and the article wasn't deleted because of it. I also think you're overestimating the enthusiasm of other editors for long heated discussions about the notability of minor porn actors. Hut 8.5 10:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse lets be honest here. Rebecca votes keep with spurious grounds on almost every porn afd they participate in irrespective of where the reality of PORNBIO sits for that individual. That gives them zero credibility when it comes to arguing to keep something.nwhat we had was another inadequately sourced BLP of a porn performer and we have a clear meta consensus that we should not keep inadequately sourced blps. This was the corect outcome. Spartaz Humbug! 15:04, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can the nominator explain why they mad no effort to discuss the close with the closing admin prior to raising the DRV and why they didn't have even the most basic courtesy to notify them. An oversight I have now rectified. *sniff* not very classy. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest: why should I? It's not a requirement, and in his closing statement the closer referred to this medium. Plus I left a message on the AFD's talk page. Plus Randykitty explicitly referred to take this to DRV. Besides, it's not as if the closer had the courtesy to announce his intent to close to us before he did it. We were faced with a fait accompli. The closer never participated in the debate and just closed it. And due to the way his closing statement was formulated, it's clear he wasn't interested in (any) debate. How can you debate with a man who just won't see reason? Who blindly parrots the deleters viewpoints and dismisses offhandedly any contrary view, no matter how well founded. The people who want to keep this article have almost been accused of "fabricating" arguments. I can say the same of the deleters and closers: they see a general rule, where clearly there isn't. They interpret PORNBIO in a way for which there certainly is no consensus but don't give any contrary proof. They say, the PORNBIO criteria are not met, while clearly they are. How do you convince a person who hasn't got any interest to be convinced or to have an open mind?-- fdewaele, 28 December 2014, 23:16.
For someone with almost 15,000 edits behind their belt, you obviously have a very limited understanding of AfD and DRV. A closer is not supposed to have participated in the debate, that would make them involved and prohibit them from closing. And an AfD can be closed at any moment after the required 7 days have passed. And I "referred" you in taking this to AfD after you had vandalized the AfD with a personal attack against the closer. Be glad you didn't get blocked for that one! --Randykitty (talk) 23:05, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want your opinion to count for anything, you'll have to familiarize yourself with what DRV is about and do a bit better than "per argument above". DRV is even less of a !vote than AfD... --Randykitty (talk) 23:08, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the arguments above, so, what to do? copy arguments by other users and paste to my post? Sorry but no. Subtropical-man talk
(en-2) 23:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree with my argument that this article failed both PORNBIO and the GNG and should be deleted as an inadequately sourced BLP? Spartaz Humbug! 00:15, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's disingenuous. Of course he doesn't, otherwise he would have voted endorse in stead of restore. But I can appreciate that when one agrees with comments or arguments made, you endorse those comments in stead of copy-pasting them. What's the surplus value of that? -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 9:46
  • Comment by closing admin. I can see why this was brought here: because of the number of keep votes - indeed, at one point it was closed as keep because there were no delete voices other than the nominator. But that close was felt to be a little too early, and was self-reverted on request. As sometimes does happen in an AfD discussion, things turned (which is why we do stress that a full seven days are given), and some pertinent policy based arguments were given as to why the article didn't meet inclusion criteria. On examining the arguments, and checking the relevant inclusion criteria and the quality of the sources (as these were raised in the discussion), I found the delete arguments convincing. I explained this in a closing statement as I felt that would be helpful given the circumstances. The main argument for keeping the article was that the subject of the article had won a well-known and significant industry award: AVN Best Body. The award is sourced to the AVN website rather than an independent source - a search on the internet threw up only a few mentions on porn blogs - I couldn't see mentions in regular mainstream independent reliable sources; I checked our own article on the AVN Awards, but the award is not mentioned there either. I saw no sign that this award is either well known or significant. Without evidence in the article that the award was significant, without evidence in the article that the subject was notable, without sufficient independent reliable sources mentioning the subject in sufficient depth, I concluded that the keep arguments did not sufficiently stand up to scrutiny, and my own researches into the matter supported that conclusion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 23:48, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that the burden of proof lies on the keep side and not on the delete side, and I did provide mainstream sources as evidence of notability for this award in the AfD; Las Vegas Sun & LA Weekly. What did the delete voter provide? An unfounded claim that the award has consensus on WP to exclude it from PORNBIO. Where are these discussions? They don't exist, if they did he would have provided a link to them since he has a habit of doing that. And I've done my research (above) on WP and have found that every single recipient of body/body part fan voted awards from AVN and FAME (both well-known/significant ceremonies) has a WP article. Not a single one of them has had their article deleted and the purported discussion cannot possibly exist. Why are you all still giving this delete voter any credibility. There were several false statements made in his vote: 1. lied about the year the award was created, 2. lied about the existence of a discussion that obviously does not exist, & 3. claimed that Jaymes only had a "brief appearance" in the True Life episode, which is also not true. Rebecca1990 (talk) 04:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Appearing in is not featured according to the dictionary it means have as an important actor or participant. We exclude our own views as OR, so where are the sources to show she was an important actor or participant? Are there any reviews of her performance? The number of times the pro-porn fan club try to twist even the most fleeting appearance into featured beyond any reasonable interpretation suggests I need to go backto PORNBIO and tighten the wording. Spartaz Humbug! 09:18, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Jaymes's appearance on the True Life episode was not minor or brief. The episode is titled "I'm Addicted to Porn" and it features the stories of three people: porn star Jayden Jaymes, and two men who are struggling with an addiction to porn. Being the topic of 1/3 of that entire episode qualifies as "featured" and True Life qualifies as "notable mainstream media". She was also featured in an LA Weekly article, which is also "notable mainstream media". The word "multiple" means "consisting of, including, or involving more than one", so she meets the "multiple times" requirement of PORNBIO's criteria #3. Regarding her True Life appearance, you asked if there were "any reviews of her performance", and indeed there are. Rebecca1990 (talk) 13:26, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is this site reliable? The review of her performance is barely 4-5 lines and the site appears to include user submitted material and be connected to gawker in some way. This wouldn't be my killer blow to overturn a discussion and I'm not really persuaded that this review is enough to say that she has been featured multiple times in mainstream media. Spartaz Humbug! 16:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is the third time I'm providing the link for the True Life episode. I get the feeling that no one here has watched it or even clicked on the link. The episode is 41:42 minutes long. This episode's format is to jump from one story to another and come back to it later instead of just showing the whole story continuously. Jayden Jaymes's introduction is from 00:55-01:33 and her appearances are at 02:40-06:40, 14:20-16:50, 22:40-24-50, 31:15-33:00, and 35:20-37:50. Jaymes's story lasted a total of 13:33 minutes, which is 1/3 of the episode. That's a prominent appearance, not a minor one. And the Jezebel (website) article wasn't user submitted, it was written by Tracie Egan Morrissey, a journalist who recently began working for Vice (magazine) ([8]). Rebecca1990 (talk) 21:28, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD is not a majority vote. Notability was borderline at best. I accept that the closing admin decided in favor of deletion from policy-based arguments. Several of the keep votes were unsupported assertions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So in your opinion it's right for the delete side to make - what you call - "unsupported assertions"? Because that's what they were... As stated multiple times above, not a single proof for their assertions was ever given, and those assertions have been debunked, both here and in the AFD. Sorry but that seems a bit of a double standard to me... -- fdewaele, 29 December 2014, 10:00
As any student of philosophy knows, it is impossible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist. Similarly, we cannot prove absence of notability. The onus therefore is on those arguing in favor of notability to prove that with reliable sources. If there were sources saying "Mr Doe is not notable", that would actually be proof of notability :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:32, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have opened a discussion of the meaning of PORNBIO#3 to see if we can clarify the meaning of this section. All invited to add their views as its something that seems relevent to this discussion. Here. Spartaz Humbug! 16:51, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It might be equally relevant to have a renewed discussion of just what awards count for notability. Awards can be a more easily discerned criterion than "appearances in mainstream media", where the significance in each will often be to some extenta matter of judgment. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the consensus of editors at the AfD has once again determined that PORNBIO doe snot cover every single minor and sundry smut award. And for the love of Buddha/Jehovah/Flying Spaghetti Monster, will someone take "Rebecca1990" to ANI and propose a topic ban already? If this editor isn't a paid shill for AVN or some related PR firm or whatnot, I'll eat my shorts. Tarc (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus? I already pointed out that the AfD's delete vote was dishonest. The award is notable. There's mainstream media articles noting it's importance. A Las Vegas Sun article covering the AVN awards show states that there were 144 awards given out at the 2013 ceremony, but only specifies the winners of the top 7 categories: Female Performer of the Year, Male Performer of the Year, Crossover Star of the Year, Best Celebrity Sex Tape, Best Membership Site, Favorite Porn Star, and Favorite Body. That last one is the same award Jayden Jaymes won. 7 out of 144 awards being worthy of notice in a mainstream newspaper is evidence of notability. Notice that the other categories mentioned are some of the industry's utmost important/well-known/significant awards and you'll realize this isn't just a random listing of awards. And why are you suggesting I get topic banned? I'm not a publicist and I have voted to keep WP articles on porn stars I dislike. I'm also not a fan of Jayden Jaymes at all and certainly not her publicist either. Rebecca1990 (talk) 09:23, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that was a consensus I’ll - to paraphrase you - eat my shorts. There clearly – until the end - was no consensus reached at all, as anyone with an open mind reading the AFD can see. Plus leave out the personal attacks. Rebecca1990 has just as much right to defend her viewpoints as the next (wo)man. Just accept that not everybody is as narrowminded regarding this topic or has to share the same opinions as you. Remember what Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Otherwise an open and honest discussion becomes impossible. – fdewaele, 30 December 2014, 10:25.
I love porn as much as the next guy or girl; what I do not like is an online encyclopedia being co-opted by the porn industry to serve as free advertising for its clients. As for this editor, it is a single-purpose account, and will be called out as such. Tarc (talk) 13:30, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Having a "niche interest" isn't the same as being on the payroll of the (porn) industry as you are clearly inferring. WP:SPA is very clear on that. I've still to see the proof of the Rebecca account being exact such a straw-man account. I certainly don't agree with Rebecca in each AFD, but as far as I'm concerned unless there is such proof, these are merely baseless accusations and slurs, targeted at undermining contributions of a certain editor in discussions. After all, it is an ancient tactic that if you throw enough mud, some of it sticks -- fdewaele, 30 December 2014, 14:47 CET.
Like I've said before Tarc, I don't work for the porn industry. Whether you believe me or not, I still didn't create Jayden Jaymes's article and I made very few contributions to it while it was around. I also doubt that the article was created by Jaymes or a publicist. There was nothing promotional about it, it was simply a biography on a notable porn star. I would also like to know why no one on here has acknowledged the Las Vegas Sun article I've provided as evidence of the award's notability. In past DRV discussions, I've been asked to provide sources like these and now that I have one, it's ignored. How can you claim that the award is not notable when we have a mainstream newspaper like Las Vegas Sun acknowledging it in an elite list of only 7 out of 144 awards? This is a well-known and significant award and as a recipient of one, Jaymes passes WP:PORNBIO and WP:ANYBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Slow Clap. This is better than your usual "but but but she was nominated 2 times for best 30-way sex scene!" line of argumentation, but at the end of the day the Vegas Sun is just local coverage, with no wider scope or significance to the rest of the world. Tarc (talk) 14:35, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have NEVER argued to keep a WP article based on scene-related/ensemble categories because those are excluded from PORNBIO. Best Body is not a scene-related/ensemble category. And you can't disregard Las Vegas Weekly just because the AVN awards take place in Las Vegas. Read the last paragraph in WP:LOCALFAME, which states "some subjects' notability may be limited to a particular country, region, or culture. However, arguments that state that because a subject is unknown or not well known among English readers it should not have an article encourage a systemic bias on Wikipedia. To avoid this systemic bias, Wikipedia should include all notable topics, even if the subject is not notable within the English speaking population or within more populous or Internet-connected nations. Likewise, arguments that state that because a subject is lesser known or even completely unknown outside a given locality does not mean the subject is not notable." Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:04, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In that spirit one can also argue that the New York Times, the Boston Globe, the Washington Post, and so on... are all also local newspapers and should be excluded as sources. The question always - regardless of topic and of the notability of the edit in question - is whether there is an independent media source corroborating the edit. Any independent newspaper can be such a source. There is no requirement for it to be one of the "major" media sources. -- fdewaele, 30 December 2014, 16:22 CET.
One could argue such a thing, as long as one does not mind being ridiculed as a gormless git, sure. A porn convention in Vegas is about as run-of-the-mill as one can get; no one, outside of Vegas, cares that they got mentioned, and it isn't enough to meet the notability requirements of this project. Once upon a time these sorts of bios were allowed around here, but thankfully things have tightened up a tad over the years. Bios for obscure porn poptarts are no longer a part of the Wikipedia's goals. Tarc (talk) 05:47, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. More than reasonable close measuring expressed opinions against policy in a discussion of a BLP. Even though Rebecca1990 has decided has decided my avoiding time-consuming, unpleasantly contentious matters during the holidays somehow authorizes her to engage in groundless personal attacks, I'm not going to return fire right here, right now. As others, including at least two admins, have noted, her behavior in prior deletion discussion has been marked by "appalling" bad faith, and others may draw their own conclusions in this matter. Long, painful community discussions at PORNBIO demonstrated consensus that both the awarding organization and the award category were to be taken into account in determining whether a specific award met the PORNBIO criterion. According to our own article about last year's AVN Awards, the old fan award categories were done away with and new ones created; "the categories themselves were completely changed". Rebecca's edited the article on several occasions since that text was written, and presumably would have corrected it if it were wrong. And if this were such an important award, why isn't AVN even giving it out any more!? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:35, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jerome Mackey – The "delete" closure is endorsed. This is without prejudice to somebody – probably somebody else – writing a non-promotional article about the subject, whose notability can then be evaluated anew based on the sources cited. –  Sandstein  12:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jerome Mackey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Delete per arguments provided by "delete" !votes and per WP:TNT CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:27, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe a consensus was reached. It was barely a majority vote of 50/50. I would like this reviewed. Worse case scenario I would like the article userfied so that I can utilize any updates over the past few months. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as closer. I am not going to restore this even for this DRV (but will not object if another admin judges differently), given the highly promotional nature of this article. If I had seen it before it was taken to AfD, I would have speedily deleted it as G11. As for the AfD, the delete !votes were well argued and policy-based, the keep !votes much less (and some literally stated "I like this article"). WP:NOTAVOTE. See also the related discussion on my talk. --Randykitty (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What do you consider to be promotional? The schools are closed, and the only thing that he does now is apparently sell his books. He was the first individual to have a franchise martial arts schools in America. His schools qualified for inclusion based on WP:MANOTE. There is the problem of separating him from his schools because his schools had the same name as him. CrazyAces489 (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Probably do need a temporary undelete. Can you source the franchise claim? And can we get a list of what you would consider to be reliable sources for this article? Hobit (talk) 04:08, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Franchise claims Jan 1974 Black Belt Magazine "Jerome Mackey is to self-defense what Colonel Sanders is to fried Chiecken," says PEter Berchley in his New York Sunday News Article, "Maestro of the Martial Arts?" [9] Jerome Mackey was a judo instructor and was one of the first to franchise karate schools in the U.S. [10] Jerome Mackey's Judo Inc is the General Motors of its field - the largest, most elaborate, most comfortable and most successful dojo in New York. - New York Magazine Oct 1971 Jerome Mackey introduces franchise martial arts to the United States. The Mackey clubs remained influential in New York and New Jersey into the 1970s, when a stock swindle forced their closure. A Chronological History of the Martial Arts and Combative Sports 1940-now [11]
I don't have the total list as the article was deleted, but Sports Illustrated, Black Belt Magazine, NY Times, Look Magazine, etc. CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the nom's abominable previous record with userfied articles - cut and pasting them into mainspace under different titles to avoid scrutiny and to make it appear as if he was the sole author, after no improvement to the previously deleted article except for formatting changes - I'm going to decline temp undeletion too. I won't object to another admin doing so either, but please think long and hard about it first. —Cryptic 07:13, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to being helped with userfied articles. Some of my userfied articles have made a transition into mainspace such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taraje_Williams-Murray Geo Omori https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/GeoOmori . If someone were to help me with doing some of the work or at least show me how to move them properly, I would welcome it. I like most everyone here work and don't have the time to fully dedicate to wikipedia. I don't want to make it seem like I am the sole author. Wikipedia is a community and we all work together. I was given the advice on a Ron Duncan article to move to mainspace and create an AFD. Also what is the process for deleting a userfied article? Thank you. CrazyAces489 (talk) 07:29, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Given the abominable nature of the text, I don't believe the closer's decision to delete rather than to gut-and-stub was outside the range of routine discussion. It's also curious that neither the current userspace version of the article nor the Google cache version mentions the matters discussed in this [12] or this [13], greatly buttressing the closer's conclusion that the deleted version was constructed as a promotional piece rather than an appropriately balanced BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:42, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaballoo, There isn't a major mention of this in the article, but I am in no way opposed to talking about the court cases. The schools were closed due to a stock fraud as noted in the user version. [14] Also the Children of the Lost Sheep was a social program that wanted to end homelessness. I was focused on the martial arts aspects of the schools rather than the lost sheep. I have no issue putting it in the article. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hullaboo, OMG, I am reading this and the Temple is far more than I thought it was. Thank you. I didn't know it appears to be a cult. CrazyAces489 (talk) 01:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I added some information concerning the 2 of 3 lawsuits that he was a party to. The Temple of the Lost Sheep, the mail fraud but not much more on the stock fraud. [15] . I am requesting someone to userfy the deleted article so that I can merge information and make the article less of a promotional piece (which is what the problem is stated as being). CrazyAces489 (talk) 11:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with liberty to recreate, starting with a carefully-sourced stub. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 14:06, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've restored the history to help the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore/Endorse Reasonable close given the discussion. However, the topic easily meets WP:N. The whole lawsuit was about RS coverage, so that exists even if we can't easily find it on-line. Plus the other coverage, we are well above WP:N. And while the article at the time was poor (and the draft isn't a whole lot better), we don't generally delete for that reason unless it's hugely promotional (it wasn't) or we believe we are in WP:TNT range, which I don't think we are. Hobit (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 December 2014[edit]

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

I believe the closing administrator interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The way I see it, the consensus was to delete the redirect as created for no valid reason, see the relevant editing guideline, and in violation of the WP:POVNAME policy. I attempted to discuss the matter with the editor who closed the discussion.[16] S/he hinted that Plowback retained earnings is one of the "redirects that shouldn't've been created, but should also not be deleted once created" thus convincing me the decision to close as "no consensus" was made in disregard of the policy- and guideline-based arguments presented during the discussion. I'd like to request that the closure be reviewed. Iaritmioawp (talk) 08:52, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your rationale is inconsistent with the established practice as it's based largely on your personal opinions ("RfD zen," "I saw no evidence of harm") rather than on what was said during the deletion discussion. Allow me to remind you that "[t]he closer is not to be a judge of the issue, but rather of the argument." You should've stated your opinion during the discussion rather than use it as the unspoken closing rationale—I say "unspoken" because your closing statement contained no explanation of why you (mis)interpreted the consensus the way you did. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Whether or not we have this redirect is unimportant. The closer could have closed the discussion pretty much any way and would have been within my view of discretion. However, another relisting would not have been a very good idea. Thincat (talk) 19:36, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, closing discussions in disregard of policy-based arguments is perfectly fine as long as the discussion subject is "unimportant?" Endorsing a closure solely because of its perceived low impact defies the purpose of deletion review which is to evaluate the closer's interpretation of the consensus. Iaritmioawp (talk) 20:28, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm that you have used other words. Thincat (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - no real policy arguments for deletion other than that it's implausible, but the discussion was undecided about how plausible it is. Whether it's plausible is for the community to decide, not the closing admin, and they rightly deferred to the lack of consensus on that point. WilyD 12:44, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Four editors participated in the discussion; three out of the four participants expressed the opinion that the redirect isn't useful. The one editor that disagreed failed to substantiate his claim of the redirect's usefulness when his opinion was challenged, and thus his comment should've been discarded by the closing administrator as unhelpful unhelpful. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably, the IP is just one of the participants who failed to log in. The editors who claimed it was useless equally failed to justify their opinion after the assertion that it's implausible was challenged; if you're going to disgard all the opinions on usefullness, you're left with essentially no information at all. Possibly, in a strict by the policies interpretation, you could use the absence of any argument for deletion to close as keep there, but it seems unnecessary. WilyD 10:31, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Your presumption that the IP "is just one of the participants who failed to log in" is incorrect; one look at the IP's list of contributions should suffice to determine that. If you believe otherwise, why not ping the editors who participated in the discussion and ask them instead of speculating? As for the assertion of the redirect's implausibility, you may want to take another look at the discussion; the assertion was amply justified—the redirect's length was determined to be excessive, and there was an agreement that the redirect violates WP:POVNAME as it "consists of two legitimate names of the target put together for no apparent purpose." In addition, no justification for the redirect's existence was found on our list of reasons for creating and maintaining redirects. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
POVNAME is about article naming, and thus wholly inapplicable. POFRED are examples, and not an exclusive list. Beyond that, "was determined" is not a synonym for something you personally thought, but was not widely agreed upon. Again, leaving very to appeal to, beyond the subjective impressions of those involved. WilyD 11:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POVNAME states that "redirects should anticipate what readers will type as a first guess" and as such it very much does apply. I believe this very part of the policy was quoted during the discussion; I would recommend taking another look. WP:POFRED is a list of examples extensive enough that if a redirect's existence cannot be justified using any of the reasons listed there, it's a strong indicator the redirect isn't useful. The discussion was open for two months and none of the arguments presented by those in favor of deletion were described as irrelevant/inapplicable/invalid either by the editor in favor of keeping the redirect or by the closing administrator; thus, for the purpose of this review, they are to be considered valid as "Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express [one's] opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." To interpret a debate is to analyze the power of arguments used by each of the sides in light of how the opposing side addressed them. When determining the outcome of a debate, one's personal opinion on what constitutes the desired outcome shouldn't come into play. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Two of the above endorsements come from involved editors; WilyD is the creator of the redirect, which he omitted to mention; BDD was the closing administrator, which he did mention. Thincat's endorsement appears to be based on his/her opinion that the issue isn't worth discussing due to its supposed lack of importance. Iaritmioawp (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no opinion about whether the redirect should be kept or deleted (hence I didn't participate in the RfD). Yes, I turned down an invalid A10 request, but I don't care about how XFDs turn out after declining invalid speedies (except as a bit of a check on my judgement of when to decline speedies). WilyD 10:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Being the creator of the redirect which was the subject of the deletion discussion whose closure is now undergoing a review makes you involved. Your endorsement should thus be treated as a comment from an involved editor and as such scrutinized for possible bias by the closing administrator. Iaritmioawp (talk) 23:35, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's misleading to state that I created the redirect; I processed a bad A10 nomination, as a disinterested admin. But I suppose misrepresenting the facts is the only basis for requesting the discussion be overturned. WilyD 11:06, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Plowback retained earnings started as an article which duplicated an existing topic without expanding/improving upon the content of previously created articles on the subject; as such, it qualified for speedy deletion as per WP:CSD#A10. For some reason, you decided that turning it into a redirect was preferable to deletion and that's what you did. This makes you the creator of the redirect. It's all in the article's history and is undeniable. Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closer has interpreted the consensus of no consensus correctly. Because the redirect is marginally useful, I'm not supporting re-listing it but the matter can be settled here. jni (delete)...just not interested 16:14, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Three out of the four participants of the debate expressed the view that the redirect should be deleted. The one editor who disagreed failed to substantiate his opinion when challenged to do so. Would you mind explaining what, in your opinion, makes Steel1943's single WP:ILIKEIT WP:ITSUSEFUL comment consensus-breaking? Iaritmioawp (talk) 22:02, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's the second time you mischaracterized Steel1943's comment as WP:ILIKEIT; it plainly isn't. The appropriate belittling shortcut would be WP:ITSUSEFUL, and that's not just a legitimate argument in RFD discussions, it's an overriding one. Endorse. —Cryptic 01:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My goal wasn't to "belittle" Steel1943's comment; rather, it was to highlight the fact that s/he failed to justify his/her opinion regarding the redirect's purported usefulness when challenged to do so which rendered it moot. That useful redirects shouldn't be deleted is a truism, but let's not forget that our criteria for determining whether a redirect should be kept require more than a single unsubstantiated assertion that it's useful. Another thing to consider about Steel1943's comment is that it was tentative in its assertion of the redirect's usefulness: "it may be implausible, but that doesn't mean that it's not useful" doesn't strike me as a comment that could reasonably be considered sufficient to break a strong consensus built around multiple arguments, including policy- and guideline-based, none of which were refuted. As a side note, it was because of the fact the usefulness was only tentatively asserted that I chose to put the comment under the WP:ILIKEIT label, but, in retrospect, WP:ITSUSEFUL does appear to be a better choice due to the following statement we can find there: "you need to say why the article is useful or useless (...) Without that explanation, [one's comment] does not make a valid argument." [emphasis in the original] In light of what I just said, do you still believe that BDD's interpretation of the debate's outcome as "no consensus" was correct? Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 December 2014[edit]

  • Computer Economics' – Endorse, Relist at AfD. There was clearly nothing wrong with the original close, given the material available at the time, so endorse. The deletion was due to a lack of reliable sources, and sources have been presented here which are claimed to solve that problem. As always, AfD is a better forum to evaluate the quality of sources, so I'm going to restore this for now and relist on AfD where it can get a clean evaluation. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Computer Economics (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Research firm in business over 30 years, quoted widely in trade press and business press. Sample of notability quotes can be found at http://www.computereconomics.com/page.cfm?name=inthenews. Fscavo (talk) 18:13, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closer. "Notability quotes" is not a thing. User:MelanieN's comment in the AFD directly anticipated the argument you are making now, as does WP:CORP, which expressly says that "quotations from an organization's personnel [used] as story sources" do not constitute coverage of the organization and so don't count towards notability. Can you point to any sources that are about this company? postdlf (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response to LaMona. Thank you, LaMona. Yes, I am the third owner of the firm. I did not create the original Wikipedia entry for the firm, but I have maintained it (along with others, I notice) to ensure it's accurate. Because I do have this relationship, I am relying on your judgment and that of other editors that have no relationship with the firm. By the way, please note the new first link that I just added to the list above, concerning the Gartner lawsuit, as that may be more of what you are looking for. Also, we do have mentions in the Wall Street Journal and NY Times, and other major publications, if you want me to dig those out. Thanks again. Fscavo (talk) 01:00, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you aware of Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest policy? As owner of the company, you should have make your position clear immediately. It is generally considered inappropriate for company owners and employees to edit the article for the company. The preferred way to ensure accuracy is to provide reliable information to non-conflicted editors via the talk page for the company. As an interested party your motivation for keeping the article probably relates to using WP to raise the visibility of your company. Right? LaMona (talk) 01:44, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but restore. postdlf (talk · contribs) correctly assessed the consensus in this discussion. But the discussion was defective in that it failed to unearth reliable sources about this notable 35-year-old research firm.
    1. Freeman, Mike (1999-09-29). "Computer Economics wants to hear your cyber beefs". Standard-Speaker. Archived from the original on 2014-12-25. Retrieved 2014-12-25 – via Newspapers.com. Open access icon

      The text of the article is also available hereWebCite

      The article begins:

      Few firms go out of their way to hear people complain, but Computer Economics Inc. of Carlsbad is doing just that.

      In the name of research, the company hopes to become a shoulder to cry on for disgruntled cyber shoppers.

      The 20-year-old firm recently established a toll-free telephone hotline so miffed cyber shoppers can vent about bogus billing, effusive e-mail or poor product delivery in purchases made over the Internet.

      ...

      Computer Economics' motivation isn't altruistic. As a consulting company, it sells research services to information-technology firms, including Web-based retailers.

      By setting up the hotline, Computer Economics hopes to set itself apart from competitors. "We were looking for a way to do something different that other research firms weren't doing," Erbschloe said.

      The company, with its 26 employees, has been collecting customer satisfaction information through focus groups and surveys, but it wanted to take a more gritty approach.

      Thus this masochistic marketing scheme.

    2. Delio, Michelle (2002-01-14). "Find the Cost of (Virus) Freedom". Wired. Archived from the original on 2014-12-25. Retrieved 2014-12-25.

      The article notes:

      To estimate the damage, media organizations nearly always turn to Computer Economics -- a California-based research firm whose primary business is to advise companies on technology investment and marketing strategies.

      But many industry experts wonder how the company arrives at these seemingly exorbitant figures. Some antivirus firms and industry watchdogs said that Computer Economics is less than forthcoming about the specific data, sources and processes that it uses to tabulate the economic impact of viruses.

      Some experts say that lack of documentation renders any virus-damage statistics from the company all but useless.

      ...

      Rosenberger lists Computer Economics in his site's "Hysteria Roll Call" list, a who's who of people feeding the flames of computer virus hysteria.

      Based on http://archive.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/news/2005/05/67428, other articles by Michelle Delio had issues with their being unable to confirm quotes from anonymous sources. But this article does not cite anonymous sources, and it was not retracted by Wired, so I consider it reliable.
    3. Leyden, John (2002-01-16). "Lies, damned lies and anti-virus statistics". The Register. Archived from the original on 2014-12-25. Retrieved 2014-12-25. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2008-07-26 suggested (help)

      The article begins:

      Computer Economics has published its assessment of the damage worldwide caused by malicious code attacks in 2001 - the figure comes in at a whopping $13.2 billion.

      This is 23 per cent less than 2000, the year of the Love Bug, when damages from viruses were estimated at $17.1bn. In 1999 the cost to the world was $12.1 billion in 1999, Computer Economics says.

      The research firm has totted up the damage wreaked by viruses each year since 1995, But the results are controversial.

      Critics in the antivirus industry dismiss Computer Economics assessment of the damage caused by the combined effects of Nimda ($635 million), Code Red variants ($2.62 billion), SirCam ($1.15 billion) et al last year as a "guesstimate".

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Computer Economics to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard - Thanks! I'll accept 2 & 3 as reliable sources. #1 is a small, local paper (Hazelton, PA). So we could reinstate, but I will want to make sure that these articles are included, along with their content. However, does it make a difference that there are no recent articles of substance? This is an existing corporation, so basing the article on two references from 2002 may seem odd. Also, both of these references are critical of the company, so the WP article could take on a negative tone. That would be correct based on the sources we have, but the information may also be out of date as the company has changed management. LaMona (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concerning the two critical articles you uncovered, Computer Economics stopped publishing malware damage assessments in 2007.
  • Concerning more recent articles to establish notability, here are articles from major news publications that have reported on the firm's research in recent years.
Forbes: Customers Gripe About Oracle Service But Unlikely To Switch
New York Times: Maybe Microsoft Should Stalk Different Prey
  • Major technology trade publications frequently report on the firm's research (e.g. IDG News Service's Computerworld). From this year:
IT hiring rises where it counts
The IT freelance economy is growing but not at large firms
Companies that go all-in with SaaS can save big. Fscavo (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Non-controversial edits says:

    Editors who may have a general conflict of interest are allowed to make certain kinds of non-controversial edits (but note WP:NOPAY above). They may:

    1. remove spam and revert unambiguous vandalism,
    2. remove content that unambiguously violates the biography of living persons policy,
    3. fix spelling and grammatical errors,
    4. revert or remove their own COI edits,
    5. make edits where there is clear consensus on the talk page (though it is better to let someone else do it), and
    6. add reliable sources, especially when another editor has requested them (but note the advice above about the importance of using independent sources).

    If the article you want to edit has few involved editors, consider asking someone at the talk page of a related Wikiproject for someone to make the change.

    If another editor objects for any reason, then it's a controversial edit. Such edits should be discussed on the article's talk page.

    Fscavo (talk · contribs), as long as your edits to the article are non-controversial, you are allowed by the Wikipedia guideline to make them.

    Cunard (talk) 05:29, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, but the guidelines also say that anyone with a potential conflict of interest must let other editors know. And there was no such information included with this deletion review request. If I hadn't actually asked, we might not have known. I believe that asking for a deletion review is worthy of a COI declaration. I also suspect (although it's no longer visible) that COI was not made clear on the article's talk page. Should the page be restored, anyone editing under COI should make that clear, even if the edits are considered by the person making them to be "non-controversial." LaMona (talk) 16:32, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that it would have been best for editors with a potential conflict of interest to declare it. As summarized in the essay Wikipedia:Assume no clue, we should expect that a new editor (or in this case, an inexperienced editor who has had an account for some time) would be unaware of these best practices. I agree with your suggestions about COI declarations on the article's talk page. Cunard (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To LaMona, Cunard As you have suspected, I am an inexperienced editor (I can barely figure out the text editor), but I have gotten a little crash course here on some Wikipedia policies and best practices. As a first step to improve anything I do on Wikipedia, I have updated my talk page (talk) with information on my two companies. I will also refrain from making changes to any page in which I have a COI and will rather use the article's talk page to submit change requests for consideration by other non-COI editors. Fscavo (talk) 16:18, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fscavo Thank you so much for being a quick study! And welcome to the complex world of Wikipedia. LaMona (talk) 17:24, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have temporarily restored the history for purposes of the discussion. DGG ( talk ) 18:38, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist or restore seems clear to me that we now have identified sources that meet WP:N. I can easily imagine a debate about those sources (not being about the company per se) and so wouldn't object to a relist rather than a restore... Hobit (talk) 11:40, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can we relist without a restore? The article needs to be available. At this point, I don't remember much of what it said, and we have uncovered new data. LaMona (talk) 15:18, 30 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 December 2014[edit]

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

This page was deleted in 2012 because of G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement of this. Permission by the original author has been obtained here. This request has been discussed with the admin who deleted the page. [17] He voiced the following concern: But there remains the total lack of evidence of notability. This won't be an issue since multiple reliable sources exist to establish notability. Ondertitel (talk) 20:47, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Firstly the release doesn't meet the clear unequivical standard required for the release of material. Secondly the link states that the article is spourced from handbreak wiki whatever that is. This means that the person releasing the material is not the sole licensee of the material and is not able to release all of the text into a suitable license. Frankly, if you have sources I'd write a new article from that and abandon the deleted material. Spartaz Humbug! 23:44, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • <ec>A couple of questions. #1 Could you provide the sources you are referring to? #2 I'm seeing a number of different uses for this term in biology and other disciplines. Does it make sense to use this term for this specific topic rather than any other use? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 23:45, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Neotility Service Quality Management (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy delete incorrectly applied. Nawlinwiki believes that IT terms 'dynamic discovery' and 'high availability' are promotional and not simple technical definitions. Certainly a discussion on notability can take place but again, the speedy delete was applied because the neutral language of the article was not understood by the editor and perceived as being promotional. Note that notability discussion should be public and include discussion of the inherent notability aspect of a commercially available application, in the context of Wikipedia:Comparison of network monitoring systems. Also note that editor is now referencing A7, but that does also not apply - "An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant, with the exception of educational institutions.[6]"

Clearly this article was never about about a person, animal, organization, web content (site, blog, etc) or organized event. Please overule speedy delete to allow discussion and consensus.

Soiamdoingsomething (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse G11. I agree that A7 does not apply and that "dynamic discovery" and "high availability" are not necessarily promotional (but they are jargon that an encyclopedia needs to explain). However, and I am reading Google's cache, it reads just like a leaflet picked up from a stand at a network monitoring trade exhibition. It doesn't come anywhere near to being an article fit for an encyclopedia. None of it. "It is exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." WP:CSD#G11 Thincat (talk) 22:41, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse G11 forget it. Wikipedia is not your free advertising and this request is insulting to the time and energy that volunteers spend producing a quality free and npov encyclopedia. If you want free promotion go find another site thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 23:49, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article shown in the cache isn't an acceptable encyclopedia article for all kinds of reasons. It does feel like a sales brochure. It also is so jargon-heavy that I can't understand it and I work in a related area. I'd probably have sent it to AfD rather than suggested a speedy under G11, but I can't fault that speedy call. The only thing that makes a G11 debatable is that the lede isn't horrible. weak endorse G11 Hobit (talk) 23:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - clearly promotional, even allowing for technical terms that might sound promotional but aren't. It's basically just a list of key selling points - the sort of thing you would see in sales support brochures. There is no "inherent notability aspect of a commercially available application" - that's just nonsense. Go away and start again (with significant coverage in multiple reliable (independent) publications) and we'll talk. St★lwart111 00:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11 Looking at the article in the cache it does just appear to be promotional, with some of the material relating to a service and some to a company, presumably the one that hopes to benefit from selling this service. Drchriswilliams (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11 I understand nearly all the terminology in the article (again using the cached version) and concur with NawlinWiki. Red-flag words: "solution", "delivered", the registered trademark symbol, and "secure" (a weasel word in this context). If it is notable it has to be completely re-written, not only to be not promotional but to not read like a sales brochure. @Soiamdoingsomething: Thus, while A7 is probably not valid, G11 is definitely applicable; its tone is much too inappropriate for an encyclopedia. If you happen to be affiliated with the company that makes this software, WP:COI would apply. I personally think a few of the other comments above are a little harsh but when you fail to assume good faith on NawlinWiki's part and fail to assume that he does so on your part (I think your comments on NawlinWiki's talk page are rather confrontational rather than cooperative), unfortunately it does result in some folks being annoyed. --Jasper Deng (talk) 01:39, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11, having reviewed the article text, it was basically an ad, not an encyclopædia article. The presence of a few bits of jargon and buzzwords in the article doesn't excuse that. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:41, 24 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse, yes it was blatant advertising. This being sufficient for a delete outcome I have not gone on to consider whether A7 (no claim of notability) is engaged. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - G11 is perhaps marginal - if I'm being pedantic, it needs more like a substantial rewrite than a fundamental rewrite, but it's a bit nit-picker-y. I think the case for A7 is stronger - it's framed halfway between being about a company and about its product (which as a service, one could probably think of as web content). Again, very nit-picker-y. It'd last as long at AfD as a snowball in a gasoline suit would last in Hell, so restoring it for that would be a bit daft. Userfication might be applicable, but there's no real usable content beyond perhaps the infobox, so I'm sceptical it'd be helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WilyD (talk • contribs)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 December 2014[edit]

21 December 2014[edit]

20 December 2014[edit]

  • Zach Collier – Consensus here is that the "redirect" closure is to be changed to "no consensus", which is hereby noted. Restoring the article from the redirect, in any form, is now a purely editorial decision. If a relisting is deemed helpful, this can be achieved by renominating the article for deletion if any perceived defects are not improved within a reasonable time. –  Sandstein  07:54, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zach Collier (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My comment from the AfD:

Extended content

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content

Hi Stifle. I think the sources provided by Yankees10 (talk · contribs) and the analysis by Rlendog (talk · contribs) at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier clearly demonstrate that Zach Collier passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. At the time of redirection, the article contained several paragraphs of encyclopedic information about the subject that was sourced to multiple reliable sources. Would you consider revising your close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zach Collier from "redirect to List of Philadelphia Phillies first-round draft picks" to "no consensus"? Thank you for your consideration. Cunard (talk) 18:25, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • No. But redirection is a normal user action which can be undone by any editor who feels it is appropriate, in line with WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 09:11, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

After I restored the article, Spanneraol (talk · contribs) misused rollback to revert my restoration.

The best argument against the subject passing Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline is that the coverage is WP:ROUTINE. This argument was advanced by Secret (talk · contribs) only, who wrote:

I don't see much coverage outside of him surviving open-heart surgery and being drafted in the first round, which makes it human interest/WP:ROUTINE and still fails WP:GNG. Being a first rounder, you get some coverage automatically, and surviving open heart surgery is very common.

However, the fourth source I linked to in my keep comment (the source was also mentioned by Yankees10 (talk · contribs)), http://docs.newsbank.com/s/InfoWeb/aggdocs/AWNB/14FC716AF3A86168/0D0CB57AB53DF815WebCite, doesn't mention open heart surgery. More importantly, it was published six years after he was drafted in the first round. The article provides detailed analysis of the subject's baseball career up until August 2014.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 20:55, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no doubt he meets the GNG (I'm seeing a number of articles purely about him). And the SNG in question defers to the GNG (though in practice that isn't always the case). The only real issue is if this belongs at DRV as it's a redirect that the closing admin indicates can be redone with regular editing. In any case, I'd agree with this being left as an article. Hobit (talk) 10:57, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer that this is handled at DRV because I contest the AfD closer's assessment of the consensus. I undid the redirect as advised by the closing admin but was reverted by an AfD participant who did not explain the revert. Also, the article's talk page is watched by far fewer editors so DRV will draw more attention to the article. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's an apparently unrefuted argument here that he meets WP:N, so I think either relisting or overturning to no consensus would be okay. WilyD 10:27, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As per the discussion on my talk page, I believe this is out of scope of DRV as it is discussing a redirect decision, not a deletion decision. Stifle (talk) 11:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think its DRVs job to simply declare it as notable and ignore the other AFD participants. At best this would come down to a relist. However as it was a redirect undoing that seems not unreasonable, as does the person who reverted that's action not seem unreasonable, it would seem to be a classic WP:BRD, what I'm failing to see is the D part of this from either side, any reason why? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My argument in the nomination statement is that the AfD did not reach a consensus to declare the subject non-notable. Therefore, I argue that the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus". To overturn to no consensus, DRV does not have to declare the subject notable. Cunard (talk) 05:02, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - From reading the discussion, it seems that the participants are fairly evenly split on whether the coverage was sufficient to pass WP:GNG. I don't see a consensus outcome, so the discussion should have been closed as no consensus. Also, as an aside, I disagree with Stifle that users should feel free to undo a redirect outcome at AFD without adding additional sources beyond what were available to the AFD participants. A consensus to redirect at AFD is just as binding as a consensus to keep or delete at AFD, and for the exact same reason, that being that a group of editors considered the article and reached a consensus on what to do with it. Once a discussion has reached a consensus on an issue, then an editor shouldn't undo the result of that consensus unless new information has come to light that would change the situation (i.e., additional sources), or a new discussion results in a different consensus. However, in this specific case I don't think there was a consensus on what to do with the article. Calathan (talk) 19:46, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unilaterally overturning an AFD close (regardless of what the functional close might be) is not appropriate. Bringing it here would have been the better course of action. In effect, reverting the redirect simply dismissed the opinions of the editors who contributed to the AFD in good faith and the closing admin (regardless of their personal attachment to the close). That said, there would seem to be consensus (here) that the subject is notable, even if that consensus did not exist a few days ago in that AFD. The answer, then, is to relist to allow an equivalent consensus to develop there or to overturn to no consensus with the understanding that consensus can change, even within a few days. St★lwart111 23:06, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to no consensus). Revert the redirection. Slap User:Spanneraol for his bad reversion (the closer had even given Cunard explicit permission/encouragement to do it), noting that Spanneroal did not give a substantial reason for his revert. The sources referred to appear to be not great sources for building a biography, but I believe that they meet the GNG, as independent, secondary source, providing direct coverage of the subject. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:20, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article was unilaterally restored by an editor who disagreed with the AFD results. Reverting that is entirely permissible. Spanneraol (talk) 23:45, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The editor included in his edit summary a link to the discussion with the closer, a discussion providing clear evidence of the closer's support for the restoration. Perhaps Cunard should have been more perfect by ensuring that the link was a clickable bluelink. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:45, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The closer doesnt express support for the restoration he simply said its allowed... not that he supports doing so. Cunard should have opened a discussion prior to restoring the article as it appeared he was just ignoring the AFD and doing whatever he wanted. Spanneraol (talk) 01:07, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree that the close was "wrong". "Delete" was no outside reasonable admin discretion, and the redirect close reads as like a nod to "no firm consensus to delete". The article discussed at AfD has a very weak lede (esp. "is a free agent"), and the content all feels primary source reporting material. Cunard listed a number of sources that contain secondary source content, but I consider them to be weak sources, reading like weekly sport reporting. The article needs work. At a minimum, userfication for improvement is, and was, obviously available. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:33, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but Relist. While it's true that any editor can be bold and turn a redirect from an AfD back into an article, that's not carte blanche to just ignore the AfD consensus. The version that was restored is identical to the pre-AfD version, so all this amounted to is blowing off the AfD discussion. Where being bold makes sense is if you were to take a look at the concerns raised at AfD and address them in a new draft of the article. Then it's not, I don't care what you guys think, I'm doing my own thing. It's, You guys said X because of Y, and I've fixed Y, so X no longer applies. So, I think the original close was fine, but @Stifle: provided bad advice when asked about it, and @Cunard: compounded the error by listening to that bad advice, and then @Spanneraol: further compounded the problem by reverting before talking. But, that's all about process. What really matters is evaluating the article. So, while I believe the original AfD was closed correctly, the consensus was not overwhelming, and there's obviously controversy, so relisting it to get a cleaner consensus seems like the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Updating my comment to clarify that I don't think there was anything wrong with the original close (hence, endorse) but given that this was a close call and there's controversy about it, another trip through AfD might provide clarity. On the other hand, I would not be opposed to letting the original close stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is unclear why you think the original AfD close was an accurate assessment of the consensus. It was not. Sources that three editors said established notability were not discussed by the editors who supported deletion. Consensus to "delete" or "redirect" cannot be achieved when significant coverage in reliable sources is not addressed or dismissed with unspecific comments like:
    1. Link: "Does not satisfy either the specific notability guideline for baseball players per WP:NBASEBALL nor the general notability guidelines per WP:GNG." – why do the sources Yankees10 (talk · contribs) provided not establish that the subject passes GNG?
    2. Link: "I don't think there's enough to show he meets GNG" – again, why do the sources Yankees10 (talk · contribs) provided not establish that the subject passes GNG?
    3. Link: "of the sources linked above, three articles appear to have identical text. In my opinion, the subject does not pass GNG." – six sources were listed in total. Why do the the four articles that don't have identical text not allow the subject to pass GNG?
    Bare assertions that the subject fails GNG should be accorded little weight when appraised with evidence and arguments that significant coverage in reliable sources establish notability.

    @Stifle: provided bad advice when asked about it, and @Cunard: compounded the error by listening to that bad advice – I undid the redirect because I interpreted Stifle's comment as noting that his AfD close as "redirect" is not binding. Why else would he have told me I could undo the redirect?

    Where being bold makes sense is if you were to take a look at the concerns raised at AfD and address them in a new draft of the article. – which concerns raised at the AfD were not already addressed in the deleted version? The only concern mentioned by the "delete" votes was that the subject was not notable. The deleted article uses sources that provide substantial coverage of the subject.

    Cunard (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Five editors at this DRV have explicitly supported overturning to no consensus (some of them have also supported a relist). One editor has explicitly endorsed the close.

    I ask the DRV closer to note that the consensus here is that the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus", regardless of whether the DRV closer decides to relist this or not. Cunard (talk) 04:43, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 December 2014[edit]

  • Syriac people – Endorse original AfD close. There is obviously a politically-driven content dispute going on here, and DRV is not the place to sort that out. By straight counting, this looks like No Consensus, but most of the people arguing for the creating of a new, stand-alone Syriac people page appear to be sock-puppets and/or deeply involved in the content debate. Ignoring those, there is strong consensus to let the AfD result stand. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Syriac people (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There has been a long-standing edit request at Talk:Syriac people#Protected edit request on 11 November 2014 by several new editors to recreate the redirect Syriac people as a standalone article. After the request being declined several times, we are now at the stage where some of the editors involved have made a draft of their proposed article at Draft:Syriac people. I think the draft probably counts as "significant new information" since the previous deletion discussion, and so is worth discussing here to see if the 2008 deletion decision might be overturned. The old article can be seen in the page history. I've already asked Future Perfect at Sunrise about this (they were the closing admin), and you can see their response here. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 07:10, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I am staying neutral about the outcome so that I can act in an administrative capacity at Talk:Syriac people after this discussion is closed. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:52, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose recreation / keep as redirect (as closer of original AFD). If you compare the leads of the present Assyrian people and the Draft:Syriac people, it is clear that both speak of the exact same group: speakers of neo-Aramaic who live in Syria, Turkey and northern Iraq, who call themselves either Suraye ("Syrians"), Aturaye ("Assyrians") or Oromoye ("Aramaeans") in their native language, and who belong to a variety of eastern Christian churches. Two articles about the same group would, by definition, be POV forks of each other. The division between "Syriac" and "Assyrian" is not a division between two ethnic groups, but between two ideological perspectives on a single one: a division between several ideological factions among the group's diaspora communities in the west, which all prefer different names and have different ideas about their cultural "identity", but which all still claim to be speaking for this one, single, native minority population in the Middle East.
The struggle over renaming/rewriting/splitting/merging these articles has been the focus of one of the most ridiculously entrenched ethnic POV wars I've encountered during my time on Wikipedia, and in my view this whole bunch of POV warriors should have been told long ago they've exhausted the community's patience and all be banned years ago (the lot of them, on all sides). That said, the current target article Assyrian people appears to be currently far from acceptable too and seems to have been mangled by the rival, pro-"Assyrian" POV faction (giving far undue weight, from what I can see at a quick glance, to the idea of an actual ethnic continuity with the ancient Assyrians as opposed to other historical populations in the area), so I can well understand that its current contents may seem unacceptable as a redirect target to the pro-"Syriac" faction, but the solution to that is to fix the article, not to POV-fork it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:20, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation / keep as redirect. Fut.Perf. has said it all. The current article Assyrian people (and those associated to it) have to include the pro-"Syriac-Oromoye" views on our cultural and historical identity.'AynHaylo (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose recreation / keep as redirect. I also believe that the above user succinctly summarized the problem with the current page and the need to keep the redirect. The current page should not be removed, as the group is one ethnicity. Penguins53 (talk) 03:09, 20 December 2014 (UTC)Penguins53[reply]
  • Suggestion: Can we also force redirection Chaldean Christians to Assyrian people or to Chaldean Catholic Church ? The current page Chaldean Christians do not provide so much information compared to Assyrian people or to Chaldean Catholic Church and it's not fair having this page while Syriac people keep its redirection.'AynHaylo (talk) 17:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not for this DRV to decide. If you wanted to initiate such a merge, you'd have to suggest it at the Talk:Chaldean Christians. However, as far as I understand, this article title (unlike others in question) actually does refer to a reasonably well-delineated subgroup of this ethnicity, so there's no prima facie reason why it couldn't be a viable article topic in a properly structured set of summary + detail articles. If, as you indicate, the main Assyrian people is currently offering more or better detail about this group, then the solution is to factor out that material and move it in the detail article, replacing it with a properly tightened summary in the main article. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:53, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirection the to new Syriac People page. The current page is politically driven attempt to assimilate the Syriacs and full of historical falsehoods. @Future Perfect at Sunrise:Thank you for your suggestion it is valid, you have already identified current page is heavy with Assyrian content only, this is happening since the content on the current page is constantly deleted if it does not submit to an Assyrian political ideal. please see my last comments on the bottom of:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Syriac_people#Protected_edit_request_on_11_November_2014 Sr 76 (talk) 05:09, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse redirection to the new Syriac People page. The current page is mainly created and driven by the Assyrianism propaganda. It falsifies every historical document by changing every reference from its original form (Aramaic, Syriac, Syrian, Chaldean, Syriac Orthodos, Syriac Catholic, Syrian Orthodox, Syrian Catholic...) into "Assyrian", all this against scientific basics and against the will of the majority of the Syriacs/Arameans who count over 10 million all over the world. Only Maronites, who belong the Aramean/Syriac tradition count over 10 million over the world, they have NEVER identified themselves with the Assyrian identification. Let alone the majority of the Chaldeans, whose intellectuals have allways written their history using the name of Arameans and Syriacs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.114.133.31 (talk) 14:34, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I want the redirection to this page to be removed! I personally belong to the syriac people and as a traditional syriac scholar, I grew up in my community, learning my culture, heritage, language and origin. We do not recognize our selves as "assyrian"! The "assyrianism" is just a cheap propaganda which was born something like 30-40 years ago, with the goal to split without any reason the syriac people with a new branch and, doing so, trying to escape from the Syriac-Aramean Identity! I consider wikipedia a serious platform, where people can find info about peculiar subjects, which are often rare to find in libraries. Therefore I kindly ask you to remove the inappropriate redirection. Syriac is completely different to the "Assyrian" term, otherwise they would be the same. I thank you for the comprehension. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony.urek.aram (talk • contribs) 17:38, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sr 76, 213.114.133.31, and Tony.urek.aram: In deletion reviews, "endorse" means that you endorse the decision of the administrator that closed the deletion discussion, i.e. you would like to see Syriac people kept as a redirect. I think you were looking for "overturn" instead. If you want the decision to be overturned, you will need to show that there is new evidence that wasn't available when the original close was made. Deletion decisions can also be overturned if there was a procedural problem with the original decision, but I don't see any signs of that here. For more details, see Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:46, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreation I thought it was "Closing the redirection"....213.114.133.31|Tony.urek.aram must have read my comments and did the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sr 76 (talk • contribs) 14:11, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

18 December 2014[edit]

  • 184 Carex articles – There is a clear consensus to overturn the 184 speedy deletions, without prejudice to a possible AfD. Because of the number of the articles involved, I am asking the deleting admin to assume responsibility for their error and to do the work of undeleting the articles. –  Sandstein  07:46, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of articles
List of articles:
Carex × abitibiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × abortiva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × aestivaliformis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × akiyamana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × almii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × anticostensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × caesariensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × clausa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × connectens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × crinitoides (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × dumanii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × exsalina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × firmior (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × fridtzii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × heterophyta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × kenaica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × leptoblasta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × mendica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × mucronulata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × neobigelowii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × neofilipendula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × neomiliaris (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × neorigida (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × nubens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × olneyi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × oneillii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × patuensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × persalina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × physocarpoides (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × quebecensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex accrescens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex acutata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex adusta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex aggregata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex alligata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex amicta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex amplectens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex andersonii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex aperta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex arctata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex arctiformis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex assiniboinensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex atrosquama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex atroviridis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex austrina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex austrokoreensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex autumnalis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex aztecica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex backii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex banksii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex barbata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex bichenoviana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex biltmoreana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex brachyanthera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex brainerdii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex breweri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex bulbostylis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex caduca (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex capillacea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex chihuahuensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex chosenica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex clivorum (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex colensoi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex collifera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex conica (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex conjuncta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex conspecta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex cryptolepis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex cumulata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex daltonii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex darwinii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex davyi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex decidua (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex declinata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex decora (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex desponsa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex dispalata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex dissitispicula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex eburnea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex echinus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex egglestonii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex finitima (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex fissa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex fissuricola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex fluviatilis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex fragilis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex fusanensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex genkaiensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex geophila (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex glabrescens (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex glacialis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex globosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex gotoi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex gracilior (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex gunniana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex harfordii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex harlandii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex hebetata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex hilairei (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex hirsutella (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex hirtifolia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex hirtissima (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex horsfieldii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex hyalina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex incisa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex incurviformis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex insignis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex integra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex jackiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex jamesonii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex laeta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex laevivaginata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex lambertiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex lanceolata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex lemanniana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex leptopoda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex ligata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex longii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex luzulifolia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex maculata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex manca (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex merritt-fernaldii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex mesochorea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex microrhyncha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex mollicula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex morrowii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex munda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex nelsonii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex nivalis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex normalis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex oklahomensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex olivacea (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex orbicularis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex papulosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex perglobosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex pisiformis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex pityophila (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex polycephala (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex prescottiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex projecta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex pruinosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex pulchra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex purdiei (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex purpurifera (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex radicalis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex raoulii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex rara (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex recta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex ruthii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex saximontana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex scabriuscula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex scitula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex senta (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex setosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex sociata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × soerensenii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex solandri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex spachiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × stricticulmis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex subbracteata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × subcostata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex subdola (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × subpatula (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × subsalina (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × sullivantii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex swanii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × sylvenii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex teinogyna (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × tenebricans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex tenebrosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × tenelliformis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex teres (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex thomsonii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex townsendii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex transversa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex triquetra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex tuckermanii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex unilateralis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex × ungavensis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex vesiculosa (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex vicinalis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex wahlenbergiana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex wiegandii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Carex wootonii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Just under two weeks ago, I created 184 stub articles about species of monocotyledonous graminoid flowering plants (sedges). As identified species, the notability of each is not in question. In the past I have created several thousand stub articles about identified species, and on numerous occasions these stubs have subsequently been expanded significantly by other editors.

An administrator, User:Stemonitis, came to my talk page expressing concerns about these particular stub articles, apparently because he monitors a category to which I added them. Although he did mention that he felt it would be better not to create stub articles about such species at all, he also mentioned a list of ways in which he felt the stub articles created were problematic.

I then in good faith proceeded to address all of the concerns Stemonitis raised. I was able to fix all but one of the issues he raised, and in doing so I also added additional sourced information to every one of the stub articles (specifically, the date each species was described). This took me many hours.

Stemonitis then went quiet, but on 6 December he then proceeded first to turn all of the stub articles into redirects to a page listing sedges, and then to delete all of these redirects himself as being redirects under item 10 of WP:R#DELETE.

Quite aside from the obvious gaming of the system to obtain a rather narrow-minded preferred outcome, these deletions were inappropriate as the pages deleted quite clearly do not fall under any speedy deletion criterion. These pages should be restored, and Stemonitis can then recommend their deletion at WP:MfD if he is able to present a convincing rationale. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 18:19, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is quite a biased view of the exchange, and is rather misleading. Every one of the pages was, as I have repeatedly explained, worthless. They added no new information to the encyclopaedia (it all being effectively copied piecemeal from the existing list of Carex species), but actually made existing information harder for readers to find. (In some cases, falsehoods were added.) The encyclopaedia did not improve at all, but did deteriorate noticeably, as a result. It was perfectly reasonable to merge the pages in question back into the list (WP:MERGE: "a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time"; such substubs are almost never expanded), and perfectly reasonable to later delete the redirects thus created (WP:R#DELETE, as indicated above). I even left a seemly pause of 24 hr between the two activities, in case – as seemed possible – TAP wished to kick up a fuss about it. --Stemonitis (talk) 19:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stemonitis' reply here speaks to the difficulty of communicating with him. As I already indicated above, the stub articles most definitely did not simply repeat the information already present in the list article; they also added the date of description of each species. None of this information was merged back into the list article when Stemonitis performed his 184 WP:IAR deletions, and thus this cannot be claimed to be a merger of any sort.
"Such substubs are almost never expanded" is also misleading. Megachile rubi is an example of a stub species article (about a bee) I created that was later substantially expanded by another editor. The world contains a great many species of sedge and bee; so the vast majority of the stub articles about those species have not yet been expanded. But that does not mean that they cannot be expanded, nor that they are not being expanded within a reasonable amount of time. After all, some of these sedges and bees have been around a very long time already. Wikipedia only arrived quite recently.
"The encyclopaedia did not improve at all, but did deteriorate noticeably, as a result" seems to give away Stemonitis' problem here - this is a WP:IDONTLIKEIT thing, and an administrator should most definitely not be speedily deleting articles on that basis. Especially when the articles do not meet any speedy deletion criterion. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 19:47, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, and WP:TROUT Stemonitis. The deletions were clearly not within process. The speedy deletion criteria are limited to those at WP:SPEEDY, and merely meeting a criteria at WP:R#DELETE does not permit something to be speedy deleted. The criteria at WP:R#DELETE are arguments that can be made at WP:RFD (where those same criteria are listed). Deletion using those criteria require a discussion and a consensus. Admins simply aren't allowed to delete something merely because they feel it is bad content, without it meeting a speedy deletion criteria or having been subject of a prod or XFD discussion. Furthermore, the idea that articles should be redirected because the subjects are better covered in the list, but redirects to the list should be deleted because articles could be written on the subjects, seems absurd to me. Calathan (talk) 20:06, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[ec] Megachile is an interesting example. Of the more than 1500 Megachile substubs created, only 3 (Megachile melanophaea, Megachile rubi and Megachile texana) have since been expanded. Would those articles have been written anyway? Quite probably. Or, if not those articles, would the editors responsible have written other, equally valid articles? Almost certainly. Biologically minded editors are not short of potential articles to work on, so this really isn't a field in which the lack of a pre-existing page is any impediment to a potential article creator. There is, therefore, a small probability that TAP's efforts helped in some small way to produce 3 articles. What is definite, however, is that 1500 other articles were (and remain) improperly sourced to a self-published/crowd-sourced website; they required immediate cleanup, and had talk pages that needed tagging for the relevant WikiProject, and that already adds up to 3000 edits of someone else's time. There is again no direct benefit to the reader, probably also no indirect benefit to the reader, and a lot of cleanup work for other people, even before we get on to the possibility that there might be errors, which is very likely indeed. The argument that such pages help article creation is very flimsy; the argument that they detract from the encyclopaedia seems to me to be rather strong – if anything, I would say from experience that a pre-existing substub is more likely to put someone off writing a new article, rather than encouraging them to expand it. If Megachile is the best analogy, then I see no reason why I should have any qualms about deleting 184 Carex pages; at least 3 decent Carex articles have since been created from red links, demonstrating that red links help Wikipedia. But all this is beside the point; WP:R lays out good reasons for deleting redirects, and those reasons were satisfied; this, too, has already been explained to TAP. --Stemonitis (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Calathan, this is clearly a situation in which WP:IAR can be applied. The pages created have literally no value, and are indeed harmful (errors were quickly found). Requiring these pages to be recreated solely so that their deletion can be requested is surely a waste of time. What is the benefit of such an action, other than that it follows process more rigidly? --Stemonitis (talk) 20:41, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stemonitis, this is clearly not a situation where WP:IAR should be applied. You were free to redirect the articles if you didn't think they should exist, and then start an RFD to have them deleted, or free to leave the articles in place and start an AFD. If the articles had errors, you could correct them. There were clear ways to fix any concerns you had within the policy, so there was no need to turn to IAR. Furthermore, this was basically a content dispute, and using your admin tools to end a content dispute with another user is not acceptable. I also personally think that if you took either the articles to AFD, or the redirects to RFD, both locations would vote to keep them, so I don't think you are saving time by deleting them out of process. Calathan (talk) 21:09, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As a policy, WP:IAR pretty much always applies. "If the articles had errors, you could correct them" is not a reasonable point of view to take. It takes time to properly research an article. In the case of TPA's Carex pages, I started alphabetically and the very first one I found, Carex acicularis, turned out to be – contrary to the cited source – generally treated as a synonym by the relevant authorities. Biology can be messy like that, and can require considerable expertise to make sense of (for instance, I had in the past considered writing an article on Carex × abitibiana, but found it such a nebulous concept that I couldn't make anything worthwhile out of it). Fixing that first article, now at Carex archeri, took me at least 40 mins, judging from my edit history. There is simply no way that any one person, or even a dedicated team of people, could do that for all the substubs TPA created in that one 45-minute bout, let alone any others that could have been created (it is a large and poorly-understood genus). Attempting to place the blame for inevitable errors onto other editors is simply unacceptable. I don't blame you for not fixing TPA's errors, and nor should you blame me. If everyone who wanted these substubs restored would promise to properly research their fair share, then it might be a different matter, but I'm fairly confident that that's not going to happen, leaving instead an mass of misinformation and non-information for someone else to sort out at a later date (which will probably never happen in most cases). Restoring such articles is a procedure guaranteed to reduce the quality of Wikipedia, and I for one condemn that. I am repeatedly amazed at how little emphasis is often placed on content in Wikipedia discussions. The content and the readers are what matters; we have to consider things from their point of view, and neither is well served by restoring TPA's Carex pages. --Stemonitis (talk) 22:18, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you to Stemonitis for pointing out that several Megachile stubs, not just one, have been expanded by other editors. Anyway, this is pretty clear cut; the deleting administrator is clearly unable to accept well-meant advice from other editors, as has been seen here. What the deleting administrator has accepted, though, is that they carried out these 184 deletions under WP:IAR. There is therefore no obstacle to the deleted articles being reinstated so that Stemonitis can put forward his rationale at a proper AfD. Thine Antique Pen (talk) 21:13, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem somewhere and Dec the 18th was removed from the main DRV page by a bot. I've fixed for now and notified folks on the bot's talk page. Hobit (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn speedy utterly wrongheaded and a clear misunderstanding of WP:INVOLVED and WP:CSD. I'd ask the admin undo the deletions (and ideally the redirects) immediately. Doing something like this is boneheaded and a fine way to get de-admined. Seriously, you don't get to speedy delete things under IAR unless you are darn sure it's clearly and unquestionably the right thing to do. It isn't close. And you are clearly involved. Hobit (talk) 06:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy overturn - deleting admin admits it was an abuse of tools which served no encyclopaedic or policy reason, but was done only to enforce their preferred organisation of content. WilyD 10:59, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I admit no such thing. The deletions were entirely for encyclopaedic reasons, albeit outside a strict reading of some policies. The reader does not benefit from such pages. --Stemonitis (talk) 11:33, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is entirely information you furnished in this very discussion. To pretend otherwise only further exemplifies how inappropriate your behaviour has been. WilyD 12:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and trout deleting admin. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:00, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and trout. No valid speedy criterion met, involved admin; carrying on like this has been known to get people desysopped. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion It's interesting that those opposing Stemonitis' actions take refuge in wikilawyering and don't address the substantive issue, namely the value of a species article that says only
    • X y is a species of X. It was described by Z in DATE.
    when there is a already an entry for X y in a list of the species of X where it says:
    • X y Z, DATE
    Not only do such articles have no value, they are harmful. If users of Wikipedia search for "Megachile amoena" and the article Megachile amoena turns up, they are entitled to expect some useful information. But there isn't any. If there were an image it would be some use. But there isn't one. So how does this improve Wikipedia? The idea that editors will in the near future create the rest of the 1,500 articles on the species of Megachile or the rest of the articles on the 1,800 species of Carex is nonsense.
    Another reason creating such large numbers of sub-stubs is harmful is that when it is done so rapidly, the creator clearly cannot be checking multiple reliable sources, and so is quite likely to create articles using synonyms. Yes, all species are intrinsically notable, but we have to be as sure as possible that the article really is about a species, and not about one of the synonyms of another species. Peter coxhead (talk) 15:13, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    DRV is by nature a discussion on the process rather than the merits of deletion. The points you made above will be perfectly appropriate in a deletion debate, which is why these articles should have gone to AfD in the first place so that they can be discussed further. That is what most people here are saying. Out of process deletions are not a shortcut because they cause more drama and in the end take up more time. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 17:01, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The "drama", as you call it, is caused by those who prioritize wikilawyering over content. Processes don't exist independently of substance. Peter coxhead (talk) 17:43, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The trick is that there is a debate here about substance. The deleting admin short-circuited that debate. I don't know which solution is best, but I do believe we'd be best served by having a discussion among those that are well informed on the topic. The redirects and deletion took the decision out of the hands of the community and into one admin's hands. That's not how we are supposed to work. Hobit (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not so simple. When an editor takes it upon themselves to create hundreds of articles or categories for which there is no consensus (and indeed where a consensus has been reached in the past not to act in this way) then they are taking the decision out of the hands of the community. Now if it were a case of edits, the BRD cycle would be followed. This doesn't leave the edits in place while there's a discussion as to whether they should be reverted. The same should apply here. An editor boldly created articles; an admin took the trouble to delete them; if the creator doesn't agree we can discuss whether to restore them. Why is creating new articles or categories different to creating new content in an article? Create–Delete–Discuss. It's not sensible to make it easier to create bad articles or categories than to add bad content to articles. IAR absolutely applies here; if the "rules" prevent sensible behaviour they should be ignored. Peter coxhead (talk) 21:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Admins aren't special when it comes to content. As your proposed create-delete-discuss thing can only be done by an admin, that's not a viable way forward. And IAR should be used sparingly when it comes to the tools for exactly the same reason. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn with no objection to listing them all at AfD. What's next, turning an article into incomprehensible nonsense and then deleting it for being incomprehensible nonsense? Huon (talk) 22:22, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Species stubs will never or almost never be stubs that are " unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time"; their acceptability has been very well established. Many people may want to add information to WP without the overhead of creating an article structure--accustomed as we may be to it, it can intimidate beginners, including subject experts new to WP. Removing the redirects by speedy was also an error, as they do not fall within any of the speedy deletion categories. WP:R#DELETE (10) is an argument to use at RfD, not a reason for speedy. Someone might very well come with the full name, and look to find an article, but not think to look under the genus if they found nothing. I would not as an admin first change articles to redirects and then remove the redirects, without first obtaining consensus. If I thought this needed to be done, I would go to afd, where, I might add, I rather doubt it would obtain consensus. We can;t prevent bringing it there, but I'd advise against it. IAR for speedy deletion should only be used when one is absolutely certain it will be needed to improve the encyclopedia, as for IAR in general. I can see doing it for copyvio and vandalism that doesn't fall in the established categories of some kinds of BLP or child protection. But a redirect from a species name?? (we have had cases of grossly miswritten automated addition of species names from obsolete sources without due care, where we have deleted without a redirect because we cannot tell if even the species names are still valid, but even these have gone to afd, at least for the first such, and that sort of error can be disruptive. I don;t see that it's the case here. I should add that I have personally never insisted on a speedy over a good faith objection from an established WPedian--no admin should be that sure of themselves. DGG ( talk ) 05:04, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:IAR does not apply unless the rule invoked prevents one from improving Wikipedia; delaying an action is not preventing it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, to a point. I concur for the most part with User:Stemonitis's actions in redirecting the substub articles; and I don't think that part of this within the jurisdiction of DRV as admin tools were not used and we encourage editors to be bold. The point where the line was crossed was then deleting the redirects. Particularly as Stemonitis (correctly) figured a fuss would be made, the deletion should have been taken to the community for further review rather than just pushing forward like a bulldozer. I feel that the redirects should be listed at RfD to allow the community to examine the matter in further detail, and that way whatever the outcome is it will have more legitimacy than trying to cloak a controversial admin action with IAR. Lankiveil @ Alt (speak to me) 06:05, 22 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and trout; clear abuse of admin tools. This has nothing to do with the value (or otherwise) of the articles in question - it's about process. Unilaterally redirecting and then deleting (effectively just deleting) is completely unacceptable. This should (absolutely) be a decision for the community, not a single (involved) admin. It wasn't even a functional "administrative" admin action - it was admin action based on opinion. Sorry, not on. If this were at AN/ANI we'd be talking about tool removal - Stemonitis doesn't seem to get that. St★lwart111 23:22, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I'm on board with the trouting too. The outcome of this review is obvious, so I'm not just here to pile on, but to reiterate a point which I've made before. Wikipedia has so much utter crap, but that's OK. I suppose there is some value served by cataloging every Pokémon in the world, and mediocre TV actors from some pointless sitcom that ran for half a season, and fourth-string players on semi-pro sports teams, and all the other garbage. It's just moving bits around, and we've got lots of those to spare. But, this is different. This is botany. This is a classic core science. We're bringing up a generation of idiots who can babble on about all sorts of trivia they found on the net, but can't tell a pistil from a stamen. That's just wrong, and solving that problem is one of the reasons Wikipedia exists. Some day, some little girl is going to read, Carex × akiyamana is a hybrid species of sedge that was first described by Jisaburo Ohwi in 1936, and that may be the trigger that starts her young mind down the path to becoming the next Barbara McClintock. Keeping alive that possibility is why this project exists. It is staggeringly sad that we've got an admin who doesn't see that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 24 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    You mis-understand the motivation for deletion, I believe. Of course an article about a species is of value to the project. The issues here are different. (1) Is a "sub-stub" that simply repeats information already present in the list of species at the genus article of any value? I've argued above that it is actually unhelpful to readers. (2) Experience shows that articles created so rapidly using a single source without checking other reliable sources almost invariably include non-species among their number – articles titled with a synonym. Sorting out incorrect articles (such as a fair number created in the past by Polbot) is tedious and often doesn't get done for a long time, leaving Wikipedia with incorrect information. Why is it that it's ok to revert the addition of information added to an article without reliable sources, but not to delete articles not created on the basis of reliable sources? Peter coxhead (talk) 14:50, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Peter, I get what you're saying. Perhaps I got a little worked up when I wrote my above comment, but this (science education, and also the obsession wikipedia has with trivia) is something I feel strongly about. I deliberately tried to stay way from commenting on the process issues, because other commenters have already covered that so well. But, to your point, I do agree with you that having incorrect information is a problem. However, assuming some of these species names are bogus, I don't see how having an erroneously-titled article is substantially worse than having an erroneous entry in a list of ... article. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 December 2014[edit]

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

After the deletion of the "Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange" page, I have made modifications on the draft. Could you please tell me if it's ok for publication? Draft:Luxembourg Commercial Internet Exchange. Lola2012 (talk) 08:34, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow. Thank you for working on this. Although I can see that the AFD close was reasonable, it is entirely appropriate that WP should have articles on this sort of topic. For businesses that are not customer-facing and that have no need for generating press interest, our guideline notability criteria seem to me to be none too appropriate. However, in this case it looks as if you have jumped through the right hoops for people who value that sort of activity. Thincat (talk) 13:07, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. What's the next step to get this page published ? Lola2012 (talk) 16:16, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was giving my personal opinion and not a decision! I suggest you wait for other people to have their say and then someone can close the discussion summarising what has been agreed. Thincat (talk) 18:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow sources look to meet WP:N. And Lola, assume this will take a week before it gets a formal okay. It could be faster, but don't count on it. Hobit (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation - there are still a few language problems to fix (but nothing insurmountable) and it could do with a bit more technical clarity, but it looks okay to me. I've tried to clean it up a little. If someone strongly objects then they can take it back to AFD. St★lwart111 06:01, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 December 2014[edit]

15 December 2014[edit]

14 December 2014[edit]

13 December 2014[edit]

12 December 2014[edit]

  • Jorge Gracie – The "delete" closure is endorsed, without prejudice to the recreation of a version that uses sources not discussed in the AfD, which should then be resubmitted to AfD. –  Sandstein  12:14, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jorge Gracie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

There was no consensus on the page. No Consensus. Not even a simple majority. I improved the page and would like to have it reconsidered for mainspace. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jorge_Gracie

This is an updated article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CrazyAces489/Jorge_Gracie

CrazyAces489 (talk) 06:48, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Well I count three people suggesting deletion (the nominator + two bolded votes) and two opining keep, so if you would feel happy on a simple majority there you have it. Regardless as you imply it's not a majority count thing, it's about the strength of arguments, in this case problems about sourcing were highlighted, and the keep side didn't really address that. One of the keepers conceding that good quality sources online or offline were unlikely to be found. You listed a range of things, a looked at a few and found blog posts and one were the subject wasn't even mentioned... --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:40, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • To their credit, the more deletion-minded editors working on the martial arts wikiproject confront a vast number of sub-par martial arts bio articles which necessitate a good deal of, well, deletion to be dispensed. I believe that this sometimes can lead to a more heavy-handed approach for some articles that do have actual promise but clearly don't yet have all the pieces in place. This article is now substantially more developed then it was when the AfD was originally nominated, and while a good deal of an article's overall worthiness for inclusion specifically into the MA project is won or lost contingent upon the rigorous standards of the project's own notability guidelines, I still believe that this particular bio has long ago met the more general guidelines for inclusion within the encyclopedia generally. Buddy23Lee (talk) 09:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse undeletion This article seems properly short, albeit very short. Subject matters seems fine with me. Libercht (talk) 15:08, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Libercht: Can I ask what article you looked at? George Gracie (the link in the header) is not actually the subject of this DRV, and the userspace version is in no way short. Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 13:56, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think "delete" was within discretion, although I'd personally have preferred "no consensus" as a close. However, the AfD was defective and I'm afraid that although no blame attaches to Spartaz as closer, I do think we will need to disturb the outcome a bit.

    A key consideration here is that there are at least two important sources the AfD failed to unearth: a Martial Arts Encyclopaedia ISBN 1598842439 (page 32) and the April 1997 issue of Black Belt Magazine (page 63). We also need input from a Portuguese speaker to read other sources since many are not going to be in English. Searchers should note the existence of an ancestral George Gracie who left Scotland for Brazil in the nineteenth century: this is not the same bloke, he's actually the grandfather of the five Gracie men who founded BJJ.

    However, when you actually read the sources with an encyclopaedist's eye, they're not about Jorge/George Gracie. They're actually about the Gracie family in a more general sense, and we already have that article (Gracie family). I think the sources we've dug up here should be used to expand it.

    But you see, since we do have an article on Gracie family, Jorge Gracie needs to be a redirect to it. That's a possibility that the AfD should have considered and didn't.

    Technically, we could "endorse" the close and then create the redirect as a separate editorial action, or else we could overturn the AfD and relist it with a recommendation that they consider redirecting. I don't care which.—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is there a reason why I have not been notified of this discussion? I know you both know where my talk page is. I don't agree that the AFD discussion was defective. The discussion was about the content and the consensus for that was delete based on the fact that the fairly low level requirements of the GNG have not been met. A redirect is not precluded by that discussion and requires no adminsitrative tools. Merges and redirects go to AFD when there is a doubt about the consensus for that action and are a later addition to articles for deletion An AFD is not defective if no-one suggests a redirect and a closing admin is certainly not at fault if they do not consider such in their close. Indeed, I fear nasty terms like supervote and admin abuse might get bandied around if admins were to act in such a way. If someone had wants to create the redirect with the history beneath they do not require a DRV to enforce it. I'm disappointed that the nominator has not discussed this further with me before starting this DRV, but, unfortunately, such behavior is no longer the exception here. I'm not making any formal vote as I frankly don't give a stuff either way. Spartaz Humbug! 15:38, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not my field,but the possibility of a redirect was obvious from the discussion even if not proposed specifically,and should have been considered. Good practice is to mention the possibility if only to reject it. DGG ( talk ) 18:20, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz, I didn't mean to upset you or try to make you look bad. I simply thought this is where you go IF you want an article back after changes have been made to an article to make it better. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:47, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the instructions? Point 1 under instructions and then step 4 of the steps for listing. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I counted two keep votes and 2 deletes and 1 weak delete. I feel this article could be improved even more. As a founder of BJJ, he is far more significant than his Kyra Gracie CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:48, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX arguments are usually pretty weak. Maybe he is far more significant, but merely asserting that is not helpful, where are the sources about him? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:06, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are sources about him are in the article, but for your ease. These are a few of the sources.

Pedreira, Roberto (April 10, 2014). Choque: The Untold Story of Jiu-Jitsu in Brazil 1856-1949 (Volume 1). CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform. ISBN 978-1491226360.

http://graciebarracarlsbad.com/history/

http://www.bjjee.com/articles/top-10-most-controversial-team-switchers-in-jiu-jitsu-history/

http://www.cagesideseats.com/2012/11/3/3550050/the-martial-chronicles-origins-of-mixed-martial-arts-the-brazilian

http://www.bjjheroes.com/bjj-fighters/george-gracie-facts-and-bio CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:06, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I meant sources which the AFD didn't consider and meet the standards required. Of the ones you've listed here, the first has a relation to the subject so isn't independent. The second credits bjjheroes with the informtion, the third isn't about him, lists pretty much nothing biographical about him and the final was in the considered during the AFD - "As for BJJHeroes, I am not sure that is either reliable or independent as a source." and is apparently the source of the second. Concentrate on the quality of the sources not the quantity. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So we can safely assume you're a vote for oppose then? Honestly, I think this article is pretty well sourced now given what we've had to work with. I'd agree that we always should aim for quality over quantity, but I think that viewing the sources in aggregate is not an entirely meaningless consideration either. Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:09, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No need to assume, I endorsed the deletion further up, and I'm not seeing anything being bought up here which would seem to invalidate the AFD. If the sources are questionable (some are blogs for example where the author states it's his personal opinion) then they shouldn't be there, the volume simply doesn't count for anything in that sort of situation. When the sources don't really support a standalone article, the answer is as others above have stated, include the information (or the significant parts of it) in as more general article and I would agree there does appear to be enough to support for that. Note as ever these decisions aren't a "never ever", they just reflect what we have now --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - it's not the closer's job to consider sources added to the article or to form a personal opinion about the notability of the subject. The discussion was re-listed twice and those involved had plenty of opportunities to make their arguments. DRV is not the place to make those arguments again. The closer did what he could with what was available; a simple majority in favour of deletion and arguments that clearly hadn't persuaded anyone to reconsider their position. Those arguing for retention here are the same as those who argued for retention at AFD and those arguments (despite the fact that they shouldn't be made here anyway) don't seem to be convincing anyone. St★lwart111 03:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the sources were added during the discussion and mentioned at the afd, then my personal opinion is that it is definitely the closers job to consider them. If the discussion had not taken into account the improved state of the article, the usual course is to relist. DGG ( talk ) 18:04, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree its the closer's job to consider whether or not there has been time to consider those sources. That said, there were two re-lists, plenty of contributions and almost a month of discussion before those sources were raised at the last minute. There were plenty of opportunities. And to be clear, the argument here still centres on strength of arguments and vote-counting, not a question of last-minute sources. St★lwart111 00:20, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the previous article wasn't sourced properly and the votes were not much in the way of a consensus. It was the the 2 deletes and a weak delete vs 2 keeps. That is about 60% for delete and 40% for keep. I would say put the article back to main space and if someone wants to delete the article they can vote to put it up for deletion. CrazyAces489 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've struck your bolded vote, as nominator you've alredy !voted. How many bites at the cherry do you want? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:22, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you'll do what you did for Ron Duncan anyway and ignore the result of the DRV and just recreate it at a different title, which is also likely a copyvio problem as it doesn't retain any edit history for the others who contributed to that article --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:34, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
86, I believe that was a suggestion. To recreate it and take it to AFD. [18] CrazyAces489 (talk) 13:39, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No one suggested you create a copyvio. No one suggested recreating it with a different title, and not suggestions about not taking it back to AFD (a part of the "suggestion" you've not bothered with). Regardless the consensus the closing admin found, was to endorse the deletion, a consensus you ignored. You do understand the point of these discussions is not for you to just pick the comments you like and ignore the rest right?--86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but restore draft and relist. The original AfD close could have gone either way (delete or NC). I probably would have closed it as NC, but certainly the outcome chosen by the closer was well within discretion. On the other hand, there's a new draft of the article which is claimed to address the concerns which led to its deletion. DRV is a poor venue to evaluate if it's really improved enough to justify recreation, because the conversation is a muddled mix of evaluating the article vs. evaluating the AfD process. So, I suggest restoring the current userfied version and letting AfD take a fresh look at it. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no new draft. There's this, which is 95% formatting changes and 5% one new paragraph of kayfabe presented as fact. —Cryptic 10:42, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 December 2014[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Los Angeles Dodgers Logo.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

File was deleted on Wikimedia Commons L!tt|e+ung?\2o/3=] 14:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This is en.wiki, not the Commons. Since logos are copyrighted, it never should have been uploaded there in the first place, so I don't really see what the problem is. We already have File:Los Angeles Dodgers Logo.png here. Tarc (talk) 14:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The point is that it was incorrectly labelled (not by the uploader) as PD-textlogo, moved to Commons, and then speedied here. Deletion's still correct, however; a vector image is never going to meet WP:NFCC#2/3b. Go with the low-res png copy. —Cryptic 23:20, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 December 2014[edit]

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

No indication that the business is notable. Lola2012 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I first tried to talk with the administrator who deleted my page but he didn't answer me.

I would like to allow recreation of my page, so that I will be able to add sources (to prove that the business is notable). My page was incomplete when it was deleted and I would like to improve it.

Lola2012 (talk) 11:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]


  • Thank you very much. When the draft will be done, what will be the next step to have the page published ?

Lola2012 (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Bring it back here (to deletion review) to be checked. There's no deadline. Are you happy for us to close this review in the meantime?—S Marshall T/C 21:23, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can close it, thank you.

Lola2012 (talk) 08:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 December 2014[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Coat of arms of the Donetsk People's Republic (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I declined this for an A10 speedy deletion. It was nominated again for A3 and declined again by another editor. It was then nominated again for a third time, all in quick succession and deleted by user:RHaworth. I informed the user that it had already been declined but he refused to restore. It fails A10 because although very short, almost sub-stub, it succeeds in that short space in presenting at least two facts that are not in the article it is alleged to be a duplicate of. I very much fail to see in any case how an article about a coat of arms can be a duplicate of an article about a republic. Further, its deletion is a breach of the deletion policy which says of renominations of speedy deletion "If there is a dispute over whether a page meets the criteria, the issue is typically taken to deletion discussions, mentioned below, rather than being deleted." Since it was declined by two different editors I think we can say there is certainly a dispute. SpinningSpark 18:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I note that the article was deleted out of process it appears that it was created by a block evading sock and was substantially just 3 images and a couple of words that to my mind added no content. As such I think it would be WP:BURO to restore this although I see no reason why any good faith editor cannot be allowed to write a up a new article based on proper sources. There is a risk of this being a FORK but that needs a discussion to evaluate so lets just leave that here. I'm not formally voting as the deletion was clearly out of process. Spartaz Humbug! 18:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I believe I declined a speedy on this article as well, for the same reasons as Spinningspark; and also because there's a clearly established practice of maintaining independent articles on such national coats of arms, as demonstrated by the roughly 200 articles in Category:National coats of arms. A10 states that an article should not be speedied if its title is a plausible redirect to the purportedly duplicated article, and that heavily populated category leaves little doubt of the plausibility here. The speedy is therefore incorrect both substantively and procedurally under A10, as well as posing a demonstrably controversial issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a valid A10 as the topic is clearly different. Might be speedable as a valid G5 (I can't judge). Out of curiosity, is there a rule that one can't speedy something under a criteria once it has been contested? I thought there was, but I can't find it at WP:CSD. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse my deletion. In the time that the Spinningspark has been fussing over this, he could have copied the only two facts in the article into Donetsk People's Republic. I have now done it. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 22:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, now that you have done that then the article has to be restored as a redirect to preserve the history and comply with our licencing requirements. SpinningSpark 23:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • The two edits User:RHaworth made to that article do not seem to meet the threshold of originality. Therefore, the licensing requirements do not require restoring the article as a redirect. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:50, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As per Stefan2 our licensing requirements are about copyright, the sentence here is unlikely to warrant any copyright protection so wouldn't require any attribution to the original author. I don't know how close it is to the original, but if there is a real concern it could easily be rephrased to remove any doubt. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:28, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - obviously bad A10 deletion, even if there's 100% duplication, it's plausibly appropriate for a redirect. That it contains information that's not duplicated in the Donetsk People's Republic article just makes it doubly bad. WilyD 10:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And checking, the A10 was declined? And re-added? And then the bogus A10 was honoured? Straight up abuse. RHaworth needs to be seriously reprimanded, and RGloucester should be warned that re-adding declined, bogus speedy deletion tags is unacceptable disruption. WilyD 10:30, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The mention in Donetsk People's Republic was removed within ten minutes, in case anyone missed it. —Cryptic 23:14, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted without endorsing any actions. Right outcome, poor process. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 14:58, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, but nor it is a thugocracy where admins use their tools to enforce their preferred version in content disputes. WilyD 10:29, 22 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and list at AfD. Speedy deletion is for articles where there's no doubt it should be deleted. Debates at AfD is how we sort these things out, not by wheel warring. I agree with Stifle that outcome trumps process, but by the time three different editors have contested attempts to delete the article, it's time to admit the situation isn't as clear-cut as you thought it was. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and list at AfD. As SpinningSpark explained in the nomination statement, Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#A10. Recently created article that duplicates an existing topic does not apply:

    it succeeds in that short space in presenting at least two facts that are not in the article it is alleged to be a duplicate of. I very much fail to see in any case how an article about a coat of arms can be a duplicate of an article about a republic.

    Although Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G5. Creations by banned or blocked users might apply (I cannot see who the creator is), the article should be restored since a good faith editor (in this case, SpinningSpark) finds its material useful.

    Once a speedy tag has been declined by an established editor, it should not be restored because deletion would be controversial. (The rare exceptions would be if the article violated the policies Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons or Wikipedia:Copyright violations.)

    In this case, deletion is clearly controversial since as RoySmith noted multiple editors have removed the speedy. The article should be listed at AfD for a full discussion about its merits.

    Cunard (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Samantha Hess – Overturn to NC. I must admit, if I was closing this AfD, I would have closed it the same way Chillum did, but there's an overwhelming consensus here to overturn to NC, so that's what we're doing. It's worth mentioning Stalwart111's suggestion that the right way to frame this article might be about the business rather than the person – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Samantha Hess (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe the close at AfD Samantha Hess interpreted consensus in that discussion correctly. I have discussed the matter with the admin who deleted the page, suggesting that he may wish to re-open the AfD for further comment or alternatively reconsider his close, and the admin directed me here.

Nom's baseless ramblings "This article is about a woman who started a business in Portland, Oregon, USA where she hugs people for $60/hour. This article does not meet notability guidelines. A proper thing to do would either be deletion or redirect to Cuddling. All the references are about the novelty of cuddling, not Samantha Harris. There is not much depth in coverage and no coverage about her biography, such as if she has a Ph.D. in Cuddle Science from the University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cuddling (no such department or degree), or how she is a pioneer in the field of skin research. If the user's name creating the article was SamanthaHess, this user would have been blocked and the article deleted. That shows that the article should be deleted". Carefully read the last line, where he speaks for the subject, and where he jokes about Cuddling degree. It was a bit of a shock that 4 people supported Delete without reading what the article was about while two users who supported Keep were saying reasonable stuff in support for keeping. Read users' @DGG: comment for why the article should be kept. The people who wanted the article deleted were saying that it is WP:BLP1E, but as you will read in @DGG: response, this thing applies to events not BLP's. Furthermore, instead of focusing the discussion on the topic the discussion began focusing on nominator's block/unblock which completely slowed down the consensus and which probably resulted in Delete in error. I strongly suggest to look at keep comments because they are descriptive while delete sayers are pushing their agenda which is irrelevant to the nomination. Considering the last delete vote which says "it seems pretty obvious that the spirit of BLP1E applies", clearly shows that he leans toward delete but at the same time agreeing with user DGG's comment.--Mishae (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note from closer: I was just notified of this DRV so I am here to give my say. If was voted in this AfD I might have gone another way. However I felt to close it any other way than how I did would be disregarding consensus. Policy needs to be interpreted and the interpretation of those seeking deletion was not unreasonable and while those seeking keep also had a reasonable interpretation they did not enjoy consensus.

    If significant sources were presented after the discussion took place then I am of course open to reinterpretation of consensus. I have no horse in this race, this was a routine closure. Consensus can change, and the community can be fickle. I am cool with that. Chillum 08:32, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn AfD is not a vote, it is an engaged debate in which persuasive arguments based on rules and evidence should otweigh paltry or unsubstantiated arguments. 1.) some editors cast delete votes on the grounds that: she has a little media flurry earlier this year. And that is insufficient. But these editors have the facts wrong. She had a significant media flurry in January 2014, and an enormous global media wave in November. Waaay more than enough reliable coverage in major sources to meet WP:GNG. I say htis as someone who winced when I saw what the article is about. Cuddling? I mean, really? 2.) Other editors make a better argument when they claim that she doesn't meet WP:BLP because she really hasn't done much. That may be right. Perhaps there are significant profiles of her as a person, in which case I stand corrected, but at a glance the articles seem to be about her business, so it might make sense to move the article to something like : Samatha's Hess' cuddling business, or whatever she calls it. As a cussling shop, she passes WP:GNG easily. 3.) Let's not let our biases show. Is it possible that this is a chick thing, that women respond to a story about a woman who founds a successful cuddling business, editors the world over know that and run the story, but the guy-dominated administration of Wikipedia is just too, well, guy minded to recognize a notable topic even when it bites us? Well, it wouldn't be the first time WP has been accused of that. That, however, is mere speculation on my part. My point (points 1, & 2) is that this passes WP:GNG, and should not have been closed as delete.ShulMaven (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost forgot to mention, on that very day when deletion happened in the morning I have added 2 Business Insider refs, at which the admin just scoffed at. If the article is about person's business shouldn't Bussiness Insider be a sufficient RS?--Mishae (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I moved this discussion from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 2 to today's log. Cunard (talk) 02:07, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • From the closing admin's talk page:
    Extended content
    User Eating Glass Is Bad

    Hello. I know that in the past you have been in contact with that user so I decided to stop by for a chat with you on that. You see, on November 16, 2014, he have nominated an article Samantha Hess for deletion. Can you be so kind to come and see if the article is indeed need to be deleted? Because from his talkpage I can tell that this nomination was just another way of him trolling here.--Mishae (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello. After reviewing the AfD and how long it has been going on I have closed it as a consensus to delete. Without further evidence I do not see any indication the nomination was in bad faith. Chillum 21:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Per what criteria? Like there was Business Insider as ref, isn't that enough for a notability considering 2 keeps which were quite detailed? Plus, can you make me a favor and put this article into my sandbox or its now impossible to do so?--Mishae (talk) 01:03, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability was the primary criteria mentioned. Exchanging physical contact for money is not exactly a new idea and those participating in the AfD were not convinced by arguments that this topic was notable. Chillum 03:59, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I put a copy in your sandbox per your request. Chillum 04:06, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. Yes, notability was mentioned but it was before I added Business Insider. I believe that we should re establish the article per Business Insider refs which were not viewed by consensus. Your thought?--Mishae (talk) 04:33, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    My thought is that the AfD got more than a normal amount of time by a significant amount and that there was a clear policy based consensus for deletion. As an admin it is not up to me to make up my mind if it should be deleted or not, it is my job to interpret consensus. Chillum 05:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    O.K. Because my feeling here was that maybe you just didn't read the whole article. Some admins do look at the article's talkpage, count how many people said Keep and Delete but I think that's not how consensus suppose to work. If a whole bunch of Delete sayers say that this article should be deleted per one event and users @DGG: and @Neonchameleon: say that WP:1EVENT doesn't apply here, we suppose to look at situation differently. Am I mistaken? If so where? I would like to apologize though in case if my previous sentences before this line sound uncivil, but you probably getting the point. Like, I put Business Insider refs this morning. Nobody bothered to look at them for some unknown to me reason. I assume though that people have thought that the article would not get better, but Business Insider refs are more RS than Daily Mail. I don't know maybe Business Insider refs don't establish notability? Like, not many article use them. What's your thought on Business Insider as an RS?--Mishae (talk) 05:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The idea that someone it notable for cuddling for money not being up to our notability standards is an opinion, one that did not enjoy consensus. The idea that being noted solely for an unusual occupation is not covered by WP:1EVENT is an opinion, one that did not enjoy consensus. The only event covered for this person is their cuddling business and that is a reasonable policy based interpretation that enjoys consensus.
    Both the view points of those seeking deletion and those seeking keeping were reasonable, but those seeking deletion held a significant majority. AfD is not a vote count but that simply means that those who make unreasonable arguments can be given less weight.
    I am not going decide for myself if the article is worthy, that would make me a bad admin. That is not how one closes an AfD, we judge the consensus of others.
    If you think I have closed this incorrectly I welcome the scrutiny of the community as always. I am not going to change my mind on this matter so you can take it to deletion review if you want to pursue the matter. Chillum 06:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Cunard (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closer noted:

    The idea that someone it notable for cuddling for money not being up to our notability standards is an opinion, one that did not enjoy consensus. The idea that being noted solely for an unusual occupation is not covered by WP:1EVENT is an opinion, one that did not enjoy consensus. The only event covered for this person is their cuddling business and that is a reasonable policy based interpretation that enjoys consensus.

    Both the view points of those seeking deletion and those seeking keeping were reasonable, but those seeking deletion held a significant majority. AfD is not a vote count but that simply means that those who make unreasonable arguments can be given less weight.

    The closer was mistaken when he wrote "those seeking deletion held a significant majority".

    Five editors supported deletion: Eating Glass Is Bad (talk · contribs) (who was blocked indefinitely with the blocking rationale Wikipedia:Competence is required), Dylanfromthenorth (talk · contribs), LaMona (talk · contribs), Ritchie333 (talk · contribs), and NickCT (talk · contribs).

    Three editors supported retention: DGG (talk · contribs), Neonchameleon (talk · contribs), and Mishae (talk · contribs).

    The community was split 5–3 over whether to retain the article. This is a "narrow majority" for deletion, not a "significant majority".

    The community was sharply divided 4–3 over whether WP:BLP1E applied to the article's subject. (User:Eating Glass Is Bad did not mention WP:BLP1E in his deletion rationale.) There was no consensus that BLP1E was applicable. I found DGG's comment about BLP1E not applying very persuasive:

    First of all, BLP1E is irrelevant; someone having a profession is not an "event"--she does it on a continuing basis. It would be a single event if the coverage was based on a report of her having done one publicized session.

    An editor who supported deletion per BLP1E wrote:

    It's true that WP:BLP1E is a little hard to apply here because technically this isn't an "event" per se. That said, it seems pretty obvious that the spirit of BLP1E applies.

    This basically acknowledges that BLP1E as written is inapplicable to the article's subject. I do not see a strong argument on the "delete" side that conclusively demonstrates that BLP1E is applicable. In the absence of such a consensus, there was no policy-based reason mandating deletion, so the closer should have closed the AfD as "no consensus".

    Cunard (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • So does it mean that I can re create the article?--Mishae (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A deletion review generally runs for at least seven days, after which it will be closed by an uninvolved admin. This DRV will be closed after 00:15, 16 December 2014 (UTC). Cunard (talk) 00:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to Keep - obvious supervote, the most charitable interpretation is that the closer didn't bother to read the discussion or look over the article before closing. 2+ years of coverage, nobody plausibly disputes that it meets WP:N, and only deletion argument was WP:IDONTLIKEIT. There's some merit to the WP:BLP1E concern, but if anybody bothered to read that policy before invoking it, they'd learn that it says articles about events should be covered as events rather than as people, not that they should be deleted. The same logical applies here, although this is an article about a notable business, not an event; the "policy" position is to move it to Cuddle Up to Me and re-write it as an article about a business, rather than a biography. Can't really argue that here given it wasn't brought up at the AfD, but it's the right outcome after this silliness is resolved. Man alive - if User:DGG thinks an article about a business shouldn't be deleted, you've totally lost the plot if you disagree. WilyD 10:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - I !voted delete, but the keep arguments were reasonable, though not enough to sway my opinion. A sample of more and continuing news coverage would change my mind, however. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why can't it be an article on a biography if majority of refs point at her?--Mishae (talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endose - WP:BLP1E was applied correctly, no fault in closing admin's action. Tarc (talk) 15:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we have another user who doesn't read what the others are saying... User WilyD have pointed out that WP:BLP1E doesn't apply here because articles about events should be covered as events rather than as people, not that they should be deleted. Does making it bolder improve your understanding on what the debate is about? P.S. I hope I am not being uncivil?--Mishae (talk) 15:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Don't presume to give me or anyone else here instructions on reading, newbie. I hold to a rather strict interpretation of BLP1E, and find that this person is only receiving coverage because of her unusual business practice, that's all there is to it. The closing admin accepted the strength of that argument and closed accordingly. Tarc (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Tarc: Please be civil to me and learn how to accept criticism. I'm not a newbie, and neither are you. I was on Wikipedia maybe not as long as you are (since late 2009) but that doesn't mean that you have the right to bully and/or harass me. Just because my user page doesn't carry any service medals doesn't mean I am a newbie. O' and another thing, don't speak for others, speak for yourself!--Mishae (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. As User:DGG accurately noted in the AFD discussion, an article subject's profession is not an "event". This rather ersatz interpretation has never enjoyed consensus support, and cannot be reasonably squared with other aspects of BLP1E or with practice. Reading BLP1E this broadly, equivalent to "only one basis for notability", is clear error by the closer, and renders the close invalid. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:24, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn most likely to NC. Discussion showed enough coverage and a misunderstanding/overstatement of the reach of BLP1E isn't a very strong !vote. And no clear reason to discount the sources provided at the end of the discussion. Given the sources found above, this would move into keep territory. Hobit (talk) 17:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think sometimes WP:GNG is the only thing you can apply. There is stuff that just doesn't fit into any of the neat boxes. In such cases I feel comfortable just looking at whether the coverage has depth, geographic reach, extends over time, and/or is in mulitple major news sources. This business/person/cuddliness - or whatever you call it has it all in terms of coverage. I don't think it matters that she/it doesn't fit a neat category. I still say overturn. I don't understand why anyone would pay for this, but the coverage establishes WP:NShulMaven (talk) 19:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as generally within discretion, but allow creation of Cuddle Up to Me as suggested above. Overturn to "no consensus" would probably be okay too. The BLP1E concerns arise because the person in question is known for one thing. Not "one event", sure, but one thing nonetheless. That said, it's kind of like saying George Clooney is only notable for one thing; being an actor. It's a bit silly. But it's what editors chose to focus on nonetheless. There is certainly coverage, but I think an article about the business would be preferable to an article about the individual, wouldn't it? St★lwart111 00:21, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 December 2014[edit]

7 December 2014[edit]

  • User:Gabepage – Moot. This is all kind of confusing, but it appears the page in question has already been restored in Draft space, which seems like the right place for it to be, so we're done. No consensus here on whether that draft should get promoted to main article space or not. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Gabepage (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This draft is about Gabriel Rothblatt, a congressional candidate who received a significant amount of news coverage during the 2014 midterm election. A Google Search of "Gabriel Rothblatt" receives a considerable amount of coverage from notable news sources. This draft was deleted before its notability could be proven with sufficient references. Please restore the page in accordance with Wikipedia's rules. Wikipedia allows article drafts on userspaces. See User_pages#User_pages_that_look_like_articles. Placing this template Template:Userspace_draft on the userspace indicates the users intention to create an article and the draft is not complete. Article drafts may also be put on userspace subpages. See Wikipedia:User_pages#Terminology_and_page_locations. Waters.Justin (talk) 18:27, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • to help understand what has happened to of the article, I temporarily undeleted the entire earlier history DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - a {{sandbox notice}} is a good idea, but ultimately, the draft wasn't written in even a vaguely promotional style. Not one word different from how I'd have written it. WilyD 11:55, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see more than 2 revisions, making it hard to judge the G11 deletion. Hobit (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The speedily deleted draft did not contain a single promotional word. This page clearly does not fall afoul of Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion (WP:G11), which applies only to "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Cunard (talk) 00:39, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. I'm puzzled by the edit history. Could Waters.Justin please explain why he created the article at User:Gabepage instead of that user himself doing it? Regardless of the answer, it appears to me that the page constitutes canvassing by a political candidate and I agreed with the assessment of the user who tagged it for speedy deletion. Deb (talk) 09:16, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not overly promotional. And a draft to boot (where we should generally be more accepting of things as they are ideally in the process of being improved). I wouldn't think this would even get deleted at MfD Overturn. Hobit (talk) 12:07, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started the article on a userspace because Wikipedia allows articles to be created on userspaces and then moved to mainspace, and that seemed like an easy process to me. I have never used Wikipedia:Article_wizard to start an article, but after this difficulty I will start using article wizard. Creating the article was not canvassing. The election is over, and Rothblatt lost. The article even included the controversial issue of having a supportive PAC started by his parents. A Google search, limited to News sources, brings over 100 notable links. His father is Martine Rothblatt, the founder of Sirius radio and United Therapeutics. Rothblatt also has connections to Ray Kurzweil. Rothblatt's connections and his views are why his election made so much news coverage. Waters.Justin (talk) 12:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good. I think what you're saying is that there is no such user as "Gabepage"; it is what we call a sockpuppet that you created - albeit unintentionally - in order to store a draft article. I would have had no problem with this if you had created the article in mainspace, but by placing it where you did, you made it appear to be a promotional page that you created on behalf of the political candidate you support. I would therefore recommend that you recreate the article again in your own user space, where the problem will not arise. Deb (talk) 12:34, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And if I'm not mistaken, you also created another sockpuppet, User:Space_Party_movement. Deb (talk) 12:42, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia, "these accounts are not sockpuppets." See. Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Legitimate_uses for the legitimate uses of alternative accounts. My uses fall under the Privacy (designed to protect users who use their real name) and Maintenance exceptions ("to segregate functions"). I am also following Wikipedia best practices by disclosing the alternative accounts on my Waters.Justin userspace. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can quite see the privacy issue. It's natural that you would want to conceal the fact that you, as an active political campaigner in real life, were creating an article about the candidate and party you support - but then why broadcast the fact on your user page? The fact is, you have a conflict of interest. Deb (talk) 13:13, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no conflict of interest. I have never met Gabriel Rothblatt or anyone working on his campaigns in real life. I have only spoken to Gabriel and campaigners for him through Facebook and email, and I was never paid by them. I live in Florida like Rothblatt, so I followed the campaign. I am a law student, so to gain legal experience I volunteered by doing legislative research; although I never met anybody in person. Even assuming this is enough to make me a staff of his campaign it does not bar me from editing or creating an article on Rothblatt. It only bars me from editing the article on Bill Posey, the electoral opponent of Rothblatt. "Political candidates or their staff should not edit articles about their electoral opponents." However, under Wikipedia rules, even if I did edit Bill Posey, Wikipedia says "reliably-sourced, notable material written in a neutral point of view should not be deleted from articles with the intent of protecting the political interests of a party, agency, or government." See Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#Political. Waters.Justin (talk) 13:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC) Also, per Wikipedia, Conflict of Interest "COI allegations should not be used as a "trump card" in disputes over article content." See. Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest#How_to_handle_conflicts_of_interest Waters.Justin (talk) 14:17, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, now what you're doing is Wikipedia:Wikilawyering and I'm going to take the rest of this discussion over to your talk page rather than bore the rest of the contributors. Deb (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to copy my userspace draft into the article wizard, so that it is not deleted again, unless anyone has an objection. Afterwords I will mark the username User:Gabepage with a (dp-user) template to delete it, unless anyone disagrees. Waters.Justin (talk) 14:40, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No clue why that would help/change/whatever (as I think the original deletion was mistaken and moving it to draft space shouldn't make any difference as far as I know). But no objections. (I was asked for my thoughts on my talk page). Hobit (talk) 16:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The critical points are that the content appeared on a user page with a user name that appears promotional since Gabepage sounds like a host website for Gabriel Rothblatt. Speed deletion is also clearly justified under WP:U5 because of the user name. If Waters.Justin had created it as an article, then speedy deletion would not have been justified, but it would likely end up at AfD and almost certainly fail WP:POLITICIAN. --I am One of Many (talk) 19:56, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Erb? U5 says that "plausible drafts" aren't subject to that criteria. I have to say this is well past plausible into "has a shot at passing AfD as it stands". Hobit (talk) 20:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The key here is the user name "Gabepage". The user name strongly suggests Wikipedia is serving as a web host, but we know WP:NOTWEBHOST. If the user name were "Gabriel Rothblatt", then U5 would not apply. It would be appropriate to userfy the content within Waters.Justin's user space, but restoring the content of the page to the user Gabepage would go against policy. --I am One of Many (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a fine argument for deletion (though one I'd disagree with), but certainly not an argument for a speedy. WP:NOT isn't a criteria for speedy deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • U5 cannot apply to a plausible draft. Period. That's what U5 says. Are you claiming this somehow isn't a plausible draft? Hobit (talk) 17:41, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I copied the draft into the article wizard. Draft:Gabriel_Rothblatt, and I added delete user template to delete Gabepage.Thank you everyone for your assistance in helping me to retrieve my draft.Waters.Justin (talk) 01:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Involuntary celibacy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Allow recreation of this version of the article. While I understand the closing admin's rationale behind the merge, if feel the larger scope has been missed. Coffee's reasoning for merge comes down to what I understand as mainstream acceptance, and the veracity of the condition. Multiple scholarly sources including Duke University, Oxford University, and WebMD have studied this condition. Mainstream acceptance as a criteria for keep has never been a principal we abide by. Wikipedia documents the world as we see it not what is accepted. Obviously, this is a rare condition rarely mention in mainstream sources. However, Wikipedia does not require mainstream sources let alone mainstream acceptance as a reason for keeping. Our goals are to document verifiable conditions. What I am see is multiple reliable and academic sources documenting Incel, and thus passes notability requirements established. I cannot emphasize enough the issues with this deletion.

To pull the final nail out of the coffin, in the months after this AfD and the DRV, the condition has garnered mainstream attention. Elliot Rodger the perpetrator in the 2014 Isla Vista killings directly attributes Incel as the cause of the shooting with multiple "mainstream" reliable sources stating so. Business Insider, Jezebel, Salon, and many more. I believe an allow recreation is more than warranted. Valoem talk contrib 03:18, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disallow recreation Contrary to your argument we do not cover everything that is verifiable. We require notability as well. There were many arguments that this was a fringe term and covered by a wider topic and I don't see anything that has changed since then. The closure seems correct then and it seems correct now. Chillum 04:09, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have cited multiple primary reliable sources which clearly pass notability. Please clarify how the new citations fail notability. Valoem talk contrib 04:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The Elliot Rodger case and coverage alone seems like they easily cause this to pass WP:NOTE, and there are plentiful other sources as well. Personman (talk) 09:06, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • At the previous DRV, I endorsed the close but felt that Tokyogirl79's version of the article should be permitted. I still think so, and this is the version we're considering, so allow recreation.—S Marshall T/C 11:25, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - WP:MEDRS requires secondary sources in reliable literature. Researching periods of celibacy and sexual frustration does not equal a condition. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't see MEDRS as applying here. It's a social state of being. We don't need to pass MEDRS for things like DINKY or even celibacy. I don't see why this needs to. Hobit (talk) 20:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted - I am tired of this aggressive pushing for this article. A blog called Government Gets Girlfriends — written by and for "Incel" (involuntarily celibate) men who suffer from social anxiety — suggests a rather Orwellian solution to the problem of these dudes not getting laid: use hard-earned American tax dollars to pay women to go out with them. So... insurance-covered hookers. - Hafspajen (talk) 19:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I alerted editors of the Celibacy article to this discussion because the involuntary celibacy topic has been extensively discussed there. And recreating the article based on Tokyogirl79's version of the possible article has also been discussed there. This topic can have an article as a social matter instead of as a medical matter, but I'll leave that up to others. Flyer22 (talk) 20:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original decision and keep deleted. Once again, just fringe POV-pushing by the "incel/love shyness", the sources do not elevate it into any sort of noteworthy or notable topic that warrants a standalone article. Not having sex simply isn't a thing; he fact that I never had the athletic ability to fulfill my dream of manning left field for the Boston Red Sox doesn't give me involuntary clumsiness. Tarc (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I guess you'd have us delete the article on homelessness too, then. 2602:306:839B:1150:1126:8ADD:3EA2:ABD3 (talk) 01:28, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Incel is a blog site. Hafspajen (talk) 00:24, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I find multiple issues with disallowing recreation. I asked DGG to restore old revisions of the article to compare vs. Tokyogirl's revision. They differ significantly. This was the old revision nominated for deletion compared to this version which contains 14 additional citations from reliable secondary sources:
^ Gilmartin, Brian G. (Jul., 1985). "Some Family Antecedents of Severe Shyness". Family Relations 34 (3): 429–438. Retrieved 19 May 2014. Check date values in: |date= (help)
^ Abbott, Elizabeth (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. pp. 20, 294, 303, 309–312. ISBN 9780306810411. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
^ SEX AND SOCIETY (Abstinence- Gender Identity, Volume 1). Marshall Cavendish. 2010. p. 309. ISBN 9780761479062.
^ Brooks Frothingham, Octavius (1874). Theodore Parker: A Biography. G.P. Putnam's Sons/J. R. Osgood and Company. pp. 362, 369.
^ Olson, Carl (2007). Celibacy and Religious Traditions. Oxford University Press. p. 127. ISBN 9780198041818.
^ Jump up to: a b c d e Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth ; Anderson, Sally ; Davis, Regina ; Dillard, Joy (2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". The Journal of Sex Research 38 (2): 159–169. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
a b Hawes, Joseph M. (2002). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN 9781576072325.
^ O'Brien (editor), Jodi (2008). Encyclopedia of Gender and Society, Volume 1. SAGE. p. 120. ISBN 1412909163.
^ Lehmiller, Justin J. (2014). The Psychology of Human Sexuality. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 232. ISBN 1118351215.
^ Dirk van Zyl Smit, Sonja Snacken (2009). Principles of European Prison Law and Policy: Penology and Human Rights. Oxford University Press. p. xliii. ISBN 9780191018824.
^ Vines, Matthew (2014). God and the Gay Christian. Convergent Books. ISBN 9781601425171.
^ Jump up to: a b Hinsch, Bret (2013). Masculinities in Chinese History. Rowman & Littlefield. p. 126. ISBN 1442222336.
^ Kahan, Benjamin (2013). Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life. Duke University Press Books. p. 34. ISBN 9780822355687.
^ Ozment, Steven (1983). When Fathers Ruled: Family Life in Reformation Europe. Harvard University Press. p. 49. ISBN 0674951204.
^ Blum, Carol (2002). Strength in Numbers: Population, Reproduction, and Power in Eighteenth-Century France. JHU Press. p. 157. ISBN 9780801868108.
^ Bouchez, Colette. "Sexless in The City". Web MD. Retrieved 19 May 2014.
^ Laura M. Carpenter, John D. DeLamater (2012). Sex for Life: From Virginity to Viagra, How Sexuality Changes Throughout Our Lives. NYU Press. pp. 13, 16. ISBN 9780814723821.
Jump up ^ Burgess, Elizabeth; Donnelly, Denise ; Dillard, Joy ; Davis, Regina (2001). "SURFING FOR SEX: STUDYING INVOLUNTARY CELIBACY USING THE INTERNET.". Sexuality and Culture 5 (3): 5–30. Retrieved 19 May 2014.

It appears these sources were not taken into consideration. Additional sources have since arisen due to the 2014 Isla Vista killings:

Washington Post
Vice
The Guardian
Business Insider
Jezebel
Salon

Each of these sources are primary reliable sources which represent a real world example of a man who reacted violently to involuntary celibacy. What I am seeing here is a possible hive mind basing their opinions on prior AfD's and DRV without reading the significant differences between revisions. Tarc clumsiness is involuntary and we do have an article on clumsiness. Valoem talk contrib 07:53, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also underwent an extended term of involuntary celibacy. Nobody would sleep with me. Chillum 10:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, you and me both! Chillum, let's make a pact for next time this happens. Throw in our most eligible bachelor and we'll have a non-stop incelibacy party. Drmies (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I'm not a bachelor and most definitely ineligible. Been married for 10 years. And, most definitely not celibate. You gents are on your own.--v/r - TP 23:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Valoem - all of those pages are circumstantial and almost none are reliable when talking about such a phenomenon as this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am surprised to here this coming from two administrators sources clearly disagree with your suggesting of non-notable. Cas Liber please explain how this is circumstantial we document what sources say, in light of the Isla shootings this has since become more prominent. Valoem talk contrib 11:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone with a basic understanding would know that the profound lack of empathy that would lead to committing an act such as this was a sign of gross psychopathology that would be much much more important as a factor than a period of celibacy. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber I understand that, even though he obviously he had underlying illnesses that cause the crime it does not change the fact that he was an involuntary celibate and his celibacy is undeniably one of the factors. That is what the sources says and that is what we go by here. Valoem talk contrib 11:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
His "involuntary celibacy" was an end result of a much much larger problem and difficulty making and maintaining relationships of any kind. Focussing on it because of what he says is missing the point entirely. If he said he was an unrecognised genius would we be accepting of that too? No. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation (though allow creation would be more accurate). Maybe it's because we are on the wrong side of the Atlantic that S Marshall and I can't see what is the matter with User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2. I'm particularly puzzled (intrigued really) where "hard-earned American tax dollars" are a relevant criterion. It seems to me most people will be without a sexual partner at some stage in their lives and this will sometimes not be through choice. It would be surprising if research had not been done into the matter and, indeed, the draft article shows that such research has been done. Thincat (talk) 11:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is the article is misleadingly cobbling together disparate sources and synthesizing them as some reified condition. This is exceedingly unhelpful and potentially very damaging to uninformed readers. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:09, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This is clearly not the case. This source alone WebMD defines involuntary celibates. Valoem talk contrib 11:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An off-the-cuff comment from someone in mental health cobbled together with some scenarios does not a syndrome make. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Cas Liber, Wikipedia has never operated this way, if multiple reliable scholarly sources from experts in the health industry publisher articles on this social condition then it yes it is notable. And your response above "what if he said he was unrecognized genius" is among the most ridiculous arguments I have ever heard, based on your argument we should delete every article because "what if" can be applied to any situation. It matters on what sources say it is not "what if", but "what has", but this isn't anything new. Valoem talk contrib 14:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disallow recreation Per arguments above by Cas Liber, Hafspajen, Tarc and others. This article has been deleted before on several occassions, all of it's merges failing as no article would take it. The mainstream recognotion of the term is virtually non-existent, coverage in a wider sense of the word bleak at best and mostly centered around the Isla Vista shootings of May 2014. The term is quite popular with certain online blogs and certain communities, but is rarely mentioned (let alone seriously studied) by anyone who has relevance. The only scholar of some note to have seriously studied the subject is Denise Donnelly. But some examination of this person shows that her article was created only as a way to legitimalize the existence of an article on Involuntary celibacy - upon deletion of its article, material was merged into the Donnelly page which is rather fishy. A merge with the celibacy article was unsuccessful because celibacy is, by definition, voluntary. Involuntary celibacy is an oxymoron when celibacy means "to choose a life without sexual intercourse". All things considered, and with the articles questionable past and relentless rallying for it's undeletion and re-creation, I am strongly in favor of keeping it a (protected?) red link. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 16:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources are above the bar. We've got mainstream sources and a moderate bit of moderate academic work. allow move to mainspace. Hobit (talk) 20:27, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Which sources would they be? The ones above? Which ones talk about this as some sort of entity or syndrome and are secondary? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There are about 16 sources including Oxford and Duke University listed above. Valoem talk contrib 23:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[19] and [20] are fine academic sources. [21] is certainly on point. The other sources I can get access to aren't as solid, but there also appear to be a few papers purely on this topic (behind a wall of some sort). But just those three put us over the bar IMO. Hobit (talk) 00:52, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first is written by a non-notable medical journalist in a blog of a GP, the second is investigation by the primary researcher (Gilmartin) who is the one trying to reify this condition, and the third is about the person who killed a load of people who reported he was sexually frustrated. Promoting this is ignoring the obvious sociopathic aspects of this. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unclear why a journalist needs to be notable for the work to be useful here. As far as I can tell, we've got a source with reasonable editorial oversight. Good enough to be a reliable source. For the second, I'm less sure, but I don't really see why a published source, with peer review, would count as primary for much of anything. The third is a mainstream media source that effectively cites the 2nd. Making it exactly the kind of thing we'd want as a secondary source. Sure, it may all be bunk. But we aren't claiming a medical condition here. We are claiming that we have a topic that meets WP:N. Hobit (talk) 05:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find about half the comments in this DRV really hard to understand. Involuntary celibacy would not normally be a medical condition. I mean, something like penis removal or FGM could cause involuntary celibacy, but that's not what this article is about. We're talking about people who're physically capable of intercourse and psychologically desirous of it, but not in a social position where copulation is a possibility. In other words, this is a social phenomenon. It's not a syndrome of any kind and MEDRS is the wrong guideline. "Involuntary celibacy" is probably the wrong phrase, firstly because it comes with all this baggage from a couple of recent cases that people understandably don't want an article about, and secondly because celibacy is by definition a choice so involuntary celibacy is a contradiction in terms. The topic we want an article about is sexually inactive people who'd like to become sexually active. (My heart goes out to them, actually. Imagine what kind of mental place you'd have to be in to join an online subculture/support group for people who're extremely unsuccessful at romance.)—S Marshall T/C 01:19, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is masquerading as a legitimate standalone psychological phenomenon rather than a phenomenon related to other (often tragic) psychological and social syndromes and situations. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think a lot of the sources make it really clear this isn't a standalone thing. If the article doesn't make that clear, it can be fixed. But the sources weigh strongly in that direction. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It will probably continue to have people push for re-creation until either the people doing so give up, or we find a workable compromise. A workable compromise would be a name change that is accepted by a majority of editors. The phenomenon itself may have a few sources, but the name "involuntary celibacy" is an incorrect one as the meaning of the word celibacy is to not have sex by choice. If the content is to stay on Wikipedia, I suggest it is either moved to an article (other then celibacy) as a sub-section (sexual frustration has been mentioned in the past as a possibility), or a new article is started under a different, more fitting name. I am personally opposed to including the material for reasons that I mentioned before, and think the previous deletions and the reasoning behind them still stand unchanged, but would not oppose to these compromises if they would have sufficient support. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 08:12, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes. Quite so. It is something SOMEBODY started calling celibacy but it is not celibacy. Like if somebody would call an apple variety Pear, and than go add it to the pear article all the time. Hafspajen (talk) 09:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • And by the way, I don't think high about the draft and Reformed theologian Karl Barth ideas about Apostle Paul who was incel. Apostle Paul was actually married. The members of the Sanhedrin were required to be married, and Eusebius of Caesaria who is usually seen as a historic reference outside the Bible, and who wrote Ecclesiastical History, noted that Apostle Paul was married. He also said that Paul was short, bald and bow-legged, and left his wife at home when out travelling, if anyone is interested in small details. Apostle Peter was married as well, by the way. Hafspajen (talk) 09:44, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In reply to Mythic Writerlord (and I !voted allow above), I think your suggestion is very helpful. The present article title is unsatisfactory from many points of view – it seems to carry an emotional baggage; it may wrongly "reify" something; in my now elderly 1971 OED "celibacy" was only defined in relation to marriage with no reference to sexual activity. Initially I was not too keen on the expression "sexual frustration" but I have since thought of no better description. Our present article on sexual frustration is in need of improvement. Since the topic is not a syndrome but a subject of discourse we do not need to seek reliable sources for what this "thing" is called but instead we need to have a satisfactory description in English. Thincat (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I workable compromise is always the best, however the issue with a name change in this case is that all source use the term involuntary celibacy as the common name. The second most used term is incel, I am unable to find a more common term. Valoem talk contrib 15:26, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sexual frustration is frustration caused by a discrepancy between one's desired and achieved sexual activity. Of all above explanations that is exactly what the incel is. I would be extremely happy if incel would find its way to this article, added as the term incel means this and that but it is not celibacy only called celibacy - in the word strict meaning, but ... this and that. I said all the time that it should be added there but nobody will listen, but instead try to reinforce its connections with real celibacy -and in this case it becomes a fringe theory. But it is perfectly acceptable to add it to sexual frustration . I strongly encourage that solution, as I actually always did. Hafspajen (talk) 17:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Involuntary celibacy is define by time and/or physical inability though natural desire exists. Sexual frustration is vastly too vague and inherently different. Readings in Family Theory defines the term with time frame, desire, and physical or mental limitations. Incels encompass eunuchs as well Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life, to compare this to sexual frustration seems to be an understatement, a stricter definition is needed. The sources should suffice a stand alone article. Valoem talk contrib 18:45, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said. Hafspajen (talk) 18:54, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a misunderstanding. The two articles are unmergable. Sexual frustration is defined as an emotion which stems from lack of sex. It may be curable as it includes anorgasmia, premature ejaculation, or erectile dysfunction Web MD. Incel, on the other hand, is a forced lifestyle defined by time, anyone can be sexual frustrated, but not anyone can be incel. According to this article from The Frisky, there is a sub-culture which identifies with the term incel. Involuntary celibacy has more to do with celibacy than sexual frustration. However the word "involuntary" has its own connotations and according to the sources cited is distinct from celibacy suggesting this is a social phenomenon with its own distinctions, which has enough secondary sources to warrant a separate article. Valoem talk contrib 19:41, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several different sections, maybe? Involuntary celibacy has NOTHING to do with celibacy - it is not religious. It is a kind of sexual frustration. Hafspajen (talk) 22:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is all quite interesting, in all kinds of ways--not article-writing ways. I was struck by the following phrase: "Most individuals identifying as incel exhibit the same social behaviors as their peers who have sex lives". Don't most social conditions lead to differing social behaviors? I was making light of Chillum's earlier "couldn't get laid" comment, but that's really what this boils down to. Drmies (talk) 22:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term involuntary celibacy has been used with distinction and mentioned more often than sexual frustration with multiple sources citing only involuntary celibacy as an independent phenomenon. Merging the two articles is similar to merging ADD with ADHD, or schizoaffective disorder with schizophrenia . Valoem talk contrib 23:08, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But these people has no religious issues. They don't even belong to same faith, probably. Hafspajen (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that this is a neologism and is not generally validated or recognised. Also one of the sources talks about celibacy as a lifestyle choice, which makes the use of "involuntary" an oxymoron. Valoem, you are aware of what "involuntary" means, aren't you? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:21, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unclear why we are debating if this is a "social condition" or not. Or if it's about "not getting laid". Shouldn't the only relevant discussion be about sources, not what we think of the topic? Hobit (talk) 04:51, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • O-kay then, see above. some sources are unreliable and the ones that are reliable are only touching obliquely on the subject. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:26, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has a bearing on the kind of sourcing deemed acceptable. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drimies, I guess what I'm missing is how either of those two things are relevant to the kinds of sourcing. Could you explain what you're getting at? Hobit (talk) 20:07, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Articles that come into medical/psychological territory need secondary sources to establish reliability. Mainly as there is truckloads of experimental stuff and misinformation that could/would otherwise gain some legitimacy. This is a huge problem in this area. The thing that worries me is that some person with depression/anxiety/PTSD/personality issues reads some material (which happens) on involuntary celibacy (which is a symptom/outcome/problem' rather than a cause) and decides that is their issue rather than one of the former entities. The material is cobbled together and synthesised totally wrongly and in opposition to our policies in Original research and (medical) notability, and could be harmful. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't buy that this is a medical article. Or even a psychological article, though that is clearly more debatable. As far as harm goes, if the article is well written, it should be plain that this isn't a root cause as none of the sources claim it is and many note that it isn't. But even then, I don't think "social condition" or "not getting laid" is a reason for deletion. At least not per any guidelines or polices I'm aware of. It it is just "not getting laid" then it pretty clearly isn't a medical issue and the only real guidepost should be WP:N. But people are using that as an argument for not having an article... Hobit (talk) 20:56, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're now straying pretty far away from deletion review's customary bailiwick, but I wonder whether what we actually need is an article called sexual inactivity.—S Marshall T/C 13:22, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That I would be okay with. It would describe the same phenomenon and could use some of the same sources, but would have a more fitting name. It would not be linked to celibacy in any longer. I believe that could end the discussion. However, this Deletion Review is about whether or not to restore the article involuntary celibacy; I am still opposed to this, but if an editor (for example Valoem, who wishes to restore it) wants to create an article called "sexual inactivity" I would not oppose to this. This could be the workable compromise we've been looking for, and I think most parties would agree it is a reasonable compromise. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:27, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Call me crazy, but wouldn't that article be called celibacy? Tarc (talk) 13:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Celibacy specifically describes sexual inactivity that is purely by choice. Sexual inactivity as a whole would be more inclusive a term, and more broad. Involuntary celibacy is an oxymoron as celibacy is defined as being by choice, so it's literally "involuntary voluntary sexual abstinence", which makes no sense. An article on sexual inactivity in the broader sense of the word could also include a lack of sex that is not by choice. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 13:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fully agree with Mythic Writerlord. I cite Webster's dictionary: ... celibacy is the state of being unmarried, especially that under a wow. Hafspajen (talk) 15:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do agree that the term involuntary sexual abstinence is acceptable and we absolutely should have an article on sexual inactivity. However, I am afraid that an article under such name could be WP:NEO as sources use the term involuntary celibacy not abstinence. I am aware this is an oxymoron, although a well cited one at that, and unopposed to a better proper name. I am, however, against a merge into more general topics, such as sexual frustration or celibacy. The one point to note is that a small subculture has identified with the term incel which means the terminology has some cultural identity behind it. Valoem talk contrib 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creating a Sexual inactivity or an Involuntary sexual abstinence article just to cover involuntary celibacy would be needless WP:Content forking. As was already pointed out at the Celibacy talk page, we have enough articles about sexual inactivity, voluntary or otherwise. These articles (including the Asexuality article) refer to one another, and to have another article doing the same is overkill. If the involuntary celibacy topic is not to have its own Wikipedia article, but is sourced well enough to be covered on Wikipedia, it should go in one of the existing articles about sexual inactivity. The Sexual abstinence article is about voluntary and involuntary sexual abstinence. So, yes, an Involuntary sexual abstinence article would be a violation of WP:Content fork. But it is a valid point that we should stick to the terminology that the sources use for the topic. If the sources don't refer to involuntary celibacy as a form of sexual abstinence, then placing it in an article called Sexual abstinence can be considered a violation of the WP:Synthesis policy. Flyer22 (talk) 11:11, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse previous decision. No policy-based argument for changing that decision has been given and nothing has really changed in the intervening time. (In particular, the existence of a small but vocal group of people trying to push this into Wikipedia is one of the things that was not changed, and another is the notability of the subject.) —David Eppstein (talk) 00:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, it is recreated all the time, just suddenly changing that decision. I wonder how much theses previous decisions are respected - if they are respected at all. If - the outcome this time might be delete - it will probably be recreated in a week or so again. In a different version. Hafspajen (talk) 18:45, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
David Eppstein, please review the two articles. We are looking at two different versions of the article as well as additional citations regarding Isla Vista attack which will be added if "allow recreation" is accepted. Valoem talk contrib 00:29, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Constant recreation and extensive debate can mean only one thing, "no consensus". This topic has been extensively covered to suggest its lack of notability could not be further from the truth. Over 20 additional sources have been added with a completely different revision being debated. Perhaps the best outcome is allowing recreation followed by relisting. What I've noticed in my years editing Wikipedia is inherent bias regarding esoteric topics. Often it is the same editors from previous debates rehashing old viewpoints regardless of improvements to articles. I have not engaged in this topic before, but nothing could be better than new sets of eyes looking at this subject without bias. Per sources established, this unquestionably passes WP:N. Valoem talk contrib 21:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Or no respect for reached WP:Consensus, too. Hafspajen (talk) 04:57, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have expanded the article with an additional six citations including a documentary regarding this social phenomenon. The goal of any DRV or Undelete is to determine whether or not the article in question can pass AfD, keep mind consensus can change, since this article is substantially different from the prior version, the only way to find out is to try. Valoem talk contrib 22:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per David Eppstein. No evidence anything's really changed, and this seems like a bad-faith attempt to foist a fringe topic onto Wikipedia through persistence, which doesn't actually work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:19, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Really: they were unhappy, had small children and didn't do much together. Infidelity, illness, concerns about appearance and getting older can all put people off sex, as can pregnancy. When celibacy intervenes, it is usually not by mutual consent. You need to work out if you or your husband is what one self-help website calls an Incel. This is short for an involuntary celibate (incelsite.com). You'd qualify if you wanted sex but couldn't have it, because 'the spark' had gone or your husband refused. ? That's the Guardian source. What one self-help website calls an Incel. Now they are married too. Married people live in celibacy? Come on. Hafspajen (talk) 09:24, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately this sounds like your own disbelief which constitutes to WP:OR. Sources in fact state that is a real phenomena, which is what we go by here. Valoem talk contrib 18:46, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But Valoem, the above states clearly that basically it is a kind of sexual frustration not celibacy. Those people cited in the example were married, Valoem. It's impossible to live in celibacy AND be married. It is not an existing notion. And it looks like the Incel blogg calls it incel. Well - according to your sources. Hafspajen (talk) 05:33, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Allow recreationIt is foolish to consider this an attempt to push this problem as a illness. It is not so and is merely a strawman used by those who want the article removed for purely ideological reasons. Just like the word celibacy, which doesn't have one agreed meaning, this problem encompasses several deprivations that are not illnesses and is thus a needed article, in a way homelessness or poverty are. Along with research that's already been lined in the January discsussion there are several extremely visited sites that use the term. However, I doubt that the article will be restored, since its removal was done for the explicit purposes of Internet trolling, as was admitted to me in private and in public forums by the Wikipedia editor who instigated it in the first place, and was done out of purely ideological reasons - to punish "the losers", losers simply being men who can't get women and are thus perceived as bad, without a coherent reason why, as if mating is done by bastions of human qualities when that is demonstrably false. This page isn't a scientific encylopedia in more ways than one - it is a part of a leftist hate machine. Even if the article is restored it will be attacked by the same disastrous arguments and for same ideological reasons, just like any mention of it was attacked after it was merged with the Celibacy article. Editor Tarc is a known Internet troll who doesn't care about the integrity of this site and his comparison to not playing basketball for some team is scary - it's as if claiming that articles on homelessness or poverty need to be removed because there's no such term as "clumsy lazy pieces of shit". It is also an insane comparison because it equates a lack of the most important factors for human happiness to a trivial joke. So much about the integrity of this biased, hateful encylopedia. It would be fair and decent if the editors who oppose this term being included so vehemently would just admit so instead of giving atrocious arguments by pretending to have any grounds other their unlimited hate. Andrey Rublyov (talk) 18:18, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, largely per User:Casliber, who puts it more eloquently than I could. The constant aggressive attempts to promote this concept through Wikipedia are becoming tiresome. Lankiveil @ Alt (speak to me) 10:43, 22 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]

The term "involuntary celibacy" is perhaps a misnomer. In reality, it may be a symptom of a diverse range of root causes. Perhaps most commonly, people suffering Social Anxiety Disorder will encounter this illness. On a lesser scale, people with denial of LGBT alignment, sociopathic tendencies, disfiguring physical ailments, or asexual alignment may all present with similar symptoms. The topic is important and perhaps underanalysed in contemporary psychology. Recommend against deletion, however topic should indicate that additional references are required. For disclosure: I personally suffer from this "disease". due to "SAD". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.37.17 (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The tragedy is that people read this article, which reifies the thing, and then they research the condition themselves rather than find out they have social phobia/anxiety/personality issues/mood disorder etc. etc. This is why this misinformation is not good. There are no reliable secondary sources that discuss the condition, hence "improving" the page is not possible. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:13, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 December 2014[edit]

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

I suspect this person is notable, by the circulation of their song "Buffalo Bill" and a mention of being signed to Capitol Records, and I found this, but sourcing in music articles is not my strong point. Is it worth shifting the close to "no consensus" and examining for sources? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:26, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Why wouldn't someone who is interested look for sources first? As it stands with it being apparently just the nom in the deletion discussion, it should really be effectively a PROD, but it'd still seem better to find someone who actually is interested enough to find some sources and will do a bit off work on whatever is recovered before undoing it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't see how we can possibly consider this to be have been anything other then a soft deletion. As such any admin should be free to undelete on request. Spartaz Humbug! 14:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - decent sources, no participation, a single week at AfD. I'd support either undeletion with no prejudice against it being immediately relisted at AfD, or relisting at AfD for wider participation. Former is probably easier. WilyD 10:32, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy restore Should have been labeled as a soft deletion. Hobit (talk) 20:38, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either restore (treat as soft delete) or relist. How this was not routinely relisted for a second week is beyond me. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore / relist. Deserves a second look due to low participation, but note that two albums on a major label are what it takes to pass WP:MUSIC, merely getting signed is virtually meaningless. It might seem counterintuitive, but some artists get signed and are essentially never heard from again for one reason or another. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:10, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jak Alnwick (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

now plays in Premier League as per WP:Football [22] 92.18.197.167 (talk) 14:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Def speedy undelete. Played in 2nd half of Newcastle vs Chelsea on 6 Dec, putting in a highly notable performance. Meets notability requirements. 176.64.213.98 (talk) 15:23, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
European Voynich Alphabet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Equivalent pages on other language Wikipedias remain. See my comment on Talk:European_Voynich_Alphabet, or as with the German Wiki, include it (or a brief description) in the body of the Voynich Manuscript article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackiespeel (talk • contribs) - 'a mention somewhere' in the Voynich Manuscript article would probably cover it. Jackiespeel (talk) 11:39, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And what's stopping you do that? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:16, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources win prizes not wikipedia pages on other projects. If that hasn't changed since the last AFD we may not have very much to talk about here... Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was looking for a consensus - given the number of articles on other-language WPs, there is a case for a mention on en-WP: a separate article, a section on the VM page (the German model) or 'X and Y developed the EVA - link here (and see also (other language WP page)' have each some merits, and the last would probably satisfy most. Jackiespeel (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Other wikipedias work to differing standards, have the same problems as here (it may be that if someone listed for deletion there they would be deleted) etc. So inclusion there is generally not a useful metric. The sources they use to support there articles are usually the significant part. This is DRV, not an editorial panel. We aren't going to come to some consensus about how this particular area should be handled from an editorial view point, merely as to if the deletion discussion previously held was valid or not. You should start a discussion about it on Talk:Voynich manuscript as to if a section there is appropriate or not. If that section then grows and so warrants a separate article, again that's a discussion to be had there. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was a !voter in the original AfD. It seems to me that this article was about EVA, the René Zandbergen and Gabriel Landini invention of 1998. I'm happy to change my !vote if sources can be found that discuss the EVA in detail. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:27, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse discussion clearly was for deletion and I see no policy/guideline based reason to overturn. Hobit (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse discussion was unanimous, and we don't undelete stuff based on whether another wiki has an article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:11, 14 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 December 2014[edit]

  • Mia Jones (Degrassi: The Next Generation) – Somewhere between No Consensus and Moot. There's really nothing to do here; anybody can go ahead and merge this on their own if they want (although, building consensus to do so on the article talk page would be a good plan if that's what you want to do). – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mia Jones (Degrassi: The Next Generation) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Including the nominator, there were four opinions in favor of deleting/merging/redirecting the article to a main character list, with only one user !voting keep. The keep vote has been included in about 10 other Degrassi characters' AfD's over the past few weeks and in ALL of them, it has been the only keep vote as they've all been closed as delete or redirect. With a 4-1 !vote and the 1 keep !vote not responding to a concern over their comment, how is this coming up as no consensus? Gloss 17:23, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of recently closed other Degrassi characters, all have been closed as merge/redirect or delete: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Melanie Brodie, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paige Michalchuk, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tessa Campanelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spinner Mason, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Nuñez, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Hogart, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Holly J. Sinclair, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Stone (Degrassi character). Gloss 17:33, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge. Four editors thought a stand-alone article about the character to be unwarranted. The two merge !votes and the two delete !votes are logically consistent with each other. Only one editor thought the article should be kept: their argument was qualified, and refuted. The clear "no article" consensus should be reflected in a merge outcome. --Mkativerata (talk) 07:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Four different (and mostly conflicted) opinions about how to manage content do not a consensus make. Merge is fundamentally a keep position (keep the content, but reorganise how it's presented), which makes "delete or merge" gibberish anyways. Merge might be the wisest choice, but it's not in the discussion (and enforcing merges from AfDs is almost always the wrong choice in the long run, anyhow). WilyD 10:26, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge I agree completely with Mkativerata's analysis. Only one "keep", all other participants agreed that a standalone article was not warranted. --Randykitty (talk) 11:42, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as there was literally no consensus to do anything. If the editors that wish to merge it go and do so, I doubt there will be opposition. Tarc (talk) 15:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 December 2014[edit]

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

Procedural listing. Original title has been WP:SALTed and multiple individuals have contested a G4 speedy of the article at its new home, '''Cathal Pendred'''. Apparently the subject of the article has recently had a level of success that might justify an article (I lack the background to make on informed decision on this point). Working copy of new article is available at Draft:Cathal Pendred. --Allen3 talk 00:17, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The original AfD in March 2013 was mainly concerned with the subject not meeting WP:MMANOT which for mixed martial arts means three top tier fights. At that time there were no top tier fights but the subject has now 2 wins at top tier and a third scheduled in January. So although slightly premature I think close enough to desalt.Peter Rehse (talk) 09:43, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MMANOT is an essay so has less weight then an AFD close. I'd like to confirm that we do have the requisite reliable sourcing to meet the GNG.? Spartaz Humbug! 17:07, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
MMA-specific sites have very (very) much information on each of the fighters. As long as the narrowly focused sources are deemed acceptable (and unsurprisingly I think they are as long as they have reasonable editorial oversight and they generally do), you can meet GNG for nearly any moderately successful MMA fighter. As you can for nearly any professional soccer player etc. The GNG is rarely an issue unless you want significant coverage in mainstream sources. Hobit (talk) 16:34, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Last I looked (which was a long time back) the kind of MMA fanboy sites being pushed were way below our accepted RS standards. I would expect any site that we relied upon to maintain a BLP should meet the standard degree of rigor. I'd be happy to evaluate any sources put forward by someone who wants to restore this. Spartaz Humbug! 18:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The page is currently found here Draft:Cathal Pendred along with the references.Peter Rehse (talk) 13:24, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 December 2014[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Josh Byrne Step By Step.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The closing administrator is inactive for now. The article's topic is a living person, so I could not request an uncontroversial undeletion at WP:REFUND. Therefore, I need the deletion of the image reviewed. The living person has been inactive after he appeared on the television series, Step by Step. He should qualify under WP:NFC as retired child actor, so a non-free image of him in television should be undeleted. I may have received notice about an orphaned nonfree image, but I didn't do anything about it because of complicated, inconvenient rules of copyright. Now I would like to hear thoughts about this. --George Ho (talk) 18:29, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep deleted. We cannot use screenshots from television programs outside the article about that television program, unless the screenshot is directly commented on in the article text. Stifle (talk) 11:43, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stifle, what about screenshots used to identify deceased people? --George Ho (talk) 11:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Screenshots of dead people, or people where it's otherwise totally nuts to suggest it might be possible to get a freely licensed picture of them, could be discussed, as to whether it's the best choice to not infringe on potential commercial value. But that's not the case here (going by the article). WilyD 12:36, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - if there was some age-sensitive discussion of his appearence, we might be able to talk about using NFC to use an old image. But there's not, so we can't. WilyD 12:41, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Am I right in thinking Josh Byrne's the little chap on the left in File:Step by step tv show cast.jpg?—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is he. (I linked the file for you.) --George Ho (talk) 13:40, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, George. Since we already have a fair use photo on Wikipedia that depicts Josh, can we use that instead?—S Marshall T/C 14:20, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not; it's the same problem - all representations of the "artwork" Step by Step or the fictional character are copyrighted, and unlikely to be freely licensed, so we can generally invoke fair use. Not all photos of a person are unlikely to be freely licensed (e.g., you could just take one yourself). So it's much harder to invoke fair use. WilyD 16:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Garden-variety NFCC enforcement. "Retired child actor" has never been recognized as sufficient to justify an NFC exemption, and cannot be plausibly be squared with the governing WMF policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • How would a contemporary photo of this actor, assuming for the moment that gaining such would be feasible, serve the same encyclopedic purpose as this one or one similar to it? Or is it assumed there are 17-year-old freely-licensed ones floating around somewhere? —Cryptic 02:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well that depends on what you think the "encyclopedic purpose" is? This is an article about the person, not about the show, so presumably it's not to show exactly how he looked at one particular age between 7 and 14. If it's to give an impression of what he looks like, as far as I know people generally don't change drastically and non-understandably as they age, indeed he will have changed as he aged between 7 and 14, we don't need a whole string of pictures to understand that. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "For some retired or disbanded groups, or retired individuals whose notability rests in large part on their earlier visual appearance, a new picture may not serve the same purpose as an image taken during their career, in which case the use would be acceptable." The question at hand is if this actor's notability in large part rested on his visual appearance. If we have sources that describe him as a child or refer to his appearance in a significant way (or indicating that's why he got the job) then we can use the image, otherwise we can't. Got any such sources? Hobit (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
LA Times, Bryan Times. That's all I found. --George Ho (talk) 20:25, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I personally think that we should treat things like this as a reason to use non-free material, that's not what our policies state. The sources aren't enough to meet our policies. So Endorse Hobit (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Josh Byrne Brendan Lambert Step by Step.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This is a publicity photo, not a screenshot, although I used actors' and characters' name in the file name. Fortunately, it's not used by Getty Images. The administrator who deleted it is inactive. It is of a living person who retired from acting before the series Step by Step ended. It would look as if it might represent a character; it doesn't. It's just an ordinary publicity studio photo meant to promote an actor as an actor, not a character, during his days of that show. George Ho (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • @WilyD, S Marshall, Stifle: Any thoughts? --George Ho (talk) 18:38, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How would it differ to the comments above? It's still non-free, there is still the possibility that a free image could be taken and there is no real discussion of how he looks which would require an age sensitive image. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Same principle applies. If the guy is alive, and not like, serving 20 consecutive sentences in a prison where he's the only inmate, you're going to have to find or create a free picture. Exceptions apply where it's really necessary to have that particular picture, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. WilyD 19:10, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Garden-variety NFCC enforcement. "Retired child actor" has never been recognized as sufficient to justify an NFC exemption, and cannot be plausibly be squared with the governing WMF policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 20:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In which article was this used? --Stefan2 (talk) 00:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Josh Byrne article, Stefan2. --George Ho (talk) 05:40, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, replaceable fair use. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 December 2014[edit]

  • Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod – No Consensus. Sigh. Normally, I would write up a detailed analysis of the arguments on both sides, but honestly, I can't find anything in this discussion worth writing up. Both sides were just doing AfD Round 2 and talking past each other. Unwinding the stack, NC at DRV defaults to the AfD decision standing, which means the article stays deleted. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe the close at AfD Killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod interpreted consensus in that discussion correctly. ShulMaven and I discussed the matter with the admin who deleted the page, suggesting that he may wish to re-open the AfD for further comment or alternatively reconsider his close, and the admin directed us here.

Nom's "otherstuffdoesn'texist" rationale was clearly unsupported by wp policy. The keep rationales properly focused on GNG. Closer's assertion that "none of [the keeps] rebutt[ed] the stronger delete rationales that this event fails WP:EVENT with no significant lasting coverage" was simply incorrect, as a review of the AfD discussion makes clear. And the consensus of the discussion -- with 6 keeps !votes and 6 delete !votes -- was not interpreted correctly by closer as a "delete." Epeefleche (talk) 00:25, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::That sounds fair enough, except that your argument at the AfD was : "Killings of Israelis or Palestinians are... routine events." The point of the article, however, is that this death was a far from routine event. The funeral, as the article states, was a big deal precisely because the death was fro from routine. It shook the nation, as even French anti-Zionist sources in the article attest. Leon Uris traveled to attend, Moshe Dayan the Chief of Staff of the Israeli Army arrived to deliver the eulogy. Murder by infiltrators from across the border was not a routine event. Arguing that it was shows either that you did not read the article, or that you misinterpreted it.ShulMaven (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I find it unlikely that Moshe Dayan attended this funeral, as he had been dead for 12 years at the time. There's also no evidence that Uris attended. The killers did not cross the border. If you're not trying to mislead editors, I suggest you strike your comments and confine yourself to discussion of the close; deletion review is not AfD and discussion of how very special this event was is out of place. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:49, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My bad. And an object lesson: don't edit while on strong muscle relaxants (in fact, don't attempt to lift... well never mind) Nevertheless, Roscelese might have mentioned that I was conflating this murder with Death and Eulogy of Roi Rotberg, an article where she and I disagreed during the extremely brief AfD (withdrawn by Nom) and continue to disagree. She might even have tweaked me, or pointed out my obvious conflation/error (obvious to her) rather than pretending that I was trying to "mislead". She, after all, removed Leon Uris from that article. And here she claims that there is "no evidence" that he attended when, in fact, there are two, recent University Press titles cited. The similarity between the 2 articles lies in the fact that a group of editors argue, as RandyKitty does here, that the murder of Israelis by anti-Israel militants is uniquely insignificant. And they deny or dismiss the fact that, when it happened, the killing of Yehoshua Weisbrod was a shocking, big deal, widely covered event.ShulMaven (talk) 14:54, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Could we perhaps use some less-suggestive language here? Something like: "killing of people by criminals or terrorists (if you really want to make that distinction, I don't) is in and of itself not a significant event any more". And I repeat, we're not a newspaper and shouldn't even try to be that, we're an encyclopedia, an entirely different animal. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thing is, this murder was widely covered in the international press at the time, and continued to receive coverage in later years - centered around the career and Oslo Accords status of the killer. From a WP:GNG perspective, it is the coverage that makes this or any murder pass WP:GNG.
This is rather disingenuous; the reason that this was covered in the international press at the time, was that the behaviour of international UN personal was criticised; if your UN countryman/women is faced with criticism; sure, the local (i.e. international) press will take notice. If their UN country person had not been criticised: it would not have been noted. In other words; it was not the killing as such which was notable to the international press, but the behaviour of the UN personnel. Typically the Italian source [23] has UNWRA in its headline, same for the Spanish [24]. In fact; many, if not most of the sources which are in the article has as their main concerns the alleged failings of UN personal, and not the killing per se. Huldra (talk) 21:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The rationale given by the editors voting to delete were inadequate/problematic. The Nom gave no rationale. User:Location asserted that there had been only "One trivial reference in 31 years". User: Shabazz brought up WP:NOTMEMORIAL. User: Roscelese argued that "the event evidently didn't garner any significant coverage more than a couple of days after it happened." User:Carrite that it was a "Random act of violence". Unser : Randykitty similarly argued that "Killings of Israelis or are, unfortunately, routine events" (But the standard for WP:notability is not the condition of being un-routine, rather, it is wide, detailed and ongoing coverage, preferably with an impact on subsequent events.) To his credit, User:trespassers william , appeared at least to have read the article and some of the sources, arguing that "The sources I sampled give very little attention to details, usually not even the person's name. The March '93 killings as a whole are notable and consequential, see Blockade of the Gaza Strip#1989–2004, but this cannot be said of the distinct events." and suggested that "The info worth salvaging here can make it into one line at Yasser Abu Samhadana." (However, no article for this particular militant/killer now exists.) In fact, the article was heavily sourced, with details about the victim. Far from being a "Random act of violence" the article described an Israeli petrol company employee making a routine business call at a petrol station in Gaza back in the years when the Israeli and Gazan economies were integrated. The Israeli businessman took a wrong turn, was surrounded by a stone-throwing mob, hit on the head by a stone, crashed his car, and - while trapped in his crashed vehicle - Yasser Abu Samhadana approached and shot him at point blank range. The article, sourced to newspapers around the world, included details, and the fact that the mob was witnessed by a UNRWA representative who was then formally accused of not contacting authorities and failing to attempt to save the victim's life. Coverage of that aspect continued for a while. Some years later the incident surfaced again as Yasser Abu Samhadana (by then responsible for 20-some-odd murders of political rivals) was appointed to a prestigious position by the Palestinian Authority in violation of the Oslo Accords, and, again in violation of the Oslo Accords, returned to Gaza under the protection of Yassir Arafat. All of this was sourced to news articles about the murder that continued for much of the decade. There were also later sources. In additon, the article sourced to major international newspapers the contemporary understanding of the attack as directly impacting security decisions and the peace process at the time it occurred and in the months/years immediately following. In short, the arguments for deletion were so paltry and - with one exception - so unrelated to WP standards for GNG and Event that I was, in fact, shocked when it was cavalierly deleted, especially since the closing administrator characterized the sources as dating from "within a few weeks of it occurring", which untrue.ShulMaven (talk) 01:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse An AfD is not a vote. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:31, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus - AfD is not a vote, but neither is it a place for closing admins to ignore the community's judgement and substitute their own. Is this a one-off event without lasting impact not suitable for an encyclopaedia article? It's plausible to argue either point (though with references stretching across a few years, arguing it is is a bit harder), and the editors examining the evidence where about split on the point. Instead of taking the consensus of the discussion, the closer very blatently substituted their own judgement about whether or not it was a news event. WilyD 10:51, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:AGF Secret account 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was the editor who nominated this article for deletion, and I agree fully with closing admin User:Secret that my reasons for nominating was not optimal. (I am not very experienced when it comes to AfD.) What I should have done, was to nominate it pr WP:EVENT/WP:NOTNEWS. As such, I would judge it not to be of "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded”. Huldra (talk) 11:04, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I reviewed the AfD we're discussing, I didn't really think it reached an intelligible conclusion. As far as I can see it consists of opinion statements on both sides. To a certain extent the participants interacted with each other, giving the superficial appearance of a meaningful conversation taking place, but contradiction isn't discussion. I see the comments in this discussion saying "AfD is not a vote" as non sequiturs. In fact that AfD really was a vote. No progress was made, nobody changed their position. I think the only close available was "no consensus".—S Marshall T/C 11:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's going to be key here is if there is evidence of sustained coverage. Could we get a temp. undelete here so non-admins can review the sources in the article? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 20:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. A poorly framed and poorly argued AFD with no coherently argued case soundly based in policy or guidelines on either side. When neither side makes an adequate case in an AFD discussion, the closer should close without taking action, not implement the position of whichever side was less awful merely because it was less awful. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:26, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only two keep rationales that made a reasonable case for keeping the article was DoctorBob3 and Epleeleche and both of them used WP:GNG rationales that was countered by the delete rationales. The rest of the keep side wasn't policy based. Only three sources of the 20+ sources in the article (a passing mention, one doesn't mention the event at all, and one good but potentially biased source that is behind a pay wall) was written years after the event happened and could be considered as "sustained coverage", so the WP:EVENT rationale offered by the delete voters was valid, thus my close. The delete side all mentioned (with the exception of the OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST nomination which should be ignored) that the killing fails WP:EVENT, which is policy based and shouldn't be ignored. I don't understand where the arguments in which both sides were faulty so it should be overturned to no consensus. If that was the case I would have closed it as default no consensus. I'm endorsing my closure as I don't see any other alternatives towards keeping the article at its present state considering how the debate played out. I don't mind a relisting as well so the sources can be examined at length. Secret account 02:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say Doctor made a reasonable case for keeping, in addition to me. But Plot Spoiler (a third editor) agreed with and cited the reasoning of Doctor. And Shul (a fourth editor) certainly made a reasoned articulate argument as well. And editors did in discussion rebut the delete rationale (not sure if you are counting those delete !votes that just say "per notnews", without any discussion) that this event fails WP:EVENT. It's not as though this went unanswered.
I'm perplexed how you took the position that "consensus is clear" when you refused to either relist or reconsider your close. Also, I had asked that you temp restore the page, but see that DGG has now finally done so - tx DGG. BTW, I'm not familiar with the rules, but if self-endorsements of one's own under-review closes are normal, that's fine. Epeefleche (talk) 09:19, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is that (even as you acknowledge) there are sources that could reasonably be considered "sustained coverage" and thus a reasonable commentor could take the position that it meets EVENT, or that it fails EVENT. About half took each, each position was reasonable, which is no consensus. It was only closed as delete because you felt it failed EVENT, not because the discussion felt it failed EVENT (the discussion had no consensus), or because it overwhelmingly failed EVENT (it's somewhat borderline, with some but perhaps not overwhelming sustained coverage). WilyD 13:06, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • article history temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Deletion was within the set of reasonable closures and I see no reason to interfere with it. Stifle (talk) 11:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I was in the act of logging on to Wikipedia to add to the page further information/new sources from/about a discussion that began 2 years after the murder, a discussion centering around the status of the gunman Samahdaneh/Samadana (violation of terms of the Oslo Accords) when I discovered that the page had been deleted. Of course, in an article like this, one always hopes that, given time, editors working not only form English, French and Spanish, but also from Hebrew and Arabic sources will bring more information.ShulMaven (talk) 12:15, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. In closing, it seems like Secret evaluated the strength of editors' arguments, specifically the counter-arguments to GNG put forward by users citing EVENT. This is what closers should be doing, not just head-counting. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse It's within discretion. ShulMaven's comment at the end touches on the EVENT issue, and as it was not disputed, was enough (given the !vote count) to make this best closed as a NC IMO. But the closer's summary of the discussion isn't unreasonable. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Hobit. I may have misunderstood one comment you made -- were you saying that the Event assertion was not disputed at the AfD? Because, in fact it was. But perhaps I've misunderstood your point. --Epeefleche (talk) 21:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nope, you didn't misunderstand, I'd forgotten that widespread coverage is one thing that helps meet WP:EVENT. I was looking only at comments that covered breadth of time. Ick, that moves things into a much more nebulous place. I think I'm going to move to overturn to NC as we _do_ have two sides arguing that WP:EVENT is met or isn't met and both have reasonable arguments (Widely covered events meet WP:EVENT and this certainly had wide coverage). I don't think delete can be reached here. Yes, some of the keep !votes were poor. And yes, Randykitty's !vote should be given a fair bit of weight. But I don't think we have consensus to delete. Hobit (talk) 04:44, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Let's call this for what it is, shall we. I suspect that a good number of the keep !votes were motivated by a view that Wikipedia should, within their interpretation of policy, maximise coverage of atrocities committed by Palestinians against Israelis. Likewise, some of the delete !votes were no doubt motivated by a desire to counter that. I'm not claiming unbias either; had I seen this AfD I'd have !voted delete and could justifiably be accused of being in the latter category. My contribution to this DRV should be seen in that light. Anyway: in cases like these, we should afford increased leeway to the closing admin. Telling here was the final !vote by Randykitty. I strongly suspect that Randykitty came to this AfD, considered closing it, didn't feel fully comfortable that there was a consensus, so !voted instead. It was a genuinely unbiased !vote from an experienced editor that counts for much in these circumstances. And the closing admin's summary was, of course, an accurate reflection of both the debate and the relevant policies and guidelines. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:33, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's exactly what happened: I intended to close, but !voted instead. --Randykitty (talk) 10:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I find it hard to believe it changed from "not comfortable that there is a consensus" to closer's "consensus is clear", with the mere addition of the 12th -- and final -- !vote. Unless a super!vote was cast by closer. Epeefleche (talk) 17:51, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, dear There is, of course, an irony about an AfD about inter-ethnic tensions degenerating into ethno-political innuendo, but I suggest that editors stick to standards-related argument.ShulMaven (talk) 22:32, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Come on now, drop the pretence. How many articles have you created that have the words "murder of" in them? How many of them are about the murder of an Israeli? And in how many is the perpetrator an Arab? The more readily and openly we concede our biases, the better. Mkativerata (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I had a post half-written yesterday that I forgot to finish, echoing what Mkativerata says above. These "killing of...", "murder of...", "the 2008 axe attack on..." articles are a plague in the I-P topic area. If people think WP:CAMERA was actually put to rest back in the day, they are sorely mistaken. The Wikipedia is used as another front in their propaganda war... by both sides. This was a reasonable close that discarded weak keep arguments. Tarc (talk) 14:26, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. article meets WP:GNG, and WP:EVENT doesn't apply as sources are years apart. Needs a deeper look. Also, 'Secret's judgement is questionable, how can this decision be sound when they don't even want to be here? (according to their user page)--Loomspicker (talk) 19:37, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm assuming this violates Loomspicker's topic ban and have struck accordingly. Admins may want to consider further response, or alternately unstrike if they don't feel my action was appropriate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:50, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unstriking comment. Roscolese is an involved party in the dispute underlying the topic ban, and doesn't get to unilaterally define its scope; I don't see any precedent or consensus that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict area is a subset of the Islamic topic area cited in the ban, and a quick survey of the topic ban discussion links didn't show any complaints about editing re the I-P conflict. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:11, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That has to be one of the most pathetic arguments I've seen in a long time. Perhaps we should ask whoever closes this to also declare your judgement questionable as you've not edited much here in the last year? (i.e. you must not want to be here, otherwise you would have been) --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There are no knockout arguments in the AFD that clinch it one way or another, and most of the rationales are low value "is notable!"/"is not!" sorts of things. I don't think it's possible to draw a definite conclusion based on policy or consensus from that discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:16, 5 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
Note that Nom - Huldra - follows me around like a hound dog on a scent, slapping AfDs on terrorism-related articles like 2014 United Arab Emirates attack.ShulMaven (talk) 18:40, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also Note WP:NPA. And ShulMaven, who registered in April, 2014, forgot to mention that he alread has had deleted: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Rosh Hashanah Terror Tunnel Plot (AdF by Jprg1966), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping in Islamism (AdF by Safiel) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kidnapping in Islamism (2nd nomination) (AdF by DrSultan85) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Netanel Arami (AfD by me) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Death of Netanel Arami (AfD by me; read especially Nishidani excellent analysis of the sources). Huldra (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Did you mean to also all of your failed AfDs? Such as Palestinian stone-throwing?ShulMaven (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, Nishidani also follows me around, deleting stuff about terrorism.ShulMaven (talk) 20:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to indicate that I was the only one nominating your articles for AdF. I just found 3 other editors who have done the same; successfully, that was my point. Huldra (talk) 21:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I joined last spring, to create a new article about something that excited me. Since then I have created 37 articles. You cite the 3 articles that were deleted. 3 out of 37. I believe we met under unfavorable circumstances, when I had pointed out that an article you edited regularly List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict relied overwhelming on a list prduced by an un-sourced, partisan website, and began asking for reliable sources and adding information form reliable sources supporting contentions contrary to assertions then in the article. I also regularly source, contribute to and create articles on topics like Palestine Airways and The Hilltop (novel) that nobody tries to delete. But instead of creating and building articles, I spend a lot of time defending patently WP:GNG articles like 2014 United Arab Emirates attack from your AfDs. Largely because of you, I have become a veteran of the AFD process, been awed by the amazing amount of time some editors have available to spend trying to delete articles about Islamist terrorism, and endured bullying by you and other editors who seem bent on making creating articles on topics like Palestinian tunnel warfare in the Gaza Strip, Vehicular assault as a terrorist tactic, Slavery in 21st century Islamism, and Beheading in Islamism so unpleasant that editors will get tired of it and go away. It probably works for you. Creating good accurate article is fun and rewarding, fighting editors like you is not.ShulMaven (talk) 23:17, 8 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:ShulMaven: What you imply about my motivation for nominating this for AdF is simply not correct: if you looked into my editing of List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict: virtually all of my edits there have been minor, that is, I have tried to fix it when a wikilinked name was pointing to the wrong place (which it very often did: places in the Middle East often charing the same name, & leading to frequent mix-ups, see Talk:Hadatha or Talk:Tira, Israel for a start.) (According to this tool, I have added 3% of the text on List of villages depopulated during the Arab–Israeli conflict.) When I ask articles to be AdF, it is because I find them non-notable. For a second time; please observe WP:NPA. Huldra (talk) 23:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Samantha Hess (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not believe the close at AfD Samantha Hess interpreted consensus in that discussion correctly. I have discussed the matter with the admin who deleted the page, suggesting that he may wish to re-open the AfD for further comment or alternatively reconsider his close, and the admin directed me here.

Nom's baseless ramblings "This article is about a woman who started a business in Portland, Oregon, USA where she hugs people for $60/hour. This article does not meet notability guidelines. A proper thing to do would either be deletion or redirect to Cuddling. All the references are about the novelty of cuddling, not Samantha Harris. There is not much depth in coverage and no coverage about her biography, such as if she has a Ph.D. in Cuddle Science from the University of Sydney Faculty of Medicine, Department of Cuddling (no such department or degree), or how she is a pioneer in the field of skin research. If the user's name creating the article was SamanthaHess, this user would have been blocked and the article deleted. That shows that the article should be deleted". Carefully read the last line, where he speaks for the subject, and where he jokes about Cuddling degree. It was a bit of a shock that 4 people supported Delete without reading what the article was about while two users who supported Keep were saying reasonable stuff in support for keeping. Read users' @DGG: comment for why the article should be kept. The people who wanted the article deleted were saying that it is WP:BLP1E, but as you will read in @DGG: response, this thing applies to events not BLP's. Furthermore, instead of focusing the discussion on the topic the discussion began focusing on nominator's block/unblock which completely slowed down the consensus and which probably resulted in Delete in error. I strongly suggest to look at keep comments because they are descriptive while delete sayers are pushing their agenda which is irrelevant to the nomination. Considering the last delete vote which says "it seems pretty obvious that the spirit of BLP1E applies", clearly shows that he leans toward delete but at the same time agreeing with user DGG's comment.--Mishae (talk) 00:15, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn AfD is not a vote, it is an engaged debate in which persuasive arguments based on rules and evidence should otweigh paltry or unsubstantiated arguments. 1.) some editors cast delete votes on the grounds that: she has a little media flurry earlier this year. And that is insufficient. But these editors have the facts wrong. She had a significant media flurry in January 2014, and an enormous global media wave in November. Waaay more than enough reliable coverage in major sources to meet WP:GNG. I say htis as someone who winced when I saw what the article is about. Cuddling? I mean, really? 2.) Other editors make a better argument when they claim that she doesn't meet WP:BLP because she really hasn't done much. That may be right. Perhaps there are significant profiles of her as a person, in which case I stand corrected, but at a glance the articles seem to be about her business, so it might make sense to move the article to something like : Samatha's Hess' cuddling business, or whatever she calls it. As a cussling shop, she passes WP:GNG easily. 3.) Let's not let our biases show. Is it possible that this is a chick thing, that women respond to a story about a woman who founds a successful cuddling business, editors the world over know that and run the story, but the guy-dominated administration of Wikipedia is just too, well, guy minded to recognize a notable topic even when it bites us? Well, it wouldn't be the first time WP has been accused of that. That, however, is mere speculation on my part. My point (points 1, & 2) is that this passes WP:GNG, and should not have been closed as delete.ShulMaven (talk) 01:13, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost forgot to mention, on that very day when deletion happened in the morning I have added 2 Business Insider refs, at which the admin just scoffed at. If the article is about person's business shouldn't Bussiness Insider be a sufficient RS?--Mishae (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 December 2014[edit]

  • Madison Lintz – Allow Restoration Unanimous agreement that WP:G4 will not apply if the current draft is moved into main article space. I'm going to unprotect the title; and leave it at that. – -- RoySmith (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Madison Lintz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was deleted via PROD in 2011, and was recreated and sent to AFD in 2012 and was in pretty bad shape at the time, and was deleted after being relisted a couple of times to get two delete !votes. Three unsuccessful attempts were made to recreated the article in 2013 before the page was finally SALTed to keep it from being recreated yet again with little or no sourcing. I restored the article to Draft space at Draft:Madison Lintz a few weeks ago and rebuilt it as best I could, and since then more reliable sources have been added. I feel it is worth discussing whether the article is ready to go back into article space. If any other users can find additional sources to add, that would help with any outstanding notability issues. BOZ (talk) 22:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow restoration - there're substantial new sources, such that the previous AfD can no longer be applied as G4; the Gwinnett Daily Post and Atlanta Journal-Constitutio in particular are about the actress rather than the character, meaning WP:N is plausibly met. WilyD 10:41, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow restoration appears to meet GNG. If someone really wants to drag this to AfD afterwards, they can. Hobit (talk) 20:57, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hudson Street Hooligans (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was originally flagged for deletion as being not-notable. I'd contend that given the amount of independent sources on the page and the precedent set by the entire category of MLS Fan Clubs the aricles qulifies under Wikipedia's guidelines for Notability. I tried to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page. Chrislamacchia (talk) 02:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse; near-unanimous consensus not to have a separate article at the afd, which was closed all of three days ago after being open two and a half weeks. The eleventh-hour routine local coverage presented there, not to mention the nominator's unapologetic WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, are no reason to vacate it. —Cryptic 04:24, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a draft and discuss on redirect-target's page. Sources look fine to me and I agree this likely meets WP:N. That said, redirect is a reasonable outcome of the discussion (deletion would not be). I guess the best way forward would be to start with the old article, do a cut-and-paste (ick!) into your user space, incorporate those sources and any other good sources you can find and bring it to the talk page of the target article. If the consensus on that talk page that it's best be have this be its own article, someone will need to do a history merge. So endorse the close but allow a recreation if consensus found to do so. Might end back at AfD, but... Hobit (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed the AfD. If there were consensus here to have somebody take a whack at a new version of the article, rather than cut-and-paste, it might make sense to userfy the existing article and create a new redirect at the existing title. At least then, if the user draft gains consensus to get moved back into main space, the history is preserved. I'm not suggesting that's where this should go, just proposing that if it does go there, we can do better than the cut-and-paste method. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, only problem with that is that keeping attribution correctly of any merged material is a pain if the history is bouncing around. I think more of a pain then the history merge. But I'll defer to those of you with the buttons. Hobit (talk) 16:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the consensus is pretty clear that a separate article is not desired. DRV is for pointing out errors in the closure process, not for disagreeing with the community's consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:03, 1 December 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse but restore. RoySmith's close was an accurate assessment of the consensus in this defective AfD.

    The AfD discussion was defective for two reasons:

    1. None of the AfD participants responded to Cptnono (talk · contribs)'s posting of three reliable sources.
    2. When the article was nominated for deletion, it contained three sources. None of the sources were discussed by the participants (other than Cptnono).
    I have found multiple reliable sources that discuss the Hudson Street Hooligans in detail. I also found sources that give passing mention to Hudson Street Hooligans, and have included them here so that the DRV nominator Chrislamacchia can use them to expand the article if he finds them them helpful.

    For the record, I think sources 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 are the sources that discuss Hudson Street Hooligans in detail.

    1. Hepler, Lauren (2011-08-05). "Hooligans Club red-carded". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      The members-only club at 2236 Summit St., a little more than a half-mile west of Crew Stadium, opened in June 2010.

      ...

      The Hooligans pub is thought to be the only private, licensed club in the state created solely for the purpose of supporting a professional sports team. The club, which has about 700 members, is funded with member dues. It costs $10 a year for a social membership and $20 for full membership.

    2. Arace, Michael (2011-02-12). "Michael Arace commentary: Fledgling fan group trying to liven up Nationwide". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      Sometime between Christmas and New Year's Day, a few Hudson Street Hooligans hatched an idea for a new venture.

      The Hooligans, of course, are one of the Crew's three official supporter groups. They help populate the Nordecke, that section of Crew Stadium where everyone stands, sings, bangs drums and rocks, without cease.

    3. Mitchell, Shawn (2010-07-31). "For Crew fans, Hooligans set the bar". The Columbus Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      The Hooligans were established in 2006 when Thurmond and a small group of friends began making a game-day walk from an Ohio State campus-area apartment to Crew Stadium.

      They are now 500 strong and have a new home base, an 800-square-foot pub that opened last month in leased space near Summit Street and E. Oakland Avenue.

      The HSH Hooligans Club is believed to be the only private, licensed club in the state created solely for the purpose of supporting a professional sports team.

      HSH Hooligans Club operates with a D-4 liquor permit. According to Ohio law, the permit is reserved for social clubs that have been in existence for at least three years, are "operated in the interest of the membership of a reputable organization" and maintained by dues-paying members.

    4. Hyde, Marina (2008-07-24). "Tea, crumpets and lashings of pepper spray". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      The Columbus Crew fans seem to have gone a little further, and have started what they think is an Inter City Firm tribute act, called the Hudson Street Hooligans. They have a rather earnest little website, which details social gatherings and sells T-shirts and branded beer mugs.

    5. Leonard, Tom (2008-07-21). "West Ham fans brawl with Columbus Crew as football hooliganism hits the US". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      This was dramatised in Green Street Hooligans, a 2005 film in which Elijah Wood played a US student who got involved in a hooligan group affiliated to West Ham.

      The film reportedly inspired a group of Columbus Crew supporters to start a copycat organisation called Hudson Street Hooligans - an act that some fans have linked to Sunday's trouble.

    6. Tyndall, Jeff (2012-04-26). "Hudson Street Hooligans boast Ohio State roots". The Lantern. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      Ohio State students and half-brothers, Grant Thurmond and Cord Andrews, along with their friend Drew Abdalla, started watching the Crew as kids during the team’s inaugural season in 1996. Their love for the Crew continued into their college years, but the mediocre soccer club drove many fans away, triggering a staggering decline in attendance.

      But in 2006, the group of three, in an effort to support a struggling team that, at times, seemed to lack a passionate fan base, formed the Hudson Street Hooligans.

      ...

      In summer 2010, the group formed themselves into a club that required a paid membership, and as a result, needed to find a venue that would accommodate the hundreds of people coming to tailgate for the games. The group found Ruby Tuesday on Summit Street and called it home until June 2010 when they opened their own bar, Hudson Street Hooligans Pub, located at 2236 Summit Street.

      ...

      Despite the closing, the group continues to thrive, boasting more than 1,000 paid members to date.

    7. Hendren, Sam (2011-08-05). "Columbus Crew 'Hooligans' Want Their Pub Reopened". WOSU-FM. NPR. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      For the past year, a group of Columbus Crew soccer fans has been meeting in a storefront on Summit Street several blocks from Crew Stadium. Now the group is fighting to get the City of Columbus to reopen the building.

      Several dozen Columbus Crew fans, members of a group known as the Hudson Street Hooligans, turned out for a noon rally in front of its pub on Summit. They were there in support of efforts to reopen the building which has been shut down by the city.

      ...

      The building's capacity is 45 occupants. But the Hooligans have nearly 1,000 members. The city says the building where the Hooligans meet is not designated as a place of "assembly."

    8. Day, Duncan (2014-11-07). "WATCH: Columbus Crew supporters make their mark in MLS". NBC Sports. Archived from the original on 2014-12-02. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The article notes:

      Major League Soccer does have some of the most loyal supporters across all sports, as you will still see losing teams with a staunch collection of fans.

      And the Columbus Crew’s main supporting group– the Hudson Street Hooligans–have stayed rowdy and supportive at Crew Stadium through the good times and the bad, making the arena one of the more difficult places to play in MLS.

    9. Kiuchi, Yuya, ed. (2014). Soccer Culture in America: Essays on the World's Sport in Red, White and Blue. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland & Company. p. 134. ISBN 978-0-7864-7155-3. Retrieved 2014-12-02.

      The book notes:

      The worst fears seemed realized in July 2008 when a friendly match between English club West Ham United and MLS club Columbus Crew erupted into violence at half-time, with over one hundred individuals involved in the fracas. The match, designed to provide a pre-season warm-up for West Ham while exposing an American audience to European soccer, ended in a comprehensive 3-1 victory for the English side. It proved to be an interesting match-up, however, not merely due to the play on the pitch, but also because it ostensibly pitched the most notorious MLS supporter's group (the Hudson Street Hooligans) against some of the most notorious English hooligans (the Inter City Firm). Various reports suggested that nearly thirty West Ham supporters moved into the Columbus Crew supporter's seating section after some spirited chants back and forth, with punches eventually being thrown (Leonard; Warner). However, only a single arrest was made during the incident, and officials from both clubs stated that the incident had been overblown by the media (Mitchell).

    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hudson Street Hooligans to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 03:23, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • I almost threw this into my sandbox to tinker with it. The close was a little too quick after listing it for more opinions but the article didn't meet standards as it was. No big deal. I've taken a whack at Emerald City Supporters, Gorilla FC (needs an update after a recent in-depth story in the national media), Vancouver Southsiders (Vancouver sucks ;) ), and La Familia (Beitar supporters' group). We would lose info from a direct copy and paste but at least a stub is warranted by GNG. Cptnono (talk) 08:49, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure what you mean by, The close was a little too quick after listing it. It was open for 18 days. How is that too quick? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The template relisting the deletion was applied so that clearer consensus may be reached. The only comment after that requested keeping the article so I was surprised to see it deleted a couple days after that. The article wasn't any good but I think it has been shown that it can be created with sources based on the GNG. Is that clearer?Cptnono (talk) 22:29, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD was open for 11 days after the relist (and 4 days after the last comment). I'm still not seeing how that qualifies as a little too quick. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:02, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can't comprehend that there were no further comments besides a keep after a template asking for more discussion was made then I can't help you. I'm not attacking the close here. It doesn't hurt my feelings. It simply seemed odd that sources were provided that should be a good enough reason to look at how the subject meets GNG but the article was deleted. Whatever. The closer is a fine person with the best judgement ever since the article was shit as it was. We can simply try again after ensuring that a draft has some quality. Jesus, this is a stupid discussion. If as much effort went into sourcing the piece as has gone into bickering about its deletion we would have another article for the project. Cptnono (talk) 09:18, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userfy to Cunard. From the discussion, Roysmith doesn't object to that outcome, and Cunard's got the sources and the track record of successful article-building to justify it. I trust Cunard to fix it up, in collaboration with other interested editors, and put it into article space when he thinks it's ready.—S Marshall T/C 14:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • My only objection is that if the subject has enough sources, we should have the article. The state of the article isn't a significant criteria for deletion (unless we are in WP:TNT-land and I don't think anyone claimed we were). So it _should_ just be restored if it meets the GNG. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with you, Hobit, that the state of an article (as long as it does not violate any policies) should not dictate whether it should have an article. But I have rewritten the article. Cunard (talk) 00:27, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, well the rest of us can argue policy, while you just fix the problem. I've always liked that about you. Hobit (talk) 05:09, 6 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your kind words, Hobit. :) Cunard (talk) 01:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2014_December&oldid=635960284"