Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 May

30 May 2014

Afusat Saliu – listed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afusat Saliu – ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Afusat Saliu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Misinterpretation of speedy deletion criterion. PatGallacher (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC) See discussion at User talk:Amatulic section on Afusat Saliu. PatGallacher (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Specifically, that's User talk:Amatulic#Afusat Saliu. Also, I have temporarily restored the article history as a courtesy, for the purpose of this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:27, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn Not a valid speedy. Apparently two newspapers think she's important, which is enough of an indication to pass speedy. I think we'll delete it at AfD under NOT NEWS, but that's for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 23:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC) I judged the newspaper articles to be coverage of a petition rather than the person, but I also agree that the article will likely not survive AFD. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn speedy Sources that count toward notability are an assertion of importance. The fine line between coverage of the person and coverage of the petition about the person belongs at AfD--speedy deletion is for more clear-cut things. Hobit (talk) 03:55, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn speedy and send it to AFD. A7 is only for absolutely clearcut cases where there is no plausible indication of notability whatsoever. If there is any doubt, then it shouldn't be speedied. In this case, there is recent coverage in reliable sources that brushes up against the topic, which should have created enough doubt for the community to review it. This sort of misapplication of A7 is a continuing problem that does need work to rectify. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:27, 31 May 2014 (UTC). I agree with DGG that we'll delete it at AfD. I agree with the others here that we have to overturn the speedy because of point 2 of WP:DRVPURPOSE above:- BLP1E is not a speedy deletion criterion and A7 didn't apply.—S Marshall T/C 10:34, 31 May 2014 (UTC) Because I'll be away for the next few days, rather than continuing what appears to be a WP:SNOW discussion, I'm closing this, and have listed the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Afusat Saliu. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 May 2014

involuntary celibacy – Decision endorsed. There is no evidence that the close was improper. However, I am going to restore the history of the article for GFDL compliance. – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
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) Briefly: The decision was a compromise that did not represent the consensus of the participants in the discussion. I attempted to consult the admin responsible for the decision Coffee before initiating this review, but was ignored. There was never a consensus to delete this article. Instead, the (unilateral admin) decision was to merge it into celibacy, but the celibacy editors disagreed and removed all of the new content. The closing admin stated that "there's absolutely no way to close this that will make everyone pleased with the outcome" and then made the decision that the "best possible course of action here (per the discussion) is to merge this", and further stated that "the concept of a merge requires the newly merged article be changed." But it wasn't. The disposition of this material has not proceeded according to a consensus about the material itself. There was an admin decision as a result of a lack of consensus. And then there was a consensus about other material, i.e. that it should not include this material. But it seems to me that in the absence of a consensus about a change, the status quo should be maintained. What happened instead was that the decision was thrown over the wall to a set of decisionmakers who made a "consensus" decision without knowing or caring about the material itself. This is lazy at best, dishonest at worst, and not in the best interests of Wikipedia. "In deletion discussions, no consensus normally results in the article, image, or other content being kept." Even if it had been a consensus decision, then the fact that it was blocked by an opposing consensus should have triggered further discussion, not simply a "default to delete" response. Philosophically, consensus is not the same thing as compromise. Maybe 3 out of 10+ contributors were in favor of the so-called "consensus" decision. If a deletion discussion doesn't reach a consensus, then a compromise may be possible. But it is not appropriate for the closing admin to simply choose his own idea of a compromise and call that a consensus. If merging is a possible compromise, then he should initiate a proper discussion of that possible compromise, bringing in people from both affected articles to discuss it. If all compromises are rejected, then there is no consensus, and WP:No consensus applies, and the article is kept, not deleted. To illustrate the point, think of the story of the Judgment of Solomon. He listened to both parties' arguments, and proposed as a compromise that the baby be cut in half. But was that a consensus? No. Only when the real mother relented and offered to give up the baby rather than have it killed, was there a consensus. That's whwere the analogy ends; Israel was not governed by consensus, so Solomon exercised his judgement. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:A92E:C8E4:3B62:AC87 (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse - Either merge or delete were the only two options on the table following that deletion discussion. This is armchair pseudo-science pushed by an off-wiki clique of special interests, nothing more. Editors at Talk:celibacy eventually decided that the material did not legitimately fit into that topic, so it was excised. That does not mean we default "incel" back into a standalone article. It simply goes away. Tarc (talk) 03:00, 28 May 2014 (UTC) Comment There is more to this saga, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. I'll ponder this some more but I'm thinking merge was a reasonable close (although I can't see any close as being wholly unreasonable!). Whether the topic is "armchair pseudo-science" is not of concern here – plenty of responsible editors were seeing sources they thought relevant. It is clear to me that merged material can be removed from the target article, especially after an RFC, and it seems a merge is still a merge even there was merely a redirect in the first place – "If there is no information to be added to the destination page, you can simply redirect the other page there, but please make this clear in the edit summary".[1] Thincat (talk) 14:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC) Closing admin comment - This SPA is deliberately taking the entire situation out of context. This close was not a compromise but a close based on the best consensus available. Keep in mind, consensus is derived from our policies and best practices as well as what is in the particular discussion itself. This is done in order to prevent a skewed consensus from being created by a swath of SPAs (as was attempted multiple times here), and to ensure context is covered over from one discussion to the next instead of treating every discussion as separate from each other. But, whether or not we can consider this initial close as the best route at the time it matters not anymore. The community has made very clear that it does not consider "incel" to be more than an unencyclopedic fringe theory (and no sources have ever produced to prove otherwise), so it simply has no place on this site. It's that simple, and it doesn't require trying to use bible verses to explain. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 15:00, 29 May 2014 (UTC) I request that you observe WP:AGF, even though I'm not an established Wikipedia editor. I am not "deliberately taking the entire situation out of context", although that may be what I achieved. I was not aware of the concept of WP:Local consensus that you are referring to, nor of the responsibility of admins to monitor and enforce higher levels of consensus; this latter is not mentioned on the WP:Consensus page, but I would recommend that it be added. Such a power could be abused (not that I am in any way accusing you of abusing it) and so the policy should itself be subject to consensus. I have no reason to doubt your claim that you have been exercising this responsibility and in your judgement there is a higher level of consensus than what was represented in the AfD. So I accept your word, and withdraw my objection to the decision. However, the consensus is wrong. The topic does not qualify for WP:Fringe. First of all, it's not a theory; the existence of the phenomenon is well-documented and indisputable. Secondly, the sociological research on the topic does not in any way "depart significantly from the prevailing or mainstream view in its particular field" (sociology). Donnelly's research, for example, is a straightforward study that 99% of sociologists wouldn't even bat an eye at. Editors claiming WP:Fringe seem to be hung up on Donnelly's choice of the awkward term "involuntary celibacy" — the idea being that, since traditional celibacy is fundamentally voluntary, the concept of "involuntary celibacy" is nonsense. However, despite the similar terminology, the topic has nothing to do with priests or monks. Any statements about Donelly's research departing from the mainstream study of priests and monks are not really relevant in claiming WP:Fringe. Other sources have used other terms such as "sexlessness" when referencing the same topic. I ask you to please justify the WP:Fringe claim, with specific reference to the WP:Fringe article. Since different sources have used different terms to refer to the same phenomenon, I thought there might be an objection based on WP:Synthesis. But reading that policy article, it doesn't seem applicable, since we're merely aggregating the sources, and not trying to combine them to draw a conclusion. Other editors just seem to find the subject distasteful. It is "icky" and attracts trolls, so they just want it to go away. I understand this point of view, but I don't think it's in the best interest of Wikipedia. I have lots of experience dealing with some of the worst, most hateful people in the world when discussing this topic, so it has been a relief dealing with Wikipedia editors, who seem to largely be decent folk, even if they sometimes fall short of Wikipedia's lofty ideals. I am confident that they will eventually decide upon an appropriate way to include this material. Your apparent dislike of biblical analogies is noted. I thought the story illustrated my point and would be well-known to many people. [Note: My IP address has changed (again), but I am the one who initiated this review.] 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:C093:E410:45B7:B315 (talk) 06:31, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Just to add: "Involuntary celibacy" should not be besmirched with WP:Fringe by association with "love-shyness". The latter is cited as a cause of the former by its adherents, and plainly does qualify has a fringe theory. But the two are not synonyms; in particular "love-shyness" qualifies for WP:Fringe, but "involuntary celibacy" does not. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 22:27, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid that is like saying intelligent design is different from creationism (hint; it isn't). "Distinction without a difference", as my paps used to say. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Intelligent design and Creationism have separate articles in Wikipedia. If you don't care to verse yourself in such nuances, it's understandable. If you are one of the many people who finds the subject matter repellent or tiresome, and in an honest self-appraisal you believe that biases you towards deletion/enorsement, then you should recuse yourself from this discussion. 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 02:45, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I have an interest in ridding this project of fringe pseudoscience, of which "involuntary celibacy" is a prime example. Tarc (talk) 04:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC) "Involuntary celibacy" is a problem that people have, with an associated set of causes, effects, remedies, forms, degrees, etc. similar to homelessness. It is studied as a social phenomenon. Unless you are claiming that it doesn't exist, I don't know how you can call the study of it "pseudoscience". 2602:30A:2EA4:2B90:491A:B931:D3B3:259F (talk) 05:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I don't see good grounds for overturning this particular close, but I wonder if Coffee isn't making the case a little bit too strongly. I don't think involuntary celibacy is a completely verboten topic on Wikipedia. Nor do I think it's always inevitably a fringe topic; User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2 seems like an intelligently-written beginning that might be developed into something useful. Look, I think it's important that we understand how popular this topic area of Wikipedia is (our articles on sexual topics typically have very high hit counts)----there's a lot of really profound ignorance about love and sex in the world. We who come from Western democracies with our sex education in schools and our casual attitude to displaying quite a lot of skin and our sophisticated and cynical understanding/enjoyment of the soft porn advertising that bombards us 24/7, probably don't know anyone who needs to read about this topic area... but there's more to it. So I'll endorse the close but I would see a different article on the same topic as potentially permissible (and about a million times more worthy of a Wikipedia article than all the pornstar biographies we keep having to review here).—S Marshall T/C 00:36, 30 May 2014 (UTC) S Marshall: Ah but see, I'm not stating a personal opinion on the matter or trying to make a case... It's the community that has spoken. My role here is to be nothing more than a medium for that consensus (regardless of whether or not I personally agree with it). — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 03:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Fair enough. In that case, to the extent noted above I differ from the view the community has expressed through you.  :-)—S Marshall T/C 08:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn Looking at all the past discussions, what I mainly see is a prejudice by some individuals, either to avoid discussing this aspect of sexuality, or to make too much of it. She met WP:PROF from the start, and it would have been uncontroversial had she worked on anything else. DGG ( talk ) 03:44, 30 May 2014 (UTC) This is a review of the closing of the incel AFD, not Donnelly's... so, that point holds absolutely no weight here. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Overturn Reading the majority of these comments makes me doubt the finding of the original AfD, the article TokyoGirl79 wrote easily seems to meet a whole host of Wikipedia policies. ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ 話 ♪ ߷ ♀ 投稿 ♀ 07:05, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Again, not relevant to the closing of this AFD. If you can bring forth a relevant concern I'd be happy to address it. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC) Ok, I'm fairly torn. On one hand, the closure of this article was reasonable in the sense that merge can be a reasonable compromise between keep and delete. Plus I think the delete !votes were somewhat stronger. On the other hand, I don't think the merge target was reasonable--the two topics, while related, are quite different. I think NC would have been a better close, but merge was reasonable, if there was a solid merge target. So the next question is, if merge is off the table, is delete a correct reading of the discussion? (I'm assuming that a redirect to a topic that doesn't discuss it is clearly an unacceptable outcome.) I'd say it may be within discretion even though I'd count the merge !votes more as keeps given we've got no reasonable merge target. But what bothers is the closing statement in the (closely related) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly. While the closure was quite reasonable (banned editor etc.), the statement that discussing involuntary celibacy in any depth in the context of Denise Donnelly is not allowed is far too strong of a statement of the consensus found in this AfD. It's also a bit silly if this is what she's mostly known for. So weak endorse on the formal topic of this DRV, and strike closing statement as it relates to involuntary celibacy in the Denise Donnelly AfD. Hobit (talk) 07:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Comment: The involuntary celibacy thing is not exactly what Donnelly is most know for, it is merely a portion of what she wrote of. One element of a larger study. In it she mostly focused on "involuntary sexlessness within marriage", as in marriage in which one of the partners does not wish to have sex and the other is therefore left without sex as a result against their will. It's kind of a far-fetched subject and it has absolutely nothing to do with the original concept of "involuntary celibacy" as it was first presented in the original (deleted) article, which was focused on people unable to gain relationships, marriage and sex in the first place. To use Donnelly as a source to support the theory is quit a stretch. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Two things: 1. This isn't a DRV on Donnelly's AFD. 2. You seem to have forgotten that in my close of the Donnelly AFD I specifically pointed out that I was not only taking into consideration the particular comments at the Donnelly AFD, but the entirety of the past few months discussion in relation to the debacle from across the site (especially the celibacy article)... Which is why I quite clearly stated that it was a non-standard close. - All I'm asking you to do is to look beyond the facade the SPAs created here; look at the real discussions among real editors that weren't emailed a link to go cast a vote. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 08:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC) I think I did look beyond. I think your close of this AfD was within discretion, though likely not the call I'd have made (though I might have, hard to say). I think you should not have claimed a strong consensus for this close and then used that as a basis of a closing statement in another AfD. You'd have been much better off !voting in the AfD and letting someone else close it IMO. If there is such a strong consensus, someone else will pick up on the situation. And yes, this is the wrong place for my comment on the Donnelly AfD. I debated about opening a DRV on it instead, but felt doing so over a closing statement wasn't a good way forward. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC) I have no personal opinion on the matter Hobit, so it wouldn't have done me much good to comment in the AFDs themselves. I don't know why everyone thinks admins automatically agree with the consensus that they determine was made. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 22:13, 2 June 2014 (UTC) In your opinion there was a strong consensus in the first AfD for not having this material on Wikipedia. You then took that and jumped into the second AfD with that same opinion. I'm saying it would have been best to have a different admin jump in on that second one. In much the same way, if the same article comes up at AfD multiple times, it would be ideal if it wasn't closed by the same person each time. Hobit (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2014 (UTC) As far as a recreation goes: the article on Denise Donnelly was already re-created in the form of a stub. Something I am personally not opposed to despite the fact that I still doubt she is in way noteworthy in or outside her field of interest. Her research has been used by the supporters of the fringe theory of "incel" on various online support groups for adult (typically male) virgins, however, as a way of justifying their theories and beliefs. Through this she gained most of her "recognition" and attention to her work, even though it seems few of them ever read her work as it does not exactly seem to be about them at all. The subject of Involuntary Celibacy itself has been discussed various times on various places and consensus seems to be that it should not have it's own article. No article could be found to merge in it either, hence it was ultimately deleted. The Donnelly artice was only created (by a now banned sockpuppeteer) as a way of including the material in Wikipedia against earlier consensus. It was deemed unfit to have a stand-alone article, and it was deemed unfit to be included in the article on Celibacy. The articles sexual frustration and chastity I believe were also considered at one point, but decided not to go that route. The Donnelly article was the last attempt in a long line of attempt to overrule consensus. Mythic Writerlord (talk) 12:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse, there is no way to close a heated discussion like that, which will make everyone happy. However, after reading the discussion I think that the eventual call was reasonable and well justified, under the circumstances. Specifically, a lot of the comments in the original AFD seem driven by emotion, rather than policy, which isn't a particularly effective way of coming to a good outcome. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:24, 31 May 2014 (UTC). Weak endorse for the reasons I gave above. However, some of the closing statements at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly seem to me seriously wrong (in particular "the overall concept has been determined (informally) by the community to not have a place on this site"). That AFD is not the one under discussion here although it has (wrongly) determined the deletion of this content. The RFC explicitly did not conclude that the topic of involuntary celibacy did not warrant an article. Therefore we should allow an article on this topic and in my view User:Tokyogirl79/Sandbox 2 would be an excellent starting point. Thincat (talk) 10:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC) There is text in the history of Celibacy that has its attribution hidden in the deleted history under Denise Donnelly. This violates WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (guideline) as explained by WP:Merge and delete (essay). WP:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (2nd nomination) was closed as "merge to Celibacy" by Coffee, and the merger was implemented by User:SandyGeorgia. There was extended discussion (Talk:Celibacy#Incel) and editing back and forth (history) that ultimately removed the merged text. See also User talk:Coffee/Archives/2014/March#Celibacy and Incel. User:Candleabracadabra moved Involuntary celibacy to Denise Donnelly. WP:Articles for deletion/Denise Donnelly was closed as delete, also by Coffee. One may argue that the historical revisions are not immediately visible, but it is plausible that someone will restore the content, considering the persistence of some editors to cover the topic somewhere. Flatscan (talk) 04:33, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 May 2014

Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) – Withdrawn. (NAC) – Armbrust The Homunculus 09:47, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Socialist Party (Italy, 2007–08) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I made a guideline-based argument for deletion. One editor agreed with me. The keep !votes failed to refute my argument. The closing admin wrongly determined "no consensus" by taking into account the irrational opposition. Chris Troutman (talk) 16:58, 23 May 2014 (UTC) I do not see any editor who agreed with you.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:14, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Please read Maremmano's comments. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) My closing fully coincides with their last comment, at the bottom of the page.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) There are two relevant parts of that debate. The first revolves around this source found by Checco, which was the only piece of actual evidence anyone submitted in among all those opinions. We need a proper Italian speaker to evaluate that (note that google translate is never sufficient to evaluate a source). Is anyone at DRV fluent? Failing that we may need to advertise on the talk page of WikiProject Italy for an uninvolved Italian speaker's advice. But the second part, and the one that would have informed any decent editor's close, was the compromise/agreement reached between Maremmano and Checco at the end of the debate. This is an unusually clear example of a local consensus forming as a result of discussion between two opposing sides. It's how Wikipedia is supposed to work.—S Marshall T/C 11:07, 24 May 2014 (UTC) The article has been moved to Socialist Party (De Michelis). The redirect from the old title was deleted, see the bottom of the AfD for the discussion of that. it puzzles me, because, wrong or right, it clarifies the article history and prevents such problems as the redlink at the top of this section. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC) @Ymblanter and DGG: I stand corrected. As the interested parties have agreed to this move, I'll withdraw my request. Chris Troutman (talk) 07:31, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 May 2014

Mara Kayser – Endorse close as correct given the discussion available at the time, but allow recreation. I'm going to move the article to User:Rjtucker/Mara Kayser so Rjtucker (talk · contribs) can improve the article with new sources that have come to light, and then resubmit it for main article space. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mara Kayser (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I emailed the closing administrator on 18 May 2014. I have received neither reply nor confirmation of receipt of email. The main content of the email was: I note relevant guidelines for the notability of a performing artists include: 1. Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. 2. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Please consider: The number of videos of her on YouTube where she is obviously on television sets. The quality and number of CD's she has made. She has had numerous Radio-Airplay hits. I happened to find reference to these two: http://www.radio-vhr.de/schlager/airplay-charts-15-woche-2013-jan-smit-verteidigt-platz-1.html http://www.countrygreatest.de/andreas-oscar.html In the discussion Biruitorul states "Current sources include a wiki and a blog post, both unacceptable per WP:SPS". The wiki is the Saarland Lexikon which, according to the German section of Wikipedia, is a project controlled by the online editors of the Saarbrücker Zeitung ("Gesteuert wird das Projekt von der Online-Redaktion der Saarbrücker Zeitung"). The reference address: http://www.saarland-lexikon.de/index.php/Mara_Kayser A discography is to be found on her German Wikipedia page and a search for "Mara Kayser" on amazon.de or even amazon.co.uk would confirm it. Listing all her television appearances would be an extensive task. Rjtucker (talk) 16:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse, but consider a new draft if Rjtucker or anyone is interested in writing one. The AFD was low-content and low-interest but procedure was clearly followed. The case for an article isn't strong, but I'm not sure it can be totally dismissed either. She does appear to be a recurring TV guest in Germany but that in and of itself isn't ironclad notability. It's also hard to guage notability based on her German WP article, the only reference given is this, a catalogue listing that shows she's released CDs but nothing else in particular. In situations like these the best way forward is usually to create a well-sourced draft and work from there. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 23:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse my own close. I received no such email (it may have gone into spam and been deleted, no accusations here towards Rjtucker), but if I had I'd have firstly asked for it to be posted on my talk page for transparency's sake. Secondly, she arguably does meet WP:MUSIC point number 5 if she's had releases on EMI and Universal, but this was not brought up in the discussion. I'd be happy to userify and consider positively a new draft that contains additional references and better supports her notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 00:51, 22 May 2014 (UTC). Allow recreation May I submit a link to an article in what looks to me to be a reputable quality publication (though I cannot find a Wikipedia entry for it)? http://www.magazin-forum.de/news/was-macht-eigentlich/%E2%80%A6mara-kayser Rjtucker (talk) 08:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC) I think that source is a good basis for an article.—S Marshall T/C 22:41, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 May 2014

File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG – Restore image. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Hi. This image was deleted because I didn't state that I took the picture. I don't log in much anymore so I didn't see the deletion message. I took this photo and grant free use for anyone and everyone for any reason (I don't remember which license that is called) Image: File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG Deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2013 December 18#File:Equestrian statue of George III on Snow Hill, Windsor Great Park.JPG Comment I think the deletion looks to have been proper. However, the closing admin TLSuda will likely be able to help you get your photo restored. Thincat (talk) 14:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn Failure to assume good faith. Andrew (talk) 18:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Was properly marked {{PD}} at upload; at the time, that template looked like this, which is explicit enough to overcome the objection at WP:PUF. A problem not raised there, and which should be examined before the image is restored, is whether the sculptor has a copyright interest as well. When was the statue erected? —Cryptic 21:43, 24 May 2014 (UTC) It was erected in 1831[2] and the sculptor, Richard Westmacott, died in 1856. Anyway, in the UK, there is freedom of panorama for statues.[3] It was the copyright of the photographer that was relevant. Thincat (talk) 22:23, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Restore. Given what the closing admin had to work with, the close was reasonable. However, with this additional information provided here it should be clear there are no copyright restrictions and the image ought to be restored. Just remember to record this on the image description page itself Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:06, 25 May 2014 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Justin Knapp – No Consensus. Opinion here is split quite evenly down the middle. I think the most insightful comment was from Sandstein (talk · contribs), the admin who closed the original Afd, who points out that if some of the arguments made during this DRV had been made during the original AfD, the close would have gone differently. The ultimate goal here is not to convict or acquit the closing admin, but to do the best thing for the encyclopedia. I believe in this case, that means having a fresh discussion about the merits of the article, unfettered by questions of whether somebody made the right decision over a year ago. Therefore, I'm going to undelete this and bring it back to Afd for a clean start. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Justin Knapp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Come on guys! What are we doing here? He passes WP:GNG by a landslide and has been covered by multiple RS NPR, Daily Dot, Engadget, The Telegraph, BBC!, and tons more. He has made over 344,613 edits since receiving international coverage. We must be the most self hating group of all time, he is notable everywhere, but his home. Seriously! Who cares about all endless hours of unpaid volunteer (redundant) work he has done, beside the media and international reliable sources? On a serious note though, Overturn without relist, may he be an inspiration to us all and remind us that it only takes a million edits to find your way out of backspace and into the mainspace. Thank you for providing the world with NPOV information, and thank you for continuing to do so, if any Wikipedian deserves an article it is you. Regardless of the outcome, congratulations, for being the most prolific editor on the most viewed encyclopedia, and the sixth most viewed website in the world. I come here with the hope that the outcome of Adrianne Wadewitz's AfD can be applied here. What do you think @Jimbo Wales:? User:Koavf/Justin Anthony Knapp Valoem talk contrib 23:37, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I hope no one minds the more causal tone I chose. Did so to highlight how self hating this delete was :) Valoem talk contrib 01:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn (I'm sure that's shocking to everyone). He meets the GNG without any doubt. And I really don't buy that doing something for X years (where X is a large number) and getting recognized for it is in any way "one event". If the delete !votes were more numerous, maybe. But they aren't. Hobit (talk) 00:55, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse, solid BLP1E, no new notability upon which to overturn. Just having lots of edits alone isn't enough. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse - WP:BLP1E was the argument that carried the day, never actually rebutted by any of the calls to keep, which were mostly a bunch of "let's ignore all rules to recognize a fellow Wikipedian!" stuff. IAR is to circumvent bureaucracy for the ultimate goal of an improvement to the project; arguing that this is necessary to circumvent an important notability guide solely because the subject is afellow editor is wiki-nepotistic navel-gazing at its worst. In the final analysis, there was no error cited in the admin's close, just routine "I didn't like it" by the DRV nom. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Comment Tarc I am glad to see you are still bitter about my comment. BLP1E is designed to prevent people who received significant coverage for one event from being able to use that event to promo himself using Wikipedia. This is clearly not happening here. He has continued to edit Wikipedia since and has had a lasting effect. If BLP1E was used as you described then we would not have articles on Anders Behring Breivik, Richard Reid, Nidal Malik Hasan, Jamie Gold, Jerry Yang (poker player), Shridhar Chillal. You get the point, Gizmodo covers his life thus passing WP:BLP1E. There are other sources that have done so. He has receive coverage on himself and is likely to continue editing. We look for lasting impact Valoem talk contrib 02:45, 21 May 2014 (UTC) You're not important enough to me to get bitter over, first off. Second, This person is only being talked about in sources because of one event; the number of edits to a web site. If you remove the event, the person is a nobody, just like the rest of us. Third, WP:OTHERSTUFF is rarely an impressive argument. If you have concerns about any of those articles, then feel free to express those concerns on their respective talk pages. Tarc (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Your tone certainly hinted so. I do not have any issues with those articles, when I cite other stuff exists, I am not doing it in a way a novice might. The first line says: The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do, or do not, exist; because there is nothing stopping anyone from creating any article. The article I cited are those which will clearly survive AfD. OTHERCRAPEXISTS is used to make a point that those article may be removed as well so citing there existence is irrelevant. Once again this is obviously not the case. We look at whether or not the subject has received coverage himself which he has. Valoem talk contrib 03:18, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Oh, here is another event [4] not to mention he has retained the title of most edits by a landslide since his article deletion. Valoem talk contrib 03:43, 21 May 2014 (UTC) That's not a separate event, that is just coverage of the same topic; being a prolific editor. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn. If the sources are there, who can argue with that? Wikipedia has this tendency to be inclusionist about tech stuff, especially stuff related to itself, and deletionist about pretty much everything else. And while that tendency is obnoxious, it doesn't mean an article about a notable subject should be deleted. Everyking (talk) 04:04, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn to No Consensus or Relist. I think that the closer erred in reading a consensus to delete out the AfD discussion. The claim that the large number of sources makes the article subject one that we should cover regardless of whether or not he meets BLP1E is cogent and should not be summarily dismissed as an inapposite invocation of IAR. Arguably the extent of the coverage could be considered under the second prong of BLP1E, though it does not appear that any of the commenters in the AfD did so. For the forgoing reasons I think that No Consensus to delete was reached in the AfD and that the close to the contrary was mistaken. Eluchil404 (talk) 05:32, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Comment, So here we are, 13 years later, we have an article on the first Wikipedian, may we never have one on the last. For the prior years and counting, this man has invested more time working here than all of us. I respect his lack of discouragement when faced against unbelievable odds, to never stop. I know I've stopped and may again. Through all the good and the bad he has come here for encouragement. And with 1.3 millions edits it is no secret. Here we have a man who has dedicated a good part of his life to improving what we read everyday. He has done so to the point that mainstream media and international reliable sources have taken notice. Per this made up policy Wikipedia:WeArePeopleToo we can and should allow a small mainspace article honoring his work and character. Though I may disagree with some of his edits I can think of no better reason to offer this token of appreciation, after all ... we are people too. Valoem talk contrib 05:58, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - The paramount question is whether or not there is a purpose for filing a Wikipedia:Deletion review in the first place. Otherwise it's best to just recreate a title for reasons of good faith. Because DRV stipulates a dispute with the closing admin's "decisions", a year is simply too long for an AfD to have been closed, to then "raise a dispute". I'd encourage the nominator to instead: withdraw this DRV, and properly recreate the title. While it is certain to be closely scrutinized, even likely; AfD'd anew: I'd be more comfortable commenting there.—John Cline (talk) 06:26, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn, there was no consensus to delete the article. Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 06:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC) What an amazingly difficult close. Kudos to Sandstein for stepping up to make it. I think with most discussions, "delete" would have been accessible to the closer on the basis that this is a biography of a living person and it's acceptable to give extra weight to concerns about sourcing in such cases. But I think this particular discussion presented unique features. I think that someone reading about Justin Knapp in the Daily Telegraph, who wanted to learn more, would naturally turn to Wikipedia; and I think they'd find it bizarre that Wikipedia doesn't cover a Wikipedian. I also agree to an extent with the argument well-expressed by Eluchil404, and with Hobit's point that if making a million edits is "one event" then that's one really long event...—S Marshall T/C 08:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC) A person who wins a marathon isn't notable for 26 things, he/she is notable for one thing; winning the race itself, the totality of it. The "event" here is the cause célèbre of being a person with a 1,000,000 edits under his belt. Tarc (talk) 12:44, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Being a person with 1,000,000 edits under his belt isn't an event, it's a state . But I obviously do see your argument: that the 843,279th edit was one event, and the 999,999th edit was one event, and the 1,000,000th edit was one event. I also see what BLP1E says: BLP1E should be applied only to biographies of low-profile individuals. I can't see how Koavf meets this definition, having voluntarily been interviewed about his 1,000,000th edit. And even if that wasn't true it would still be totally stupid to apply BLP1E in this case, because the tradeoff is that once we've deleted the article about the person, we've got no grounds to stop editors from writing an article about the event. Would seeing a bluelink at Justin Knapp's 1,000,000th edit really be such a brilliant idea?—S Marshall T/C 16:41, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse but allow recreation Many of the arguments were policy-based (including those "keeps" who did not consider this to be one event) but although I don't necessarily agree with the the closer that the BLP1E arguments were convincing, I do think they made up a rough consensus. If people !voting delete had said they really felt there ought be an article but policy did not permit it, then they might have missed the word "generally" in BLP1E. But no, the arguments for deletion seemed none too reluctant. If the article can be improved substantially there is no reason why it should not be recreated without further reference to DRV. Obviously there should at least be a redirect (presumably to History of Wikipedia, 2012) but regrettably these niceties all to often get lost. Thincat (talk) 14:21, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse. Correctly closed in policy-compliant fashion by Sandstein taking into account arguments advanced. — Scott • talk 23:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn BLP1E is often a bad argument: in practice a great many things can be interpreted as either 1E or a continuing series of things making for notability , and the decision tends to be based on other considerations ==in this case, I suspect that we are so eager not to appear self-important that we have a prejudice against articles about people involved with WP. DGG ( talk ) 23:50, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse deletion, sadly--I do not like disagreeing with DGG. I'm really neutral on the issue and haven't looked at the article for this meta discussion, but I think that Sandstein made the right call given the absence of good, solid keep arguments. Mercurywoodrose was beginning to make a decent argument but invoking IAR is not a good move; oddly enough, I find myself in strong agreement with Scottywong, but that's perhaps also because too many of the keepers don't seem to have taken the AfD seriously. What should have been argued, for instance, is something about broadness and depth of coverage; well, some broadness is hinted at but the long list of links doesn't contain that many reliable sources, and Scotty, on the delete tip, is really the only one to discuss depth--or lack thereof. So I don't see how Sandstein could have decided otherwise, and deciding on "keep via IAR" is a kind of a cop-out, and while the 1E argument is not rock solid, Sandstein is correct in saying that they were not convincingly rebutted in the AfD. Drmies (talk) 02:59, 22 May 2014 (UTC) As the closing administrator, I maintain my assessment that the "keep" arguments in the AfD discussion did not convincingly address the BLP1E concerns raised with regard to this biography. However, in this review, the argument has been made that the Wikipedia editing career of Justin Knapp can't reasonably be considered one "event", but is more akin to the collective accomplishments of, e.g., writers or artists, the coverage of which makes them notable. This is a persuasive, if perhaps not compelling argument. Had this argument been advanced in the deletion discussion, I'd likely have concluded that there was no consensus to delete the article. As to what to do with the article now, I leave this to the others participating in this review, as I don't really have an opinion one way or the other. However, I'd like to add that, in my view, our core policy of neutrality requires us to conduct these inclusion discussions without regard to whether the article subject is a Wikipedian or not.  Sandstein  06:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC) I agree. Don't you often feel that way, in an AfD or an RfC, that you just want to tell participants what kinds of arguments to bring up, and what they're forgetting? Drmies (talk) 18:36, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Yes.  Sandstein  16:17, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse deletion - I feel deletion was the correct assessment of the consensus that emerged in the archived discussion. Undeletion would only be desirable to me if the prior editing history would otherwise be lost. Because the article is userfied with its history intact, nothing is lost by improving it in userspace, until ready, and then moving it whole, into article space. This endorsement of the AFD's close is without prejudice against recreating the article, and the quasi support of its previous deletion does not imply that I oppose keeping the title. I actually support its appropriateness for article inclusion.—John Cline (talk) 07:07, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn to merge, or perhaps keep - the !votes that appeal to BLP1E must be entirely disregarded as incoherent gibberish. BLP1E is very clear, and anyone who's read it will see it cannot be used to support a delete position in a coherent way. One might as well write "Delete per WP:MOSNUM". By policy, merging to History of Wikipedia or one of it's daughters is probably the best course, but overturning to keep is perhaps not unacceptable. I suspect in the long term, it'll end up as the former, and I'm less concerned about the short term. Deletion, however, was wholly indefensible. WilyD 09:20, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse deletion, well articulated close by Sandstein who balanced consensus and policy and found the correct outcome based on the input into the debate. Daniel (talk) 10:13, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Sandstein, himself suggested a relist at worst, as new debate arguments specifically regarding this being a life long achievement, as opposed to BLP1E be taken into consideration, I cannot see any other interpretation. Valoem talk contrib 14:19, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Allow recreation The close was in 2013. Consensus can change and even back then there were numerous keep arguments made. Sandstein closed the discussion per his reading of consensus and acknowledges that more recent arguments for inclusion are policy based and reasonable. I can't think of any reason why recreation and a new deletion hearing (if one is desired) wouldn't be appropriate. Candleabracadabra (talk) 14:49, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Noting here that Candleabracadabra has now been blocked as somebody's ban-evading sockpuppet, though I'm not sure whether that's relevant for this process.  Sandstein  16:20, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn There was no consensus to delete. Andrew (talk) 18:16, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn WP:BLP1E was incorrectly applied for several reasons. One of which this person was not famous for "one event" but an entire series of actions that spread several years. Also WP:BLP1E clearly states it is meant for the privacy of "low profile" individuals. Someone who willingly participates in multiple high profile interviews like on Gizmodo [5] is not "low profile" nor a "private" individual. There just wasn't the consensus to delete this topic and there were a couple delete !votes simply stated "per WP:BLP1E" with no justification of why this topic had to be deleted because of that policy. --Oakshade (talk) 03:01, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse close but allow recreation. Those wishing to see this close overturned seem to be suggesting that the discussion itself was deficient. That may well be so (is so, in my view) but that's not the fault of the closer. DRV is not AFD Take 2 - we shouldn't be re-arguing those things either insufficiently argued or missing entirely from the debate. Whether or not BLP1E was being applied appropriately by the participants is irrelevant - that was their argument and that became the consensus because nobody properly refuted the claim. A closer can only work with what he is given; in this case consensus that BLP1E should apply. Besides which, we're talking about a close from more than 12 months ago. Consensus can change, especially consensus based on (arguably) a misapplication of a particular policy. I can't see any reason why an editor in good standing shouldn't be given the opportunity to recreate an article. Stalwart111 08:08, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 May 2014

Andrew Stone (soccer) – withdrawn – Spartaz Humbug! 07:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Andrew Stone (soccer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I deleted this following an AFD as it failed GNG and NFOOTY. I am not asked to restore this as the subject now mets NFOOTY but they still do not meet the GNG. As this is a BLP I have declined to restore it pending a DRV> Simple question for DRV to answer - do we now require BLPs to pass the GNG or can an SNG permit creation of an unsourced BLP? Spartaz Humbug! 20:57, 19 May 2014 (UTC) I think I speak for everyone when I say a SNG can't permit creation of an unsourced BLP! At DRV, since about 2010 we have almost always required BLPs to pass the GNG. In this case the sources cited in the article were 1, which looks sufficiently in-depth and could be reliable but I'm not sure if it's independent, 2 which looks sufficiently in-depth but I don't think is independent, and 3 which doesn't mention Mr Stone. I think that if we're going to apply the GNG strictly, then we need one more independent source that discusses Mr Stone in reasonable depth.—S Marshall T/C 21:29, 19 May 2014 (UTC) You said 3 doesn't mention Mr. Stone - however it does. Click on Lineup. Also see 4 Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC) I'm sorry, you're quite right. It does say his name and there's a little numbered dot to show where he plays. I also see there's a mention of him in the fourth source you list as well.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn, It was argued during the AFD were that he didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL, however he does now meet WP:NFOOTBALL with a start Saturday as documented at 4 and 3. I don't know what the unsourced BLP comments are about, as the article always had sources in it, and this was not a factor in the AFD discussion; User:Spartaz was also provided an additional source along with the request to undelete the article. This seems very straight forward, and bringing it to DRV is in contradiction to hundreds of other examples where the article is simply restored, or restored and procedually sent to AFD. It's also in contradicion of another similar article for a similar player (playing for a 3rd tier US team, as opposed a 2nd tier US team in this case) that was recently brought to DRV at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014_April_5#Quillan Roberts, where consensus was that the article should be restored, and that this type of stuff needn't come to DRV. Also I question whether it is appropriate for User:Spartaz to blank the page after another moderator restored it following a possibly inappropriate request at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion#Andrew Stone (footballer) without notifying User:Amatulic who restored the article. Nfitz (talk) 21:55, 19 May 2014 (UTC) My bad, I apologize to the original deleting administrator Spartaz for not informing him that I restored the article. It seemed to me like an uncontroversial no-brainer, especially since it was the original deletion nominator requesting restoration, and also after verifying that the source given at WP:REFUND shows that the subject does indeed now meet WP:NFOOTBALL, rendering the AFD irrelevant. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 19 May 2014 (UTC) I remain baffled ... how isn't this not an uncontroversial no-brainer? Nfitz (talk) 22:14, 19 May 2014 (UTC) It was Spartaz's call as AfD closer. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC) Comment  This is a bit confusing since the deletion log is at a different title, [6].  This deletion log shows that the article has been restored as per a WP:REFUND at 2014-05-19T19:29:02.  So the DRV petition is to overturn the restoration.  The Template:Tempundelete tag on the article added at 2014-05-19T20:52:12‎, is incorrect, and should be replaced with {{Delrev}}.  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Comment  Nominators are advised, "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly."  Unscintillating (talk) 04:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC) For the record, the nominator IS the closing admin! Nfitz (talk) 00:36, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I interpret "closing admin" in this case to mean the administrator whose action is being challenged, which in this case is Amatulić.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Procedural close, WP:NPASR  The argument that GNG is maybe, just maybe, a content policy doesn't make sense, as GNG is a subsection in a notability guideline.  The argument that the article is unsourced is refuted by inspection.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse AFD deletion and subsequent undeletion. Before the season has fully got underway it's natural to want to have harmless fun and I'm sure the article's creation, AFD and REFUND were meant in this spirit. At soccer AFDs it is well known that to argue "delete, fails NFOOTY" is ineffective so experienced participants add that GNG is failed as well. Although there is always a slew of press coverage, it is almost entirely trivial so there is no real need to assess the sources – they can nearly always be argued either way. Do BLPs need to meet GNG? No, GNG is just a guideline – BLPs need to survive any deletion challenge. Unsourced BLPs may be handled by WP:BLPPROD regardless of any SNG. However, in this case the article was and is sourced. Are these sources adequate to warrant an article? I suspect S Marshall has been the first person to investigate this aspect (and I agree with his assessment). The AFD was closed properly. The undeletion was (easily) wihin admin discretion. The article should be restored. A second AFD would not be disruptive. Thincat (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC) For the record, I don't agree the close was proper; however that isn't the basis of this DRV, so to delve into those details would be an unnecessary tangent. I have long argued that the deletion of articles for players, who have been signed to the first team, just before the start of the season, and who are almost certain to be playing soon, is a waste of time, and the deletion, and ultimate recreation of such articles (often from scratch), and later restoration of the edit history (if that actually happens) is just wasting a lot of resources. WP:COMMONSENSE and WP:NORUSH would suggest that simply retaining the article for few weeks, to see if the player is going to appear is not disruptive, and does no harm - with other recent AFD discussions having different outcomes such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelechi Iheanacho (footballer born 1996) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Hyland ironically including for a teammate of Andrew Stone that was nominated concurrently! But as I said, that isn't the crux of this current DRV - and while I considered bringing the Andrew Stone article to DRV on this basis, I didn't pursue it, as the recreation was inevitable given at the time of deletion, he'd already spend every minute of every game named as a substitute with an actual appearance soon being all but inevitable. Nfitz (talk) 00:53, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Restore the article - the original AFD 'deletion' was fine, but this individual's circumstances has changed and he is not notable per WP:NFOOTBALL. Traditionally with football/soccer articles we have always allowed a period of grace for articles which meet NFOOTBALL to be brought up to GNG. This should apply here as well. GiantSnowman 12:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 12:02, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Restore Spartaz and I have been disagreeing on this point for many years: I consider that, since we make our own rules, the relationship between the SNGs and the GNG is not fixed, but is whatever we decide it is, either on a guideline by guideline or an article by article basis. In the field of main interest to me personally, WP:PROF is explicitly an alternative to the GNG, and all relevant decisions in the last 5 years have accepted that, and we generally think so also for geographic objects. (It's a lot simpler than trying to stretch the various limitations of the sources required by the GNG to cover the sources available for the, though it can be done when someone insists--they rarely do any more for this sort of article) For athletes, the relationship between the two has gone back and forth over the years, and, altho this is not my field, I understand most discussions have gone that the SNG is a limitation of the GNG and they must both be satisfied, but individual decisions seem to vary all over the place. If I were closing such a AfD , I would not impose my own view of this ,but accept whatever the consensus might be at that particular AfD. But it's irrelevant to the decision here, since it seems to be agreed above that he meets both guidelines. DGG ( talk ) 21:11, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Restore Now that he has played in a game, there is no question that he meets NFOOTBALL. I could write several paragraphs about unnecessary bureaucracy with this deletion. Putting that aside and looking at WP:BLPDELETE, this article never had negative material and it was written neutrally. BLP wasn't a factor in the deletion, so BLP issues shouldn't apply in the article's restoration. Royalbroil 02:37, 21 May 2014 (UTC) I think that Spartaz's request for a test-case DRV was reasonable, but it was written after Mikemor92 had received a REFUND. This AfD does not fall under WP:Requests for undeletion's scope, it is explicitly covered by WP:Deletion review/Purpose #3, and Mikemor92 had engaged Spartaz before filing the REFUND. Flatscan (talk) 04:42, 25 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sumter Mall – No consensus to overturn "delete" closure. After a spirited (re-)discussion of sources and notability, we do not have a consensus that the "delete" closure was incorrect. A majority of participants instead endorse that closure. –  Sandstein  09:54, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sumter Mall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I have discussed this with the closing admin per here:[7] I do not think the consensus was delete because none of the delete !votes were policy based. They cite lack of national coverage, which is not a wikipedia policy for notability. I brought up 10 sources at the AFD that chronicle the plans for the mall when it was originally called Jessamine Mall, to the opening of the mall and the mall later being sold and renamed Sumter Mall. I think this satisfies the notability guidelines and delete !votes and closing admin simply dismissed the sources for no reason. Me5000 (talk) 16:41, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse. In this case, the closing administrator actually seemed to weight the arguments properly. Local interest is not some sort of notability standard, and does not make the sourcing nontrivial enough for these purposes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn, The arguments put forth by Me5000 and Unscintillating are highly suggestive that this mall has received at least regional coverage which passes WP:GNG. The sources are reliable and non-trivial though many local. This is a borderline which is ripe for a no consensus close. Per WP:OUTCOME for malls pushes me toward a keep as well. Valoem talk contrib 17:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Poor DangerousPanda! Three AfD closes brought to DRV in quick succession. I don't imagine any of them will be overturned, though. I'll endorse this one because when the !votes are given their correct weight, it's a pretty clear "delete".—S Marshall T/C 17:53, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Ok, go, show even one delete !vote that carries any weight.  The first two !votes were impeached at the AfD as not having spent enough time looking for sources to know that there was an alternate name used for the mall for 20 years.  The last delete !vote is based on the objection that the keep !votes didn't find his preference in sourcing.  The AfD nom shows below that, even now, he is not aware of the size of the mall.  Should I go on?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, please do. I'd like to be able to consider all of your arguments before responding.—S Marshall T/C 07:30, 20 May 2014 (UTC) To respond here, I had not commented on the fourth and remaining delete !vote.  As per my comment at the AfD, the !vote brought no verifiable evidence to the table, and provided none when asked.  This is a recurring theme, that delete !votes are allowed to simply state the WP:ATA argument that a topic is "non-notable".  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) And that's yet another reason why I have such contempt for WP:ATA. The statement that a topic is "non-notable" may be an argument to avoid, but if it wasn't given any weight at AfD, then very little content would ever get deleted! In fact, it's normal practice at AfD to say that material isn't notable. This creates a rebuttable presumption that the material should be deleted. The presumption can be rebutted by actually providing sources, and if that happens then the person who said it wasn't notable typically gets some well-deserved egg on their face, but providing sources should be the only effective answer.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 24 May 2014 (UTC) If an argument cannot be reduced by the force of reason, it is by definition unreasonable.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Then it's not surprising you find AfD so unreasonable, Unscintillating. The statement that "This is not notable" is normal practice at AfD, and it's refutable by evidence. What passes for "reason" on Wikipedia is not an acceptable substitute for evidence. In almost all fields of human endeavour, from law to science, some things are resolvable only by evidence, and notability on Wikipedia is one of them.—S Marshall T/C 07:55, 27 May 2014 (UTC) Please explain why the delete !votes carry any weight. Me5000 (talk) 18:01, 21 May 2014 (UTC) Long explanation of how S Marshall thinks the !votes should be weighted I actually see the sources argument as a bit of a red herring. The sources discussion is inconclusive in this case. I mean, when someone says "There are no decent sources", then that has three possible weights. If (1) someone says that and no sources are subsequently provided, then it's got all the force of WP:V on the scales with it, and core policies weigh tons and tons and tons. If (2) someone says it and plenty of excellent sources are provided, then it's got no weight at all because it's been refuted. But the cases we typically see at DRV, like this one, are typically in group (3) where someone says it and a few sources are provided, and the sources are mostly not really about the subject but do mention it a bit. In this case what we have is an argument about WP:N which is easily the most-discussed guideline in deletion debates. Typically, the people who want to delete the article try to pretend it's a (1) and the people who want to keep the article try to pretend it's a (2), but looking at it objectively, I think we can all see more of a (3) here. Generally if the article topic is an encyclopaedic sort of thing, a (3) will tend to lead to a weak no-consensusy sort of vague outcome. But I see all this as a distraction from another very strong argument because it has another core content policy behind it which is WP:NOT. As a core content policy, WP:NOT weighs tons more than a guideline like WP:N. Basically, a shopping mall very rarely merits an encyclopaedia article; the specific part of WP:NOT that it violates is WP:IINFO. It would be a tenable position for the "Overturn to keep" side if they allege that this argument isn't actually to be found in the debate that DangerousPanda assessed, and I agree that it's not very clearly articulated, but I think that thought actually underlies what DGG and RoySmith had to say. They phrased their argument in terms of WP:N, which is normally an effective tactic at AfD, but I think it should be understood in terms of WP:NOT as well. And that's why I give the "delete" side the weight of policy behind it.—S Marshall T/C 20:51, 21 May 2014 (UTC) A good response and I want to thank you for explaining your endorsement. I don't agree 100% with some of what you said, but this isn't the place for that as this isn't afd part 2. I want to start off by saying I never stated it should be overturned to keep, I think it should be overturned to no consensus. I don't see how you can say they didn't say WP:IINFO is being violated, but that is what they meant. The fact is nothing they said is in WP:IINFO and we have to go by what they actually said, not what we think they meant. DGG didn't make any points in the AFD and only used to arguments that should be avoided per WP:ASSERTN and WP:ITSNOTABLE. RoySmith started off with WP:ITSCRUFT, which I'll ignore because he did add more than that. What he did say that I think you're interpreting as WP:IINFO is "it's just like any other of a zillion malls around the world", however WP:IINFO links to WP:DISCRIMINATE which states "an indiscriminate collection of information would be a collection of information gathered "without care or making distinctions" or in a "thoughtless" manner" it goes on to give examples where indiscriminate is totally random and discriminate the information relates to one another. This clearly falls under "discriminate". Roy then proceeds to state afterward "Mostly what I object to is that there is no non-local coverage". Which brings this back to what I've been saying, but instead of repeating myself I want to point to something else: even the closing admin admits this isn't a requirement per my discussion with him[8]. He actually states it was "a mere suggestion in the AFD" which I find odd, but I'm not going to go into that. This is why I think the delete !votes do not carry any weight and it should have been closed as no consensus. Me5000 (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse There is no fixed rule about malls, but the usual practice is for there to be a cutoff at around 1 million square feet--less in some regions where there are still rare. This is compatible with the definition of super-regional in most lists. In the US have sometimes kept with less, but rarely in recent years with less than 500,000. (this has 345,000) Sometimes there is some special distinction: the only thing apparent here from its web site is largest enclosed mall in the county--a county of only 107,000. (Largest in south Carolina would have been another matter.) The applicability of the GNG to malls is useless--the events reported are usually trivial or in local sources which report anything regardless of significance. (When there is something of significance that's another matter.) There are always a few bad decisions to be found in the AfD archives, because this is a matter of people's views at the time, which varies. Where there is consensus at a particular AfD, that's enough consensus for the AfD. If there were enough consensus in general we'd have a guideline--but proposals for one have never succeeded). In most areas AfD decisions are not very consistent: if we insisted on keeping everything as non-consensus thing where we have ever had a contrary decision, notability would be a very low guideline indeed. Non-consensus means non-consensus at the particular AfD -- but there was consensus there. DGG ( talk ) 19:45, 19 May 2014 (UTC) The size of the mall for the purposes of this discussion is 43 acres and 455,000 sq. ft. as per [9].  This size was used in the AfD and not refuted there.  As discussed at the AfD and not refuted there ("Do you object to the...allbusiness.com definition[]?  Do you have another metric to define "larger"?") the applicable benchmark for this discussion for a larger shopping center was [10], or 300,000 to 900,000 sq. ft.  This particular mall met an even higher benchmark, that at [11].  Unscintillating (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2014 (UTC) A list of applicable AfDs was part of the evidence in this AfD: Missoula 587,000 gla The mall at westlake <400,000 Columbia 740,000 Middlesboro 317,000 Unscintillating (talk) 02:06, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse I could see this having been called either Delete or NC. The closing admin went with Delete, which is one of the reasonable options. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) As per [12] there are neither "zillion"s nor "jillion"s of malls this size in the US, there are about 1500.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Your argument was, "I checked out the sources cited by various people above." and "I would be much more impressed if you could provide me with a couple of articles in national newspapers or similar sources."  In my argument I have shown that this mall is presumed to be wp:notable using verifiable evidence.  Which is the stronger argument?  Unscintillating (talk) 01:24, 20 May 2014 (UTC) I started out thinking this DRV was all about "I like it" vs. "I don't like it", but I'm starting to think it's much more interesting than that. Clearly, there are multiple sources: the dozen or so articles in The Item. So, now we come down to whether The Item meets WP:INDY. I think that's the key question here. If The Item does meet WP:INDY, then clearly this article meets WP:N (and vice-versa). My argument for why it doesn't is essentially Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Indiscriminate_sources, where it says, A newspaper in a small town might write about the opening and closing of every single business in the town. That's what's going on here. The Item gives extensive coverage to this mall because, in their microcosm of the world, it is a significant real-estate venture. But, only in their microcosm. Once you get out of the county, nobody seems to care, as evidenced by the fact that we can't seem to find any coverage in other newspapers. At the other end of the spectrum, consider Mall of America. I find a lot of local press coverage for it, but I also find coverage in national media (New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CNN). This sort of coverage is lacking here, and I claim this is proof of its lack of notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Per WP:DELREVD,"Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your 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". This isn't AFD round 2, so the validity of the argument you just posted is not relevant to this discussion. We can only go by the argument you presented in the AFD and whether or not it was strong enough for the consensus of delete. Me5000 (talk) 16:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Yes, I am aware this isn't round two; I've quoted that to other people on more than one occasion :-) But, Unscintillating (talk · contribs) raised the (perfectly legitimate) question about why I felt national coverage was so important. I attempted to give more depth about why I felt that way. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 22 May 2014 (UTC) The AfD closed 28 minutes after my last question to you.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Let's talk about your argument that Sumter is a "small town", and the repetition of DGGs thought that this is a "county" mall.  Sumter is a town of 40,000.  Here is a quote from our article on Sumter, South Carolina, with emphasis added, "Today, the city retains its status as a major hub, both for industry and infrastructure. In modern times, the city has taken on additional dimension as a center for business culture and finance, as its...institutions come together to form a destination for the east central portion of South Carolina."  The AfD did not identify this as a county mall, but (1) a "regional shopping center" and (2) a "regional mall".  The key word here is "regional", not "county".  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Given the gist of your argument that the topic is only of importance to local people, why are you !voting to delete rather than merge?  Wikipedia has an article, Big Four Bridge, which only allows pedestrian traffic and bicycles.  Should that be deleted because it is primarily a topic of interest to people within biking distance?  The counterargument is that prominent topics of a locale are also of interest to the world at large in considering the business culture and lifestyle of a community.  Another factor that comes into play here is WP:Systemic bias.  If we are keeping most of the malls in South Carolina, and deleting Sumter's mall, is that because "Availability of sources is not uniform."?  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Big Four Bridge is of interest to people outside of the local area, as evidenced by a wide variety of secondary sources including non-local ones such as The New York Times, several published books, and a photo archive in the Library of Congress. It also has a history going back 120 years. And, yes, I'm indulging in AfD Round Two, but I figure this DRV has long gone past worrying about that. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2014 (UTC) As for the comment, "...we can't seem to find any coverage in other newspapers", I'm not aware that anyone has looked for sources in other newspapers.  Me, I found enough sources to post an AfD !vote, but there has been no need to look for more.  I asked for editors not finding sources to show their work, or show where they were having trouble in finding sources.  Until someone opens Google and reports what they find, this is the absence of evidence fallacy, in which absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Is coverage in that local newspaper going to be enough to satisfy the deletionists? Searches in national media: New York Times zero results Wall Street Journal zero results CNN zero results Reuters, zero results Associated Press zero results Searches in newspapers of nearby large cities: Atlanta Journal-Constitution one result, inconsequential mention North Carolina News & Observer zero results The State, Columbia SC one result, no actual mention of the mall Search engines: Google lots of results, but all just blogs, directories, self-published, and other unreliable and/or local sources Bing more of the same Duck Duck Go more of the same Yahoo! more of the same -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 24 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you for that most interesting post.  I expect that it's value will extend beyond this DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC) In looking at the searches, one thing I notice is that Jessamine Mall is not part of the searches.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I started doing some searches for sources from other than Sumter after your post.  Here is an article about malls from Columbia, SC: Crystal A. Baker, State Business Writer (February 8, 1988), "Malls didn't succeed for 2 downtowns", The State, Columbia, SC, But then Jessamine Mall, a regional shopping center, opened and an exodus began from Main Street to the suburban mall... {{citation}}: |author= has generic name (help) Here are two cases where headline writers have listed "Sumter Mall" in the headline, both from Columbia, SC.  "Parents Flock to Sumter Mall For Free School Supplies", WLTX, Columbia, SC "Sumter Mall hosting Junie B. Jones luau", The State, Columbia, SC, June 22, 2006 What these sources show is that the Sumter Mall is a venue in addition to being a shopping location and a place on the map.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:16, 26 May 2014 (UTC) From Charleston, SC: Caroline Fossi of The Post and Courier Staff (November 14, 2004), "Malls vs. teens: Stricter rules govern hangout spots", The Post and Courier, Charleston, SC, retrieved 2014-05-26, Sumter Mall's policy, 'Family First,' was started this year and requires people 16 and younger to be accompanied by an adult 21 or older after 6 p.m. Fridays and Saturdays. Here is another of the over 1000 hits from "The Item": "Area's shopping cornerstone, Sumter Mall, approaches full capacity", The Item, Charleston, SC, February 26, 2006, With roughly 600 employees and thousands of shoppers each week — not to mention dozens of exercise-minded mall walkers each day — the mall is a busy place... Unscintillating (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I don't think you get what a reliable source is. I looked up the Malls vs. Teens article (by the way, it would have been a lot easier if you had provided the URL. This isn't about Sumpter Mall. It's about Teens hanging out in public places. Sumpter isn't mentioned until the seventh paragraph, and then just a few sentences, before the article moves on to the next sound bite from the next mall. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC) To quote from our article, "The Post and Courier is the main daily newspaper in Charleston, South Carolina...it is the oldest daily newspaper in the South, and one of the oldest continuously operating newspapers in the United States. It is the flagship newspaper of the Evening Post Publishing Company. It is the largest newspaper in the Palmetto State..."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) I added the URL that you found to the link.  I have no idea by what theory you claim that any of the elements required for a reliable source are not present here.  I doubt that you are claiming that this is a problem with (see WP:IRS and WP:Inaccuracy#Reliability in the context) reliability in the context, because the same information is available from The Item.  Perhaps you are thinking of the concept of "significant coverage" in WP:GNG, but WP:GNG says, "Significant coverage...need not be the main topic of the source material."  It is my understanding that WP:GNG can be established by a sufficient number of sources each with one relevant sentence.  And the purpose here is not to establish WP:GNG, this is a direct response to the non-policy WP:IAR objection that the sources are all local.  This sentence is evidence of a reliable source giving attention to the topic, and the reliable source is not "local".  The objection that all of the sources are local does not stand.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) My apologies. You are correct, I wrote reliable, when I should have written significant. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse. Within discretion. Two things puzzle me about the close. What did "policy-based" have to do with it? Notability is not judged according to policy and no one raised policy issues. Second, if "it may be possible to merge some info" implied WP:SMERGE was delete appropriate? But not to worry, the article was so vestigial it doesn't much matter. Thincat (talk) 10:57, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Comment Per WP:CON, consensus is only consensus if it is based on a wikipedia policy or guideline, remember consensus is not a vote. The 3 deletes only cite lack of national coverage and nothing else which is not a policy or guideline anywhere on wikipedia, so how could consensus be delete? Of course I see my efforts are futile as it is almost unanimous endorsement and yet again no one is citing policy and this seems to simply be a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Me5000 (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn to NC meets WP:GNG in spades. "National coverage" is not a requirement and the !vote for deletion wasn't strong enough to invoke WP:IAR. If someone wants to create a guideline about needing national coverage, go get consensus for it. Until then, deletion of something that so clearly meets the GNG needs a stronger consensus than that. Hobit (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse, correct close either by count OR strength of arguments. The two Keeps mostly relied on "Malls are inherently notable", which was promptly pointed out not to be so. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:45, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Funny how you mention nothing about the deletes and how they all say the same thing and were also being pointed out not to be so. Me5000 (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Well, if the deletes merely said "no malls are notable", then they'd be discounted too. Instead, they (correctly, IMO) pointed out that the sourcing was inadequate. If you think our sourcing standards are too high, then you're totally entitled to hold that opinion--do NOT, however, expect things to change in that direction. Indeed our sourcing standards have tightened considerably as the Foundation, admins, and editors take verifiability much more seriously than in Wikipedia's earliest days. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:01, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Serious question: what sourcing standards do you feel this isn't meeting? The GNG isn't in debate--the sources are there and no one in the AfD claimed the GNG isn't met. I don't know of a SNG that applies (but I could be missing the obvious). And venerability is trivial. So what is the guideline/policy that dictates we should be deleting this (other than IAR I suppose)? Hobit (talk) 19:32, 22 May 2014 (UTC) Comment  There is no dispute as per WP:OUTCOMES that larger malls are generally kept.  What is a larger mall?  "Larger malls" does not mean Mall of America by itself.  Maybe there was a time in the past where the round number of 1,000,000 sq ft held traction at AfD, but we were given no evidence to that effect, and it is inconsistent with the evidence presented at the AfD.  Looking at some malls in my personal experience, the midwest of the US directs much attention to smaller malls.  These malls are objects of familiarity to local residents.  In common conversation, I can say that people reminisce about the shops that were at a mall forty years ago.  The only remaining choices for "larger malls" from this discussion are those larger then 300,000, and those larger than 400,000.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Comment  I looked at the 23 malls listed at [13], and saw that the three closest cities with malls are Columbia, 43 miles away; Florence, 47 miles away; and Orangeburg, 58 miles away.  In terms of column "Trade Area Size" at [14], this puts the trade area size for Sumter Mall closer to "super-regional mall" (5-25 miles) than "regional mall" (5-15 miles).  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn to redirect with Template:R with possibilities"  Overturn to keep, Overturn to merge, Overturn to NC, and reopening of the debate would also be reasonable, but we know exactly where we are here.  We have a two-sentence stub, a topic shown at the AfD to be of central importance to Sumter, South Carolina, and an article that could use this topic being included before expansion of the topic's article.  The closing was a directed verdict that this was a "small" mall.  I quote, including the linking of the word "notable" to WP:GNG, "I mean seriously, that small of a mall is NOT going to be notable the panda ₯’ 23:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC)".  Seriously, no, the whole point of arguing WP:OUTCOMES is just the opposite, that once you know that a mall is more than 400,000 sq ft, you have a statistically high probability that the topic passes WP:GNG, is a regional landmark, and has left an indelible impression on the lives of those throughout the region.  Unscintillating (talk) 08:52, 23 May 2014 (UTC) Comment  Here are the first two sentences of the essay WP:Independent sources, "An independent source is a source that has no vested interest in a written topic and therefore it is commonly expected to describe the topic from a disinterested perspective. An interest in a topic is vested where the source holds a financial or legal relationship with the topic, for example."  Unscintillating (talk) 20:27, 26 May 2014 (UTC) List of shopping centers in Sumter Sumter Mall, 43 acres, 345,000 to 455,000 sq. ft., 1057 Broad St., opened Aug. 6, 1980 also, Jessamine Mall, pronounced "jas-min" also, informally, Jasmine Mall Wesmark Plaza, 229,000 gla, Broad St. and Wesmark Blvd., opened Spring 1966, near Sumter Mall also, Wesmark Place Palmetto Plaza, 12 acres, Guignard Dr. and Miller Rd., opened July 8, 1963. Sumter Towne Mall, 20 acres, Broad St. downtown, from Nov. 13, 1975 to October 1982. also, Downtown Sumter Mall also, Sumter Downtowne Mall also, Sumter Mall Unscintillating (talk) 21:33, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

OpEdNews – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:15, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
OpEdNews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) If we're looking solely at strict vote count on this AfD discussion, it seems clear that the votes are at keep. The problem is the context. This article was initially deleted in August 2013 due to a lack of sources (and previously kept via no consensus closure even with the same problems). The deletion review on behalf of the editor of the site occurred about a month ago, endorsed the closure, and presented nothing new in terms of sourcing that we didn't previously have, but the article was userfied. Unfortunately, the article was quickly moved out of userspace after three edits and no real improvements to the sourcing. At the AfD, it was claimed that there were enough nontrivial sources to build an article, but no one who was in favor of claiming as such could present those nontrivial sources, instead continually referring to a local news piece and a one paragraph, directory-style mention that spoke more about swine flu satire than the site itself, as well as noting who the contributors are (which multiple editors pointed out has nothing to do with notability). We need good sources to build an article, and we need good sources to establish notability. This article has neither, and the closing administrator failed to take those points into account. This closure, based on strength of argument and reality of sources, must be overturned. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:02, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Thargor Orlando (talk) Endorse - while it's true the sources are kind of weak, they're sufficient to plausibly argue the subject meets WP:N, such that a closing admin shouldn't substitute their own evaluation of the sources for the community's evaluation. Which they did, good on them. WilyD 15:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC) The problem with the closure is the same problem with this argument: it's argued that they "plausibly" meet the GNG, but there is no explanation as to how or why. It is noted by multiple people in this discussion (as well as years of forming these guidelines and discussions that precede me) as well as prior that these do not meet the standard of what we'd expect from sources. What changed? Thargor Orlando (talk) 16:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) The AfD has extensive discussion of the sources. Repeating that here would just be pointless copy-pasting. The inclusion standards are higher than ever (and continue to slowly rise). There has most definitely never been a time when this quantity and quality of sources would've been a clear delete. In a more borderline-ish case like this, people's reaction is likely to depend on what sources are like in the topic area, whether they believe there's some spammy motivation in creating the article, etc. The inclusion guidelines aren't cut and dry, but fairly sugject as to what's significant coverage, sources with good reputations, etc. Which is why we have such discussions. And, of course, they're only guidelines, not worth getting worked up about marginal cases. WilyD 09:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse This is one of the most uncontroversial closes I've see. DP assessed the arguments and made what I believe is a proper close and good judgment. Coverage received by OpEdNews is significant and has been referenced by multiple major publication. Valoem talk contrib 17:26, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse No other conclusion was possible. That standard for whether sources are reliable enough to set an article is set by the participants at a particular AfD, and the consensus carries it. Sometimes an individual will think that consensus wrong, but there's no other way to determine how we apply the guidelines than to see how the majority of responsible people who are aware of the guideline want to do it in a particular case. If a person is determined to get an article removed, they normally try to attack the details of sourcing, because these are always subject to interpretation. They either convince others, or they do not. It's also the case that low-quality arguments at the AfD can affect the results: a person who tries to use the standards: very few people outside WP look at the page" (or the opposite) to find that argument ignored, and people may even get the reasonable impression that their judgment elsewhere may be at fault also. Very strong opposition to a page in spite of what most of us feel is the reasonable solution will correctly be perceived as idiosyncratic. Everyone active at deletion process on controverted pages will sometimes make arguments that are not accepted. The test of our suitability for community work is wether we accept the results, or keep trying to fight a last ditch argument DGG ( talk ) 17:49, 19 May 2014 (UTC) The problem is that the arguments in favor of keep were exceptionally weak. Surely, in a discussion where weight of argument matters, those weak arguments should be discounted. As much as I'm trying to avoid a rerun of the AfD here, it's almost as if that's the inevitable result. Thargor Orlando (talk) 19:23, 19 May 2014 (UTC) a weak keep is a weak keep, not a no-consensus. And I think most of participants in the AfD said keep, not "weak keep" We know you think their arguments are weak, you've said it many times. Problem is, people didn't agree with you. DGG ( talk ) 20:20, 19 May 2014 (UTC) It doesn't matter if they didn't agree. The question is whether what was said was true, no? Your keep argument, for example, referenced who contributes to a site. Contributors have no impact on a site's notability or sourcing per our guidelines, why should that be considered a reasonable keep comment? What point am I missing here, exactly? Thargor Orlando (talk) 20:28, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Recuse because I was heavily involved since the last DRV. The only thing I want to say is procedural: All the people who !voted "keep" at the AfD are also people with hundreds, or in the case of me and DGG, thousands, of edits to DRV. I don't think it's right for a deletion review to be conducted by the AfD participants, because that's not a meaningful "review" so Thargor Orlando won't get any closure from that. However, if all the DRV regulars recuse then this may be a low-participation DRV and that doesn't do anyone any good either. Perhaps someone uninvolved could pop a neutrally-worded note on WP:AN asking for scrutiny from people who haven't weighed in before?—S Marshall T/C 18:00, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse close. The closer applied policy and guideline using reasonable logic, and acted with extreme patience afterwards when approached by the nominator. There was no flaw in the closure. DRV is NOT AFD#4. "Deletion Review should not be used", if disagreeing with a closure and coming here to simply rehash the AFD arguments. Such falls outside the purposes of DRV. Schmidt, Michael Q. 00:38, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Advise Thargor Orlando to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion, and to leave the article alone in the meantime. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Potential-COI Comment: Since views were requested from "irregulars", I note I would Endorse if I were not potentially conflicted. The flaw in the OP's logic is that the previous DRV (this same week!) did not present nothing new, according to the Community: since the new sources presented, however weak, were sufficient to warrant userfication, then that outcome was allowed by their consensus and performed by the closer. And since the article was returned to mainspace, however hasty, it has the opportunity for those and other sources to be added. There is a working draft at User:Robkall/OpEdNews full of sources for review that I would expect would be cleaned up in tandem and harmonized with the live version. Therefore it seems pointless to argue whether the lights should be off or on for this article in the first month of new source review, during which incorporating those sources is an ongoing consensus work; and instead the OP should wait to see what the article looks like after the smoke clears to determine whether to resubmit for AFD, however ill-advised. Frieda Beamy (talk) 09:23, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse because the close reflected the consensus. I remember looking at the article a while back during a deletion discussion. I don't seem to ever have commented, presumably because I couldn't think of anything to say. Regarding the AFD, on notability issues what is notable is what the immediate consensus says it is. No amount of wise or foolish, logical or illogical argument makes it otherwise. "Improper" !votes are discounted, but that is all. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse as a good close. Questions like "is this a reliable source" and "is this a substantial mention" are not binary propositions, they are inherently subjective questions. In this particular discussion, a lot of words were written (including a lot of frankly inappropriate badgering), but there is a clear consensus amongst the participants that in this case, the sources do meet our guidelines. The closer has picked this up and closed the discussion correctly. I do second the advice of User:SmokeyJoe above to the nominator here, that it might be best to just drop the stick and let this one go. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:24, 21 May 2014 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 May 2014

SEXINT – Deletion overturned. – IronGargoyle (talk) 01:30, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
SEXINT (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) I feel that there is at least a distinct lack of consensus on the deletion page for deletion. If you are to look at the articles for deletion page, there is a consensus among the editors that the content is notable. The only thing that is in dispute is that the article's name appears to be a neologism made up by a blog post to encourage page views. The total amount of !votes (I know they're not votes) were Delete 2 Redirect 2 Keep 4 Note that I only counted !votes that were in bold, and only the first one indicated, not the other one. "X OR Y" I did not include Y. I also did not include discussion !votes which described them as 'wanting to keep'. I also did not include the 'rename' portion after the 'keep' due to clarity. However, the primary discussion and consensus on the articles for deletion page is the term is not notable, but the content, due to it being sourced to Arstechnica, Huffington Post, and Greenwald, was. The closing administrator's comment was specifically The result was delete. Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable the panda ₯’ 22:46, 17 May 2014 (UTC) I am going to contest all of the reasons given in the closing administrator's statement. The italics is an excerpt of the closing administrator's statement. The second italics in the 2nd reason is Ianmacm's argument, not the closing admin's. The result was delete. -> I feel that the majority of the individuals !voting were voting to keep, based on the fact that greenwald, The Guardian, Huffington post, among other sources satisfied the general notability guideline. The consensus of that page was keep, but move. Ianmacm's policy-based argument is certainly the strongest. -> Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC) is what Ianmacm's argument was. Yet, right below him, the user commented that we know it wasn't notable, that's why people were claiming that it was notable, but to rename the article to better reflect this. The main discussion on the talk page focuses on this. This is not sourced, it fails GNG, and even redirect is improbable -> It was sourced to Arstechnica, Huffington post, Greenwald among other reliable sources. My main issue is with the way that the closing administrator reviewed the consensus. I believe that it was interpreted incorrectly. According to him, there was no general notability of the content, but there was, just that the article's title was needing a name change. He only took one user's measure into closing, and in my own view, did not heed the deletion policy's consensus clause. The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate. I do not believe there was a consensus to delete the page, is my official objection to this deletion. I have engaged the admin on his talk page. as per the requirements of the deletion review. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:DangerousPanda&oldid=609027082#Deletion_of_SEXINT Tutelary (talk) 00:39, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Comment vote count isn't everything. The strength of arguments is what carries the most weight. Since I can't view the deleted article, can you provide refs used before the AfD closed as delete? XXSNUGGUMSXX (talk) 00:49, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Here are the entirety of the sources that were listed. (credit of deletipedia) * http://cyberlaw.stanford.edu/blog/2013/11/nsa-sexint-abuse-you%E2%80%99ve-all-been-waiting http://justsecurity.org/2013/11/29/nsa-sexint-abuse-youve-waiting/ https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/26/nsa-porn-muslims_n_4346128.html?1385526024 http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/loveint-on-his-first-day-of-work-nsa-employee-spied-on-ex-girlfriend/ http://www.nationaljournal.com/tech/edward-snowden-nsa-spies-most-on-americans-20140430 ________________________________________________________ Below the line are sources that I have found via a google search: http://swampland.time.com/2013/11/27/nsa-monitored-porn-habits-to-discredit-radicalizers/ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/nov/27/nsa-files-live-coverage-developments-reaction http://gizmodo.com/report-the-nsa-spied-on-porn-habits-to-discredit-radi-1472470221 http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/11/27/nsa-spied-porn-habits/3765279/ http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/27/report-nsa-spied-on-targets-porn-habits-to-discredit-radicalizers-devotion-to-the-jihadist-cause/ http://www.mediaite.com/online/report-nsa-monitored-porn-habits-of-suspected-radicalizers/ Tutelary (talk) 00:57, 18 May 2014 (UTC) I think there are two strands to this. First, there's the question of whether we should have an article called SEXINT, and the answer based on the AfD is pretty clearly "no". That AfD concluded that SEXINT should be a redlink, and to that extent the AfD is definitely going to be endorsed here. But I don't think that's what the nominator is actually interested in. (Please correct me if I'm wrong.) Second, there's the question of whether Wikipedia should have any coverage of the NSA's alleged tracking of people's porn-surfing habbits. I think this is what the nominator's interested in. On this question, a number of potentially interesting sources were unearthed during the AfD. I think that none of these sources----certainly few of them----were cited in the article that got deleted, but it may well be that there's an article to be written based on them. Does this mean we should overturn to keep? Well, what we'd actually be keeping is different text based on different sources, which would have a different title (not SEXINT as we've already established). So I'm struggling to see any point or purpose in overturning. I think that what we should do is permit creation, in userspace, of a draft article about the NSA's internet porn-tracking activities. When the draft article's created, the nominator here is encouraged to come back to DRV for us to assess whether it can be moved back to mainspace. I don't think it's necessary for us to disturb DangerousPanda's close in any way.—S Marshall T/C 00:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC) The main problem I had was that there was a consensus to keep the content, but to rename the article. In essence, what I am arguing is that rather than be deleted, since the content be notable, is that the consensus to delete was based on the subject of the name, SEXINT, rather than the content at hand. The article should have been kept, renamed, and not deleted. I believe that the closing administrator assessed the consensus wrongly. Tutelary (talk) 01:02, 18 May 2014 (UTC) I'm afraid I'm not really seeing a consensus to keep the content in that discussion. Sorry. I think there might be an article to be written based on the sources that AfD uncovered, but I think it probably should be a fresh article.—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse own close I'll let my detailed close, and my responses on my talkpage speak for themselves the panda ₯’ 00:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 01:50, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Question The closing stated that it relied on an argument that read "Delete or Redirect to LOVEINT. Clear WP:GNG issues here. Wikipedia is not Wiktionary, this is an obscure neologism that does not need its own article at the moment." So why was the article not redirected, since redirection is normally preferred to deletion? DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn I am not even close to spotting any consensus for delete. Apart from the nominator, there was only one argument for deletion and there (the !vote commended in the close) redirect was given as an alternative. The comments of the two IPs and Thue were not for deletion. I could have endorsed no consensus, possibly redirect to LOVEINT, but why ever not keep? I do think the article should be about the topic and not the word but that is not our business here except that this may have confused the AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 13:04, 20 May 2014 (UTC) overturn I'm not sure if this should be a keep or NC or rename, and I can understand the desire to delete given the issues. But at the least this should have been a redirect, and I'd say NC or keep both would have been a better close than deletion. There was no consensous this violated any policy. And in any case, the primary source for this passes WP:SPS given her position as a well respected expert in the field. Deletion isn't an irrational outcome, but deletion wasn't the consensus of that discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC) overturn and I'm actually really confused as to why this was deleted- that option was discussed on the page. I know that we're not supposed to take these things personally but holy crap someone really really really has been trying super duper hard to get this article off of wikipedia since day one. Ogma the Scholar (talk) 16:52, 21 May 2014 (UTC) overturn The delete for being a neologism arguments were really incredibly poor - the content was clearly notable, so at least it should just be renamed. And in my reading, the "delete" position was skillfully argued down in the other comments. I am incredulous that anybody could think the delete arguments were strong enough to win. Thue (talk) 07:24, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 May 2014

Image:McCoshFingaskDalek.jpg – Endorse. There's not really anything to do here. Apparently the image does not have the right license, and the proposer has been given information about how to satisfy the licensing requirements. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 24 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Image:McCoshFingaskDalek.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was claimed to be orphaned, but the original uploader apparnetly later took steps to ensure it wasn't (the image still being deleted). I am requesting a review of this (and other deleted uploads of this uploader) as I feel that perhaps policy has been applied a little to vigoursly leading to useful (and in some cases otherwise rarer) content being lost without it being properly assed for Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:34, 16 May 2014 (UTC) It was claimed to be orphaned, but that was withdrawn and it was deleted as not having a valid license. The original upload comment seems to suggest it was a scan, and the comment on the deletion discussion, suggests it was deleted as the uploader presumably marked it as being GFDL. A common error "I created the image" by scanning it, doesn't grant the scanner any right to release it under such a license. I notice from the history permission was given for use in 2010, but then redeleted a minute later as being a derivative so again not able to be released under a free license. Is there some compelling evidence to suggest it isn't an image copyright of someone else? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC) could I see the image so I can see what it was? Is there life after death as it were? McCosh is a friend and would be keen for the image to be available to all via Wiki, he gave verbal permission. I know verbal is not enough but if given the permission e-mail address he would send in his permission.Rodolph (talk) Take a look at Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission and Wikipedia:Declaration of consent for all enquiries it's the second page which includes email addresses and a boiler plate permission. Note the license granted will have to be broad, i.e. it can't be just Wikipedia can use it, it'll need to be anyone can use it. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:07, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 May 2014

Ed Alleyne-Johnson – Relist. Lankiveil (talk · contribs) made the right call. The original AfD got almost no participation, and AfD is where the sorts of discussion happening here should be happening. So, I'm going to restore the article and list it on AfD, where it can get a proper discussion. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ed Alleyne-Johnson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The artist has had at least one charting album release in the UK and has a following across the world. He was a member of the band New Model Army for a period (Wikipedia New Model Army page [15]), he played with them and also had his own solo set. The band had a number of UK singles and album chart hits in the UK and elsewhere (Wikipedia band discography [16]). He has released at least 8 albums (released by record companies i.e. not personally produced). A video posted on YouTube showing a street performance of a track from his Purple Electric Violin Concerto album has received over 2 million views at today's date. Whilst YouTube views are not necessarily an indication of fame in this case the views and the comments made indicate that the artist has a wide following and is relatively well known. There is also a video of the artists performance on the Later With Jules Holland UK TV Show (Link to video: [17]). This is a major UK music show and has been broadcast for many years. The deletion was based upon the artist not fitting the criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, the original article was not the best (but certainly not the worst). I have contacted the administrator who oversaw the deletion. He or his representative responded, pointing to an album that charted in the UK, and suggesting that I commence a Deletion Review to restore the page. I will review the page and edit, if the article is reinstated, check for accuracy and edit where appropriate. I very much hope that the page is reinstated to enable others to find information on Ed Alleyne-Johnson, as I did last night. I found the old Wiki page published elsewhere, with a comment regarding the deletion. Jamiller63 (talk) 14:28, 15 May 2014 (UTC) --> restore appears to meet WP:MUSICBIO#2 per [18]. Further, that discussion wasn't exactly well attended and the meeting of our SNG would probably have been enough. No objection to a relist if someone really thinks there is an exception here, but I don't see it. Hobit (talk) 16:40, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse - "A musician or ensemble...may be notable if it meets at least one of the following criteria. May. Not is. Not must. A guy with an album 20 yrs ago that hit #68 for one week then dropped completely is not a golden ticket into article-worthiness IMO, if there's zilch out here to even attempt satisfy the general notability guide. Tarc (talk) 14:12, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Restore. I am not seeing how, given the references provided here, Alleyne-Johnson fails WP:GNG. I am, however, seeing how he passes WP:MUSICBIO#C2 and WP:MUSICBIO#C5.--Launchballer 15:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Comment Please restore both article and talk page for discussion. Overturn and Restore Sources provided establish notability. This person clearly passes both WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. He has been covered by multiple RS. Tarc argument is ridiculous, according to him we should delete all of Wikipedia because all guidelines say may. If all guidelines say may so we can accept it as is for what it's worth. Valoem talk contrib 23:38, 16 May 2014 (UTC) It's nothing to get ones' Fruit of the Looms all bunched up, so dial it down a notch there, sport. Sub-notability guidelines are not used as an end-around for general notability, and I highlighted the use of "may" to show that these are not hard & fast rules that must be obeyed if a single criteria is technically met. There still should be some press, some reliable source coverage out there, to justify an article. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Relist, given the low level of participation at the AFD, it seems reasonable to relist so we can discuss the claim to notability (which is not really a discussion to have here). Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:39, 17 May 2014 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 May 2014

Tabletop Simulator – Closure endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:30, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tabletop Simulator (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) based on the reasoning given by the admin for deletion, that being that though there is more in favor of keeping the document that they were weak keep votes, that being said there was still greater keep votes that were not weak vs that of the delete votes, on top of that one of the developers of the game has sent their approval stating that they agreed with the information that was present and should be restoredNote here is the talk page with the admin: User_talk:Kelapstick#Tabletop_Simulator_wikipedia_page Baryaj (talk) 14:00, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Note I have fixed the links at the top of this DRV. Thanks, --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:13, 13 May 2014 (UTC) User:Chris walkerntm/Tabletop Simulator - Userfied version of the article. --kelapstick(bainuu) 14:28, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse To address Baryaj's concerns: the number of votes don't matter, rather, the strength of the arguments is the metric used. Even then, the majority of keeps stated that they believed there were issues with the sourcing. Also, the devs' approval carries no weight whatsoever. They can give it a thumbs up but has no bearing wether or not the article is kept. I see nothing wrong with kelapstick's close. Ishdarian 14:18, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Comment from closing admin As I mentioned on my talk page, I read the consensus of the discussion as: It is probably too soon for the subject to have an article on Wikipedia. The sourcing was generally pretty week. In the future there is a high probability (no pun intended) that the subject will meet the required guidelines for a stand alone article. I therefore decided that the best course of action in this case would be to userfy the article (as mentioned most keeps were on the weak to very weak side), thereby retaining sourced content, and allowing improvement before moving back into article space when appropriate. To date there has been zero improvement on the article, and I stand by my closure.--kelapstick(bainuu) 14:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC) As the AfD nominator, I still think the topic doesn't quite meet our requirements yet. You could have us move it to your userspace, and when you find reliable sources and it becomes notable we could move it back into the main namespace. Origamite\(·_·\)(/·_·)/ 11:32, 15 May 2014 (UTC) It is already in userspace at User:Chris walkerntm/Tabletop Simulator. Sure it could be moved to this particular user's userspace, or draft userspace, or AfC, but it is still available for improvement. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:29, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse, the headcount is one thing that the closing admin should factor in, but the quality of the arguments is another, and this is where this one fell down. Eminently reasonable close, given what the admin was given to work with. As disclosure, I opined "delete" in the discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC). Endorse a pretty good example of why weighing strength of arguments is important for an AFD closer. The keeps this time were exceptionally poor--for example, one said "I think it meets the notability criteria" but didn't explain how or why, and at least one keep vote actually gave a delete rationale rather than a keep one! ("The sources are the main problem.") I do think there's a chance we'll be revisiting this topic once it's actually released and gets professionally reviewed, but I don't think anyone can argue that the keep side had the better of the recent discussion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:52, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 May 2014

Kenneth Brander – No Consensus at this review, which means the original AfD result (i.e. delete) stands – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 19 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kenneth Brander (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe the closer of the AfD (TParis, whom I respect) in this instance interpreted/applied the consensus incorrectly. I discussed the matter with closer here, where you can read his rationale. Closer wrote: "I felt that there was a reasonable GNG argument but that there was a stronger argument that he didn't meet other more applicable notability criteria...."; "the argument largely fell to no consensus and I err on the side of delete on BLPs."; "GNG ... only gives the presumption of notability."; and "And when notability is in doubt about a living person, I err on the side of delete. If it were an org, I might've called it no consensus instead." I don't think that the delete close was proper for each of the following 4 reasons. It should therefore be overturned. Any one of which would warrant a change to "no consensus" at minimum: a) closer agrees that there was a reasonable GNG argument (though the subject didn't meet other criteria); b) closer admits the consensus of the !voters was "no consensus" (but the closer provided a !supervote); c) closer admits he "might've called it no consensus instead" if it were an org; and d) closer did not provide any appropriate reason not to follow the presumption of GNG. Epeefleche (talk) 06:56, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse close - As was pointed out in the AfD discussion, GNG says about the "presumption" of notability: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article (emphasis added) Leaving aside for the moment the fact that only a single article actually met GNG's criteria for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject", the additional discussion required took place in the AfD. That discussion need not be repeated here, but it brought about the clear consensus opinion that Brander, whatever his achievements, was not per se notable. For this reason, TParis' close was not a "supervote", but a valid recognition of the sense of the discussion. BMK (talk) 08:12, 12 May 2014 (UTC) This was also discussed between Epeefleche and TParis, so the former is clearly aware of the argument, and the role it played in TParis' close, providing the "reason" he says is lacking (point "d"). In point of fact, the applicant's representation of the discussion between himself and TParis departs from fact in several instances, so I would urge that his statement above should not be taken at face value, and that the TParis/Epeefleche talk page discussion should be read directly by whoever closes this review. BMK (talk) 08:26, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - the sources and headcount alone fall in the no-consensus regime (about even headcount, sources that could plausibly be argued either way with respect to WP:N). BLP does explicitly allow for deletion in no consensus cases where the subject has requested it, I think this can reasonably be extended to cases where someone would be likely to request deletion if they were aware of the goings-on. I don't see any indications that that's the case here (although reading the article, I could imagine it is). Is this a concern? WilyD 10:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks. I agree the headcount alone falls in the no-consensus regime. And that the sources do at least that (if not more). As to your last comment, I agree that there's no indication that the subject made such a request. Nor did closer state that as a rationale for his close. His rationale, instead, was that his personal general rule (which I do not see support for in any policy or guideline) is to close no consensus AfDs (which he said he might have called this, if it were an org) as "delete" if they are about a living person. --Epeefleche (talk) 20:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn to NC - okay, I'm somewhat on board with giving admins a bit of leeway in NC cases, where there's some reason to. Without an articulatable reason, I can't endorse that. It seems pretty clear everyone agrees it was a NC, just doesn't agree on whether an admin should be allowed to close it as delete on a whim. WilyD 15:42, 19 May 2014 (UTC) I read the AfD twice and was hard pressed to find any sources that were independent of the subject and provided reasonably detailed coverage (a bio by one's employer meets WP:V but doesn't generally count toward WP:N due to the lack of independence). Could someone list the sources that they think are relevant to WP:N? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 18:10, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Three responses. First, I understand DRV is not a re-!vote. But rather an inquiry into whether the close reflected the consensus. Second, the closer wrote he "felt that there was a reasonable GNG argument" but that there was a stronger argument that the subject didn't meet other more applicable notability criteria, and that "the argument largely fell to no consensus and I err on the side of delete on BLPs". So the closer himself gave a nod both to the article meeting GNG and to consensus of the AfD !voters being no consensus. I agree with closer on both those points. Finally, the article can be seen here. To answer your question, I believe the two most significant refs (of the 20; though the others also count towards notability) are the 15-para article devoted to Brander at David A. Schwartz (July 9, 2013). "Rabbi Kenneth Brander, rabbi emeritus at BRS, named a vice president at Yeshiva University". Sun Sentinel, and the 5-para article devoted to one of Brander's opinions at Anthony Marx (September 11, 2004). "Jewish Law Addresses Storms". Lakeland Ledger. Epeefleche (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks. Overturn to NC. The !vote count was close and things were largely a matter of opinion. Subject has a reasonable claim to meeting the GNG with one strong source and a number of weaker ones. If there were no good sources, deletion would have been the right outcome. But there is a real claim to meeting the GNG here, and so I can't endorse deletion given the !vote count. That said, if the subject requests deletion, it should be granted as notability is borderline. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Page restored for DRV Kenneth_Brander. I have no other input to the DRV, BYK and WilyD have already made my point.--v/r - TP 18:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse. This unsatisfactory AFD discussion was difficult to close and left the closer with a wider than usual discretion. I think a close of delete fell within reasonable discretion. However, I do think that the closer's remarks on the talk page suggested something outside proper discretion. To repeat the quote: "And when notability is in doubt about a living person, I err on the side of delete." That is a fine principle to use when !voting at an AFD but not when assessing consensus. If I (as a !voter) find marginal notability I may, on BLP grounds, decide to !vote delete. That, along with other !votes, will shift the consensus. It is not appropriate for the closer to assess this consensus objectively and then shift the result a second time. I hope my quote from the talk page discussion hasn't been unfairly selective. It does seem to me to indicate the thrust of the closer's overall remarks. Thincat (talk) 07:58, 13 May 2014 (UTC) Tx. We agree on most of the issues, but I wonder if you might consider this. In an AfD that is difficult to close because it is unclear what the !voters consensus is (NC vs. D), I agree we give the closer latitude. Latitude to weigh it as an NC, or as a D. But that's not what happened here. As you point out. Here, closer stated: "the argument largely fell to no consensus". So that was his assessment, as to which he had latitude. And I agree with it. And I imagine you wouldn't disagree with it. What he did next was the problem. You articulately describe why it's a problem. I tried to as well on closer's tp, but he disagreed. Given that, as you say, closer's change of the NC that he saw to a D -- an act you call "outside proper discretion." I agree when you also say: "It is not appropriate for the closer to assess this consensus objectively and then shift the result a second time." Thus, I think applying your analysis, your !vote would more naturally be to overturn to NC -- which is what closer weighed consensus as before engaging in the activity we agree was not appropriate. Best. Epeefleche (talk) 00:20, 17 May 2014 (UTC) I thought seriously about !voting overturn because the closer said he followed a line of reasoning that, in my view, was unsuitable. However, in this particular case I think an acceptable decision was reached albeit by a wrong method (although I would have preferred NC). Some sort of explanation was required because the reason for the close was not self-evident. However, because a cursory rationale would have led to me endorsing, the detailed and careful but belated explanation made me unwilling to change my mind. However, I very much agree with your reasoning in opening this DRV. Thincat (talk) 11:55, 18 May 2014 (UTC) I would have preferred a "no consensus" close in that case, but I agree that "delete" was probably within the closer's discretion. It's permissible to give extra weight to claims that the article is poorly-sourced when the subject is a living person.—S Marshall T/C 11:14, 14 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn and Restore, I am seeing coverage from multiple independent sources including Jewish Standard, The American Synagogue: A Historical Dictionary and Sourcebook, Sun Sentinel, and the New Jersey Jewish Standard. The arguments suggest that this should be closed as NC. He is an influential figure in his region and passes WP:GNG. Valoem talk contrib 23:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC) DR is not AfD-redux, we're not here to re-argue the case. Rather the question here is whether the close was appropriate or not. If the closer took into account the quality of those sources, then I believe it is within his discretion. BMK (talk) 01:42, 17 May 2014 (UTC) @Beyond My Ken: We certainly can view DRV as an AfD-redux. I prefer DRV as I see less bias in general when it come to judgment. This is deletion review and when reviewing the context of deletion it is best to look at the discussion as a whole. To say we can only make a judgment of the closing admin limits the potential of what we do here. Very often there are DRV's where we question, not the judgement of the closing admin, but the judgment of all those who participate in the AfD. We have and will continue to override consensus because we are a cluocracy. Some AfD inherit IDONTLIKEIT votes and those have been overridden here. In this specific case however if you choose to look at only the close, it should be no consensus. If counting the votes (which I don't) excluding IPs I am seeing 3 to 5 in favor of delete, however the major argument focused on "university assistant deans are not notable", which is not a guideline. We look at WP:GNG, and whether or not he has been covered in reliable independent sources. He has and is thereby notable. I stand by overturn to no consensus. Valoem talk contrib 18:23, 17 May 2014 (UTC) So, you're going to ignore the part of the Deletion Review instructions which says: "Deletion Review should not be used: ... to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;" BMK (talk) 21:21, 17 May 2014 (UTC) It is at times like this where WP:IAR has never been more appropriate. Valoem talk contrib 18:32, 19 May 2014 (UTC) Sustain The arguments both here and at the AfD are confused, and would support any close at all, because our concept of notability is not what we pretend it is. . Actually the reliability of the sources was borderline (they're mainly but not entirely local, and I tend to have doubts about the reliability of at least some local sources for locally important people); but I could construct an equally good argument either way, depending on what I wanted to do with the article, and if I had had an opinion on overall notability , I would have argued the details of the sourcing accordingly. I suggest that at least some of the participants may have done similarly. I do not think we generally actually use the GNG i except in the most unambiguous cases, because for borderline cases, we can argue the details of the key words: reliable, independent, substantial in any direction we choose. The argument of=ver the sourcing is thus a disguise , a conventional way of arguing for what is basically a global assessment. If the very same sources had said he holds a major national position, they would have been interpreted as adequate. I'm arguing sustain in this case because too much of the article is a stretch, and therefore I find the local sources question a suitable way to decide. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 May 2014

Brandon Cyrus – Decision endorsed – Guy (Help!) 22:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Brandon_Cyrus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Overturn: Hello, I semi respect Tokyo's decision on the deletion. However, I believe that my page was deleted over harassment which is something that Wikipedia strongly discourages and does not allow. Following the talk page on User/BrandonCyrus, you can see the harassment that I'm talking about. Being called names such as a liar, accused of things, and just a bunch of crap was started which I simply asked for peace. When the page was first put up for deletion, it was because of an issue with citations. The user BGWhite stated that it should be fixed within 7 days and had some issues. A user encouraged him to remove the PROD, which he agreed to and decided with the other user to add a template that stated it needed major fixes to meet Wikipedia's guides... Which I had agreed to and understood, and yes I was working on getting the citations and such. However, this rude bias and absurd user listed it under an article for deletion, when I explained to him that everything was going to be worked out, that the other 2 authors and I talked it out he was all like "done" as if he understood, but then he got totally invested in the article and started hating and such. Tokyo didn't give me enough time to edit my page, as if it was BGWhite who gave me 7 days to do so. She deleted it under another administrators thought because she thought it was a good idea, to me it seems a little bias and confusing and yeah, as a normal human being you do get offended. As I worked over 6 hours editing this page, just to see it deleted in 1 day is horrible... It was deleted before I could even cite my newer sources. I am respectfully asking that the page is to be reinstated, as the admin and I cannot come to a decision on it. Brandon Cyrus, in all faiths, is indeed an actor who has starred in Hannah Montana, High School Musical 2, The Hunger Games, and more. Even though, he has starred in a lot of small scenes, he is still indeed an actor and should be on Wikipedia, not for just the big parts, but for all the work he has done. I know you can't give pages to every actor, however, Brandon Cyrus has starred in over 20 different things, he is indeed a "famous persons" under Wikipedia's guidelines. He should be awarded and known for his hard work and not just called a small actor because he has guest starred in a few films, even though he guest starred he was invited over and over again as a main guest. Please help reinstate the page, as the page does meet notability, brought hundreds of views to Wikipedia, and will indefinitely be updated with newer sources as I promise. Please give me another chance. Also, the page was a stub, and stubs start from the bottom and make their way up, as they are intended to be small and updated in several weeks or months to it's full potential. Allow recreation: ---REFERENCES--- IMDb: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm6060051/ (I know not to use IMDb, but if you were to use PRO, it states that everything, including the management was verified) TVDuck: http://www.tvduck.com/Brandon-Cyrus-celebrity-photos.html (small but uneditable by users) Personal Website: http://www.brandoncyrus.com/ All my sources to explain this current article. (I'm reviewing and getting more for Brandon_Cyrus Wikipage) Thanks! --Reigningbc (talk) 10:42, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse deletion as closing admin. I personally did a search for Cyrus via Google, Bing, Highbeam, and my typical search engines. I can't find where he's been the focus of any in-depth reliable sources. All of his roles have been trivial, as he's only performed as an extra in his various film and television roles. None of them have ever been the focus of any coverage in reliable sources. As far as my early closure goes, I closed it per WP:SNOW after seeing the amount of delete rationales by the various editors (some of whom are people I am very familiar with) and after my search results showed that there would be no difference in whether the AfD ran for 7 days or for 1 day. As far as IMDb goes, it still can't be used to establish notability- that can only be done through coverage in places such as news articles in the New York Times, Dread Central, Cinema Blend, and the like. None of the other places listed are reliable either and most are WP:PRIMARY sources. Again, I'd like to caution you Reigningbc about stating that people are doing this out of a personal bias against someone or as a way of personally attacking Cyrus. I do acknowledge that people were rude, but the issue here is ultimately whether or not Cyrus passes notability guidelines, which he does not. I do not recommend userfication in this instance, as I don't see where Cyrus will pass notability guidelines any time soon. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Comment: It looks like there is already a userspace copy here. I'm not going to nominate it for deletion at MfD at this point in time as it can help our DR, but I still have extreme doubts about Cyrus's chances at recreation and about it potentially being promotional or misrepresenting the roles performed. (IE, saying that a minor role as an extra is a major role.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse A WP:SNOW close was completely justified, and I agree that at this time, the person unfortunately does not meet notability requirements. There were some uncivil comments on both sides and one editor was perhaps a bit too harsh towards a new contributor, but the deletion process was followed, the only violation being the removal of AfD tags (which was evidently done in good faith through a lack of understanding of the process). Because of the COI involved I would recommend deletion of the userspace version after the deletion review has closed; once the person becomes notable, somebody, preferrably somebody who is not involved in their marketing team, can create an article about them from scratch. --bonadea contributions talk 12:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Hello bonadea, thanks for your comment. However, I don't feel like I was being too harsh, I was simply asking the other person to back off and mind their own business. I was a 'newer editor' than he was. He has clearly been on this website longer than I have. Also, I am not a COI. Yes, I do work under the user, however that doesn't mean I'm not a fan of his work. Even though I work under him, doesn't mean I know him personally or talk to him at all other than email once in awhile. However, I believe my page still fits under notability due to the FAN CLAUSE. Which states users with a large fan base, indeed his large fan bases can be found here, here, and here on his website with thousands of hits a day. He does meet some criteria which is notable with Wikipedia's guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reigningbc (talk • contribs) 13:25, 10 May 2014‎ (UTC) Quoting WP:COI: "COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia to promote your own interests, including your business or financial interests, or those of your external relationships, such as with family, friends or employers." Given that Reigningbc previously referred to Cyrus as his/her "client" (diff), I respectfully submit that Reigningbc has very clearly declared a conflict of interest. —C.Fred (talk) 13:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) In nowhere in the article I called him my best friend, my partner, I didn't even put myself in his article so how am I submitting any personal interests about myself? How am I posting unfaithful stuff about him when I barely even know the guy? All I do is work under a management team, I work under him, however, I have my OWN boss, my own manager, which means I barely have anything to do with Brandon Cyrus himself. --Reigningbc (talk) 13:37, 10 May 2014 (UTC) That's totally disingenuous, I work for a large company, I doubt I'm even in the top 5 tiers to the hierarchy, does that mean that no one should think I would be working in the interests of my company? If I'm not working the interest of the company who pay me, I'm likely to get fired. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 15:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I meant that another editor was maybe a little too harsh on you, since you were clearly a brand new editor - but that does not change the fact that I think that the deletion discussion was carried out and closed in good order. --bonadea contributions talk 13:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Oh! Oops! I'm so sorry Bonadea! Didn't mean to read it wrongly - however any tips? Anyway you can help me and not endorse the deletion? Can someone PLEASE on here help me at all? --Reigningbc (talk) 13:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Hi Tokyogirl79, I thought you referred me here to get another admins opinion? Instead of hurting my chances... --Reigningbc (talk) 12:18, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Also admins, take note of this LEGAL rep who edits Wikipedia pages and has done thousands: "Keep I feel the subject meets WP:NACTOR (specifically: "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") ♥ Solarra ♥ ♪ Talk ♪ ߷ ♀ Contribs ♀ 08:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC)" --Reigningbc (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2014 (UTC) What I don't get is how people assume IMDb is not a "trusted source", it's ONE OF THE LARGEST MOVIE DATABASES, theres nothing else like it on the internet! It really does VERIFY its submitted information, it is also MORE IN DEPTH if you get IMDbPRO. Read it's terms, etc, before justifying it as "Wikipedia". IMDb doesn't have an "edit" button located everywhere. You can't just submit something and get it automatically approved. It goes through a process FYI. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:23, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Also under "Wikipedia:Notability" /Entertainers section/ it states "Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following." Brandon Cyrus has millions of fans on Twitter, hundreds of thousands on Instagram, was also invited to the exclusive invite celeb only website WhoSay. "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Brandon Cyrus has appeared in multiple films and television series, significant doesn't have to be only a main character. Significant characters can be extras and guests, just like on live shows. Theres many possibilities for the word 'significant'. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:31, 10 May 2014 (UTC) If Wikipedia bots and users can get profile pages then I highly suggest Brandon Cyrus gets to keep his own personal page, as his acts and entertainment career has done more significance, also when he posts his Wikipedia page he will be welcoming millions to the Wikipedia universe, engaging these users with Wikipedia, and these new users will either sign up, visit more pages, or even donate to the Wikipedia Foundation. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:33, 10 May 2014 (UTC) When has Cyrus had a "personal page" on Wikipedia? The page about Cyrus was an encyclopedia written about him, preferably by independent parties. He should not be "post[ing] his Wikipedia page". —C.Fred (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Sorry C.Fred, I meant like his own page on the database, not a personal page - like a user only page. By post[ing] his own page, I meant social media sites such as Twitter where most of his fanbase is! --Reigningbc (talk) 13:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Also "Notability is inherited" indeed it is inherited. He was welcomed to work with his family co stars. In this page: it states to keep. Which then states that it's also allowed if the person of the famous relative has their own work done. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:41, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Actually, it states "Family members of celebrities also must meet Wikipedia's notability criteria on their own merits." Based on the AfD comments, the article about Brandon Cyrus never showed that he met those criteria. —C.Fred (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Once cannot meet it when one isn't allowed to edit their article anymore.. --Reigningbc (talk) 13:07, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Also I can't cite things when other users removed 90% of my current work, just a little note. --Reigningbc (talk) 12:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse The AfD discussion was conducted within guidelines, and the close was a correct interpretation of the positions presented in the discussion. —C.Fred (talk) 12:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) C.Fred the close wasn't even conducted, she did it out of a whem. Tokyo didn't even give me time to fix my article! --Reigningbc (talk) 12:57, 10 May 2014 (UTC) The close was conducted. Tokyogirl closed the discussion early, deeming that, based on the arguments presented, the article didn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being kept if the AfD ran the full duration. —C.Fred (talk) 13:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Are you the one who makes the decision? Did you just make it so my page can't be reinstated? Or is this just a opinion? How do I know when a decision is fully made? Also, how does she have common sense if she doesn't even know how to study the topic, if she doesn't even know who the person is? If she doesn't even give me a chance to add certain citations? Does she know the person at all? Common Sense would of gave the author more time to fix things... and would've paid attention to the notice of being a STUB. --Reigningbc (talk) 13:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) All of you are acting as if one article is going to kill Wikipedia! This is unbelievable. I didn't even have the time to do any fixes! Let me remind you the article was a STUB. It will be fixed! --Reigningbc (talk) 12:59, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I'll fix the page! Please trust me! I will add newer sources, I promise! Just give me a second chance! What about the fan clause??? He meets it! --Reigningbc (talk) 13:47, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Nobody's suggesting deleting your userspace draft (yet); I suggest you work on User:Reigningbc/sandbox and bring it up to standards. Then we can look at submitting that as a new article. —C.Fred (talk) 13:51, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse - While IMO it may have been more prudent to let it run the full 7 days to avoid any pretense of drama, an early snow close is within the discretion that admins are afforded, and the consensus of the discussion was clearly in favor of deletion. The "acting career" consists of bit parts and uncredited appearances, there's no way this person meets the project's notability guidelines, either for actors specifically or people in general. Tarc (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2014 (UTC) ^ If you say so, kind of really rude. It doesn't consist of only guest starring, etc, he has had main roles and recurring roles for your information. I stand behind the fan clause on the notability guidelines, which you all seem to be ignoring. --Reigningbc (talk) 21:04, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Can you point out which of this person's roles you believe qualify as "main" ? Recurring, sure, in the technical sense, e.g. 4 listings as "Extra (uncredited)" for Hannah Montana, 4 listings for Zoey 101 that doesn't even have character/position name. Then there's two D-list reality shows about beach ex'es and Beverly Hills rich kids...I can't bring myself to suffer through watching a full episode, but judging by the cast pics and videos on eonline.com and mtv.com, respectively, this person does not appear at all. For all intents and purposes, he is a background character. Everywhere. Tarc (talk) 21:50, 10 May 2014 (UTC) FWD: :: WillyD - Either way, having over 20 credits is impressive. Even being a background character in those shows and movies are impressive. The entertainment business is not easy at all and things such as those definitely require a lot of work and talent. I just don't believe any of you know how the entertainment business runs. I contacted Wikipedia one on one, also I sent the legal team, who asked that the page will be reinstated on legal terms and that the page cannot be touched. --Reigningbc (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Also guest stars are outside PERFORMERS and ENTERTAINERS they still qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reigningbc (talk • contribs) 22:25, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - if those are the only sources, it's unfortunate that your time has been wasted, but it has. You can't hope to to write a neutral encyclopaedia article without some decent, independent sources. If there are others, it might be sandboxed to allow development, but undeleting now would be pointless, as it would just be deleted again soon. WilyD 21:52, 10 May 2014 (UTC) WillyD - Either way, having over 20 credits is impressive. Even being a background character in those shows and movies are impressive. The entertainment business is not easy at all and things such as those definitely require a lot of work and talent. I just don't believe any of you know how the entertainment business runs. I contacted Wikipedia one on one, also I sent the legal team, who asked that the page will be reinstated on legal terms and that the page cannot be touched. --Reigningbc (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Are you making legal threats? Your presense in this project will be extgremely short-lived unless your tune undergoes a course-correction. Quickly. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Once again, you editors are targeting me. I never said I was posting legal threats. I simply said my legal team is talking this over with Wikipedia, and that appropriate actions will be taken for a user who had harassed me on this website. Read the page he pointed to. Suggesting that you will use legal might to get your way is a legal threat. However "who asked that the page will be reinstated on legal terms" - wikipedia has no obligation to host a page on anyone, there are no legal terms under which it needs to be here. "and that the page cannot be touched" - which is laughable, wikipedia is not a free webhost to have just what person X want's posted, we are a user contribution encyclopedia. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:24, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Whether it's impressive or not isn't really a consideration. If there aren't reliable references from third parties, it's simply impossible for us to write a neutral, encyclopaedic article. Since we can't, we don't. WilyD 12:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC) The only legal action we are requesting is against harassment for a user, we are only requesting that the users account gets either 1. suspended, 2. deleted, or 3. their information such as IPs is sent to the police. Nothing too major. It's against the law, and should be dealt with and not ignored! --Reigningbc (talk) 17:43, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Please read the NLT policy. You are allowed to take legal action, what you aren't allowed to do is use the threat of such to have a chilling effect. Telling editors that you will take legal action if you feel harassed is a legal threat. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC) When asking to read a policy please make sure the page is clickable. --Reigningbc (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Also, I meant that the page is to be reinstated under certain legal conditions that Wikipedia follows and the page to be locked. All websites are to follow the law. --Reigningbc (talk) 17:46, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Please tell me which law requires any website to include an article and only in the form approved by the subject of the article? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2014 (UTC) I'll get back to you on that. --Reigningbc (talk) 18:23, 11 May 2014 (UTC) All legal comments that were made are highly suggested to be ignored by users and passed-over as they have been striked out. Sorry for all the confusion and I will keep things to myself revolving any of the issues listed above. Thanks. --Reigningbc (talk) 18:49, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Under discussion with two fellow authors or editors and under a board standpoint --- Here I am announcing that I do not wish to pursue any legal actions and will not do so. However, I still am asking that the user on my talk page - action's to be reviewed by an administrator and any discipline at all to be taken. --Reigningbc (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - to address the "large fan base" criterion, there needs to be multiple reliable secondary sources that show this. The person's own website or his accounts on Twitter or Instagram do not count, as they are not secondary sources. --bonadea contributions talk 22:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Oh trust me Bonadea, there is a lot of secondary sources floating around. There are a lot of forums, etc, and I believe that Twitter can be a secondary because users can post individual things about celebrities, expanding and making the fan base appropriate. --Reigningbc (talk) 22:21, 10 May 2014 (UTC) You may wish to review Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources at some point. Fanforums are not sources. Twitter fan counts is not a source. We're talking reliable newspapers, television, reputable online outlets, etc... that have written about the subject. Actual journalists, not fans. Tarc (talk) 22:27, 10 May 2014 (UTC) FYI, people such as journalists only post tabloid stuff, stuff hating against celebrities. If Brandon Cyrus' name isn't in their mouths or articles, it's a good thing! --Reigningbc (talk) 22:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC) FYI, you may think it's a good thing that no one is interested in him, but from the point of view of notability for inclusion in wikipedia you can't have it both ways. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:20, 11 May 2014 (UTC) FYI, we will see what Wikipedia thinks in the next several days. Endorse and wish that we had an accessible introduction to our notability guidelines. (I'm pretty sure I"m not a good enough writer to manage it myself, but oh boy, do we need one.) --j⚛e deckertalk 14:08, 11 May 2014 (UTC) I still believe that my page fits under certain notability guidelines and I stand by that. Websites such as IMDb and Twitter should be used as secondary sources. --Reigningbc (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse while I agree with Tarc that it should have been allowed to run its course to prevent drama, the closure was within the snowball clause. Note joe decker, while quite long, Wikipedia:A Primer for newcomers is MQS's beginner's notes (written in plain English). --kelapstick(bainuu) 15:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for suggesting that it should've ran its full course and I'm sorry you feel that way, however, I still feel as if the page meets some criteria. --Reigningbc (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Reigningbc please keep in mind that this is not AfD take 2. This is a forum to discuss the appropriateness of the closure of the AfD, not to rehash the merits of the article.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:15, 11 May 2014 (UTC) I'm just saying that the page shouldn't of been absurdly deleted as it was and should remain intact for certain criteria. --Reigningbc (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse as an accurate reading of consensus. The article was not salted, but it would be prudent for the OP here to participate in the WP:AFC process rather than continuing this fruitless argument. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:01, 11 May 2014 (UTC) This fruitless argument, as immature you have put it - is for good faith and good reasoning. I'm not simply letting you all attack a new editor because he doesn't fit in your cliques. My page deserves to remain and does fit criteria and hopefully will be reinstated. Thank you. --Reigningbc (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse - followed procedures for a WP:SNOW situation. It may be necessary to salt this one, given the COI editor's IDONTHEARYOU problem. --Orange Mike | Talk 19:11, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Lol, I don't hear you problem? Are you serious? That's immature and irrelevant. The WP:Snow bullcrap does not reflect my page and I'm not a person of interest, simply just a worker and a fan. --Reigningbc (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse A correct reading of the consensus. The use of the snowball clause was justified. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 11 May 2014 (UTC) I believe that the snowball clause was incorrect as Tokyogirl did not know the famous persons, she never heard of them, and furthermore does not know how to correctly search their works and as to her --- was irrelevant. --Reigningbc (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Comment. I didn't see the article before it was deleted but it sounds like the review was closed properly. Reigningbc, this is not the forum to discuss another user's behavior. If you feel like you were personally attacked, you should alert an administrator, either on their user talk page or by bringing a case at WP:AN/I (which will require the presentation of evidence of misconduct). But the bad behavior by another editor has no effect on whether the deletion discussion was fair or not. Plus, you argue that you want the article to exist so you can continue to work on it. But it DOES exist, in your sandbox and you can spend your time now, looking for reliable sources, tweaking the article until it is better and more likely to pass Wikipedia's standard of notability. You don't need to article to be undeleted to continue working on it. If there is indeed material in the deleted version that isn't in your sandbox version, ask the administrator who deleted the article for the article to be "userfied" and that content of the article can be put in your sandbox. And, rather than arguing with the system that's in place, I recommend you work with the system. Make your way over to WP:AFC and talk with editors who specialize in reviewing new articles. It is very common for first articles to be deleted very quickly so you shouldn't take this personally. It is harder than most people think to get an article accepted on Wikipedia and several hundred articles are proposed for deletion every day. So, talk with those editors who work with first time contributors, get them to review your article, take their suggestions to heart and work on improving the draft that you have. What you will end up is going to undoubtedly a better article than what you originally had. Good luck! Liz Read! Talk! 20:29, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks so much Liz! AT LEAST SOMEONE IS WILLING TO HELP instead of THROWING all this nonsense into my face that I do not understand! I'm NEW to Wikipedia you can't expect me to understand all these stupid clauses. Either way, I'm very happy that you have chosen to help and show me some tips and tricks. But until then --- I'm still waiting on Wikipedia's decision. Endorse. DRV is not a new AfD on the merits, instead is at worst a de novo review of the closing administrator's evaluation of consensus and the closure procedure. While there is some merit to the argument that a snow close was incorrect insofar as there was a good faith and reasonable keep !vote by someone other than the article creator, this at worst constitutes harmless error. That is, the outcome would have been no different regardless of how long it stayed open. For better or worse, AfDs tend not to attract more than a certain number of valid !votes, especially where the AfD does not address a very unusual case. It is tremendously unlikely that this AfD would have attracted any more valid !votes in the remaining period. Evaluating the consensus based on when the closure took place, there is a clear consensus for deletion. As an aside, I suspect that Reigningbc's behavior in this DRV merits sanctions, at the very least on civility grounds. Furthermore, a NLT block may be merited until there is an unqualified and unconditional disavowal of an intent to undertake legal action against other editors for matters that occurred on-wiki. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:34, 11 May 2014 (UTC) FYI, I was reported to the administrators by another user, who then offered a proposal that I'm waiting on it, which was to strike out all the legal comments, I adhered to that, and she should be deleting the block request. However, if you feel as if you have to submit one --- then submit one, either way I'm a NEW EDITOR --- I deserve a break, a ligancy, and I wrote an apology and did the strike outs to fix everything. --Reigningbc (talk) 20:44, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Then you need to follow what I say above and make an unqualified, unconditional, and explicit disavowal of any intent to engage in legal action against Wikipedia or its editors for matters that occurred on-wiki. Editors who make legal threats on Wikipedia are not permitted to edit until their legal actions are resolved. —/Mendaliv/2¢/Δ's/ 20:51, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Done. Happy now? --Reigningbc (talk) 20:54, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse I also would have liked for the AFD to run its course but I don't see how the outcome would have been any different. No additional redeeming evidence has been presented here so far that could place the closure in doubt. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 21:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 May 2014

Coco (application) – Deletion endorsed. – (NAC) – Armbrust The Homunculus 14:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Coco (application) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The aforementioned is a startup company that currently has no desire to heavily publicize in order to retain competitive advantage in the current market. However, said company's product is verifiable via the App Store and Google Play. In this particular situation, would the App Store and Google Play be considered reputable third-party sources to legitimize relevancy for this Wikipedia page? Several third-party online citable sources reviewing the product were presented additionally. The main purpose and urgency for a Wikipedia entry is not to promote, but to allow the general public to organically discover and learn about Coco through relevant searches for whatever means they may be pursuing. Wikipedia presents itself as an easily accessible location wealthy with information about an assortment of topics, both popular and yet to be discovered. It's no doubt that it's likely the world's most popular resource that people go to to find information on anything and everything. As mentioned before, the goal of this entry is to merely inform and be discoverable by anyone interested in the relative topic. Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) From User talk:Joe Decker: Extended content Hi Joe, I was wondering if it would be possible to discuss what steps need to be taken to reinstate the Coco (application) article and what can be done to prevent the prevent the Instanza (company) page from receiving a similar fate. It is currently marked as "being considered for deletion". Thank you in advance for your assistance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 17:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Roughly speaking, you would need to show multiple additional reliable, independent sources that cover the topic in detail. Wikipedia:The answer to life, the universe, and everything, despite the silly name, does a fairly good job at summarizing the requirements, and is a bit more accessible than the underlying policies of WP:GNG and WP:RS. --j⚛e deckertalk 19:03, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Thanks for your response and additional resources, Joe. The situation is a little difficult because this is a startup company that currently does not want to publicize. Is there any way possible to simply have an 'About Us' section published on Wikipedia? I can assure you that there is no intention for self promotion. Also, evidence can be provided that supports that this is a fully functioning live product on iOS and Android. Thanks for your help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 17:48, 5 May 2014 (UTC) In short, no, at least not at present. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a business directory, advertising venue or web host. It is our mission to create our encyclopedia based on fully independent, reputable, third-party sources, and that will exclude a variety of subjects that are not famous enough to have received the sort of sourcing that is required to meet our guidelines. I didn't mean to imply there was anything wrong with your intentions, though, we do a terrible job at communicating to people what our policies and so forth are, and you've been extremely forthright, for which I am very grateful. Cheers, --j⚛e deckertalk 18:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) If I can provide third-party [reputable] references, would you be able to reinstate the page(s) so that I can edit the original article to include these new resources? Thanks again for your help and patience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 19:21, 5 May 2014 (UTC) If they meet the relevant criteria, sure, but given that a few editors have looked, that task may be difficult. Wikipedia:CORPDEPTH#Primary_criteria (the first few paragraphs from where that loads) is probably worth reading to get some additional idea of what we're looking for. --j⚛e deckertalk 20:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC) How can I go about submitting the links for your approval? Or, do they need your approval? Should I include them within this conversation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 21:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Joe, I've located several third-party sites that have done reviews on the product. I would like to request the ability to edit the entry so that it can be relevant and also adhere to Wikipedia's policies. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.192.86.14 (talk) 17:25, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Hi -- if you have a couple links (or descriptions of the off-line sources), I'll be happy to look at them here and make a call. If you disagree with my call at that point, I'd be happy to point you at the group where you could appeal my decision. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Please take a look at these: http://www.addictivetips.com/mobile/real-time-photo-text-voice-sharing-app-coco-voice-comes-to-android/ http://www.maketecheasier.com/coco-voice-messaging-for-ios-and-android/ http://www.androidstatic.com/coco-voice-is-a-social-walkie-talkie/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fabulousaurus (talk • contribs) 18:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Unfortunately, our policies (see WP:UGC are a bit strict with respect to sources, and most of those are going to be seen more as "group blogs" than as newsblogs with respect to the policy, particularly maketecheasier (which makes it pretty clear just how easy it would be to create one's own writeup there.) This doesn't rule out all on-line-only sources, but it does take out most of them. Anything else from a print publication? If you think I've erred above, your next step would be to appeal this at deletion review. If you'd like to get other editors feedback on whether those sources are considered to meet our WP:RS policy or not, a good place to do that is our reliable sources noticeboard. And again, I'm sorry this probably feels like a maze of bureaucracy... sorry 'bout that. Have a great day! --j⚛e deckertalk 19:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Ping @Joe Decker: because, though it was discussed on his talk page, he seems not to have been notified about this discussion specifically. Stalwart111 00:08, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Thank you for the notification. I'm more than happy to let this process take its course. --j⚛e deckertalk 01:34, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse "would the App Store and Google Play be considered reputable third-party sources" - No, they are not independent sources, they don't claim to do significant fact checking etc. but to allow the general public to organically discover and learn about Coco through relevant searches for whatever means they may be pursuing." - got to love marketing speak for promote, dressing it up in lots of words doesn't make the intent any different. Regardless if people can't already "discover and learn..." without wikipedia, it's pretty much an admission that the world at large hasn't taken note i.e. it fails notability. "Wikipedia presents... ...and yet to be discovered." - no wikipedia presents itself as a WP:NPOV encyclopedia, by definition that is a tertiary sourceso absolutely not stuff "yet to be discovered" see stuff like "No original research" and what wikipedia is not. Sorry but the nomination here appears to me to fundamentally misunderstand what wikipedia is about, and seems to be trying to dress a a pig (promotion) in a skirt (it's merely to inform) and call it a supermodel. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:10, 10 May 2014 (UTC) endorse The decision at the AfD was correct; no other result would have been possible. Regardless of promotionalism , it just plain is not yet notable. What will be needed is product reviews providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources. When you get them, try again--and I would suggest using the WP:AFC process, which is the recommended route when there is conflict of interest, such as writing an article about one's own company or project. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 11 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse outcome of discussion and sources make deletion the only real option. I'd likely have !voted "weak keep" on the basis of the sources, but it's by no means clear cut enough to override the AfD's discussion. Hobit (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse no significant new notability with which to overturn the AFD, and for what it's worth the nom is incorrect that Wikipedia is for things "yet to be discovered". Wikipedia's scope is encyclopedic topics already verifiable by significant coverage in reliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:22, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 May 2014

2016 NHL Entry Draft – no consensus. As far as I can tell, the argument here is not about whether the AfD close was correct, but whether things have changed enough since the close to render it moot. One side says, "Too soon, we don't even know where it's going to be". The other side says, "But, events have already happened which effect the draft". Unfortunately, I don't see any consensus about which side has the stronger argument, so no consensus in this deletion review, which means the AfD deletion stands. As a side-comment, I think it would be useful if we had a clear policy on when future sports drafts become article-worthy. I imagine this same argument comes up all the time, in all kinds of sports. – -- RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2016 NHL Entry Draft (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Given that significant new information has come to light since the closing of this AfD, it is now justifiable to restore the article. The result of the AfD should properly have been interpreted as “no consensus”, but instead the result decided was “redirect to NHL Entry Draft”. In any event, the given reason of WP:TOOSOON no longer applies, and the 2016 NHL Entry Draft article should now be restored. Dolovis (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2014 (UTC) A couple of minor transactions doesn't change that it is WP:TOOSOON. You reversed[19] the redirect for a single transaction. This event is over two years away, there are two drafts between now and then. No this article should remain locked down for a year....William 19:05, 8 May 2014 (UTC) WP:TOOSOON does not apply as this article has never been in “lockdown”, and it continues to be updated and expanded as transactions occur. NHL trades concerning draft picks are often made two, three and even four years in advance of the NHL Draft. This article has been updated since its creation to now include four transactions, with many more to come in the days ahead as NHL teams continue to prepare for the 2014 NHL Entry Draft. It is an annoyance and shame that this useful article is hidden from our readers and editors under a redirect. Dolovis (talk) 20:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Comment - you can disagree with the result of an AFD but unilaterally overturning an AFD result because you don't like it isn't a great idea. I think the close was reasonable, especially given that one of the keep votes simply called for such matters to be decided by a WikiProject. There's nothing wrong with having that opinion but it's off-topic with regard to this particular article and it's not policy-based anyway. The other keep opinion was "per x", but then so were some of the delete/redirect opinions. There wasn't a particularly strong consensus there, which I imagine is why it was relisted in the first place. The closer was brave and interpreted a consensus without any additional discussion. I think the focus should be on presenting strong evidence that an article two years in advance is justified. A couple of transactions (even 4) without specific coverage of preparations for the draft (etc) might be a struggle. Stalwart111 04:14, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Dolovis, we are where we are because of your consistent need to create pages prematurely just so you can get the first edit. In this case, it resulted in a waste of everyone's time at AfD, and now a waste of time at DRV. It will probably be another seven or eight months before we even know where this draft will be held. The addition of a couple small transactions doesn't really overcome the TOOSOON complaint. At this point, I feel compelled to endorse the current situation with an eye toward waiting for the 2014 draft at the end of June to see if there comes a significant increase in transactions that relate to the 2016 draft. Resolute 14:10, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Resolute’s stated false assumption of my motivation to create articles astounds me. This article was created on July 11, 2013, because of trades/transactions which necessitated the creation of the 2016 NHL Entry Draft article, even if it was 35 months prior to the expected date of the draft. For the same reason, a different editor created the article for the 2017 NHL Entry Draft on March 6, 2014.[20] Does Resolute suggest that he also used bad faith motivations when creating that article some 39 months prior to the expected date of that draft? It should be obvious that these articles are created in good faith and as warranted by verifiable information concerning the drafts. The verifiable information they contain is notable and of interest to our readers, and should not be hidden from view. Dolovis (talk) 20:06, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Good faith is assumed until shown otherwise. And the number of articles/redirects that you have created only to be subsequently deleted argues strongly that you either do not have a strong understanding of either notability guidelines or of the proper timing for creation of future event articles, or disregard such as part of your continual efforts to claim first edits. As you well know, I believe it to be the latter. Cleaning up after you would almost be a full-time job. Resolute 03:39, 10 May 2014 (UTC) Restore I see no problem with restoring the article, since some picks for that draft have already been traded. Canuck89 (converse with me) 02:41, May 10, 2014 (UTC) Leave Deleted With events like this they usually aren't created until the location of the draft is known at the very least. Being that we don't even know where the event will be held, nevermind any of the other significant details it needs to remain deleted. -DJSasso (talk) 16:03, 11 May 2014 (UTC) The NHL usually announces the location 1.5 to 2 years before the draft is held, so we would expect an announcement on location sometime between July 2014 and January 2015. And, IMO, one year's worth of protection is far too long, since (based on the league's trade history), we would expect a decent amount of trades will happen during that time, and as Deadman137 notes, that leaves to relevant information and content being missed. I would support protection lasting to sometime around June/July, but definitely not one year's worth. Canuck89 (chat with me) 10:35, May 15, 2014 (UTC) Comment Locking this article down for a year is ridiculous. We are talking about an annual event that usually happens every June. If you do a little bit of research, NHL Entry Draft articles are usually created and begin being populated with accredited citations about 24-25 months before the scheduled event. Honestly if this article was left as a re-direct for another six weeks it likely wouldn’t be an issue. If editors are prevented from adding new content after this period then it becomes very probable that relevant information for this article may be missed. Deadman137 (talk) 03:40, 14 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Masha Allen – Deletion endorsed, no consensus to allow recreation. The request does not make clear whether it seeks to overturn the deletion or requests permission to recreate the article. In the discussion, the original deletion is endorsed or at least not seriously questioned. The participants conclude that the later sanctions against the deleting admin have nothing to do with this issue. Whether recreation should be allowed, in view of the WP:BLP1E concerns associated with the topic, is not clear. Opinions about this are equally divided, with valid arguments advanced for either position. As such, we have no consensus to allow recreation, which I understand to mean that recreating the article is not forbidden but also not recommended. If further review of the matter is sought, it can be had at WP:AfD if a well-sourced stub is created that is sufficiently distinct from the original article to escape G4 speedy deletion. The BLP1E question can then be reexamined in a new deletion discussion. –  Sandstein  08:36, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Masha Allen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Was a well-sourced biography of a notable living person, who has chosen to remain in the public eye since the events that initially made her case newsworthy. In particular, she testified before Congress, had a law named after her, and continues to campaign on behalf of child abuse victims. The unusual and novel method by which she was initially identified is also of note. The article was apparently deleted without consensus or discussion by an administrator who was later indefinitely banned from Wikipedia by the Arbitration Committee for abuse of powers. Xn--gba (talk) 09:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Ugh - This was an article for the girl adopted by a pedophile and abused for years; there's a smattering of news that dries up around 2006, then a few blips in 2013 from her lawsuits against those convicted of viewing her old images. Masha's Law is already a redirect to Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act, just leave it at that. A bio on the now-21 yr old would essentially be a WP:BLP1E case; the last thing she needs is a bunch of pseudonymous clods writing about her here. As for Sandifer's ban, there is a 6-year gap between that and the time he deleted the article. One has nothing to do with the other, and the clumsy attempt at character assassination to cast doubt on the deletion is not a compelling argument. Tarc (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2014 (UTC) I disagree with your point on notability - although she was initially in the public eye due to the terrible acts committed upon her, which would in itself be insufficient for notability, the subsequent legal activism, both in criminal and civil law, is noteworthy and interesting enough to merit undeletion. Your opinion that a Wikipedia article is "the last thing she needs" is irrelevant to its encyclopedic merit. Also it wasn't an attempt at character assassination, bit of a strange thing to claim, and rather distracting from the fact that there was apparently no discussion of the article deletion. Though I must admit I didn't notice that it was a six year gap between the two events. Xn--gba (talk) 22:57, 8 May 2014 (UTC) None of which addresses the WP:BLP1E concern. Rather curious editing history you have; account created at 5:36, and a perfectly-posted and formatted Deletion Review for an article deleted seven years ago at...well now, 5:36. Had this all prepped and typed up before account creation, it seems. Have you had a Wikipedia account in the past? Any connection to the subject matter or the article's creation in 2007? Tarc (talk) 23:50, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Not that this is really relevant to the deletion review, but to address your interest: I was researching the details of her case and legal aftermath for a broader essay I'm writing on the topic, and noticed that the previously existing Wikipedia article (of which an old version is mirrored on several sites) had been removed. I occasionally edit Wikipedia but create a new account each time, or just edit without logging in, to avoid people stalking my edit history for irrelevancies (as seems to be the custom here). Yes, I typed up the reason before creating the account to post it. No, I don't have any connection to the subject matter or the previous article. Also, I feel that I did address your WP:BLP1E complaint; simply stating that I did not is rather unhelpful without further elaboration. Xn--gba (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2014 (UTC) I spent way too long looking at the history of this case. While all of her coverage stems from the one event, it is deep and covers a ton of related things (lawsuits, laws, and tons of other stuff) over many years. I think the question at hand is if we are protecting her from anything by not having an article. Given how horrible the whole thing was, that's a real concern. I'm one of the laxest with respect to BLP1E, so I'd like to hear from others, but it seems she's got so much coverage in the media--mostly for things she's done at this point--that I just don't see how the article could harm her... Hobit (talk) 02:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC) I share Hobit's view on this. I do not think the 1E part of BLP1E to be the actual guiding principle in our decisions, nor ought it to be. It makes no fundamental difference to human dignity whether there was one event or several, or to either perceived or encyclopedic notability. What matters is the extent of coverage and the nature of coverage, and the possible harm that can be done by WP. (I consider we adopted the 1E part of the policy in order to have a factor that could be argued on a single dimension, but this is an oversimplification of the actual situation. Sensibly, we pretty much avoid using it as the deciding rule in difficult cases--we find it's 1E if we do not want to cover it, we find it's more than 1E if we do. I could argue this in either direction, and I could find sufficient strength on whichever side to convince myself for whatever it is that I wanted to be convinced of. Basically, the way to decide is to go to the basis of all the parts of BLP policy, our rule to do no harm. This is enough time and had enough consequence that this article would do no further harm. It's already part of the history of the subject. Given that, the next question is whether it's sufficiently significant to be encyclopedic. For the reasons given above,it is. There were major international policy consequences, and, less formally ,it was the marker for a distinct change in public attitude. We were not necessarily wrong to delete in 2007, but we would should permit re-creation now. DGG ( talk ) 06:16, 9 May 2014 (UTC) The topic is wikinotable (though I wish there was no such topic at all) and I'm sure there could be encyclopedic coverage. Whether WP is capable of providing such coverage I have doubts. DGG takes it for granted that human dignity is a consideration in BLPs but it seems not – it is being (successfully?) argued that we do not have consensus for this (diff). It is very. very tempting to say WP would not be improved by having an article (so keep deleted by IAR) but no, we need to face up to allowing an article and dealing with it as best we can. Thincat (talk) 08:45, 10 May 2014 (UTC) I argue that this isn't a BLP1E case as the subject is no longer a low-profile individual. Testifying before Congress, appearing on Oprah, long interviews with CNN and other coverage demonstrate a pattern of someone who has been net willing to be in the public eye rather than not regarding this horrific tragedy. I have worked with many survivors of serious violent and/or sexual abuse at a non-profit in the past, and it is in my experience the case that a surprising number of survivors find advocacy and "getting their story out" to be more helpful than harmful. Allen's advocacy could be suggestive of what she felt at the time. I have very briefly reviewed the deleted article, and would suggest that there's an argument for renaming it "on the event, not the person" if possible, but that's admittedly a detail. In any case, I would allow recreation/undeletion. --j⚛e deckertalk 15:07, 11 May 2014 (UTC) DRV regulars may raise an eyebrow to see me agreeing with Tarc over Hobit and DGG, but I really can't see how it's right that Wikipedia should have an article about this person. Her tragic and, so far, short life has been quite unpleasant enough without it all being hung out here on Wikipedia. Our BLP rules sometimes protect people who don't deserve to be protected, but in this case she does deserve it: she's done nothing wrong. It's very plausible that someone would search for Masha Allen on Wikipedia, and we want some kind of solution that reduces the risk of anything insensitive being created, so a history-less redirect of some kind (ideally with pre-emptive full protection on it) might be the best way forward.—S Marshall T/C 12:14, 15 May 2014 (UTC) Actually, given your general thoughts on BLP, I'm not suprised at all--it's a place we commonly disagree. While I obviously *do* disagree, would an OTRS note stating she doesn't mind (or even prefers) and article change your mind? Given her history, I suspect she'd not object and might even prefer to have one. Hobit (talk) 18:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse I agree with S Marshall. Likely falls under BLP1E and even if not she isn't a major public figure whom the encyclopedia would be incomplete without, so we should endeavour to do no harm to this person who's already had so vry much harm done to them. If doing the right thing means not having an article, then that's what we should do, and if it means bending our own utterly non-binding rules, then so be it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:18, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Comment Please restore article for discussion. Valoem talk contrib 23:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC) There's no way in hell that's going to happen here, given the deletion rationale at the time was "Grotesquely inhumane article in flagrant violation of the spirit and point of BLP. No compelling reason for us to compound the harm and intrusions into her private life suffered". Tarc (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Agreed. I don't think that restoring even temporarily would be a very good idea in this particular case. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:15, 17 May 2014 (UTC) If the material is inappropriate then leave it deleted, however I could not know if that was the case if I cannot see it, and thus I cannot make a determination. It seems the admin who delete did so without discussion if we are to make a judgment we need to understand the context. I have found multiple sources that this person suffered a great deal and has a continual lasting effect in media, as an encyclopedia we document the extreme and the strange as long as it is covered. But we are people too, and emotions can affect what we retain on here. I leave that judgement to others. Valoem talk contrib 17:41, 17 May 2014 (UTC) There are mirrors of an older version of the article around. It doesn't seem too bad, certainly not "grotesquely inhumane" as Phil seemed to think it was, though it could definitely use some cleanup. That said, I don't know if it was changed since those mirrors (which are undated) to something thoroughly objectionable. Xn--gba (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2014 (UTC) Endose original deletion. The fact that the deleting admin was later desysopped and banned is immaterial. That was for an unrelated offense. I also don't give a lot of weight to the argument of the proposer, given that they've essentially admitted to sockpuppetry. All that being said, we don't need this article. I honestly don't know if testifying before congress or going on Oprah means she's somehow endorsed the idea of us writing this article about her. But, just because we can write this article doesn't mean we must write this article. There's other articles we can write. Let's move along and write them. And for those of you who are looking for policy statements, let's start with WP:BLP -- RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2014 (UTC) I'd just like to point out that I never comment on the same issue with more than one account (also, I don't comment anonymously) Xn--gba (talk) 19:37, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 May 2014

Jabari Parker's high school career – Deletion endorsed. – IronGargoyle (talk) 22:50, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jabari Parker's high school career (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Note: userfied article may be seen at User:TonyTheTiger/Jabari Parker's high school career. JohnCD (talk) 20:48, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Pageview comparisons Name 2012-13 pageviews Jabari Parker 747,535 2014 NBA All-Stars Roy Hibbert 796,956 Damian Lillard1 792,706 Joe Johnson 699,128 LaMarcus Aldridge2 478,392 DeMar DeRozan 313,570 Paul Millsap 168,986 2013 NBA All-Stars Zach Randolph 606,977 Jrue Holiday 521,046 David Lee 493,024 12012–13 NBA Rookie of the Year 2Also 2013 All-star In the AFD there is discussion about how little people even care about his high school career. In the table to the right, I present a comparison using the 2012-13 time period because Parker did not begin his college career until November 9, 2013 (UTC). Most 2012 and 2013 viewers were likely seeking his history, which was then mostly high school. He is a rare athlete whose high school career has been chronicled in a Sports Illustrated cover story. This information that so many people have sought should be WP:PRESERVEd. Some hinted that this page would make Jabari Parker's career is more notable than other stars' like LeBron James', even though James had a feature length film (More Than a Game) about his high school career. A wikipedia page is less notable than a feature length film. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments are wrong. E.g. Timeline of the presidency of Barack Obama (2013) and List of presidential trips made by Barack Obama are not evaluated based on whether George Washington or Abraham Lincoln had the same forks. Barack Obama has more content on WP than other earlier President's so he has more forks regardless of who was greater or did more. At Talk:Jabari_Parker#High_school_content I had noted that when the article got to 60 KB I would prune it back and I had been preparing a fork of the article. The version of the main article that I was paring back from was 192,522 bytes and 59289 characters of readable prose. As of April 19, 2014, Only 228 of the 19873 (1.147%) GAs were longer than 60KB according to User:The ed17/Good articles by prose size. I requested help paring the article down and then came the AFD. During the AFD, the main article was pared down while people were making arguments based on a rapidly changing version of the main article. When the debate opened, the main article was 150,741 bytes and 46,119 characters of readable prose. By the end of the AFD the main article was 82,247 bytes and 25,591 characters of readable prose. Due to the changing nature of the article some people argued that this content was a copy of content in the main article and that the content need only be on one place, while others argued that the content did not need to exist on wikipedia at all. The article should be restored for the reasons above. If the readership feels that the dedicated high school content is useless, they won't navigate to it. However, if readers want to read more than is in the main article, it will be available. In terms that are appropriate for a WP:DRV, I believe the decision to close was incorrectly reasoned for the following reasons Discussants questioned the importance of Parker's high school career, but his high school career seems to be as important to the reader as the entire biography of many NBA All-Star Game reserves. Some discussants noted that a lot of content in the fork was redundant with the main article, but that article was pared down as the discussion progressed and was pared down even further after the discussion. Some discussants make the argument that his high school content is not relevant content for wikipedia, but the article satisfied WP:N, WP:GNG and WP:ATH; Sports Illustrated did a cover story on it; and it was chock full of high caliber WP:RS. Some discussants wrongly based their argument against this article on whether WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. As nominator I vote Overturn.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Comment by closing admin: this was an unusual AfD, in that the question at issue is not directly covered by any policy, but is rather a matter of editorial judgement: what is the appropriate level of detail to include? For most subjects, the GNG provides a limit, because the sources are limited, but for the doings of athletes and other celebrities the level of media interest is such that reliable sources are available for everything they do and say and every detail of their lives and careers. There is no dispute that this article is well-written and well-sourced, but the GNG itself says: "significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." The reason advanced for keeping this article was that having all the information in the main article would make it unwieldy, and that forking would make the information available to those interested without overburdening the main article. The opposing view was that the level of detail provided for this 18-year-old player is excessive, and that the solution is not a fork but a drastic trimming of the main article. I discounted the objection that this article duplicated material in the main one because, as Tony says, the intention was to make this a fork and trim the main article to correspond. The substantive point at issue was, does Wikipedia want this level of detail about this athlete's career? On that, the clear consensus was "No", so I closed accordingly, and endorse deletion. JohnCD (talk) 14:55, 7 May 2014 (UTC) This is an interesting case. It's a spinout article which itself meets our notability guidelines by a mile. But the general sense of the discussion is that its more detailed than we are interested in hosting. I don't see that that's a very strong guideline/policy based argument for deletion. I found the arguments that other, more famous players, don't have such detailed articles to be basically irrelevant. But in the end, this is an organizational issue--where the content should be, not if it should be. The "right" answer in this situation would generally be to merge, but given that the material just came from the parent, deletion is reasonable. That said, I don't like the idea that we should be deleting material because its too detailed--WP:PAPER would seem to be a good reason to have well-source material that is likely to see lots of use. I'd argue you'd need a pretty strong consensus in that case. But there was quite strong numeric consensus. So endorse. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Request for clarification from both Hobit and JohnCD. The deleted fork had 49,260 characters of readable prose. The current article has about 12,500 characters of readable prose from the 49,260 in this fork. That number will surely shrink more and more as his career continues. I understand that you are endorsing that a 49,260 KB version of a fork is too detailed, but that does not necessarily mean that a 25,000 or 30,000 character fork would be too detailed does it?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:51, 7 May 2014 (UTC) I personally have no objection to the article. That said, the consensus at AfD was that we shouldn't have it (at least at this time). I don't find that consensus so unreasonable it can't be followed. I don't think size plays a role here. Hobit (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2014 (UTC) Let's put it this way. Is there such a thing as an AFD that precludes any and all possible attempted revampings of an article?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse - The AfD consensus was undeniably in favor of deletion, but egads, 317 refs to document a high school career? This is maddeningly excruciating detail, bordering on obsessive. An online encyclopedia should strive to be both informative and concise; more I Wanna Be Sedated than Thick as a Brick. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse. There is no question that the AFD was closed properly, so this DRV is effectively a request to re-create this fork. And honestly, I just don't see the value. Even once you strip out the non-high school career material (early life, college, international, personal life), that userfied copy covers what will become an increasingly trivial aspect of Parker's overall career in excruciatingly tedious detail. Deprecated though the term may be, this page is pretty much the textbook definition of fancruft. I mean, seriously... Most elite level high school basketball players participate in the summer Amateur Athletic Union circuit as a complement to scholastic competition.[87] Just before Christmas, Mac Irvin, a prominent summer basketball program developer and namesake of Parker's Mac Irvin Fire AAU team, died.[88] During the subsequent holiday basketball tournament that coincided with Irvin's funeral, Parker memorialized Irvin on his sneakers.[89][90]. Resolute 19:02, 8 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse This representes an absurd degree of over-coverage. The nature of the subject prevents making a separate article of this part of his career. DGG ( talk ) 06:24, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 May 2014

Anukriti Gusain – Endorse, but relist. The AfD closure was clearly correct, given the discussion that existed at the time. There is a claim here that there are new sources which establish the notability that was lacking during the first AfD. That's possible, but the place to determine that is AfD, not here. The article has already been restored for this review, so I'm now going to relist it on AfD and let that process evaluate the article and sources as they now stand. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Anukriti Gusain (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Previously she was Indian pageant title holder, but after page deletion she was Bride of the World India 2013 and now she is participating Miss Asia Pacific World 2014 and representing to India and both pageants are International. I already has discussed with admin User:Lankiveil and suggested for WP:DRV. GKCH (talk) 04:41, 5 May 2014 (UTC) A part from that Gusain is nominated for Mahatma Gandhi Samman 2014, an award for contribution and keeping the flag of India. GKCH (talk) 05:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Comment/Neutral, I was the admin who closed the original AFD, and I believe there was a clear consensus at that time that deletion was the right thing to do. That said, new information has apparently come to light as a result of new developments. Unfortunately, I do not have the knowledge of the topic area to determine if this would make the subject of this BLP likely to survive AFD, or the time to do proper research, which is why I suggested bringing it here. I would note that the article has been undeleted, moved to mainspace, and redeleted since the last AFD. I have no objection if there is a consensus here to restore or relist, but I am a bit dubious about userifying again given the history of recreation. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:25, 5 May 2014 (UTC). Overturn and Allow recreation for the several mainstream Wikipedia:RS. She was Bride of the World India 2013 and now representing India in Miss Asia Pacific World 2014 at South Korea, which is an international pageant, establish her notability. She will receive Mahatma Gandhi Samman 2014 award on 7 May 2014 at India Habitat Centre, which establish more notability.Agsliil (talk) 09:50, 5 May 2014 (UTC) All looks completely in order to me. Nominated for deletion; correctly deleted; now there have been genuinely new developments, so the old discussion can be re-assessed. It's not necessary or even appropriate for us to evaluate the sources closely. The place for that is AfD. Restore with leave for anyone who wishes to renominate at AfD again.—S Marshall T/C 18:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) restore exactly per S Marshall. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 5 May 2014 (UTC) I will note that once restored I'll likely bring it to AfD unless someone can find reliable sources. I can find a lot of blog entries (http://www.beautyjee.com/ might be reliable?) but nothing obviously reliable. Which seems odd if these pageants are notable. Hobit (talk) 20:04, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Disclosure--I just nominated Bride of the World for deletion. Hobit (talk) 20:14, 5 May 2014 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review -- I will say that I am rather skeptical, but the best way of judging is to see the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Restore, she is known Indian pageant.14.98.12.118 (talk) 05:17, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 May 2014

Breil (company) – The result of the discussion was: Closure endorsed, but recreation allowed. – (NAC) – Armbrust The Homunculus 13:36, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Breil (company) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I would like restore article and I don't understand decision of merge to Binda Group--Puccetto (talk) 16:18, 2 May 2014 (UTC) If you do not understand ask the closing admin. Drv is used if you disagree and have a reason. Valoem talk contrib 18:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Comment: There is an additional good source , one that was used in the [ttps://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breil_(azienda) Italian WP article[, but not mentioned in the English one: [21], from an Italian technical school. No version included it, nobody at the discussion mentioned it, even tho 2 of the contributors to the discussion also contributed to that article. . DGG ( talk ) 01:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse close but allow recreation - I don't think there was anything wrong with the close itself based on the weight of arguments put forward, the crowd of WP:SPAs and the alleged sock-puppetry. That said, I was able to find some fairly good coverage (I think) of the brand and its products in fairly reliable sources: - If buying one of these watches means David will kiss us – we’ll have 10 please, with details of the product and company. - WATCH: David Gandy for Breil in new TV ad, with details of previous spokespeople. - Ducati Corse/Breil watches now available., which is possibly based on a press release but nonetheless calls them, "renowned Italian watch makers". - Binda Group Puts $50 Million Breil Watch Biz Into Review, about the company's advertising contracts. - Breil owner Binda calls £40m global creative review, a different story about the same issue. - Breil salutes designs of the future, a feature in Italian Vogue. Then we have stuff like this, this and this with passing mentions of specific products in various magazines and industry publications. All together, I think we probably have enough for the subject to be considered notable. Again, no criticism of the nominator or the closer of the AFD itself, but I have been able to find a few more sources. Stalwart111 03:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse close. No recreation. To my eye (and I have experience on the editorial side of fashion magazines/sites where these kinds of short articles are generally created because they are paid for (usually in product) by the manufacturers). These are not reliable sources indicating notability and the deletion should stand. The PDF helps establish notability, but isn't enough and none of the other coverage above helps it at all except the ad biz and Vogue ones, which are of little help. --Elvey (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2014 (UTC) I get where you're coming from but by that count, you're suggesting that 4 of the sources provided above (the PDF, Vogue and the two advertising industry pieces) are okay. Four is generally enough to meet the "multiple sources" criteria of WP:GNG. I understand there might be a quid-pro-quot arrangement with the others but there really isn't way to substantiate that and the addition of editorial about previous spokespeople (which I can't imagine is something the brand necessarily wants in advertorial) suggests there is at least a level of independence. I'm not suggesting is the most notable brand ever, but I'm inclined to think it squeaks by. Stalwart111 01:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC) I appreciate the point. However, that's not what I said and not what I meant. The vogue piece is paid advertising. It is of no help in establishing notability, as I said: [only] the PDF helps establish notability. Vogue has some info which might help the article content-wise, that is all. Likewise, the ad industry stuff is not about the watch, and it's not really about the manufacturer either. It's about the ad industry. I'm not saying there might be a quid-pro-quo. I'm saying the norm is that there's a quid-pro-quo. Having taken another look for evidence of "a level of independence", I find none. Likewise for "Significant coverage" - the short stuff "addresses the topic directly and in detail"? No, not even close. "editorial integrity"? Nope. "Independent of the subject"? Nope. And perhaps most importantly, "encyclopedic"? No. Later. --Elvey (talk) 01:51, 6 May 2014 (UTC) But where is the evidence that this piece involved a quid-pro-quot? We can suspect it, suggest it, allege it and claim it is the norm. But nothing in the article confirms (or even suggests) as much. Likewise, there is nothing to substantiate the claim that the Vogue article is "paid advertising", in fact both authors credited in the article would seem to be Vogue regulars. The articles (two of them) about the company's advertising spend are about the company's advertising spend. The fact that industry magazines see the company's advertising contracts as significant enough to discuss suggests this is more than a back-street watch-maker with no notability. Stalwart111 03:14, 6 May 2014 (UTC) You're setting up a straw man/twisting my words around again. Stop. BTW, thanks Stalwart - somehow my comment replaced others' comments; there was no intent to do so or warning from the MediaWiki software, and it's now fixed. There's plenty of room in the Binda article for a section on Breil. The quality of the sources given is closer to 'pathetic' than 'fine'. --Elvey (talk) 03:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC) (Yeah, a system error - no big deal) I'm really not trying to twist your words around. You suggested it was paid advertising - I said I couldn't see any evidence that was the case, rather that there were suggestions to the contrary. You are welcome to believe (based on your experience) that it is likely there was such an arrangement. I'm not arguing to the contrary. Only that I, without the same "experience on the editorial side of fashion magazines", can't see evidence for it and on that basis, I concluded it's okay. If your experience has given you some greater insight, that's fine, but I don't have the same insight from which to draw conclusions. There's no --Advertisement-- tag line or PRESS RELEASE heading and the staff responsible for it would seem to be regular editorial staff. There's not much more for me to go on than that. Stalwart111 04:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC) Comment: I agree DGG and Stalwart's opinions. There are a lot of fine sources in Italian language and in Enghlish there are several too. I invite to consider this situation: Breil is the most important company owned by Binda and sure it is more important than Wyler but now Wyler (company) has related article. Furthermore in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Breil (company) six users were for deletion-merge and five users were for keep: 6 versus 5 is not clearer consensus under this project's rules. I don't understand decision's logical criterium for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanowa, started by me, in comparison with this decision: why does Hanowa remain and Breil not? At least you can keep both articles, if no consensus reached! And commercially Breil watches are more sellers and international renowned than Hanowa: sources claim these data!--Puccetto (talk) 15:09, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse close and allow recreation per sources found it is a redirect so userfy is not necessary. Valoem talk contrib 16:45, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse close but allow recreation: the close was correct as anyone in the discussion cared to provide examples of reliable sources as done above by Stalwart111. Obviously a bunch of sources are even more easily available in Italian... eg., from a thoroughly reputable paper such as La Repubblica, this article, this one and this one are good examples of reliable and significant coverage about the brand, and more is available (eg [22], [23], [24]). Cavarrone 06:26, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 May 2014

Liberty GB – Overturn A7 deletion, unsalt, list at AfD. There's a lot of different opinions here, but the common thread is that most people felt the A7 speedy deletion and salting were not correct. I'm going to put this back on AfD to let the community form a clean consensus – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Liberty GB (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) Page has been deleted twice. First time because created by a banned user. Fair enough. Person deleting was contacted when I wanted to create (I was not aware a deletion had previously been made) and raised no objection to me creating the page - I supplied a draft. On trying to create, it had been deleted again, so I contacted second person who deleted. I reproduce below records of both conversations which I believe cover my points. What I want to create is this: User:Emeraude/temp From User talk:Sphilbrick#Liberty GB Liberty GB I want to create a page on Liberty GB or Liberty Great Britain. However, I note form the page creation details that you have previously deleted such a page ("13:32, 6 February 2014 Sphilbrick deleted page Liberty GB (G5: Creation by a banned or blocked user in violation of ban or block)") and that "If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the deleting administrator." Obvious at it may seem, I have absolutely no way of knowing if what I want to do is similar or not since it has been deleted. I would guess that it is, though, the same subject. I have no idea who the previous creator was and, naturally, therefore have no connections with them. A draft of what I am proposing is on my own page - User:Emeraude/temp - perhaps you'd take a look and give an opinion . Thanks. Emeraude 13:33, 29 April 2014 (UTC) User:Emeraude - Thanks for contacting me, and sorry for the delay, I have been out of town for two days and just returned. I only glanced at the draft, I was more interested in looking at who was creating it. The concern is to make sure that some sockpuppet isn't trying to force some material by creating a new account and starting it over again. While I'm not aware that we have crossed ppaths before, it is abundantly obvious you are not a sockpuppet, so I'm fine with the draft page.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:02, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Many thanks. Emeraude(talk) 08:50, 1 May 2014 (UTC) From User talk:RHaworth#LibertyGB LibertyGB Appears that somebody has recreated Liberty GB after deletion on the back of a single not notable election period headline grabber. I'll redo the deletion thing as soon as, but like YOURVoice from earlier this month, we're looking at a micro grouplet looking for publicity in the run up to next month's elections... doktorb wordsdeeds 21:10, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Regarding the multiple deletions and salting of Liberty GB and the likely deletion of Paul Weston (politician), may I suggest that the pages be redirected to British Freedom Party instead? Cheers. Ivanvector (talk) 21:59, 30 April 2014 (UTC) Cheers RHaworth. doktorb wordsdeeds 07:53, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I don't think that's good enough. The original was deleted by User:Sphilbrick because and only because it was created by a banned user. I only found out when I tried to create the article myself. As per procedure, I contacted him to get approval to recreate the article, having no idea who the original editor was or what the article said ( see User talk:Sphilbrick#Liberty GB). I supplied a link to my draft version (User:Emeraude/temp). Sphilbrick agreed that the article was only deleted because of who it was created by and there was no reason why I could not do it. But when I came to do so, I see that you have deleted another attempt (though I do not know what it said). Doktorbuk is close when he describes Liberty GB as a grouplet; but so what. The party has attracted widespread coverage with what is probably a well-rehearsed stunt, but it is nevertheless a party contesting an election at national (or rather, international) level. In years to come, the articles on the European 2014 election, on the South East constituency and others are going to mention Liberty GB, and readers will have no way of knowing what they are/were and no way of finding out from this Encyclopaedia. I write as a (retired) political scientist; I am frequently frustrated by Wikipedia's and other sources' coverage of politics, elections especially, where I have no way of knowing what the parties mentioned stand for or who was involved. The fact is, there is very little to say about this group, but it needs to be said somewhere, and to suggest it is redirected to British Freedom Party rather misses the point that this is not the British Freedom Party! I request that you reconsider. Emeraude (talk) 09:12, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I deleted Liberty GB for lack of notability. It receives only passing mention in the BFP article so there is no justification for a redirect. If you disagree, raise the matter at DRV. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 09:24, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (I'm not sure I really understand that last mention of redirect.) Emeraude (talk) 10:02, 1 May 2014 (UTC) (edit conflict)The mention of redirect is RHaworth's response to my request that the page be made a redirect to British Freedom Party, because the founder of the former was a member (and also founder?) of the latter. See just above Doktorbuk's second comment. This is mentioned on BFP's page (in passing) so I believe this would be an appropriate redirect. I don't really think Liberty GB is notable by our standards to the point of having its own page. Ivanvector (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I understand what you wrote: I don't understand why RHaworth says here there is no justification for a redirect when I didn't suggest there should be. Emeraude (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC) A lot of parties are mentioned at election time, but candidature does not mean automatic notability. For quite obvious reasons, we don't exist as a Politics Wikia, here to provide every outfit with a free advertising space. Far from being a significant part of these elections, Liberty GB only come with publicity related to one person's arrest. The attempted article had bullet points lifted directly from their own website, no third party evidence of importance, and no proof of notability beyond one event. There's no reason to presume otherwise this side of polling day. If future politics students want to know about the party they'd not be very good students relying on Wikipedia. doktorb wordsdeeds 19:04, 1 May 2014 (UTC) The group is the news (BBC, Telegraph, Daily Mail, Fox News etc. etc.) I can see no reason why it is fully protected? At the very least it should be redirected to the group's chairman or to the prior party he founded. As noted above, we're an encyclopedia and it's frustrating that information on an active political group in an upcoming election is being censored. They have three candidates in the election. There's an article on the prior group the chairman founded. I can see how there might be some debate as to how BEST to cover the group, but obliterating it out of all existence and fully protecting the page is just an abuse. Another of the candidates in the party has an entire article on him in Vice. And I believe the third candidate has also been covered in the media. I get that the party is anti-immigration, anti-Islamic, and anti-European union, but we cover lots of unsavory topics. We're not ostriches and we're not SUPPOSED to be censored. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:19, 1 May 2014 (UTC) I might add that it seems that there is a move to delete the article on the party's leader as well. I can live with that: candidates are never as prominent as the party. But regardless that there is involvement in the upcoming European election (and may also be in by elections and next year's general election) where is the information in ten years' time for students trying to understand the elections of today if it never gets here in the first place? Emeraude (talk) 18:35, 1 May 2014 (UTC) Notability is supposed to be enduring, if you are suggesting that in 10 years no one else will actually care and have eradicated any information, then you are concluding they are really non-notable. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, if the secondary sources aren't covering this for those students, then wikipedia isn't usable anyway. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2014 (UTC) An excellent contribution. I have been using Wikipedia during various elections over ten years or more. We get this sort of thing often; parties wanting an article as part of their publicity and campaigning. If they get results or make a significant social impact, they'll get a page. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:33, 2 May 2014 (UTC) There is some misunderstanding or misrepresentation of what is being said. Firstly, it is not the party wanting an article - it's me! (And I have no connection.) Secondly, I am not trying to reinstate what has been deleted - I haven't even seen it because, surprise, surprise, it was deleted! Thirdly, I am not suggesting that in ten years time no one else will actually care - quite the opposite, or at least, in ten years time there will be no way to find out what Liberty GB is when you read the name in other Wikipedia articles or are attempting research on the 2014 Euro elctions or analysing the history of the crumbling of fascist and right wing groups. Fourthly, this whole issue is about Wikipedia eradicating the information. Sixthly(?), I am not asking for the original(s) to be reinstated; I am quite clearly asking that the ban on the title be removed so that the article I have written can be put in. (Has anyone read it? ) – Emeraude (talk) 10:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Endorse my deletion. Fielding a candidate in any UK election is simply not evidence of notability. Even the new version is too thin on independent references (pun intended). — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 10:13, 2 May 2014 (UTC) WHAT?? Searchlight, Electoral Commission, The Independent, The Telegraph, UK Polling Report, BBC News. Not independent sources??? Emeraude (talk) 11:11, 2 May 2014 (UTC) Sources for a one off event, the arrest, but nothing to prove the substantial nature of the party. doktorb wordsdeeds 11:38, 2 May 2014 (UTC) WHAT?? AGAIN!! Searchlight and Electoral Commission predate this stunt by more than a year; The Independent by more than two years. UK Polling Report predates it; neither it nor the Liberty GB page cited mention it. The Telegraph and BBC News are about it, but only the latter is cited in connection with it. Emeraude (talk) 11:03, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn and Allow recreation for the obvious reasons passes GnG and npov. Whatever issues existed prior has been resolved. The userfied version follows the proper manual of style. DRV in my opinion is a cleaner better place for such debates. Even though the close was proper this article should not be barred from recreation. Valoem talk contrib 18:39, 2 May 2014 (UTC) temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ~ Overturn incorrect speedy-- AfD optional. The A7 speedy was not valid . A political party in any country that actually fields candidate has at least a reasonable claim to significance or importance, so it passes A7. Whether or not it passes AfD needs to be determined at AfD, not here. Contrary to what is asserted above, I think a political party fielding candidates will always be notable --those rejected at AfD have been ones that do not actually get to that stage. But this is for the community to decide, not an individual admin. DGG ( talk ) 16:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn deletion and desalinize; replace content with Emeraude's version which treats the group properly for our purposes. I agree with DGG's assessment of the group's notability but the deleted content was hardly sourced at all except to the group's own website, which is inappropriate. Probably the group is only newsworthy because of the recent arrest of its leader but it is nonetheless fielding candidates in a national election, which based on our List of British far right groups since 1945 seems to satisfy our community precedent for inclusion. With much due respect to RHaworth, A7 was inappropriate here as the page clearly asserts the group's notability. Ivanvector (talk) 21:56, 3 May 2014 (UTC) Disallow recreation – note that this is separate from Endorse. I would probably argue for a merge into Weston's biography given that the party is pretty much a vanity party for him and independent notability is very thin on the ground. Also note: The Roman Party, which also don't have an article, have fielded one more European candidate than Liberty. Sceptre (talk) 02:13, 4 May 2014 (UTC) WP:OTHERCRAPDOESNTEXIST is never a valid argument we look at RS and GNG. Valoem talk contrib 02:39, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Actually, The Roman Party. Ave! appears to have only one candidate, a bus driver who has run before article. Candleabracadabra (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn there are sources that count toward WP:N so A7 does not apply. Such sources are an assertion of importance. Hobit (talk) 23:52, 4 May 2014 (UTC) Overturn  wp:notability is not a speedy deletion criteria.  Redirects are cheap.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2014 (UTC) Also, Overturn salting  Log page shows that this was salted due to repeated A7 speedy deletions.  There was only one A7 deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.