Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2015 Deletion review archives August 2015 >

31 July 2015[edit]

30 July 2015[edit]

  • Muhammed Chaudhry – Copyright violations are never restored. One of the administrators listed here may be willing to email you the contents, but I wouldn't count on it. —Cryptic 21:26, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Muhammed Chaudhry (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

My page was taken down because of G11 or Unambiguous Advertisement or Promotion. I would like for it to be put back up or at the very least emailed to me so I can review the issues and make it the format/content more acceptable for WIkipedia. Mohammadsvef (talk) 19:38, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content
Hi Ricky81682. I don't see a consensus for a merge at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBReader. Specifically, I don't see any support in the discussion for discounting dsprc (talk · contribs)'s sources from Linux Insider and Linux Magazine:

Removing that, we have a list of features based off two reviews [1][2] both of which only re-hash the same information that can be placed in a mention at the List of E-book readers page.

Would you revise your close to "no consensus"? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 05:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I spent close to half an hour reviewing each and every single source provided and no, the consensus seemed clear to me; it was much closer to delete when reviewing policy arguments versus those who pointing to the volume of sources while ignoring their quality or those were arguing for the article based on a greater purpose (or arguing that there is a systemic bias [which there may be] against finding sources for this type of software but that should be a reason to ignore the policies) but that is not a reason to keep that particular article. Those who simply yell support or complain and attack the nominator and everyone else without good policy grounds are discounted for a reason. And marking it as no consensus which is a default to keep does not solve the actual issue, namely that, absent two reviews of the product itself, there are no significant coverage found in independent reliable sources of the subject. The nominator simply supported delete stating that there were concerns about notability on its own, without providing much else. LaMona was the main commenter there who likewise spent time reviewing the sources: there was a support for a merger to List of E-book software because the two sources contained the same features, which is information that could be kept and merged (in particular, Xb2u7Zjzc32's assertion that this is the only one of two epub readers for Linux) but that alone (particularly since Xb2u7Zjzc32's assertion has no reliable source behind it) would not justify keeping the entire stub of an article about its features. If there's no material worthy of being merged, then this is a deletion by redirection situation which is the same difference but not the way the discussion went. Again, looking over the full history of this article, the article was created, prodded and deleted, restored and brought back and the only response the article creator had was claiming that the nominator was trying to "mislead with untruth" (a nomination that was literally "expired PROD but restored and no new sources were added") and then throwing up volumes of links at everyone. User:dsprc admits that there does not exist the reliable source in the manner we require but basically asks us to ignore that because of advocacy reasons which is not a good policy ground, User:Dougmerritt just pointed again the volume of sources and started attacking everyone in a borderline uncivil manner which is not a reasoned policy-based discussion on the issue. So, unless there's more, you can probably go ahead and take it to DRV and the fighting will be anew. Thanks! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:24, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Two quality sources mentioned in the AfD:

Let's say that the votes of Xb2u7Zjzc32 and Dougmerritt are discounted because they contained "inappropriate attacks on the nominator" and had non-policy-based arguments for retention. This leaves the votes of Shii, LaMona, and dsprc:
  1. Shii did not return to the AfD after dsprc posted his sources.
  2. LaMona still "lean[ed] toward" a merge after dsprc posted his sources but expressed uncertainty over whether two reviews were sufficient to establish notability:

    Many of these are mentions in lists (and some are not about the software at all), but two of them - [3] and [4] - are substantial reviews. That said, does anyone know of any policy that would make it possible to decide if two reviews makes a piece of software notable? I'm still tending toward merge, as I !voted before.

  3. dsprc responded to LaMona:

    The reviews are helpful, not all there is to it. It is independently developed open source software, not a product of an OEM, nor coupled to an operating system vendor, yet ships in production on millions of devices around the globe. ... Stories about 3rd-party eBook readers don't exactly drive a lot of page views for the click-bait, advertising driven media. Software is somewhat niche area, open source even more so. You'll never see an article on something like GNU wget in the The New York Times for example.

After discounting the votes by Xb2u7Zjzc32 and Dougmerritt, there was no consensus among the participants for a merge. Furthermore, this article could not be merged to List of E-book software because it would be undue weight. The article has a lot of potential: It can be expanded using the two sources provided by dsprc (talk · contribs). It already cites an NPR article (link) about the subject:

The FBReader: This free reader from Russia works on a variety of computers and also any handheld device running the Android operating system. It never captures any user data. The open-source programming code means "this fact is easy to check — anybody can inspect [it]," says Nikolay Pultsin, one of its creators.

Even merging material sourced to the few sentences of coverage in the NPR article to the target page would be undesirable because it would be undue weight.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2015 (UTC) Modified per Ricky81682's comment below. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment No, I did not say I'm discounting Xb2u7Zjzc32 and Dougmerritt because they contained attacks on the nominator. Attacking the nominator is not useful but that alone is not a reason to discount a viewpoint. I said that "Those who simply yell support or complain and attack the nominator and everyone else without good policy grounds are discounted...." Ignoring everything else, both of those editors ultimately went with "support" and pointed to the volume of sources without reviewing the coverage or the reliability of those sources. More importantly, neither of those editors responded to the criticism about the coverage, indicating a lack of concern about responding to that point. Just pointing to volume without looking at the quality of sources or coverage is not a good policy ground for a keep vote and closing is not just counting votes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for the clarification. I have clarified my wording in the nomination. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn close, but leave outcome in place. The AFD discussion was not terribly helpful. The closer's analysis of the issues was sound and thoughtful, but it is based on what should have been said in the discussion, not what was really said. The closer should have closed the AFD as "no consensus", the performed the merge/redirect as an editorial action, not an administrative one. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 03:41, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 July 2015[edit]

  • Frank McParland – this did get deleted and redirected but that was undone earlier this year. given that there are some sources, this needs to ge discused at AFD. – Spartaz Humbug! 22:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
link to AFD2
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Frank McParland (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was marked for deletion two years ago, but appears to have never been deleted. I believe Frank McParland is not notable, because he is not a manager/coach and has never played or managed in a fully professional league. He is no longer in charge of the Liverpool academy, as time has moved on since Fenix_down pointed it out on the discussion page. Beatpoet (talk) 19:35, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - not sure how this didn't get deleted. No indication that notability has changed since the previous discussion. As he has moved my original redirect vote is no longer relevant. See no reason why this shouldn't just be a procedural discussion to clear up an historical error. Fenix down (talk) 21:34, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page / article was incorrectly deleted under G11. It was not promotional. I did ask the deleting admin to undelete and he/she suggested DRV, saying that the sources were weak. User talk:RHaworth#Seeds of Death: Unveiling the Lies of GMOs. I'd also like to add that the article was still in it's infancy stages. It has also received 2 awards. I respectfully request that the article be restored as it's deletion under G11 was inappropriate. Many thanks. Mr Bill Truth (talk) 11:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it won three awards. petrarchan47คุก 02:50, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the update Petrarchan47. I've found another so that makes at least 4 awards so far. Here's the Nevada Film Festival - 2013 Silver Screen Award Winners, Documentary Film Competition Mr Bill Truth (talk) 08:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Having done a bit more research on this, I'm reasonably convinced it should be deleted as non-notable, but AfD is the place to decide that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. It's somewhat spammy, but not enough that it couldn't be fixed with a bit of judicious editing, hence G11 is not applicable. Notability might still be an issue though. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:04, 1 August 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AfD. As above, G11 is a poor fit and weak sourcing is best dealt with at an afd discussion.Dialectric (talk) 06:30, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Shrubbery (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This template was an actively used and often referred to process argument, used to bolster discussions against excessive rules-making. It has 65 use links. Deletion was not appropriate for an actively used policy template. If it was felt to be inappropriately located then a move and redirect could have been done, but deletion was not appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I restored the template so people can evaluate it (or see this substitution) and along with the close, was notified two minutes after this was brought to DRV and reiterated my views at User_talk:Ricky81682#MFD_Template:Shrubbery. If the editors actively thought that was a legitimate point of argument (and not merely a joke) someone could have said that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:53, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologized to Ricky on his talk page for the timing. Regarding how to resolve this, I for one support moving the page to Wikipedia:Shrubbery and making the template a link. I would be happy to boldly do that unless someone tells me not to in the next few hours (or someone else can, or object...). Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • To make this easier, I moved it to Wikipedia:Shrubbery with the redirect. This can be closed unless someone strongly objects. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:23, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I restored all the old redirects so I think all the oustanding redirects and links should be good now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:32, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close since Georgewilliamherbert has withdrawn his nomination after following the closing admin's suggestion in the close ("The same joke can be done by creating the page Wikipedia:SHRUBBERY as an essay or whatever rather than the template format.") Georgewilliamherbert has moved the page to Wikipedia:Shrubbery. Cunard (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • TfD !voted to delete the template, not move it to a different namespace. Alakzi (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read a consensus to remove it from Template space, but no consensus to delete instead of moving to Project space. Closer displays a lax attitude to Wikipedia:Copyrights in advocating delete and recreate elsewhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:46, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
King Mez (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello,

The page for the following subject, "King Mez" was prematurely deleted by a member while the page was being edited. After showing proof of qualification to the member who deleted the page, he said the subject "King Mez" can qualify for the 11th clause of Artist notability guideline. I sent the following information:

'The following subject "King Mez" has made national tv appearances and has had his music videos in rotation by a music television networks and radio internationally. Including MTV2, MTV Jams, BET, as well SIRIUS Music radio and Apple Music/Beats One Radio.

Please see the following images for visual proof: 1. http://postimg.org/image/jrysl92uv/ SIRIUS XM 2. http://postimg.org/image/sj0odrvgd/ MTV Jams 3. http://postimg.org/image/6ilm295u3/ MTV2 4. http://postimg.org/image/8xgilrr3d/ Apple Music App 5. http://postimg.org/image/dhm45kzq9/ Beats One Radio

"King Mez" was also featured on a project by Lecrae titled Church Clothes 2 that debuted on the No. 21 spot on the Billboard 200, No. 1 on the Billboard Christian Albums and Gospel Albums charts on a track called "Lost My Way" (featuring King Mez & Daniel Day).

Please allow us to create this page, as to the fact he has numerous mentions on Wikipedia and we would like to source the mentions back to his page. Thank you in advance.'

In addition to the aforementioned information, the subject "King Mez" has been mentioned and featured on:

TheNewYorkTimes.com Pitchfork.com Jay-Z's LifeandTimes.com USAToday.com Complex.com Spin.com HuffingtonPost.com XXL.com NBCNews.com Sirius XM Sway in the Morning Stussy.com BET Backroom + 106th & Park The Source Magazine (Print) Indy Week Magazine Cover Spin Magazine (Print) XXL Magazine (Print)

Please refer to this document for visual proof: https://www.scribd.com/doc/235488716/King-Mez-Press-Kit

I was in the middle of adding all of this information but the page was deleted before I even had the chance to. Please advise as to how I can the "King Mez' page reinstated. Thank you for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freshheirs00 (talk • contribs) 15:33, 23 July 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - You may wanna read WP:COI, also the article was deleted because there was literally no evidence of notability and then we had the promo crap, Images/links listed here aren't proof of anything, Admin was correct in deleting that crap end of. –Davey2010Talk 00:30, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak involved endorse I am the one who nominated this article for speedy. The screenshots probably do show passing point 11 of NMusic, but the problem is WP:V there are no WP:RS discussing this guy, so nothing can be written about him in a verifiable manner.Gaijin42 (talk) 00:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but restore. The close was correct because the nominator noted that this was an "unsourced blp" and the AfD participants were unanimous in supporting deletion. Allow recreation per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Fleischer, Adam (2012-06-30). "King Mez, My Everlasting Zeal". XXL. Archived from the original on 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2015-07-29.
    2. Hernandez, Victoria (2014-10-02). "King Mez Recalls Meeting J. Cole On Myspace At 17; Shuns Conscious Rap Label". HipHopDX. Archived from the original on 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2015-07-29.

      The article provides 269 words of coverage about the subject before the interview begins, so I would qualify this as "significant coverage by an independent source".

      The article notes that he has "honest lyrics and gritty voice" and that he "reps Raleigh and is influenced by New York greats Nas and Notorious B.I.G." It says he was 24 years old in October 2014, that his birth name is Morris Ricks, and that he released the album Long Live the King in April 2014.

    3. Harvey, Kyle (2013-03-22). "Rapper King Mez strengthens North Carolina's hip-hop scene". The Grio. Archived from the original on 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2015-07-29.

      The article notes that he was born Morris Rick, that he is better known by his rap name "King Mez", that he received "great reviews" for his summer mixtape My Everlasting Zeal, and that in the spring of 2013 he opened for Pusha-T and Fabolous' "The Life Is So Exciting" tour. It notes that while he attended North Carolina A&T State University, his mother died and he had to raise his younger brother by himself. It notes that he is from Raleigh, North Carolina, that he was 22 years old in March 2013, and that he is inspired by RocNation rapper and fellow South Carolinian J.Cole.

    4. Scott, Damien (2014-04-10). "Premiere: Listen to King Mez's New Album "Long Live the King"". Complex. Archived from the original on 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2015-07-29.

      The article notes that King Mez's first mixtape was The Paraplegics in 2010 and that he has been the opener for J. Cole, Wale, Big K.R.I.T., and Kendrick Lamar. It notes that King Mez released his fourth mixtape, Long Live the King, around April 2014. He collaborated with Commissioner Gordon and Illmind on the album, which the reviewer considered "Mez's strongest project to date". Reviewer Damien Scott praises the album:

      Full of Lush, atmospheric production and tight, winding lyrics (as evidenced on the lead single, "Morris."), the album shows a more assured artist coming into his own.

    5. Weinstein, Max (2014-04-11). "New Music: King Mez 'Long Live The King' Album". Vibe. Archived from the original on 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2015-07-29.

      The article notes that King Mez has a "strong following" and that in his fourth album Long Live The King's lead single "Morris", "King Mez showcases a phenomenal ear for beats and concise, personal rhymes".

    6. Weinstein, Max (2013-11-27). "New Music: King Mez 'Cold Blood (Remix)'". Vibe. Retrieved 2015-07-29. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)

      This brief review notes:

      King Mez secured the instrumental for Canei Finch’s “Cold Blood” and laid down some chilling bars over the haunting beat. The NC rapper has a style that’s totally his own, and anyone that didn’t fall in love with his music on “My Everlasting Zeal” will think twice when they hear this.

    7. Kangas, Chaz (2014-10-21). "A Complete Guide to Hip-Hop at CMJ 2014". The Village Voice. Archived from the original on 2015-07-29. Retrieved 2015-07-29.

      The article notes:

      King Mez Drom Friday, October 24 North Carolina rapper King Mez is headlining a CMJ showcase at Drom on Friday night. With a sleek righteousness without the heavy-handed morality plays of "conscious rap," King Mez brings a welcome thought-provoking perspective to the booth. What we love about Mez is how his rapid-fire staccato flow manages to still be so smooth and keep us on his every word.

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

    Cunard (talk) 04:38, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • AfD closing admin here. I was simply enacting consensus of the AfD and am personally indifferent this topic. However, I note that the AfD was 5 months ago, and it seems that a very different version of the article is being proposed here, so I think the AfD should not be taken as a binding precedent. Deryck C. 08:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the deletion(s) being appealed is/are two G4 speedy deletions for recreating a deleted page. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Most recent deleting admin here. Given Cunard's research, I'm fine with someone reposting the article. It will have to avoid language like this, which was in the last deleted version: "With 3 solid projects under his belt - King's Khrysis (2011), My Everlasting Zeal (2012), Long Live The King (2014) - Mez has made strides in the music industry from making national television appearances, to working with artists like J.Cole and more recently, the legendary Dr.Dre." NawlinWiki (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 July 2015[edit]

  • Russian Hamster Cabal – not funny enough to discuss further. leave a note on my talk page if you want these back in your userspace but mainspace is not the place for funny pages. unless you are John Cleese or actually genuinely funny and notable. – Spartaz Humbug! 22:56, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Russian Hamster Cabal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This wasn't vandalism, it was intended to be humor. Let me reiterate: it wasn't vandalism. I see other people on Wikipedia have cabal pages, so why can't I have one too? Also, may I please have it restored to my userspace to prevent further confusion? Thank you. Please be nice and assume good faith. I'm new here. YoSoyUnHamster (talk) 21:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. You've been here six months and edit quite regularly so that's not an excuse. You made the dumb choice to move User:YoSoyUnHamster/Russian Hamster Cabal to articlespace (and not Wikipedia space where some humor is allowed) to make it "official" and it bit you back fairly. You've then gone on to complain that people are being "mean" because they don't care for your nonsense. I suggest you withdraw this and drop it now or you may find yourself under a WP:NOTHERE block. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Russian Hamster Cabal/WikiKulich I.O.U. and Russian Hamster Cabal/WikiKulich were similarly deleted. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:01, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this would have been perfectly acceptable in user: space, possibly in Wikipedia: space, although it was way out of line in article space -- our articles are supposed to be factual. Still we all make mistakes. I suggest restoring it to user space, where it will do no harm and might make someone laugh. DES (talk) 00:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to userspace without prejudice to an WP:MFD if an editor believes the pages violate Wikipedia:User pages#What may I not have in my user pages?. I agree with DESiegel's suggestion. Cunard (talk) 04:42, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the page clearly doesn't belong in articlespace, but like User:Cunard I would have no issue with the page being moved back into the userspace or perhaps the projectspace. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:52, 29 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 July 2015[edit]

26 July 2015[edit]

25 July 2015[edit]

24 July 2015[edit]

23 July 2015[edit]

22 July 2015[edit]

  • User:nmwalsh/Codefuel – No consensus to allow recreation. For what it's worth, I agree with Stifle that this is just regurgitated PR material. –  Sandstein  10:29, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:nmwalsh/Perion Codefuel (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article has now been rewritten from a neutral viewpoint and has a completely new set of references. The original page was almost one year old when it was deleted. Nmwalsh (talk) 09:15, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: there's also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perion Network, which is essentially a duplicate of this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reject recreation. Most of the sources are regurgitated press-releases rather than substantial original coverage. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alexandra Quinn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed 17 hours early as keep, despite the fact that the BLP1E issue I raised was not well addressed during the discussion. Normally, I would let that go since the difference keep and NC is pretty academinic, but despite the fact that Hullaballoo Wolfowitz indicated that the early close prevented him from raising an issue with one of the sources the closing admin instead decided to give the keep side a say in whether this should have been relisted instead of allowing HWs issue being discussed. This seems unfair to me so, since the keeping side have vetoed the relist, I'm bringing this here to ask DRV to relist this discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 16:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • this is the link to the discussion on the deleting admin's talkpage. Spartaz Humbug! 16:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer. As two delete proponents had asked on my talk page to reopen, I thought it was fair to ask for input on that request from the keep !voter who three of the four subsequent commenters had agreed with. I actually hadn't made a final decision on whether I'd relist it yet (this DRV kind of jumped the gun), though I was leaning against. It was closed on the seventh day after the day the nomination was made (not "early", as we don't count by hours), and four days after the last new sources were introduced into the discussion, so there had been plenty of time for comment on those. And I see HW participated in the last AFD on this same article, which was closed as no consensus just earlier this year. Even with a comment from him added to this AFD, I don't see the close reasonably changing unless also merely to "no consensus". postdlf (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • why wouldn't you want HWs comment discussed? You did close a bit early so it's a bit rich to say that it's hard cheese because he commented in another discussion 6 months ago. Spartaz Humbug! 20:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reopen. First of all, as Spartaz accurately pointed out, the discussion was closed nearly a full day early. The discussion period is seven days, not six days plus whatever small number of hours the closer deems sufficient. Second, it's completely inappropriate for the closer to discount my opinion/analysis (or anyone's) in advance, without even having the minimal courtesy to ask what issues would be raised, or to decide what the community consensus on a previously undiscussed issue would be, without community input. Third, the issue I wanted to raise was not trivial, and had not been discussed previously. One of the two sources provided by Morbidthoughts turns out, according to both Worldcat and Google Books, to be a work of fiction, It's obviously not a reliable source for a biography, can't be used to establish notability, and treating it as such was poor judgment. Finally, the closer's comments on their talk page on the BLP1E issue, referring to their own opinion rather than the discussion, hardly inspires confidence that there weren't elements of a supervote involved in the close. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 04:41, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where does Worldcat[5] or Google Books[6] label it as a work of fiction? It is a true crime book. A non-fiction recount of the author's investigation into his brother's murder.[7] Morbidthoughts (talk) 13:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Here [8] (Worldcat) and here [9] (Google Books). The latter is the link you posted to the AFD, so I'd ordinarily presume you're familiar with it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:52, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Embedded is not a fiction book despite their label. It is a memoir of a real television producer.[10] I've also read the book and remember several of the events he wrote about including the sexcetera piece on Quinn and the virgin on Playboy TV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's not what the author says. He may call it a "memoir", but he also says "It reflects the author’s present recollections of his experiences over a period of years. Some names and characteristics have been changed. Some characters have been combined, events have been compressed, and certain episodes are re-created and not meant to portray actual events." There's a technical term for books which "are not meant to portray actual events: fiction. And any book carrying a disclaimer like that doesn't meet the requirements of RS or BLP, and shouldn't be used to establish notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:02, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The disclaimer covers the characters, events, and episodes from his "reality" tv shows, not the book. You often see this disclaimer in these types of shows because they can edited or even staged. The recollections are from producing the shows. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's an absolute goddam falsehood. Those are the author's own words, from the copyright page of the book (pdf edition). "This book is a memoir. It reflects the author’s present recollections of his experiences over a period of years. Some names and characteristics have been changed. Some characters have been combined, events have been compressed, and certain episodes are re-created and not meant to portray actual events." Don't accuse me of fabricating or misattributing direct quotes. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't get ornery with the wikilawyering there. I read the book. I saw the copyright page.[11] I know what the disclaimer is for. It's the same as for almost all "reality" tv shows. He carried the disclaimer into the book as it is about his work producing the show, which was the original point you missed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Closers must weigh policy arguments. That's not "supervoting"; that's how we avoid AFDs becoming mere headcounts. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - on the one hand, I don't see why we shouldn't re-open any AfD closed early upon request. On the other hand, the only commenter who bit at the suggestion of 1E was Tarc, who name-checked it and then admitted he was ignoring what BLP1E says and does and actually arguing something completely different, so I can't see the discussion turning out any differently. WilyD 10:23, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, bullshit. What I said was is that my view of what it means to be a person notable for only one event falls onto the conservative/strict interpretation of BLP1E policy, as opposed t others who are more liberal in its application, e.g. there are those who feel that if a subject goes on an interview circuit following their one-event then that surpasses the "subjct is a low-profile individual", an interpretation which I stridently disagree with. Variations in policy interpretation are not wrong, nor does it mean I "ignored" the policy. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist to allow the full discussion period. Stifle (talk) 11:09, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and reopen, no good reason provided here for not doing this by the book, and when there are good faith arguments coming from both sides it's best that procedure is followed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:18, 23 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • As an addendum, I also find the argument being made below that "seven days" is a synonym for "six and a bit days" to be patently absurd. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:07, 28 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Note that at the same time I closed three other AFDs (1, 2, 3) by the same nominator and involving the same subject matter, which had been open for the same length of time. They're not asking to reopen those because they got the result they wanted, notwithstanding that in the "17 hours" they were closed "early" someone else could have just as conceivably added another comment. Instead here we have "someone else wanted to comment in support of my deletion nomination", and so we're quibbling over hours. Deletion procedure says seven days, not 168 hours. I don't spend much time at DRV, but AFAIK we've never overturned an AFD close as "early" because of the hours and minutes in the nominator's timestamp rather than the day of the log page. postdlf (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would have waited to close those discussions personally until they were over the 7 days but the consensus was clear in them - unlike this one where the BLP1E wasn't that well discussed. I would have left it but for HW having his point to put forward. I would not object to your reopening, undeleting and relisting them if someone had an argument they wanted to put forward. I have closed enough DRVs to know the view taken is to give missed arguments a hearing and, if you go through my talk archives, you will see that its not unknown for me to relist and reopen discussions if a good faith user has a valid argument that might affect the outcome of the discussion. Your comment otherwise appears to be an attempt to play the man and not the ball. Spartaz Humbug! 16:26, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Balancing Wikipedia:Process is important and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy is a bit of an art. I don't think there's anything wrong with your close, but I'd rather err on the side of making everyone feel like they haven't received the bum's rush when there's no real downside. WilyD 08:52, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - at most the awaiting attempt at impeachment of one of the sources, the Embedded book, may have moved the result to a keep due to no consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:40, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Personally I think it perhaps should've been closed as No Consensus but either way it's a keep and it being open for another day probably wouldn't of made a blind bit of difference. –Davey2010Talk 20:32, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think you'd have !voted the same way if you'd known that one of MT's sources is classified as a work of fiction? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 21:08, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
my beef isn't the close so much as the refusal to relist to discuss HWs point when the discussion was closed early. Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly ... Yes, I admit I may of thought twice but I'd of probably gone keep anyway, Spartaz - Perhaps it should've been reopened for the remaining hours but I still believe it wouldn't of made a difference but meh we all see things differently here I guess. –Davey2010Talk 03:30, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse This is wikilawyering at its worst. "Seven days" does not mean "at least 168 hours". And as one of the editors who !voted to keep "per Morbidthoughts", I can assure you that a 167th-hour delete !vote from Hullaballoo Wolfowitz along the lines outlined above wouldn't have swayed me. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:10, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - If one of the chief sources used to justify many keep votes turned out to be fraudulent, then the AfD should be relisted for further consideration. Tarc (talk) 14:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Like Malik, there's nothing in "seven days" that means "168 hours," at least not enough to warrant a DRV -- does any single overturn voter think that the outcome would've been substantially altered in 17 more hours, especially since there hadn't been a fresh comment in two days? Hullabaloo and Spartaz not getting the answer they like might be too bad for them, but personal satisfaction of any editor's concern isn't any part of Deletion policy. (I've no objection to changing the result to MC, since there wasn't a clear Keep! consensus.)

    PS: If "seven days" = "168 hours," then the policy should say so. (Something like "at least seven full days" would do. Nha Trang Allons! 18:06, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse consensus was IMO assessed correctly. Aside from that, there are lately more than a hundred AfDs per day, so we need to take what we can get, closing a few hours early or late doesn't make any difference. Thanks to User:postdlf for wasting his time at AfD. And for all of you, please keep in mind: Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED, AfD is WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:There is no deadline and (very rarely) WP:Ignore all rules. Kraxler (talk) 19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Contrary to what has been asserted, 7 days does mean 168 hours. The reason for insisting on this technical point is that otherwise the closings tend to drift earlier and earlier, until it becomes a matter of who is bold enough to close them first. 168 hours gives everyone an equal hearing. Some people only look at afd discussions near the end, and they need a chance to comment. Normally, I am not at all big on technicalities, but this one is important. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist per DGG. Seven days is seven days, not six days, seven hours. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist AFDs should be open for at least 7 days which is 168 hours (except for ones that are withdrawn, speedy deletions, etc.). So as this was closed early and has been contested it should be relisted at AFD. Davewild (talk) 07:09, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can't we just reopen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alexandra Quinn (3rd nomination) for 17 hours instead of starting a new AfD? It's been done before (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shane Diesel). Rebecca1990 (talk) 11:12, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that that is feasible here, I expect a long drawn out argument over several days, once this is reopened. Under the circumstances, the original discussion should be re-opened rather than post a new AfD, and could stay open for another week. The result will be the same. WP:There is no deadline, and the AfD tag doesn't harm the article. Kraxler (talk) 18:53, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Most don't even close in seven days entirely (eight-nine maybe? CFD and others gives you an extra month at times) so we need a hard-line minimum of seven days and mean just that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always understood the 7-day period to mean 168 hours minimum.—S Marshall T/C 07:44, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Dr. Mies just closed 8 AfD between 4 and 7 hours early today (the top 8), it's routine, done every day. Somehow we have to tackle the backlogs, instead of wasting time. (I fully agree with Dr. Mies's closures, I'm lightyears away from complaining.) Kraxler (talk) 18:50, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't mean Postdlf's close was on time. What it means is his wasn't the only one that was early. If Drmies' closes were here at DRV then I would be saying exactly the same thing. AfD debates have a minimum duration for a reason.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, in principle, and I've looked very careful at the timestamp since this incident, closing only discussion that have passed the finish line. Kraxler (talk) 21:09, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to see stats on exactly what percentage of AFDs are closed only after 168 hours. If that is really the accepted rule, and not simply what the day of the log page is, then I'm not alone in being unaware of that (despite being a regular AFD closer), judging from another admin's comment above, another experienced editor's comment here... So that should be clarified in the procedural text (or maybe we should have an RFC about it to confirm). And if that is the rule the community wants, then we need to question whether logging by calendar day is really the best way for closers to have AFDs organized. postdlf (talk) 15:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back in 2007, the discussion that extended AfDs from 5 to 7 days explicitly stipulated that 7 days means 168 hours (here). Practice may well have evolved ---- I fully accept that pointing to eight-year-old discussions on DRV doesn't normally cut much ice! ---- but if the practice has evolved, then I don't know of a discussion that documents the evolution. I think it's one of those rules we have on Wikipedia that's enforced when an articulate and well-known editor asks for it to be enforced, and is otherwise often ignored. We're probably overdue a RfC on it.—S Marshall T/C 18:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Friday (31 July) admin Swarm closed the top three AfDs about 15 hours early. I have been able to identify the reason for this common occurrence: The AfD log, when listing a discussion, requires it to be added to the top of the list, so that in the end the most recently added is on top. When looking at the list as soon as it appears in the 7-day-old log, the closers start to scroll down the page from the top, so they begin closing the most recent first, and the oldest AfDs last. So the top ones may get closed early while the bottom ones are more likely to run well beyond the 168 hours, there being more than a hundred discussions on many days. Is there some logical reason why this anti-chronological order is used at AfD? Shouldn't new AfDs added at the bottom instead? Kraxler (talk) 02:40, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The finally accepted proposal was a bit later . In 2009 actually. There was a diversity of opinion in the discussion but the closing summary clearly calls for AfDs to run "the full seven days" which in context has to be interpreted as 168 hours. While practice has never followed this slavishly, it is consistently considered a (minor) procedural defect at DRV. As for top posting, I haven;t searched the archives but my memory is that it helped even out the level of discussion across the day. When the first AfD of the day was at the top of the daily log it consistently got more comments than the last. But now that discussions migrate down the log during the course of the day they are more evenly attended. Eluchil404 (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 July 2015[edit]

20 July 2015[edit]

19 July 2015[edit]

18 July 2015[edit]

  • MADE 2015 World Tour – The improved version of the article is restored, and can be listed at AfD again if anybody believes it should be deleted. –  Sandstein  08:07, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MADE 2015 World Tour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created a page of Big Bang Made 2015 World Tour over two months ago, but it got deleted first time because the lack on information the tour have, also it was too early for it, so I put it on the List of Big Bang concert tours, for the past months the section of the tour has been growing, and it's become big to be in the list, it needs a separate page, so I asked on the talk page about it, and there is no object about it, so I created the page again, and it's got deleted again. I asked the people who deleted the page, and they said it will be better if I opened a deletion review. You can see the section of the tour on List of Big Bang concert tours CesarLeto (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Temp restored for review -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the current version and the version deleted in the AfD, it's questionable whether they're sufficiently identical for WP:G4 to apply. If nothing else, there's a bunch of additional references. There was also some (albeit, minimal) discussion about recreating this at Talk:List of Big Bang concert tours, which came to some (albeit, minimal) consensus to do so, although I'm not sure how that affects G4. So, I'm inclined to say restore this and let AfD pass final judgement. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:06, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse What few changes there where were either un-sourced /badly sourced or didn't address the initial problems that had the page deleted like notability. I felt enough of the material remained unchanged from the first deletion that it was sufficient to ask for the page to be speedily deleted. From a glance 1/3 of the sources are bad, they're from either gossip blogs or are from the band's company's twitter, website, and Facebook page. The main issue that got the page deleted was it did not have good sources that proved notability and for some of the claims it had none at all. I saw the same exact sentences left unsourced on this version too. They added a small section of "records" the tour will supposedly break, updated with un-sourced concert attendance and added a few more mostly lacking sources. In my opinion it is "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy"WP:G4 Peachywink (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources from the page are reliable, the ones from band's company's twitter, website, and Facebook page are mostly the announcement of the dates, YG-Life translate Korean/Chinese article to English and publish them on the website and they write the source on the articles, they rarely write any thing by themselves. All the parts on the page has been sourced, and the only not conformed attendance was on Dalian and Wuhan, which the concert on them was sold out.CesarLeto (talk) 10:59, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An un-sourced line: "Before announcing the dates, it was also revealed highly claimed crew will be joining the tour, including LeRoy Bennett, Ed Burke, Gil Smith II, and Jonathan Lia. They also worked with Beyoncé and Jay-Z on their On The Run Tour." Another un-sourced line: "The shoot took a total of four days in Los Angeles". As for the sources Allkpop says on it's own website it does not gaurentee information is factual. Also some of the information on the page does not exactly match up with the listed sources an example being the dates for sydney differ from source 20. Also the fourth listed "record" the tour will break is not supported by the source given. I only read english so I am unsure about the first record as well but am giving it the benefit of the doubt. There might be more this was just what I quickly noticed.Peachywink (talk) 17:31, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have put I source for them a while ago but I don't know what happens, any way the sources are there now on List of Big Bang concert tours. The Sydney concert was first announced on September from different sites, but late YG announced it on October, I didn't think I should delete the older source. On the fourth record, it's my mistake there, I though the source wrote "The largest K-pop arena tours in the US history" but it said "one of the largest K-pop tours in recent history". The first record you can read it here.CesarLeto (talk) 23:30, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD. I agree with RoySmith that {{db-repost}} does not apply based on the new sources. Furthermore, the comments in the AfD indicated that the article was too soon and later could become notable:
    1. "Delete per WP:NTOUR and the old crystal ball."
    2. "It may become more notable later on, so I suggest the page be userfied."
    3. "Way too soon for this article to exist."
    I recommend listing at AfD since Peachywink has doubts about the subject's notability.

    Cunard (talk) 06:16, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn - [12] [13] [14] are significant new sources. As Cunard notes, the deletion arguments invoked a lot of touchy-feely "It's kinda early" arguments, which are not clearly applicable anymore either. WilyD 08:36, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 July 2015[edit]

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

In my opinion this article on Sabino Renteria was wrongly deleted. One of the main people who reviewed the article, User:Bearcat, said the reason for deletion was a lack of reliable sources and that if it was well sourced then Sabino Renteria would probably qualify for an article. One of the main sources that he complained about was that the Austin Monitor. When I talked to Bearcat, Bearcat said that it was a blog. This is untrue as it is actually a newspaper with an editorial staff and board of directors that has been cited in other credible news sources like Politifact. When I messaged Bearcat directly Bearcat also complained about the lack of national coverage, however one of the sources used was national coverage from the APA discussing Sabino and legislation that he spearheaded and wrote. In my opinion all the sources used were all reliable national, state or local sources and I feel like this deletion should be reverted. S2026090 (talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For one thing: the APA is not media, but a non-profit organization — and the APA "source" was actually just a reprint of a news article from a local newspaper in Austin, not original content written by the APA. So it doesn't satisfy the "national coverage" criterion. And he wasn't the subject of that article, either, but was briefly named as one of several quote-givers within an article whose actual subject was the general concept of historic district preservation. So it's not a source that can give him enough notability, in and of itself, to override our normal consensus against keeping articles about most city councillors.
For another thing: as I also noted, virtually all of the media coverage cited in the article merely namechecked his existence, rather than being substantively about him. And the few exceptions were purely routine coverage of his campaign for election to the city council (including raw tables of the election results, which are not a source that can ever confer notability on anybody in and of themselves). And virtually none of it was substantively about anything he did on city council. But news media have a professional obligation to give "equal time" coverage to all candidates in an election taking place in their coverage area, whether those candidates would pass our inclusion criteria or not — for example, the one citation to the Austin American Statesman was to a "campaign database" in which every single candidate, winning or losing, had a profile. It was not unique coverage of Renteria which could demonstrate notability, it was a campaign brochure. Campaign coverage cannot, in and of itself, get a politician over WP:NPOL (if it did, we would have to keep an article about every single person who's ever run for any political office at all regardless of whether they won or lost) — it would take a substantive volume of coverage of stuff he did on city council to get him over our inclusion criteria for city councillors, not coverage of his campaign.
In addition, any "publication" that still has a "Beta" tag right in its own masthead logo, as the Austin Monitor does, is not well-established enough to count as a reliable source for our purposes. Regardless of any debate about whether it's a blog or a real newspaper, it still announces itself as a beta test right at the top of its own website.
The discussion was not closed "improperly", as not a single person in the entire discussion "voted" to keep it — there was a completely unanimous delete consensus, and S2026090 simply disagreed with it. But that is not the same thing as "wrongly deleted". I have already advised S202 about what they can do to have a chance of restoring the article — namely, locate better sourcing for a draft resubmitted through WP:AFC — but the process was not conducted incorrectly, and nothing improper took place at all.
And finally, I fail to understand why this request is singling me out — I did not nominate the article for deletion, nor did I close the discussion. All I did was comment within it and give S202 some followup advice on how to improve the article's chances, and thus nothing about this situation has anything to do with what I did or didn't do. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am confused with why the APA publishing an article about very notable legislation which Pio wrote and put through council is not national coverage, just because they didn't originally write it does not mean that republishing an article should not count as coverage. Secondly I think although they are a non-profit they have their own magazine as well as online a portion of their site which covers important news relating to planning, so in my opinion I think they are the "media". I also believe you cannot dismiss the Austin Monitor just because it says beta in the logo. I feel like you just have a lack of understanding of the source, although knowing the logo has a beta in it does implies some research into the site. About 1 and a half years ago, InFact Daily, which I believe was owned by the Austin American Statesman, was bought out and changed their name to the Austin Monitor. Nothing about the site had changed, the only difference may be a new website as well as some re-branding. The beta that you saw does not mean it is some new and unreliable news source, only that it has recently rebranded itself. You had also said no one voted to keep it, but only 2 people that I could see (I may be wrong) voted, in my opinion that is not consensus. finally I would just like to apologize if you ever felt like I singled you out Bearcat, I never meant to. I messaged you only because the other person who was in the discussion was on vacation. I would like to also thank you for being so communicative with me. All that I have ever tried to do when I messaged you was to provide more information on my sources or to ask questions. I still believe that this was wrongfully deleted. S2026090 (talk) 13:10, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who closed this discussion my thinking was as follows. The normal 7 day period had passed (indeed it was 9 and a half days since the discussion had been opened) and nobody had argued against deletion. As well as the nominator 2 other editors had made reasonable arguments for deletion, so I closed the AFD as delete. Generally, so long as reasonable arguments for deletion have been made, I close AFDs as delete after at least 7 full days if at least 2 established editors other than the nominator have commented, rather than relisting, as we have to relist a lot of AFDs as it is. I should note that at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kansas City Film Critics Circle (2nd nomination) my decision to relist a discussion on about 50 articles was questioned, after only one other editor had commented for deletion after 7 days (recently also at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carolyn Mackenzie (2nd nomination) an editor questioned the decision to relist). I do normally give one relist for discussions where only one editor extra than the nominator has argued for deletion, but would welcome comments by other people on whether I am getting the decision on when to relist correct. Davewild (talk) 08:06, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Quite frankly the reliability or otherwise of the "Austin Monitor" doesn't interest me, even if it were the major paper of Austin, the level of coverage it gives of Renteria is modest. The article I see (one is archived and wants me to pay for it) is about a particular law that he introduced, not actually about him as a person, which is usually the standard that we set. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:38, 18 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse- based on the discussion, no other close was possible. Reyk YO! 16:15, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. All commenters supported deletion, and their comments were policy-consistent. Close was clearly reasonable. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - everybody argued for deletion, there isn't much else that can be done. The Austin-American Statesman might be the main paper of Austin (and functionally, there's often an over-arguing of "local" and "routine"), but they uncritically list such bios for everyone who ran, without any indication of who authored it, without any analysis, and so on. There's very little substance. WilyD 12:17, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse I would not have relisted. The consensus was clear enough, because the comments reflected policy and were aware of the actual article. The decisions to relist depends not just on the number of comments presented, but upon their pertinence. DGG ( talk ) 22:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Timothy Smart (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wrongly deleted in my view

I have been trying to restore this page, but User:Dmol has reverted me twice. I believe the original decision to delete the page was in error. This diplomat is notable; Wikipedia has biographies of far less notable figures. Redirecting the page to List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Madagascar - I don't understand the logic of that, as he was not only the Ambassador to Madagascar. He was also High Commissioner to Fiji (equivalent to an Ambassador), and is linked on that page. People click his name linked on that page, expecting to go to his biography, but end up in the Madagascar ambassadors' article. To me, that just doesn't make any sense. David Cannon (talk) 11:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry I've messed up the formatting. I was away from Wikipedia for a long time, and I'm not too sure how this feature works. David Cannon (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have fixed the syntax errors on this page. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:09, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's customary to contact the administrator who closed the debate and discuss your concerns before listing a deletion review. That's made clear in several places on this page — so can you please clarify why you chose not to do that? Stifle (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sorry I overlooked that. I did so because User:Dmol asked me to bring the matter up here, after I restored the article twice and he reverted me each time. But I'll contact the closing administrator now. David Cannon (talk) 01:24, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the admin who closed the AFD my reasoning was as follows. The AFD had been open for almost 21 days and had reasonable participation, which had not increased after the last relist, so could not see any reason why another relist could be warranted. The consensus at the AFD was clear to me, as I said in the closure, that the article did not meet the notability guidelines. The discussion was broadly split between those (early in the discussion) who thought it should be deleted, and later those who thought it should be redirected (or merged). As consensus seemed to be shifting towards redirect, nobody argued against redirecting and one of those who argued for deletion said they would be fine with a redirect, I closed as redirect.
  • Nobody mentioned List of High Commissioners of the United Kingdom to Fiji at the discussion and the article did not say what his role in Fiji had been. I can understand David Cannon's point about the link from the Fiji list taking them to the Madagascar list but cannot see restoring the Timothy Smart page as an option unless there is new evidence to show the notability guidelines are met. I see two other options, one is to unlink Timothy Smart on the Fiji list so there is no confusing link at that page (I favour this as he was only acting High Commissioner for a year, while according to the Madagascar list has been full ambassador there since 2012), or delete the redirect (but unless the link at the Fiji list is also removed this would leave a redlink to a page that an AFD decided was not notable). Davewild (talk) 07:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- DRV is not AfD round 2, and "there's worse articles" is no argument at all. The close seems like a fair reading of the discussion. Reyk YO! 08:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there was a deletion process and it was followed, we don't grant individual users a veto on that and nothing has been presented here beyond mere disagreement. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:48, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — if the community is not agreeable to restoring the article, then perhaps it should be deleted outright, not redirected. I stand by my view that it is ridiculous to redirect a personal page to the Madagascar Ambassador page, when that was only ONE out of MANY roles he has played. It certainly isn't how I personally knew about him — it was from his posting to Fiji that I knew of him. So I could live with an outright deletion, but not a redirect. David Cannon (talk) 00:55, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Another refusal-to-drop-te-stick "I disagree" DRV filing. A consensus of participating editors were in favor of redirecting the article, the closing admin closed the discussion as such. Nothing more to see. Tarc (talk) 04:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a terrible AFD, of the sort I'd have expected to see ten years ago. Three quarters of it can be summarized as "No ambassadors are notable", "There's news results, just google for yourself", and unabashed "WP:JUSTAVOTE"s. David Cannon's comments above amount to the same sort of new information that we regularly send far worse articles back to AFD for, so overturn; but I don't have much confidence that the new debate will be of any higher quality. —Cryptic 04:51, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion Review operates to resolve issues caused by failure to follow the deletion process. It does not hear appeals from scratch, nor entertain arguments that the deletion debate (as distinct from the closure of that debate) was wrong. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD result, but also fix the problem. We're pretty much in agreement that the AfD close was legit, so endorse that. But, people have lost sight of the problem, which is that if you go to List_of_High_Commissioners_of_the_United_Kingdom_to_Fiji and click on the Timothy Smart blue-link, you get taken to List of Ambassadors of the United Kingdom to Madagascar, which is somewhere between confusing and just plain wrong. So, I fixed that problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:33, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
PS, as an alternative to my above fix, invoke WP:IAR and turn Timothy Smart into a stub that just says he held both offices and with links to those articles. From the user experience point of view, that's probably the best solution. What's best for the user trumps our stupid rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 July 2015[edit]

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

Incorrectly interpreted consensus. I attempted to engage the closer [15]. Recommendation to overturn the "no consensus" close and delete the article. While the !vote count was 3 Keep and 3 Delete, the Keep !votes were WP:JUSTAVOTE or well met. See the link above for more detailed reasoning why the article should be deleted. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 15:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as a reasonable interpretation of the skimpy discussion. Mnnlaxer argued there that coverage of the content of the website is not coverage of the website itself, which is not comvincing. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would personally have closed as delete, but the closure was not manifestly unreasonable. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    If "manifestly unreasonable" was the standard to overturn, I wouldn't have filed this DR. Rather, I think the closure as "no consensus" was just incorrect based on both the interpretation of the discussion and the underlying non-notability of the subject, Rebel Pundit. It should not matter which admin closed the discussion as to the result of this DR. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 13:25, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't say "manifestly unreasonable" is the standard, but it is my standard. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, "no consensus" seems a reasonable summary of that discussion. The "Keep" votes were not strong, but neither were the "Delete" arguments. "Trivial" is in the eye of the beholder, and there clearly wasn't wide agreement that the sources were trivial. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse - plausibly if marginally meets WP:N, balanced headcount, skimpy discussion. No consensus is correct. WilyD 16:58, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'd have been more on the delete side, but given the discussion the close is certainly not unreasonable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 12:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw If I thought a longer/deeper discussion was necessary, I would have done it. I thought this was a delete no-brainer. And the discussion was closed soon after the last keep reply. For the record, my attempt to engage the closer lays out the case in full. [16] I would have appreciated a reply from them, but looks like this DR is done. - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 16:37, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 July 2015[edit]

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

All the other teams in the League have their own pages. Recent independent press: [17] and [18]. (Note that "Cambridge Rollerbillies" is the more common name now, but we still use "Romsey Town Rollerbillies" because it's the team's original name.) Previous deletion review. Attempts to discuss with deleting admin: [19] and [20] DKBaps (talk) 16:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Request procedural undelete for DRV purposes - I am intimately familiar with the notability standards for sports teams (and sports topics, generally), and I did not participate in the underlying AfD, but I cannot view the subject article because I'm not an administrator. Can we get a standard temporary undelete for the purpose of this DRV discussion? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:26, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done. If this results in redeletion, note that the title had been salted. —Cryptic 17:18, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion I see nothing in the above request that justifies overturning the deletion discussion or the previous deletion review. Looking at British Roller Derby Championships there are a whole lot of red links, not just this one, but that is not a valid argument anyway. So keep it deleted and salt it, to stop yet another visit here to AfD.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 17:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why? I can see now this deleted version in the article history has seventeen separate references, and the two more I gave above ([21] and [22]) are additional, completely independent recent news stories. What is the criterion here? Why do some teams in the league get to exist but ours doesn't? DKBaps (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/British Roller Derby Championships -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the accurate close, but note that this was a 2011 AFD and that the OP would have been more prudent to take the closer's advice and present an appropriate draft for consideration. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:32, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse original "delete" closure. Having reviewed the original close, as well as the content and sources of the article as it existed at the time of its deletion, I feel very comfortable saying that the article subject did not satisfy the notability requirements of WP:GNG and WP:ORG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have fixed the header which related to an older AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:31, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hani (singer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

First, I apologize for the I'm not native English-language, so my grammar is bad. Before the deleted (a few days ago), the article has a lot of sources. Besides, she has starring as a main cast in about 7-10 TV shows, and released duet song. I added all details (source and content of article), completely different from the deleted content (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hani (singer)). Even she have appeared as main cast than a lot of South Korean TV personality and idols include SNSD's Hyoyeon. And also, number of sources is similar. To appear as the main cast in numerous shows, I do not know why deleter ignoring that. Unlike previous deletion discuss, content is certainly better, in this situation, do you think it's fair to delete without notification? All my sources, content, even Revision history are cleared deleted. -- Kanghuitari (talk) 01:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Permit restoration Tho not my subject field, its clear thsat extensive additions material has been addedm, including additional usable references. If any one is not convinced, they can nominate it for a 2nd afd. DGG ( talk ) 07:03, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy more or less per DGG. This is messy; the initial AFD would have been better closed as a simple redirect rather than a delete-and-redirect. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, with no prejudice against taking it immediately to AFD. I suspect that the original delete-and-redirect was to stop the constant reversion of the redirect back to the article. That said, it's not a valid G4 in my view as the new article had new material and additional sourcing. CSD G4 criteria explicitly "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version", which is what this was. Lankiveil (speak to me) 13:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 July 2015[edit]

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

Incorrect G11 and A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, credible sources were appropriately cited, including merits and recognition given to agency. Also, willing to rework article if need be. Gixego 17:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Question: Is this the correct name of the deleted article? Because no deletion history shows up under this title. The deleted article can be found at SWAY Public Relations. --MelanieN (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It has now been moved to User:Gixego/SWAY Public Relations. -- GB fan 17:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I save lots of articles, but in this case a fact cited to 25 inline citations rings immediate alarm bells of trying to puff up something that probably isn't notable. And sure enough, checking out the first few revealed nothing but trivial passing relations. There are many, many, PR agencies, unless one has the same level of sustained news coverage as Max Clifford they probably don't warrant an encyclopedia level of coverage. I have restored to User:Gixego/SWAY Public Relations so it can be worked on as a userspace draft, but my prediction is the creator will get frustrated. There was no need to stir up trouble at DRV - I am happy to userfy anything I delete unless it would be against policy to do so (ie: copyvios, unsourced BLPs and attack pages). Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:42, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy, at least for G11. Most of the reverences for very minor awards proven by pr or blog sources--no such reference counts as a reliable source.The onlt real RS is a single short NYT story is talks about this one company as one of those joining a merger. Tthe list of clients is promotional'; we do sometimes include a mention of particularly important clients in a long term relationship, but most notable firms do business with a great many suppliers. I doubt if a proper article can be made here, but there's no reason not to try in draft apace. Gixego, I think we need to all your attention to our rule on onflictl of interest. In particular, if you have any fiancial conflct of interest, see tou our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure DGG ( talk ) 07:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11 as blatant advert. I have not considered A7. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G11. Given this, this, this, and this, I also agree completely with what DGG tells you. --Randykitty (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as a straightforward and correct application of CSD G11. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:13, 17 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment userfied article has been deleted by Jimfbleak. Related article Commonground/MGS is at AfD here. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:45, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Patty Walters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Walters is a notable individual because of his solo work on YouTube which gained him significant recognition in various articles, both printed in magazines such as Kerrang (scans of one of the three printed journal articles, which discusses Walters in-depth, that had been used as a source can be viewed [copyvio removed here]) and on various online articles, and his work with other bands (specifically Sunrise Skater Kids and As It Is). Additionally, on the AfD page for the article, those favoring the article's deletion said that Walters needed to be discussed in-depth in a reliable article (which he was in various articles such as [copyvio removed the one that I mentioned above]), that the sources provided were not reliable (however I rebutted each individual claim on the AfD page with a specific Wikipedia policy), and that Walters is not notable, however he has done much outside of As It Is, most significantly working on YouTube to the point where his YouTube work was significant enough to receive recognition in various articles from reputable sources, as well as other collaborative works outside of his band. Walters is a notable individual who has been recognized in-depth in a variety of articles. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Closing admin correctly weighted the arguments in line with policy considerations. Future sources are no sources at all. Stifle (talk) 16:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment It is absolutely correct that future sources are not sources, however the article had a variety of sources from various different reputable publishers- that one invalid comment in a user's vote on the AfD is irrelevant. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My comment on the invalid comment referred to above was to explain why I ignored that person's !vote. Of course, that one comment was not why I closed this as "delete". --Randykitty (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not all of what that person said was invalid so his words should have still been considered, not that an AfD page is just a vote. However, I still firmly believe that the points made on why the article should be kept outweigh the reasons for deletion. Walters clearly meets notability because of his work outside of his band- his work on YouTube gained him significant coverage in a variety of sources, many of which were used as citations. Arguments had been made on the AfD page that the sources used did not serve to establish Walters' notability, however, a variety of secondary sources which discussed Walters in-depth were used. It had also been argued on the AfD page that some of the interviews were not valid sources, however according to Wikipedia guidelines, each sources is completely valid. In Randykitty's deletion of the article, it was stated that the reasons for deletion were "quite compelling and policy based" without explaining why- the points that I mentioned above are all completely based Wikipedia policies, and I actually used Wikipedia policies to rebut and dismiss many of the points given in support of deletion on the AfD page; the administrator who deleted the article did not provide a thorough enough explanation as to why he or she decided to delete the article- Walters clearly meets the guidelines for notability and the entirety of the article was well-sourced with a variety of sources. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 18:58, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There were clear, compelling, and lengthy explanations of all this in the AfD. Do you really want me to re-hash all that in the closing statement? Your claim of significant sources was effectively countered by Drmies, I don't see any use in repeating all that. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Actually, Drmies' claims did not "effectively [counter]" mine. At first, the user tried to claim that certain interviews were not valid, however I responded explaining how they are considered completely acceptable under the Wikipedia guidelines on interviews. He then went on to try to make the argument that I was not presenting valid printed sources that discuss Walters' life in-depth, however I presented scans of one of the articles above to prove that they do, in fact, discuss Walters in depth. The user also went on referring to specific online articles that were used as sources saying that they failed to establish notability while failing to acknowledge those that do; those that do not establish notability simply do not because of their length, however they do contain the information which they cite. The user claimed that Walters does not meet WP:Band, however he specifically meets point one because of both the printed and online articles which had been used as references on the article (and his work on YouTube does qualify as unless "[demonstrating] individual notability for activity independent of the band"). I would additionally like to point out Walters' notability in being one of the two lyricists for As It Is, which qualifies him as notable per WP:COMPOSER. Walters is a notable individual; he has been the subject of in-depth articles and has done significant solo work independent of the bands in which he is a part, and is notable due to his lyricism. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. The admin assessed arguments and concluded consensus correctly per policy based on their interpretation on the strength of them - for the record, had I seen the AfD I would probably have !voted "Redirect to As It Is (band)", not delete, but that doesn't mean consensus is wrong just because I disagree with it. Rule 1) Drmies is always right Rule 2) When Drmies is wrong, refer to rule 1 Would it help if I temporarily restored the article? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 09:23, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks Ritchie333; I'm rarely right, but that doesn't mean I was wrong in this case. Peter Dzubay is fighting a war of attrition here, and I have no intention of engaging/humoring them any further. Obviously I endorse deletion--and as usual I have no objection to a redirect. As far as I'm concerned, in cases like this (band and individual artist) that's always fine. Drmies (talk) 14:00, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Ritchie, while you're at it, perhaps you can remove the links here: they are copyright violations, as far as I can tell. I'd do it myself but Peter Dzubay clearly has no faith in my judgment. Drmies (talk) 14:02, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the Google Drive links? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Those are scans from Kerrang, yes. Drmies (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but permit undeletion for a merge/redirect to As It Is (band) and allow recreation once a second reliable source is found.

    Drmies (talk · contribs) persuasively rebutted all of the sources provided in the discussion as being passing mentions, unreliable, or interviews. Articles that are primarily interviews do not meet the "independent" of Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires, "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". There was a rough consensus to delete despite the split vote count.

    But in this DRV, Peter Dzubay has provided a new source that provides significant coverage about the subject. Here are excerpts from an April 2015 article titled "Will the Real Patty Walters Please Speak Up?" in the print magazine Kerrang!:

    Being kept in one place certainly isn't something you could accuse Patty's parents of. He was born in Virginia at a time when they were living in Washington, D.C. They moved around a lot - first to Orlando, Florida, and later to suburban Minnesota to be closer to his grandparents. Then, when Patty was five, his father, a lawyer received a job offer in the UK, and so off they went again. Thankfully, the family fell in love with the rural Berkshire they moved to, and the initial plan to only stay for three years was scrapped. And while, in recent years, his family has moved to California, Patty wouldn't consider it.

    ...

    Despite spending all of his evenings and weekends at home practicing, Patty wanted to commit even more to his music. So aged, 16, he quit school - a move his parents "didn't take lightly" - and enrolled at The Academy of Contemporary Music (ACM) in Guildford, Surrey. There, he took a two-year diploma in music production, which provided invaluable insight into the many facets of the industry.

    ...

    Of course, not everyone was to prove quite so kind. One of the obvious downsides of having an online presence is that sometimes people are downright nasty, and making his videos alone, he had to take the full brunt of the hate squarely on the chin.

    ...

    But while many looked upon the boy on their screen with disdain, off-camera, a man was coming of age, hardened by experiences learned online. They're lessons the once lone wolf would take into the creation of As It Is, a band Patty formed from perfect strangers - Ben Biss (co-vocalist and guitarist), Andy Westhead (guitarist), bassist Ali Testo and drummer Patrick Foley - during his time at Brighton university.

    ...

    The recording of 4K-rated debut album, Never Happy, Ever After - released this week - cemented the dynamic of the band and their offline friendship.

    The article provides over 25 paragraphs of coverage about the subject. (Since the album Never Happy, Ever After was released in April 2015, this article was likely published in April 2015 based on the article's noting that the album was "released this week".)

    One detailed independent reliable source is insufficient to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, but once a second source has been found, I would support allowing recreation.

    I would also support an undeletion for a merge/redirect to As It Is (band) per Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Criteria for musicians and ensembles:

    Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases.

    Cunard (talk) 03:11, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in response to Cunard Aside from the very in-depth Kerrang! article featuring Walters, there were sources used on the Walters' Wikipedia article that are not interviews, are considered reliable, and do add notability (specifically, see this and this); while they are not incredibly in-depth, they are reliable sources which cover the individual aside from his work with As It Is and establish notability to the subject as an individual. Aside from his coverage because of his work on YouTube, Walters is also notable because he is a primary lyricist and composer for As It Is. The interviews with Walters, while not establishing notability, are reliable sources that are in-depth and provide ample information on the subject, information which was sourced to these interviews in the article. Also, the article which you had mentioned above was, in fact, published in April 2015, which was issue #1564 of Kerrang!. I would also like to point out that, while some of the sources in the article discussed on the AfD page do not add notability to Walters, not a single source used in the article was not considered reliable under Wikipedia guidelines (the specific guidelines on sources that were questioned are linked on the AfD page). --Peter Dzubay (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Drmies (talk · contribs) had persuasive arguments against those two sources here in the AfD. But the Kerrang! article is a very good source with plenty of material about the subject. One other print source would be sufficient to allow this article to be recreated. But for the time being, I recommend merging the content to As It Is (band).

    Wikipedia:Notability (music) says in the lead:

    Please note that the failure to meet any of these criteria does not mean an article must be deleted; conversely, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept. Rather, these are rules of thumb used by some editors when deciding whether or not to keep an article that is listed at articles for deletion.

    Since Drmies concluded that there was insufficient coverage in reliable sources in the AfD to establish notability, I believe he decided that the article should be deleted despite WP:COMPOSER technically being passed (link to Drmies' comment in the AfD). Drmies (talk · contribs), please correct me if I'm wrong.

    Although the interviews can be used to verify uncontroversial facts per WP:PRIMARY as long as the criteria at WP:SELFPUB are met, they generally cannot be used to establish notability.

    Cunard (talk) 05:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment in response to Cunard The comments by Drmies here simply stated that the articles are not lengthy, however they are non-trivial coverage in reliable sources which serve to add notability to the subject, which does satisfy the Wikipedia criteria for musicians. Additionally, another one of the printed journal articles ("On The Radar". [1]! 16 (4): 90. July 2015.), while focused on As It Is, spent a paragraph discussing Walters' solo work on YouTube, which also serves to prove Walters' notability. Also on the AfD page, WP:COMPOSER had not been mentioned, so this comment is not related to those specific Wikipedia guidelines. I would also like to say that now, as the page has been restored for a redirect, the short, unsourced paragraph that can be found on the page's history section is not the article that had been written recently; an archived version of the most recent Wikipedia article that had been written about Walters can be viewed here. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 06:53, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not believe someone should get an article here because they were interviewed in Kerrang. I never object to a redirect. Drmies (talk) 14:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    BTW, I removed those Google Drive links. Peter Dzubay, please don't link on Wikipedia to copyright violations. Drmies (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Walters is not deserving of an an article "because [he] was interviewed in Kerrang"; he is deserving of an article because he is a notable individual per Wikipedia's guidelines. He became an established solo artist through his work on YouTube. Wikipedia guidelines classify him as notable because he has:

    been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician ... [himself]. (WP:BAND)

    I have explained above the specific published, non-trivial articles which discuss the subject and are not interviews. The Kerrang article does prove Walters' notability because it is a reliable printed article from a reputable source which is very in-depth, and, though it has a few quotes from Walters throughout it, it does not classify as an interview because nearly all of the article is from secondary source's viewpoint. Walters' notability is also proved by this and this, to name a few, because those articles are reputable sources which discuss Walters' solo work; though they are not incredibly length, they are "published, non-trivial articles which discuss the subject and are not interviews". It had been mentioned on the AfD page that the articles which were sourced on Walters' article focusing on As It Is did not add notability to Walters, however the sources that were used also specifically discussed Walters' solo career, which serves as published material on the subject (specifically, the printed article ("On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015.), which, while focused on As It Is, discussed Walters' solo career on YouTube for a paragraph, just to name one). Also, per WP:COMPOSER, an individual is notable if he or she

    Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition.

    Walters is one of the two lyricists in As It Is, a band which has produced notable music released on a major record label, which also serves as a source of Walters' notability. I'd also like to say that, while those scans may have been copyright violations, you specifically asked me for them and I simply found them online and linked you to them; those are not my scans. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You made your point. The horse died a long time ago. I don't care who made the scans--Kerrang is copyrighted. Please don't ping me anymore. Drmies (talk) 17:40, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The "horse" did not "[die] a long time ago"- the points that I have made above based entirely on Wikipedia guidelines and the user fails to acknowledge them. That user has now asked not to "ping" him or her anymore, so his or her user page will not be linked any more as the user does not want to be a part of this discussion any longer. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That horse is pretty putrid by now, continuing flogging it (i.e., repeating the same arguments over and over again and dropping great walls of text here, really doesn't help your case. The most effective strategy at DRV (and AfD, for that matter) is to clearly and calmly expose your arguments, without any comments on any of the other users, and then let the closing admin decide. Continuing to beat the horse really is counter-productive. --Randykitty (talk) 19:58, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for my repetition. I repeated certain points in response to users because they made claims contradicting points that I had presented without providing an explanation. Also, I was not the one to include the large wall of text above that you mentioned, and I am also not entirely sure why the user above decided to include it; I suppose that that user wanted to present that that Kerrang! article discusses Walters in-depth. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 00:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse restoration Walters is a notable individual. His solo work on YouTube gained him significant recognition in various reputable non-trivial articles, both printed in magazines such as Kerrang, with the in-depth article on Walters alone (Hickie, James (15 April 2015). "Will the Real Patty Walters Please Speak Up?". Kerrang! (1564): 26.), and in reputable online sources, such as this and this; these coverages establish Walters' notability. Aside from articles featuring only Walters, many articles on his band specifically discuss his solo career on YouTube which serves as non-trivial recognition in published secondary sources, such as a paragraph in the printed journal article ("On The Radar". Popstar! 16 (4): 90. July 2015.). Also adding notability to Walters as an individual outside of his band is his collaborative work which gained recognition (examples of these collaborations include this and this). Also, Walters has served as a lyricist in notable works which also establishes notability. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 00:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those sources were discounted by Drmies in the AfD. Published in April 2015, the Kerrang! source is very recent. If the subject continues his work as a musician, it is likely he will receive a second detailed article in another reliable publication, which will establish notability, allowing the article to be recreated. If you want to work on the article in the meantime, I support userfication or moving of the deleted version to draftspace. (Note that the history of the redirect contains a new recreation attempt, not the longer article that was deleted and can be viewed in the Internet Archive link.)

    Cunard (talk) 02:58, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the closer's decision, good job. With respect to recreation, the new material presented is too thin for an article on it's own. If it is to be included in the encyclopedia, As It Is (band) is a more appropriate place for this material. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Walters' career on YouTube is irrelevant to his band's article, and an article on Walters could stand on its own. An archived version of what had been written before it was deleted can be viewed here if you are interested; there is much to be said about Walters outside of As It Is. --Peter Dzubay (talk) 04:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Popstar
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Barfchal tradition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect G1 speedy since page was not patent nonsense. It constituted a constituted a poorly-written description of an Iranian tradition apparently better known as Varf Chal, documented in writing here and in photographs here. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page. To be moved to Varf Chal if undeleted. Full disclosure: this nomination is partially intended to investigate present CSD consensus in general in order to help develop this suggestion, even though it itself is not an A7 case. A2soup (talk) 05:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment - if you can sensewise make of it, you're a better person than I. It seems like a case for Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles + User:A2soup/Sandbox, to me. WilyD 08:32, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Having reviewed the deleted article, its content, though including sequences of English words, was incomprehensible and the subject not discernible. As ever, no objection to restoring to userspace or draftspace if someone undertakes to improve it. Stifle (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)`[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Admittedly, the specification of WP:CSD#G1 excludes "badly translated material", which this may be; but the summary at the end says "In short, if you can understand it, G1 does not apply." I can't understand this, so I think it is a valid G1. JohnCD (talk) 08:48, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reading through the content of the page, I can not understand what the article is about. -- GB fan 11:30, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, "Google calls the people to prepare"? This text meets the second criteria listed at Wikipedia:Patent nonsense, in my opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • How are we supposed to judge if the page is not restored? Not everybody's a sysop. Alakzi (talk) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse this is somewhat borderline but it is very, very hard to extract any sort of meaning from this article at all, and it wouldn't surprise me if it turns out to be the output of some machine translation. G1 is a reasonable call. If someone does want to write a comprehensible article on the topic then there's nothing preventing them from doing so (and if they can make sense of this one then it can be userfied). Hut 8.5 16:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as G1. It's unreasonable to expect NPP-ers to tell the difference between nonsensical word salad and extremely poor machine translation--indeed we can't even call something "translated" if the result is totally incoherent, with phrases such as (for example) "'The rule of women (mothers King) on ​​the implementation of the regulations snow field'". It would require a 100% every-word rewrite to make this an acceptable article, so restoring it would not be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Standard "patent nonsense" speedy deletion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Article text is an incomprehensible text wall by a WP:CIR-failing new editor, speedy was entirely appropriate. This also appears to be the 5th in a series of rapid-fire DRV nominations, all of which are heading to certain endorsement; at what point is the OP looked at for disruptive activities? Tarc (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for the rapid-fire noms. I think I presented my reasoning for questioning these sorts of deletions (although admittedly not G1 deletions like this one) clearly in this suggestion. The noms were all in good faith, and it was far from obvious to me that they would all head to certain endorsement. I still think that Castratii was not a valid A7, since claiming to have released 3 EPs and an LP seems like a clear credible claim of significance to me. Paul Johnson (Broadcaster) was also not a valid A7, and my lack of access to the article following its deletion prevented me from seeing that it was a valid G3, which was not mentioned by the tagger or deleting admin. This process did not seem to be backlogged or even very busy, so I figured that several noms at once would not be disruptive, especially since evaluating a speedy is easier than evaluating an AfD close.
As for this particular DRV, I requested it since the article seemed (and still seems) to me like poorly translated material, which G1 specifically excludes. I see now that most people also find it to be patent nonsense, and admit that the nom was overzealous. I would be fine with a WP:SNOW close on this DRV and all the others except Castratii and Paul Johnson (Broadcaster). A2soup (talk) 17:38, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse One of the clearest examples of opaque nonsense I've ever seen. This Drv is a waste of time. --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I like to think I am very tolerant to people having trouble getting started, but I was only able to get about 20 words in before I starting choking, literally. As per WilyD. Please work on better translations/English before putting something in mainspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:36, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Castratii (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being a music duo with 3 EPs and an LP. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source and this source were provided. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Full article text: "Castratii is are a gloom pop duo based in Sydney Australia and Los Angeles California. Formed by artists and musicians Jonathan Wilson and Beauvais Cassidy in 2008 the act have released 3 EPs and 1 LP." Created by User:Castratii. Perhaps not a textbook A7, but no chance of surviving AFD in that state. Anyone wanting to recreate it should do so. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. This is an example of how A2Soup's formulation "plausible claim to belong to a category of which the members are often notable" is too broad. Yes, bands are often notable, but much more often they are not, so "Castratii are a gloom pop duo" is not a credible claim of significance, nor is releasing 3 EPs and 1 LP, given that "release" these days often means "post on Youtube". An additional factor is that the band themselves posted the article, i.e. no-one else is interested enough to write about them. JohnCD (talk) 09:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that the band posted the article is actually not an additional factor since neither COI nor an inferred lack of popularity have anything to do with A7. The only thing that matters is the presence or absence of a credible claim of significance. A2soup (talk) 19:40, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's true but, in the absence of a credible claim, when deciding whether to delete an A7 I consider whether there is any sign that it might be worth some searching to see whether there is more to the subject than appears in the article. Self-promotion is one indicator that there probably is not. JohnCD (talk) 08:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse releasing something isn't in itself an assertion of significance, as it could just mean putting it on their website (it looks like that's what the term means here). If they'd released something on an actual record label then that ought to get past A7, but there wasn't any indication of that. Hut 8.5 16:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The LP was released on an actual record label, see my response to Randykitty below. A2soup (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it was, the article didn't say so. A7 isn't like notability deletions at PROD or AfD. People reviewing A7 nominations aren't expected to research the subject, and the fact that it might be possible to write an article on some subject which could get past A7 doesn't mean any article on that subject can't be deleted under A7. If the article had claimed that the subject had released records on an actual record label, especially a notable record label, then you may have had a point. Hut 8.5 19:25, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that A7 reviewers/deleters aren't expected to do research is the reason A7 has very strict criteria. The point is to not let A7 snag stuff that could survive AfD. The situation where we expect the author to specify something that honestly is not usually specified when discussing albums in the context of their artists in order to survive A7, but which when specified could potentially be enough to get past AfD, is exactly the sort of thing A7 is trying to prevent be being so emphatic about requiring a much lower standard than notability, not requiring evidence, etc. What if the new author mentioning a truly significant album has not read our discussion here? Should we expect them to know that we a) will not even Google the album to see if it is significant and b) hold label involvement to be crucial for album significance? It just seems unreasonable and not in the spirit (or letter, IMO) of A7. A2soup (talk) 20:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, speedy deletion is narrowly defined in order to restrict it to the more unambiguous cases, and an indication that an article would be likely to survive AfD should exempt it from A7 speedy deletion. However there was no indication that this article could possibly survive AfD. Being on a label is only one way of indicating significance (for example only one of the twelve criteria in WP:MUSIC involves labels). It is however a fairly common one and articles about artists or albums, even minor ones, do often mention the label the subject is associated with. Indicating why the subject is significant is part of good writing, and anybody writing about a notable topic who makes any effort to explain why readers should care about it, or who follows the instructions displayed at the top of the edit window and cites reliable published sources, will get past A7 more or less automatically. And being on a record label is not in itself enough to get an artist past AfD unless the label is quite famous. Hut 8.5 22:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse If it had been claimed that those 3 EPs and 1 LP had been released through a significant label, that would have been different, but this one-liner is a prime example of an A7. --Randykitty (talk) 17:36, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The LP, at least, was released on a label (see "Eora" here EDIT: Website seems to have gone down, see archive here). Whether Time No Place is a significant label is a question for AfD, but it has a good number of releases and doesn't look like a vanity label associated with the band. The website also indicates that the LP was not only printed online, but was also pressed in 12'' vinyl.
I see no reason to assume that releases mentioned in an article are not on a label unless otherwise indicated. I think most people take label involvement to be implied when someone talks about an album release, and it's absurd to expect an article creator to know that they have to specify label involvement. Maybe I'm just old-fashioned, but calling an album "released" when there is no label involved seems a tad dishonest, and I would never assume that is the case if it was left unspecified. A2soup (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But none of that was in the "article", which means there was no credible claim. --Randykitty (talk) 20:33, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The claim was of having released EPs and an LP, and there was a clear credible claim of this. Claiming specifically that these albums were released on a label is a completely unintuitive requirement for "significance" since that should be the assumption when someone makes such a claim. Also, it is entirely possible for self-released albums to become quite popular. For these reasons, actually evaluating an album is a task that should be left to AfD, where people willing to use Google have a chance to discuss the album's method of release/popularity/etc. Claiming to have released a full-length album should be enough to pass A7, or cases like this will keep occurring. A2soup (talk) 22:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would have been a reasonable assumption, say, 20 years ago. Nowadays, if someone claims to have released an EP or LP, the reasonable assumption is that, as JohnCD says, it was just posted on YouTube. --Randykitty (talk) 06:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse While releasing an album through a notable label is sufficient to survive A7, merely releasing an album is not. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted. In the most technical sense the article did not meet A7, but it has no chance of surviving an AFD. As Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, there is no sense in undeleting it only for it to get deleted again at AFD. I have already given the entire page content above, and so if someone wants to recreate the page, they can. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Washington center for equitable growth (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being a research and grantmaking organization. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source and this source were provided. To be moved to Washington Center for Equitable Growth if undeleted. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse being a research and grantmaking organisation is not in itself an assertion of significance. The article did not cite either of those sources, it only cited the organisation's own website (which is never going to get an article past A7). Given that the article consisted of one sentence which sounded as if it was taken from a press release I would recommend that anyone who wants to rewrite it start from scratch. Hut 8.5 07:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Hut 8.5 with leave to recreate a better article. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per A7. Once again, the category "research and grantmaking organisations" certainly includes some notable ones, but it does not follow that belonging to that category is a credible claim of significance. JohnCD (talk) 09:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, there is no credible claim to significance in the text. If anyone want to see what the article says read the first sentence of this and change "We are a new" to "The Washington Center for Equitable Growth is" This is also deleteable under WP:G12. -- GB fan 11:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the article did not make a credible claim for significance; I could found a think tank in my garage and offer grants for beer and pizza, and that would make me at least as credible as the text for the deleted article indicates (noting of course that the organisation may be credible and notable, you just wouldn't know it from this article). Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse I agree completely with the above analyses and have nothing to add. Clear A7. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Suryakant Lokhande (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being an artist. Awards were mentioned in a web source that was present at time of deletion. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source and this source were provided. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:37, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse being an artist is not in itself an assertion of significance and that someone might have been able to write an article on this topic which could have got past A7 is not a valid reason for overturning a deletion. The text of the article only said that the subject has a bachelor's degree, which certainly isn't an assertion of significance. There was a source cited [23] but I'm pretty sure it was written by the subject. Hut 8.5 07:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Being an artist is in no way shape or form an assertion of importance. Stifle (talk) 08:39, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Once again, many artists are notable, but it does not follow that "X is an artist" is a claim of significance requiring to be tested at AfD. One reference was added after the article was tagged, but it is a website selling his works and those of other artists. JohnCD (talk) 09:15, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There is no credible claim to significance. Just being an artist is not a credible claim to significance. The article only stated what kind of art he does and that he earned a bachelor's degree. -- GB fan 11:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse, merely being an artist is not a credible claim of significance. I'm slightly weaker on this one because there may be some awards which may be notable, and could potentially do with some community scrutiny. I'm still reasonably sure that the article would be deleted though, and undeleting it, putting it through AFD, and then redeleting it in a week would be pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse Picasso is a notable artist, but that doesn't mean that every artist is notable. --Randykitty (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Paul Johnson (Broadcaster) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Incorrect A7 speedy since article made a credible claim of significance, namely being a television broadcaster. Discussed previously on deleting admin's talk page, where this source was provided. To be moved to Paul Johnson (broadcaster) if undeleted. Full disclosure: this is partially intended as a test case to gauge the present A7 consensus in order to help development of this suggestion. A2soup (talk) 05:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse the article did assert significance but that assertion is clearly nonsense. The article started as a copy/paste from Nick Grimshaw, the lead sentence at the time of deletion was still the same as that article, and most if not all of the film, TV and radio credits in this article actually belong to Nick Grimshaw. The article was written by Pauljohnson07 (talk · contribs), so I think this is just someone who wants to appear that he's famous. We shouldn't restore or rewrite this article unless we can be reasonably sure that the subject actually exists. Hut 8.5 07:03, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • And this source is obviously talking about a completely different person. That Paul Johnson was a traffic and weather reporter in Southern California, this "Paul Johnson" is supposedly an English TV and radio presenter who has never worked in either. Not to mention the fact that the Californian Johnson has been dead for two years according to that source, while the deleted "Paul Johnson" was supposedly presenting The One Show. Hut 8.5 07:08, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Technical overturn then re-delete per CSD:G3 vandalism (blatant hoax). Stifle (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. At first glance, there is a claim of significance. At second glance, "Judge on X Factor" - funny, haven't heard of him? Check up: not true. Look at author's talk page: CorenSearchBot has spotted that it's copied from Nick Grimshaw. Conclusion - there is a claim of significance, but it's not credible, in fact it's false. At this point it fails A7, though it might be better to change the deletion reason to G3 hoax. JohnCD (talk) 09:55, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No Action, A7 should never even have entered the picture because, as the editors above point out, the article is bollocks. Right outcome, wrong process. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • No Action Personally, I would not have used A7, because I think the claim that this person presented some significant shows means that he could quite possibly be notable, if those claims were correct. However, the article contains several cluess that this is a hoax: supposedly this guy started presenting in 2009, and then from 2012 he suddenly is (co-)presenter of or judge in some of the most popular UK shows? That's unlikely and as the remarks above show, the claims are patently false. So, yes, wrong process, but the outcome was right and I for one won't argue for a revert of this decision just because we feel like wikilawyering. But, yeah, as Stifle says, if we really want to dot the i's and cross the t's, then let's overturn and re-delete as G3. Anybody willing to waste their time are welcome to do so. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the overturn and re-delete is unnecessary wikilawyering. I would not have nominated if there had been any prior indication that this was G3. I was unable to see this myself prior to nomination because the page had cleared from the Google cache. A2soup (talk) 18:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you saying you couldn't see the article to check it, but you took it to DRV anyway? --Randykitty (talk) 20:35, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@A2soup:, any comment on the above? You've been commenting on other things on this page, but I guess you missed this one. --Randykitty (talk) 06:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand A2soup's reason. What s/he was doing here was testing (as it turns out, testing to destruction) a theory that "plausible claim to belong to a category of which the members are often notable" is what WP:CSD#A7 means by a claim of significance. If you believe that, then since broadcasters are often notable the title "Paul Johnson (Broadcaster)" would be enough to indicate that the article should not have been deleted. JohnCD (talk) 09:06, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I saw it when it was tagged A7 and remembered that it looked very non-A7, so I sent it here when I started wondering what counts as a "claim of significance". I have it in my sandbox now, and I must say that my memory did not fail me-- it very clearly makes a claim to significance. It is also not obviously invented unless you look at the page history (or so I'm told) or Google the guy. Since no one indicated any factual issues with it before I brought it here, I never thought to check that part of it, which isn't relevant for A7 anyways. We don't have to actually restore and re-delete the page as G3, but I stand by my nomination as an inappropriate A7, and I hope the closer addresses that aspect of my nomination even though no action should be taken either way. A2soup (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Subject bar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Initiating this discussion per WP:DRVPURPOSE #1. The TfD discussion for Template:Subject bar was closed as "no consensus to delete", but consensus therein was for a "keep" close in my opinion. While discussions are not based upon vote count, out of eight contributors, only two contributors opined for deletion (including the nominator), and most !votes were essentially policy-based. I discussed the matter with the closer on their talk page (diff), and the closer qualified the close stating, "I closed it as "no consensus to delete" because there was no consensus to delete it. The fact that's used on such a small number of pages, doesn't suggest that there is strong consensus to keep use it either." However, this implies that templates must be used on an arbitrary number of pages in order to garner a "keep" result. The template is presently transcluded on 2,054 pages (see Template transclusion count), which I find to be significant, particularly because Template:Subject bar requires more work to publish than a simple copying and pasting of its contents. The close comes across as a WP:SUPERVOTE, particularly after the explanation provided on the closer's talk page, and the closer should have perhaps !voted in the discussion instead of closing in this manner. North America1000 02:23, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • The template wouldn't have been deleted either way, so I don't see what purpose this serves. Alakzi (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close; as a matter of practice we do not get caught up in reinterpretations of the different versions of keep. Stifle (talk) 08:41, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep. I know these quibbles with "no consensus" can be irksome but in this case there was very substantial policy-based opposition to a seemingly ill-conceived deletion nomination. The closing statement wasn't wrong but it didn't adequately reflect the discussion. Thincat (talk) 09:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If by policy-based opposition you mean "this template does not violate any policy", that would be 99%[citation needed] of all TfD nominations. A template does not need to violate any policy to be deleted. Alakzi (talk) 10:25, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • The nomination (that the template is not widely used and so is "non-standard") was far removed from any of the TFD "Reasons to delete a template" and the only other support for deletion related to something that could be fixed by normal editing. The keep arguments seem to me to have provided cogent reasons for why the template is worth keeping and none were contrary to deletion policy. Of course a policy-compliant template can be deleted by consensus but in this case, rather clearly, the consensus was against deletion. Thincat (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • So there was no policy-based opposition is what you're saying. Alakzi (talk) 11:05, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • The opposite of that, in fact, but I won't take this any further. Thincat (talk) 11:20, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse, seems like a plausible reading of the discussion and at this point it's just pointless quibbling. the template was kept, so who really cares. and because of all this we now have basically zero admins who are regularly closing TfDs. just let it go and move on. Frietjes (talk) 14:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll just say that a good faith question at a user talk page regarding a discussion closure should not be equated in any way, shape or form with a supposedly sudden, alarming and immediate lack of admins contributing to closures at TfD. It's an Apples and oranges comparison. Per WP:ADMINACCT, admins are expected to respond to genuine concerns. There is no way I could have predicted the user retiring all of the sudden. North America1000 14:40, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is a lack of regular admins at TfD, which is not supposed. It is immediate, as Plastikspork was the last one. It is alarming, because, without Plastikspork, we're gonna run a high backlog. No, you're not responsible for his departure. Alakzi (talk) 14:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • All right, but, so if an admin suddenly retires, then any close they perform right before retiring is all right, because the retirement causes harm to the project, and the weight of the retirement outweighs a potentially inaccurate close? Quite a stretch. It would be nice if people would please consider addressing the substance of the nomination here, about the close of the discussion itself, rather than the admin who closed it. North America1000 14:58, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with you on that point; you're preaching to the choir. :-) As for the substance, I don't see how it might've been a WP:SUPERVOTE; the transclusion count was discussed within. You could say he's not gauged the consensus correctly, but a supervote is a pretty heavy charge to levy. Alakzi (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, the close equates to no consensus having been reached in the discussion, even though (in my opinion), the overall consensus is apparent for a keep result, relative to the overall discussion and the strengths of the arguments therein. This sets a false precedent for the template into the future. How was no consensus established in this discussion? Rather than responding to my concerns on their talk page, the closer decided to instead declare ad hominem statements toward the very notion of my politely asking for clarification, and then abruptly "retired" with no further response. Furthermore, at this point, if I request for the closer to consider expanding their ambiguous close rationale at the discussion, they will not, because of their sudden "retirement". Something is wrong with this picture. Where is the accountability? North America1000 17:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • if I request for the closer to consider expanding their ambiguous close rationale at the discussion, they will not, because of their sudden "retirement"? how do you know if you haven't tried? Frietjes (talk) 00:40, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - I saw this closure when it was performed, immediately thought that the rationale was oddly reasoned given the underlying !vote count and the supporting rationales of the discussion participants, but chose to leave it alone. I am well aware of Plastikspork's declining participation in TfD closures, as he has, until very recently, handled the majority of TfD closures for the past several years. I have also seen other responses from Plastikspork that appear to be evidence of increasing frustration and declining morale, that have been accompanied by his declining number of TfD closes. Plastikspork has borne that burden for far too long, with very little assistance from other administrators. No administrator should bear the responsibility for an entire category of XfDs almost alone. That's why several TfD regular participants have been actively soliciting the participation of new administrators at TfD -- including NorthAmerica1000, Opabinia Regalis, and several other administrators who are new to TfD. That said, in my opinion, NA1000's analysis is closer to reality than Plastikspork's rationale, and probably better reflects the consensus that was readily evident in the TfD discussion. NA1000's polite request for an explanation of Plastikspork's closure on the latter's talk page was respectful, factual, only mildly critical, and completely proper; Plastikspork's response was snappish and improper, and probably reflects what I perceive as his own declining morale and participation. The solution here is not to walk on egg shells in our dealings with a long-time administrator, but to solicit the greater participation of new administrators in TfD closures to better spread that burden. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:50, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep There are different implications between a "no consensus" and a "keep" close: the latter will make a renewed nomination less likely. In this case, I find myself in complete agreement with Dirtlawyer1's analysis and I regret that this seems to have been the last drop for Plastikspork. I hope they're just on a break and will come back refreshed sooner rather than later. --Randykitty (talk) 18:09, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • FYI: The closing administrator has undone his closure of this TfD [24], and relisted it among the 1 July 2015 TfD discussions [25], with edit summary "Relisted per request over email". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a plausible reading of the discussion. Both sides have coherently argued their position, and a supermajority consensus does not make. Clasping on the agitated admin's one-sentence response to discredit their closure strikes me as lazy. Why do you not offer your analysis of the discussion? Alakzi (talk) 14:39, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close. Although I would have supported an overturn to keep per Dirtlawyer1's reasoning, the closing admin now has undone his close and relisted the TfD to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 July 1#Template:Subject bar. So this DRV should now be speedy closed as "Closing admin self-reverted close and relisted the TfD. This is now moot." Cunard (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 July 2015[edit]

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

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content

I disagree that the articles about funding can be disqualified. If they were just a paragraph or two long and about the funding only, then I would agree that they are insufficient to establish notability. But this article from Business Standard goes into detail about KartRocket's history.

In addition, there are two non-funding articles mentioned by Andrewjohn39: 1 from Firstpost and 2 from the business news organization VCCircle. Please reconsider your deletion. Cunard (talk) 21:55, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Coverage of funding is WP:ROUTINE — every company that gets more than a small dollar/Rs amount will have articles about gaining the funding; this does nothing more than prove the existence of the company. That's why it doesn't count toward notability, not because of its length.
I was not persuaded by the keep arguments that KartRocket passes GNG or CORP, and thus the delete arguments carried more weight. If you disagree with my reading/judgement of the consensus of this discussion, deletion review is open to you.
Also, please remember that even if we assume two articles is passing GNG, the GNG is not a guarantee that we should have or keep an article about a particular subject. In a particular deletion discussion, the consensus might still be to delete an article because the subject is not sufficiently notable or significant. —Darkwind (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sources mentioned in the AfD:

Extended content
  1. Tilve, Priyanka (2013-08-20). "KartRocket: Helping small time e-tailers take off". Firstpost. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
  2. Gooptu, Biswarup (2014-10-22). "KartRocket raises $2 million in Series A funding". The Times Group. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
  3. Deoras, Neha Pandey (2013-07-23). "Kartrocket raises seed fund from 5ideas Startup Superfuel and 500 Startups". Business Standard. Archived from the original on 2015-07-12. Retrieved 2015-07-12.
  4. http://techcircle.vccircle.com/2013/12/09/kartrocket-opens-up-shipping-service-shiprocket-to-all-e-tailers/
WP:ROUTINE (which discusses the notability of events) is not relevant to this subject, which is about a company. The relevant guideline is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage, which says (bolding added for emphasis):

Deep coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond routine announcements and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about an organization. Acceptable sources under this criterion include all types of reliable sources except works carrying merely trivial coverage...

The sources here provide "deep coverage" because they allow a detailed C-class article to be written about the subject.

The Firstpost article provides roughly 600 words of coverage about the subject. It discusses the company's history. The article verifies that the company was founded in 2002, funded by 5ideas, 500 startups and Jatin Aneja, launched public beta in 2013, had 750 trial customers in 2013 and 120 paid ones, a list of their clients, etc. This is clearly "deep coverage".

The Business Standard article discusses the seed funding from 5ideas Startup Superful, 500 Startups, and angel investor Jatin Aneja, the company's online store, its marketing features like coupons, gift certificates, and Facebook selling, its public beta in January 2013, its 100 paying customers and 500 trial customers, its product categories (clothing, designer wear, electronics, etc.), its co-founders, and its customers. This is also "deep coverage".

There are other reliable sources in a Google News search that meet the "deep coverage" requirement in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage such as the The Times Group mentioned above.

The closing admin's comment "the consensus might still be to delete an article because the subject is not sufficiently notable or significant" is a bad guideline to follow. This would ensure that only topics that the Wikipedia:Systemic bias#The "average Wikipedian" find "significant" would be kept.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 00:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. A mild WP:Supervote. The last !voter Cunard, introduced new sources. These sources should not be reviewed by the closer, but by other participants. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I agree that the closing statement sounds like a supervote. The closer should be summarizing the arguments, not analyzing the sources. I also agree that in the case of new sources being presented late in the debate, it's not unreasonable to extend the debate to give people time to look at them (even if it means breaking the two relists max rule). But, in this case, I think we ended up at the right result (see my analysis below), even if the process was sub-optimal. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - where the last comment introduces new sources that are independent and not trivial, there's no way to close as delete on the grounds of WP:N without supervoting, as it were. Make an argument, or move along. Okay, somethin's kindy fucky in the discussion, so I missed a bit. It's clear that the keep position makes decent arguments considering the souces (mostly, Cunard), while the delete position merely asserts there aren't, and ignores the actual sources presented (I suppose hoping no one will bother to check the sources is the only hope for the delete position). WilyD 06:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
None of the three sources in the last comment were new. All three were listed in Andrewjohn39 (t c)'s wall of links farther up in the discussion, and commented on by SwisterTwister (t c), Andrewjohn39, and Cunard. I have no objection to an overturn if I really did misread the consensus, but on procedural grounds, those references were not new. —Darkwind (talk) 06:33, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I missed that. The discussion is so jarring, as it's difficult to believe editors acting in good faith could have looked at the sources and argued for deletion on the grounds of notability anyhow. WilyD 08:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we have a more concise summary of the deletion review nomination please? Stifle (talk) 11:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • One-sentence summary: The AfD participants were divided over whether the sourcing was detailed enough to establish notability, so the AfD should have been closed as "no consensus", not "delete".

      Longer summary: The argument that the funding coverage is WP:ROUTINE, a guideline about the notability of events, is very weak. The relevant guideline is not WP:ROUTINE; it is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage, which requires "deep coverage". I explain in the nomination statement how the sources I listed at the AfD are "deep coverage". Cunard (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

      • Thank you. Please consider making the "longer summary" your nomination in future DRVs per WP:TLDR. Overturn to no consensus as the closing admin failed to give sufficient consideration to Cunard's submission to the AFD. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • I include the discussion with the closing admin and the list of sources in boxes in my nomination so they are easily accessible in one place for DRV participants. I also included a discussion of the sources so DRV participants are can understand why I think the sources amount to "deep coverage". This information comprises more than half the deletion nomination, so without it the nomination is not unduly long, I think.

          Omitting the analysis of the sources would be problematic because DRV participants may wonder why I think the sources are sufficient.

          I am happy to summarize my nomination statement whenever DRV participants want a more concise summary. Cunard (talk) 02:59, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn: It's no consensus at worst for the article. But a third relist would not hurt discussion of the new sources. Esquivalience t 13:57, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay deleted Only 2 keep votes, and User:Andrewjohn39 seems to have a conflict of interest on company articles, see WP:COIN#Amalto and others. Lots of delete votes, and the coverage is routine. Should stay deleted IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:37, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. I looked in detail at the Business Standard article which is being held up as in depth coverage. It's just a warmed over press release. Take, for example:
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to online store, Kartrocket also helps gain customers by integrating selling and managing orders across marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon..
This same text is repeated, almost word for word, by afaqs:
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button
and again on softwaresuggest:
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button.
and, on Kartrocket's own Facebook page:
Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button.
It's not word count that matters when determining if coverage is significant. It's editorial input and selectivity. Just taking somebody's press release and rehashing the wording a little does not constitute in-depth coverage. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for researching the Business Standard article and finding out that it is sourced from a press release. I have stricken it out from my DRV nomination. But it is not the only article about the subject. The Firstpost article, The Times Group article, and the VCCircle article provide significant coverage as well.

    Here is why The Times Group article is "deep coverage". The article notes that KartRocket is an e-commerce enablement platform, and it raised a Series A round of funding of $2 million in a round led by Nirvana Venture Advisors, 500Startups, and Beenos. It was founded in 2012 by CEO Saahil Goe, Gautam Kapoor, and Vihesh Khurana. It received angel funding in 2013 from 5ideas Startup, 500Startups, and angel investor Jatin Aneja. Businesses can use KartRocket's tools to "launch their web and mobile ready stores with web and mobile site designs, built-in shipping, payment and multi-channel sales integration".

    To endorse deletion, all the sources must be discounted. That was not done in the AfD, and it has not been done here.

    Cunard (talk) 17:15, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess we'll just have to disagree on what deep coverage means. The quote from the VCCircle article, launch their web and mobile ready stores with web and mobile site designs, built-in shipping, payment and multi-channel sales integration is direclty from Kartrocket's own website. All the other information you cited from the article (funding sources, date of founding, names of founders) is just rehashed press release material as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, these are either lapses in Business Standard's and The Times Group's journalistic practices, or they have different journalistic standards. In any case, I think the Firstpost article (provided in the AfD) and the MediaNama article I provided below (link) go far beyond "funding sources, date of founding, names of founders" and "rehashed press release material". What do you think about those two sources? Cunard (talk) 18:30, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is another article about the subject:

    Balanarayan, NT (2013-12-09). "Kartrocket Opens Up Shiprocket To All eTailers In India". MediaNama. Archived from the original on 2015-07-19. Retrieved 2015-07-19.

    The article notes that KartRocket is an e-commerce platform run by Delhi-based startup BigFoot Retail Solution, and it is funded by 5ideas startup Superfuel, 500 Startups, and angel investor Jatin Aneja. Two of its competitors are Martjack and Buildabazaar. It has a shipping product called Shiprocket that in around December 2013 became available to all companies (rather than only companies that used its platform). For domestic shipments, Shiprocket is integrated with FedEx, Bluedart, Aramex, Delhivery, and Firstflight. For international shipments, it is integrated with FedEx and DHL. Several more paragraphs discuss Shiprocket.

    Cunard (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop carpet bombing this discussion with more "sources" that are just rehashed press releases. For example, from source #4, above:
The offerings include a number of storefront designs, domestic and international payment options, a shipping platform (ShipRocket) integrated with domestic and international logistic carriers, as well as a single shipping dashboard that helps SMEs manage their shipping and returns. Stores on KartRocket are already mobile ready, and the company also helps SMBs sell more (and gain new customers) by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces such as eBay and Amazon at the click of a button.
and compare that to what I assume is the original source text on Kartrocket's Facebook page:
With Kartrocket, Indian SMEs can launch their online sales with the best storefront designs, comprehensive domestic and international payment options covering prepaid and cash on delivery, a powerful shipping platform (ShipRocket) integrated with leading domestic and international logistic carriers as well as a single shipping dashboard that helps SMEs manage their shipping and returns simply and effectively. Stores on Kartrocket are mobile ready, helping Indian SMEs to sell across web and mobile devices. In addition to a power packed online store, Kartrocket also helps SMEs sell more & gain new customers by integrating the ability to sell and manage orders across leading marketplaces like Ebay and Amazon at the click of a button.
It's not exactly the same, but it's clear that all VCCircle did was take the same press releases that everybody has and apply some minor copyediting. Please stop wasting our time with more of the same. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the Firstpost and MediaNama sources are the best sources here, and I asked you to review them above. You instead reviewed a VCCircle article. Cunard (talk) 21:21, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Stay deleted - everything here looks purely routine to me. I can't see anything notable about the company. Smallbones(smalltalk) 02:42, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus in the AfD that the sources were "purely routine", so there was no consensus on the notability of the company. This reads more like an AfD vote than a DRV vote. Cunard (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep deleted per RoySmith's analysis of the sources. Spartaz Humbug! 14:38, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • placeholder for badgering response from cunard.
  • Endorse- Within administrator discretion. Inspection of the sources suggests that most are run-of-the-mill churn. Reyk YO! 15:35, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Closing administrators are intended to examine the quality of the debate as well as it's content, otherwise it's just counting noses. Darkwind did exactly as he should have. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 04:01, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 July 2015[edit]

11 July 2015[edit]

  • White Southerners – I can't see any consensus that the original close was wrong but this is now clearly ready for mainspace to recreation permitted – Spartaz Humbug! 09:36, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
White Southerners (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was deleted earlier today, on the basis of consensus regarding notability in the AfD discussion. As I have discussed with the closing admin, I disagree with this assessment of consensus. The total number of people supporting a keep or merge was equal to the deletes, plus the nominator changed their mind to support a merge. Many of the editors who supported deletion wrongly asserted that the article was based on a single author's theory, ignoring that a number of sources were cited in the article. Since deletion, I have found further secondary sources, which I have used to expand the article, which is now located at Draft:White Southerners. I am therefore requesting that recreation be allowed. I realise that the topic of the article is controversial, but I believe that it is notable, and having a well-sourced article will hopefully discourage the writing of bad, original research on this. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC) Cordless Larry (talk) 21:49, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't have much to say other than I think a policy based deletion argument was presented and not properly refuted. It is not a numbers game. I have restored the history of the article so that it can be viewed for this discussion. Originally I had undeleted it and moved it to the draft space for improvement per Larry's request, since it seems it is now going straight to DRV instead I have put it back in article space. Chillum 22:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to note that I did make these edits before bringing it to DRV. The article now has 11 sources including peer-reviewed research, which I think is enough to meet the notability guidelines. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, no evidence that this was incorrect other than that the requester doesn't like it. Guy (Help!) 22:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not that I don't like it, it's that people opting to delete the article misrepresented the number of sources it was based on, with several of them stating that the article subject was the fringe theory of one author, when this was demonstrably false. Some examples from the AfD:
      • "I agree, that single opinion does not warrant an article, as WP:GNG requires multiple independent sources, not one (questionable) individual";
      • "Doesn't something have to be widely accepted by a neutral group or at least accepted before it goes into wikipedia. Methinks John Shelton Reed is a bit into the American South and maybe needs some peer review";
      • "Every theory by "some authors" doesn't deserve an encyclopaedic article. This claims it is by one author and it is disputed by experts. I believe the policy is related to fringe theories".
Since Chillum kindly recreated the article in draft space, I have added further references. The subject is clearly covered by multiple peer-reviewed sources, contrary to what some editors claimed in the AfD. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:18, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will also note that my closure allows for recreation if the concerns at the AfD are addressed and also allow for merging to take place if a consensus for it forms. Chillum 22:27, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, as above.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus or relist. The closing admin wrote (my bolding):

    Consensus seems to be that this is not an encyclopedic topic. While those seeking to keep did demonstrate that sources exist they did not demonstrate that this had any notability beyond being a fringe theory.

    It is unclear what "any notability beyond being a fringe theory" means. But this is not a correct interpretation of the relevant guideline, Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability, which says:

    For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

    Contrary to the closing admin's closing statement, a fringe theory can be notable for being fringe theory if it has received "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Peer-reviewed sources help establish the level of acceptance further notes:

    One important barometer for determining the notability and level of acceptance of fringe ideas related to science, history or other academic pursuits is the presence or absence of peer-reviewed research on the subject. While a lack of peer-reviewed sources does not automatically mean that the subject should be excluded from Wikipedia, there must be adequate reliable sources to allow the subject to be covered in sufficient detail without engaging in original research. Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular viewpoint. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals.

    Did Cordless Larry (talk · contribs) make a convincing argument that the fringe topic was notable for having receiving peer-reviewed research? Yes, he did. The 1995 Public Opinion Quarterly article published by Oxford University Press is one example. At least two books from reputable publishers discuss the subject in detail.
    1. Reed, John Shelton (Summer 1973). "'The Cardinal Test of a Southerner:' Not Race But Geography". Public Opinion Quarterly. 37 (2). Oxford University Press: 232–240. JSTOR 2747493.

      The article notes:

      Sociologists who have studied the American South have, by and large, been inclined to attribute cultural differences between white Southerners and other Americans to regional differences in occupational structure and economic circumstance. With the economic development and "national incorporation" of the South proceeding apace, advocates of this view assume that regional cultural differences are also diminishing. Indeed, many of the most dramatic and visible ones have been, but an accumulating body of literature demonstrates that many, more subtle regional cultural differences not only remain, but show no sign of disappearing. This suggests that the orthodox materialist view is—at the very least—inadequate, and that we must look elsewhere for the explanation of white Southern peculiarities.

      White Southerners do not comprise the only group in American that has surprised sociologists by maintaining its identity and distinctiveness. During the past decade, especially, we have come to realize that many immigrant ethnic groups are still intact, ...

    2. Gregory, James Noble (2005). The Southern Diaspora: How the Great Migrations of Black and White Southerners Transformed America. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. pp. 166–167. ISBN 0807829838. Retrieved 2015-07-11.

      The book notes:

      Scholars have long sought the right language to clarify the social transformations associated with the white diaspora. One argument is that southern whites developed an ethnic group relationship. It dates back to 1938 when University of Michigan sociologist Erdman Beynon observed that "there appears to be an emergent group consciousness among the southern white laborers" derived, he thought, from the fact that northerners treated them like a "homogeneous group." Four years later, economist Stuart Jamieson offered a similar suggestion about Oklahomans, Arkansans, and Texans living in California's valleys who were taking on the "appearance of a distinct 'ethnic group'" in response to the label "Okie." Lewis Killian followed up in 1949 with a more detailed analysis of the social-psychological factors encouraging white southerners in Chicago to forge an ethnic relation. He emphasized context, holding that external prejudice was one of the keys. He noted that the proliferating stereotypes of white southerners as hillbillies produced a defensive response among working-class southerners, who developed "heightened group consciousness" and "resentment of the out-group." He found that many southerners had begun to call themselves hillbillies, even while representing the term and even while pointing out that it made no sense since few southerners in Chicago hailed from the upland Ozarks or Appalachia. They also developed a "counter stereotype," stories that emphasized that southern whites were superior to northerners, whom they sometimes labeled "Chicago alley rats." In the most powerful version of the counterfable, southerners described themselves as the only genuine Americans in a city of "foreigners." "You'll find that ninety per cent of the people in Chicago are either dagoes, polacks or niggers," claimed on respondent. "If you took the hillbillies out of Chicago, there wouldn't be nothing left but niggers and foreigners."

      These early studies all emphasized contextual factors while paying little attention to the possibility that white southerners shared a cultural heritage that might encourage group identity. Culture was much more on the mind of the generation of sociologists and historians who revisited the issues of ethnicity in the 1970s and 1980s, often arguing that an Appalachian heritage or southern white heritage provided the symbolic materials for a sense of ethnicity that existed before migration. ...

    3. Carlton, David L. (1995). "How American is the American South?". In Griffin, Larry J.; Doyle, Don Harrison (eds.). The South as an American Problem. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press. pp. 44–45. ISBN 0820317527. Retrieved 2015-07-11.

      The book notes:

      So, one could argue that to be southern is, in a profound sense, to be American, that, in fact, to be a fragment in a bewildering mosaic of communities is the true essence of Americanism. This approach has underlain a more moderate solution to the problem of explaining continuing southern distinctiveness, in which white southerners, along with blacks, are understood using the typology of American ethnic groups. This line of reasoning was introduced in 1970 by the sociologist Lewis Killian, in a study dealing with "hillbilly" migrants to Chicago, and has since been advanced in numerous writings by the sociologist John Shelton Reed and his historian colleague at the University of North Carolina, George Tindall. In their hands, southern distinctiveness becomes a mild phenomenon, having to do not with fundamental differences in outlook but with relative propensities, with statistically significant variations from the nonsouthern norm. ...

      But is the South, all told, just one ethnic community among many? There are problems here. First, of course, the South itself contains two ethnic communities, white and black, along with other burgeoning groups in Florida and the Southwest. Moreover, it receives numerous immigrants, many of whom assimilate with an ease that belies the particularistic implications of ethnicity. Most important, though, and more troubling, is the peculiar relationship of white southerners to the nation's history. Unlike most other ethnic groups, white southerners were present at the creation of the nation; indeed, it was in large part their creation. White southerners helped provide its ideological underpinnings, established much of its fundamental law, and provided its first great unifying symbol in George Washington. Later, Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay helped lead the creation of modern mass party politics, and southern political leaders have ever since, with some lapses, been fully integrated into national political leadership. Even that most "un-American" of southern institutions, its "peculiar institution" of slavery, was as late as the 1850s arguably as much an "American" as a "southern" institution and was so understood by the likes of William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass.

      One could conclude from the central position of white southerners in pre-Civil War America, as some commentators have done, that the white southerner is the quintessential American; certainly this is the view of the average modern southern white, whose well-known hypernationalism is strongly tied to just such an identification of "America" with Dixie. To draw that conclusion would be fundamentally wrong, but the paradox of the South as the "most American and the least American of sections" does point to a unique feature of the southern experience: that, beginning as one of the core communities of the Republic, it came to be defined as a peripheral subculture in the course of subsequent history. ...

    These are only three examples of the detailed academic literature about the topic. There are many more in Cordless Larry's improved draft of the article.

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

    I recommend overturning to no consensus because:

    1. The closing admin's reading of fringe theories' notability conflicts with Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability. The standard is not that "keep" editors must "demonstrate that this had any notability beyond being a fringe theory". The standard is that this has "receive[d] significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (quoting from Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability).
    2. There was very little discussion of the sources' content or reliability. It is impossible to reach a "delete" conclusion if participants do not discuss the sources.

    A relist to discuss the sources also would be a reasonable path forward. Sandstein (talk · contribs) had relisted the discussion the same day that Chillum closed the AfD. No comments were made to the AfD in between Sandstein's relist and Chillum's close. Sandstein's relist indicates that he didn't find the discussion sufficient to establish consensus either way.

    Cunard (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you for clarifying that you received a go ahead from Sandstein first. The additional "delete" editor after the first relist did not discuss the sources:

    First comment: "not ethnicity or encyclopaedic content"

    Second comment: "very theory by "some authors" doesn't deserve an encyclopaedic article. This claims it is by one author and it is disputed by experts. I believe the policy is related to fringe theories."

    These comments made no attempt to analyze the sources. The editor did not go by the standard at Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    If you believed that a second relist would not have produced more discussion, then closing the discussion is reasonable. But I think the only close available was "no consensus" due to the lack of discussion about the sources.

    Cunard (talk) 01:36, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Chillum (talk · contribs), I believe the current version of the article is not a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" (from WP:CSD#G4). Therefore, it is not in danger of speedy deletion under {{db-repost}} if it were restored to mainspace. Do you agree? Cunard (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, reasonable given the discussion, and especially since there was no prejudice about recreation if the issues were addressed. Given that more sources were added, I'm not really sure why we're duking it out here rather than just improving the article and putting it back into mainspace. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • In addition to the extra sources that I added to the draft for recreation, here's another journal article that could be used. Cordless Larry (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Lankiveil (talk · contribs), Chillum wrote: "I personally think this should go to WP:DRV before going back to main space once it is cleaned up to see if the community agrees it is up to standards."

      Cordless Larry has done substantial work on the article. You wrote, "Given that more sources were added, I'm not really sure why we're duking it out here rather than just improving the article and putting it back into mainspace." To make it clear for the DRV closing admin, do you support "allowing recreation" (without prejudice to a future AfD)?

      Cunard (talk) 17:25, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I try very hard to avoid forming opinions on the articles I close deletion debates about in order to judge the debate in a neutral fashion. If I do have opinions I generally close a different AfD. I said in my closing that recreation was allowed if the concerns were addressed. While I have not reviewed the changes made I do notice they took under 40 minutes and this was after a 7 day extension to improve the article. If people think the article is now up to snuff they can !vote something like endorse closure, recreate due to improvement. It may also be that the concerns have not been addressed, the community can decide that here. Chillum 18:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Part of the reason the changes were so quick was that even as it stood, the article demonstrated that there were plenty of sources about the subject, contrary to what the editors favouring deletion in the AfD discussion said. I added a few more, and would continue to do so if the article didn't have the current template on it in place of its contents. I really don't understand how anyone could claim that there is not enough coverage now, so feel that we're ready for recreation. Of course, if someone wants to make the case that the notability guidelines still haven't been met, they are free to do so, but I don't see anyone engaging with the sources apart from Cunard. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:16, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given that the delete argument appears to consist of nothing more than delete per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, it seems totally impossible one could address the delete position with any version of an article. WilyD 06:14, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as DRV is not AfD Round 2. Tarc (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies if I'm getting this wrong, Tarc, as I haven't requested DRV before, but I thought it was for contesting the closing editor's summary of consensus. I don't believe consensus supported deletion in this case, particularly when considering that most of the editors supporting deletion wrongly claimed that the article was based on the theory of one author. Moreover, I'm also requesting permission to recreate a version of the article with further sources added. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If DRV is not AFD round 2, why are you !voting without a relevant rationale? WilyD 06:15, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Following Chillum's suggestion, I am pinging editors who participated in the AfD to get their views on what needs to be done to satisfy their concerns about notability: Sulfurboy; Aoidh; Kitfoxxe; MelungeonEire; Gaarmyvet; Maile66; Berean Hunter; KiwikiKiWi. A reminder for those editors, that this is the version I am suggesting is recreated. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:09, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • From Chillum's talk page:

    It's also unclear what concerns I'm supposed to address. Most of the editors supporting deletion claimed that the article was based on one author's views. That is incorrect, so I don't know how to address that concern. I can add more sources, which I've already done, but surely the number of peer-reviewed sources already cited demonstrates notability. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

    Agreed. Chillum wrote, "The problems described were significant." What are those significant concerns and what actions can Cordless Larry take to address those concerns?

    The closing comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/White Southerners is very vague: "Consensus seems to be that this is not an encyclopedic topic." How can Cordless Larry demonstrate that this is an encyclopedic topic? He's already provided numerous journal and book sources about the topic. What else can he do? Cunard (talk) 18:31, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

    And:

    While I really do enjoy a good debate here, the DRV is really the best place for this. There is nothing stopping anyone from using their userspace for drafting as always. In fact creating a brand new article from scratch may be the best way to salvage the topic. Chillum 18:32, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

    I do not want to debate you here. I am asking you to explain (1) what the "significant problems" from the AfD are and (2) how Cordless Larry can address those problems. I think this is a reasonable question to ask because without knowing what the problems are, creating a brand new article to salvage the topic still might fall afoul of the problems from the AfD. Cunard (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    I can do little other than quote the AfD itself. These are not my perceived problems, these are the perceived problems of those who participated in the debate. I would suggest asking those who sought deletion. It is not my standards the article needs to be brought up to, it is the community's. Chillum 18:54, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
    I have yet to see a plausible explanation from the closing admin or anyone else about how the subject fails Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability. Furthermore, how can "a brand new article from scratch" "salvage the topic" when alleged "significant problems" in the current version are not well articulated? Cunard (talk) 22:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse reasonable admin discretion. There was sufficient discussion to establish a consensus that Wikipedia does not want this topic. The AfD discussion is not bound to deliberate per written policy, but may decide to delete for reasons outside of policy, and the reasons I see written are reasonable. The closer may have alternatively read a "no consensus" on the basis of new sources added. I support userfication, already granted by the closer, and re-writing to integrate new sources and address concerns raised at AfD. Participants of the AfD should be pinged after someone thinks the page is ready to return to mainspace. Whether this is usefied, and keeped as a "no concensus", I think it best that it be given time, and returned to AfD in a couple of months. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmokeyJoe, just on your "may decide to delete for reasons outside of policy" point, the closer states above that "I think a policy based deletion argument was presented and not properly refuted". That policy is apparently notability, but the number of peer-reviewed sources on the topic would seem to address that concern. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), the AfD participants were pinged by Cordless Larry above. Chillum wrote: "I personally think this should go to WP:DRV before going back to main space once it is cleaned up to see if the community agrees it is up to standards." I believe the draft is ready for mainspace and support allowing recreation. Would you support allowing recreation on the basis of Cordless Larry's improvements (which consisted of adding content sourced to new journal and book sources to the article)?

    may decide to delete for reasons outside of policy, and the reasons I see written are reasonable – which reasonable reasons outside of policy did users advance for deletion? And how can Cordless Larry edit the draft to address those non-policy-based concerns? Cunard (talk) 02:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh. So this is a request for permission to return a properly deleted page to mainspace, not a challenge to the close? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:36, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The changes between the closure and now are in this diff showing the edits between 21:26 and 22:01: [26]. Chillum 03:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The diff between the version before Cordless Larry touched the article and his most recent edit is a more accurate depiction of how he improved the article since the AfD participants made little attempt to discuss Cordless Larry's changes and sources. Cunard (talk) 04:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Understood. To be clear: I endorse the close and advise Cordless Larry to not rush these processes. By invoking both userfication and DRV, this is going to take longer. While questioning the close, for the duration of this DRV, the deleted article should not be edited. The rush is disrespectful to the AfD. The participants, having !voted so recently, pinged to this DRV, and then being asked to reconsider new sources, may well find themselves feeling WP:BLUDGEONed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure, restore article per Chillum, below. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - take a look at the actual !delete votes, there's no encyclopaedic or policy based rationales there. Alex Stacon !votes delete because Surely a hoax? - as though ... there are no white people in the Southern US? Maile !votes delete because This article makes me cringe! and then goes on to say something to the effect of "I personally disagree with all these academics, so the article needs to be deleted" - no different than a flat earther, moon landing hoaxer, or young earth creationist, whose attempt to insert their own wacky ideas into Wikipedia over those of reliable, independent sources should not be encouraged. KwikiWiki is essentially the same not ethnicity or encyclopaedic content - the delete arguements are all variants of the classic "I don't like it" mindset, which is understandable, but wholly antethetical to building an encyclopaedia. WilyD 06:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to merge or weakly to keep. The article was rewritten during the AfD by Cordless Larry. After the point where the article was rewritten, new votes on the new article amounted to 2 new deletes, 1 reaffirmed delete, 2 keep, and 3 deleted changed to merge. This clearly shows that consensus shifted after the article was rewritten toward merge/keep. Those saying "DRV is not AFD round 2" fail to address that the article was rewritten and consensus shifted after that point. The closure also didn't address the shift in consensus. That was a procedural failure supporting overturning this AFD. Also, overturn per Cunard's careful evaluation of the sources which is indisputable and puts many of the delete !votes to rest. !Votes before the rewrite should be discounted because they were for an article that existed prior to the rewrite (unless they were reaffirmed).--v/r - TP 23:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Overturn and restore. The policy-based delete !votes (discounting those that were basically IDONTLIKEIT) made essentially two arguments: 1) failure to meet WP:GNG, and 2) this is a WP:FRINGE theory and thus must meet some higher standard than the GNG. Those expressing the first view all or almost all did so before the edits where Cordless Larry added significant additional sources. There is no indication that those editors reconsidered the article in light of those added sources. And in any case, additional sources were added before this DRV was opened, and yet further sources are stated above to exist. The article as it now stands does not IMO fail the GNG. AS to the second argument, Fring topics that pass the GNG may and generally should have articles, but the fringe nature of the topic must be made clear. Here the fact that this is a theory supported by some scholars but disputed by others must be made clear in the article. Thus the second argument fails. So it seems to me that the closer failed to discount views not in line with policy, and thus mis-read the consensus. But the additional sources added while the text was in Draft mean that the current text is not the same as it was at the close of the AfD. Even granting that the close was correct, or at least within the closer's discretion, restoration should now be allowed on the ground that the current text is not substantially identical to the one that AfD judged. So by either argument, the text should now be restored, with no prejudice against a new AfD discussion. DES (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that Cordless Larry would have been better advised to make further improvements in draft state before listing this at DRV, but some of our guideline pages could be read to mandate or strongly advise coming here first, and technically, the draft could have been subject to a G4 speedy until a DRV discussion was opened. Perhaps we should revise things to advise otherwise, now that Draft: exists and is often used in such cases, but that is a matter for a different discussion. DES (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your careful analysis, DES. Part of the reason I brought this to DRV so quickly was that the rationale for requesting review was as much about the assessment of consensus in the AfD as it was about requesting recreation based on new sources having been added to the article in draft space. I apologise if this was a mistake on my part - although by way of partial excuse, this has been my first time posting at DRV. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:13, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no reason to apologize, Cordless Larry. You did as you were advised by an expeienced editor, and as some guideline/policy pages suggest, and in doing so broke no rules. Waiting might have been better tactics, but perhaps not. We should perhaps consider rewording some of those guidelines. DES (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since my closure the article has been improved and the arguments for its being kept have been presented in a much more clear and convincing fashion. I think the arguments for inclusion have been made far better in this DRV than in the AfD. Per my original closure which said if the concerns could be addressed the article can be recreated my personal position is endorse closure, restore article. Though as the closer I don't really get a vote, I do want to be clear that I have been convinced by the eloquent arguments made here. I have no objection to the restoration of the article. Chillum 01:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Chillum, for re-reviewing the improvements to the article and the arguments for keeping. As the admin who closed the AfD as "delete", that those arguments for inclusion have swayed you to support restoration lends strong credence to the arguments for restoration. I agree with you that Cordless Larry, WilyD, TParis, and DESiegel have advanced very strong, eloquent arguments for restoration. Cunard (talk) 02:44, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, hank you Chillum. And I don't see why the closer of the AfD does not get a say at DRV. I have seen plenty of cases where the closer posts to defend the close and to argue for its endorsement. DES (talk) 07:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dimitri Vangelis & Wyman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article for this Swedish progressive house band was deleted for a lack of notability in 2013, which I do not dispute was the case back then. However, since then, they've gone on to collaborate with very famous musicians such as Steve Angello, and have had multiple, independed news sources published on them [27], thus satisfying criterion #1 of WP:NMUSIC for artists. Their collaboration with Angello, Payback, also charted on Belgium's chart, thus meeting criterion #2. The closing admin was desysopped and banned by ArbCom, so I cannot discuss with him. StringTheory11 (t • c) 04:39, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • allow creation There is no need to overturn the previous outcome, and any ban had nothing to do with this topic. I believe that an article can be recreated on this topic without any discussion on this page if the issues raised at AFD have been addressed. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:45, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 July 2015[edit]

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

Inappropriate involved closure, the closing admin closed it to enforce his/her own !keep opinion, citing the added sources (two sources, which are almost always not enough). This is an inappropriate closure because closures are for enforcing consensus, not as a supervote. The consensus was towards deletion (although it has not been fully reached yet). Esquivalience t 01:30, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging participants of the XfD, closer, and article creators/expanders: Primefac, Mr. Guye, SwisterTwister; Ceyockey; Tuvosi, 71.160.68.156. Esquivalience t 01:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as closing admin: I was asked to explain my rationale by Esquivalience. My rationale is based on three things: a) the time at AfD had passed minimum to support closure by normal process; b) the article had been expanded and citation support added since the original nomination; c) it seemed rationale that additional supporting citations would emerge over time. If the AfD had still been in the initial review period, I would not have closed it but provided input as an editor. I often respect the "relisting for additional input" which Esquivalience invoked for this article's discussion; however the original nomination criteria were no longer "valid" given revisions to the article since original nomination. I would, therefore, suggest that if the closure is considered to be controversial that the article be nominated for deletion another time, but on the present article content rather than revisiting the original nomination criteria. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The scale of boat manufacturing (i.e. 1000+) does not provide likelihood of notability; the showing of two citations certainly requires more discussion and at least a search conducted. The discussion is a discussion, not a head-count: we do not need another AfD. If new information comes, than just further discuss; opening a new AfD only serves to prolong and sugarcoat the consensus - the !votes before the information may still be partially valid. Furthermore, involved editors or ones with an opinion (see closure statement) are not to close the AfDs in question - there was a conflict of interest (in terms of WP:INVOLVED), as it expresses an opinion on the article's suitability. Opening another AfD is thus more bureaucracy. Esquivalience t 01:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A WP:Supervote close. The close does not reflect the discussion. Ask the closer to revert and !vote instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Someone who thinks that they can be the one to add content to an article and then close the AfD citing said word done is rather unfit to be an admin. Clear Supervote. Tarc (talk) 03:23, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know that I'd call this adding content to the article. But yes, this was a bad close, and all the worse since it was unnecessary. If you're looking at an afd discussion that you disagree with, the answer is neither to relist it nor close it; you add to the discussion. If Ceyockey had written the exact same thing he did in his close at bottom of the afd instead of the top, the next admin to look at it would in all likelihood have closed it keep or non-consensus, and we wouldn't be here. —Cryptic 03:31, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist - Closing discussions is all about determining consensus. There was clearly no consensus at that discussion to keep the article—no "keep" argument had even been presented at the time of closure. Very clearly a supervote, as it reflects the opinion of the closer, not the content of the discussion. If the original nomination criteria are no longer valid, the correct approach would be to add that as a comment to the discussion. The only exceptions I can think of are WP:SNOW, which isn't the case, and speedy keep, which doesn't apply either. That being said, I agree that there currently isn't a solid consensus to delete either, and Esquivalience's original relisting was justified. Mz7 (talk) 04:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC), revised 04:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for Esquivalience: on what basis do you say two sources are almost always not enough? I think our usual practice is that they almost always are, if they offer substantial coverage. DGG ( talk ) 07:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If they are high-quality (not tabloid; garage or self-published stuff), discriminate sources, then two sources may be enough, but such assessment still needs discussion. Esquivalience t 15:20, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - of course, it feels wrong as fuck for someone to close a discussion as keep by expanding the article when everyone !voted delete. On the other hand, if they'd closed as delete, then reposted the new article, I'd say it's not G4 eligible, so we're at where we could've ended up, so maybe it's not so bad. But, since there's a dispute, which I can empathise with, I think relisting is the best option. IAR & NOT#BUREAU are mostly for use where noone objects, which ain't the case here. WilyD 08:19, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. Consensus had not yet formed. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - there seems to be a procedural issue with this close as stated above. By the way, Esquivalience, I wasn't actually pinged (came here because of the review tag), so it might be worth re-pinging those mentioned. Primefac (talk) 09:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin: It sounds like some of you would like to see my privileges revoked. If you feel sufficiently strongly about this, please nominate for sysop revocation. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 14:01, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment about what I did to the article before closing from closing admin: Reading above, I think there is a little factual misunderstanding of what I did to the article before closing the AfD. The "citation support" that I noted was added before I did anything to the article; I cited the incorrect diff in the closure description for the AfD as it included my edits -- here is the proper diff which was actually taken into account when closing. The actions I took were copyediting in nature (citation format revision, addition of warning templates for page needed, that type of thing), or so I believed at the time, and I don't think that copyediting revisions could be construed as my being involved in the content -- but it has been quite some time since I regularly closed AfDs, so norms might have changed in the interim (i.e. the appearance of involvement might be the bar now rather than the fact, which I could respect if so). The consensus is Overturn here, which is fine of course. Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 15:03, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ceyockey: The primary issue is that you cast a supervote. Closing an AfD should be assessing the consensus of the discussion, not closing in favour of what you think the outcome should be, whether you've not edited the article or added 100 sources. Sam Walton (talk) 19:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, in the good old days AFDs were closed however the admin felt at the time. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacDade Mall. And people voted every which way, so no change there. Thincat (talk) 21:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Vacate closure and relist - At the time of the closure there was the nomination, one delete !vote and one merge !vote. Also, the discussion had been relisted just an hour and a half prior to the closure. Under the circumstances it is procedural a too far stretch to close it as "keep". The closer is to a certain extent bound by the votes, one can not close anything as "keep" without a single keep !vote. Kraxler (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. While there may be rare circumstances when a close like this is acceptable, this isn't such a case. Even in the rare cases where it might be acceptable, it is almost never good practice. If the closer's changes are so effective as to indisputably settle the question, the closer would be better advised to trust that the community will recognize the point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 02:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - Is it SNOWing?. It is clear after less than a day that overturn will be the overwhelming outcome. Would you agree that I could close this myself as a WP:SNOW and get the AfD relisted?. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:44, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Please don't close anything that you may be involved in. I'll be closing this shortly. Thanks, Nakon 02:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 July 2015[edit]

8 July 2015[edit]

7 July 2015[edit]

6 July 2015[edit]

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

This now clearly passes GNG, for the latest reviews on their album New Bodies, along with the HM Magazine story. It passes BAND, due to the reviews, and the charting of their latest album New Bodies, by meeting Nos. 1 and 2 on the criteria list. The title has been blocked from creation, and SALT, refers me to this forum, where it states, "or use the deletion review process." The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The draft has been submitted to the AFC process which will determine whether it is an acceptable article and subsequently see to the creation of the mainspace page. The deleted previous article is irrelevant thus this is not a matter for Deletion Review. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:27, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The page is WP:SALTed. Some expect a recreation request to pass DRV to allow unsalting. A clear case can be processed at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approve. It seems to me that, if the draft is accepted at AFC, then at that time it would be reasonable for the salted page to be unprotected to allow the move to main space. So, since we are already here at DRV, it is a good opportunity to give prior approval for unprotection. Undeletion of the 2010 article is not being requested and the suitability of the current draft is not a matter for DRV. Thincat (talk) 10:13, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Recreate - Salted pages usually do come here, so this is within DRV's purview. The full interview in HM, releases on indie labels and the chart entry are all sufficient to pass the WP:GNG and WP:NBAND. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, now you say it, DRV is competent to accept drafts blocked by salting. And anyway AFC is a penance it is better to avoid. Thincat (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation As this was (rightly) salted, it needs to come here in my opinion. The draft article does look to me to meet the notability guidelines through coverage and charting, so I support allowing this to be moved to main article space. Davewild (talk) 18:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation the draft proves that a suitable article can exist. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Allow recreation If this had been a new version created in user space, I would think it could be unsalted and moved to mainspacve now. Therefor, should we unsalt now so tha any AgC reviewer need not seek out an adMin when/if this pases AfC review? DES (talk) 21:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 July 2015[edit]

  • MattyBraps – Endorse but recreate. There's a weak consensus that the original AfD close was OK, but a much stronger consensus that given the new sources which have appeared since that time, recreation is warranted. Although not explicitly argued by anybody, it seems to me that WP:RECREATE could have been invoked to just recreate this with the new sources and skip the week of process-mongering here. In any case, no prejudice here against bringing the new version back to AfD if anybody feels the new sources don't go far enough. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
MattyBraps (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article failed to follow WP:MUSICBIO at the time of the deletion (March 7th, 2013).

Since the deletion of the MattyBRaps article in 2013, this young rap artist has gained quite a huge global following. He now averages 90 million views/month on his Youtube channel, is the #1 music artist in his age group, has appeared on numerous TV shows and news interviews, and recently performed at Race to Erase MS. I believe the aspiring artist deserves to have an article on Wikipedia, and that his deletion deserves to be reviewed. --MichelleDson33 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Appears to be the same largely weak coverage as before; essentially "man bites dog" stories about a 10-yr-old rapping youtuber. Tarc (talk) 12:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - several of these in depth sources post-date the discussion, there's no way it could be applied now, and it was probably borked in the first place. The idea that he needs to meet a much higher standard than WP:N (articled in the AfD, and repeated by Tarc here) is foolish. For subjects with persistent, in depth coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject, there's an onus to argue for deletion, beyond dismissing it with "There are only secondary sources because people find this entertainer entertaining". WilyD 16:37, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - there was nothing wrong with the original AfD, and some of the sources being presented do look a bit passing in nature, but there does appear to be more coverage than before. As ever, if the article is still crap, we can always send it back to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 07:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore The original closure of the AFD as delete was ok to me, when I have a quick read through the AFD I think a consensus that the article just failed the notability guidelines then was a reasonable reading of the discussion, as there seemed to be some link bombing going on (although I would also not have supported overturning a no consensus closure). I also think the arguments raised in opening this deletion review do not do anything in demonstrating that the notability guidelines have been met. However Cunard has produced some significant coverage since the time of the AFD (I can't read the Vietnamese or Portuguese links, but The Daily Dot article looks to me to be significant coverage) so support restoring the article then these can be used to expand. Of course this does not prevent anyone from renominating at AFD after it is restored. Davewild (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Francesco Schettino – Restore as stand-alone article. There's unanimous consensus here to undo the redirect. I'm going to back this up to just before the redirect was created. It looks like this will blow away some Authority control data. I don't know much about Authority control, so if somebody who knows about that stuff would patch it up properly, I'd appreciate it. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:22, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Francesco Schettino (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On June 5, 2015 an editor redirected the “Francesco Schettino” (FS) biographic article (about 18K) from the English WP to "Costa Concordia disaster", apparently on the basis of a still-standing decision that had been made in 2012, then a consensus opinion [28]. The 2012 cdecision was based on 2013 on BLP1E: [29].

It should be noted that the BLP1E guidelines include this section: “In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified. If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate “ (my bolding).

Currently the “Costa Concordia disaster” article has grown to 188K, and anybody who wants to know something about FS has to read through this overly lengthy article and try finding relevant information. Much has been published about FS since 2012 invalidating the 2012 decision. Further, by redirecting the reader, information has been lost including material about his background and his legal defense. I submit that FS, based on extensive and ongoing coverage since 2012 should be covered in a biographic article. He is clearly noteworthy and more famous than the vast majority of contemporary people covered by WP. Importantly, there is a real demand by readers. Since the FS article has been removed, about 4,400 hits have been registered on Francesco Schettino in the last 4 weeks.

I believe that WP is doing a disservice to its readership by redirecting the biographic article to Costa Concordia disaster and request that the biographic article about FS should be reinstated.Ekem (talk) 20:23, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore and relist at AfD. I compared the redirected version and the rewritten version. {{db-repost}} clearly does not apply because the new article is roughly four times the size of the redirected version. The new version uses 24 sources compared to the nine in the redirected version. Ekem advances a reasonable argument about WP:BLP1E that should be discussed in another AfD. Cunard (talk) 21:02, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Striking out "and relist at AfD" per WilyD below. I agree with WilyD's comment "optional AfD if someone actually wants it". Cunard (talk) 05:45, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. There is no doubt that this case is covered by the BLP1E exception that "the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one". The article will need updating, but it should survive AfD, and I am not convinced that automatic relisting is necessary. JohnCD (talk) 10:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as per JohnCD. Costa Concordia disaster is so large an article that Francesco Schettino can't be covered sufficiently within. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD discussion appears clear, however, it was held in the few weeks following the event. Now that it is years, the subject is tried and convicted, and an historical perspective is available, it is appropriate to allow re-creation and optional retesting at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - with optional AfD if someone actually wants it. It's clear he's been the subject of ongoing biographical coverage, (e.g., the CNN profile that's the 2nd new reference) and the discussion's outcome hinged on the (now demonstratably) false assumption there'd be no such on-going coverage. WilyD 14:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the most appropriate venue would have been the article talk page, but enforcing a redirect after so many intervening events is foolhardy. Stifle (talk) 16:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Stifle that it would have been best if this had been discussed on the talk page first and only coming here if essential, but allow restoration with no prejudice to anyone renominating at AFD or holding a new merge/redirect discussion on the talk page. Davewild (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore a clearly notable person with ongoing coverage. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Atomium 320 by 240 CCBY20 flickr Mike Cattell.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria, see User_talk:Penwhale#Atomium_image. 9carney (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Also relevant is the exchange between the nominator and とある白い猫 (talk · contribs) here regarding this image:
    Extended content

    Please do not upload images of the Atomium as they were deleted before. Belgium does not have Freedom of Panorama and we cannot host files in this manner per Wikipedia:Non-free content. Also your claim of copyfraud is incorrect as Belgium law is binding in the United States in accordance with the Berne Convention as well as Uruguay Round Agreements Act. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 12:21, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

    A official summary of the Berne Convention can be found here
    Note particularly:
    (a) Works originating in one of the Contracting States (that is, works the author of which is a national of such a State or works first published in such a State) must be given the same protection in each of the other Contracting States as the latter grants to the works of its own nationals (principle of "national treatment") [1].
    The means that the copyright of a 2 dimensional work of an artist in Belgium would be honoured in the US because US law provides for copyright of 2 dimensional works. However, unlike Belgian law, US law does not grant rights over photographs of a building to its architect, so the Berne Convention does not confer any additional rights in this case. 9carney (talk) 18:37, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunately, the 3D work itself is copyrighted therefore taking a photo of it is problematic to begin with. Can you link me a single case law example where US FOP applies to a country without FOP? As far as Wikipedia is concerned it is fully copyrighted. As such it will be deleted no matter how many times you upload it. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 19:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    Taking a photo of it is not problematic. The copyright law in Belgium does not restrict taking photos, it only governs their later use. There can be no case law regarding the building image in the US because the copyright doesn't apply there. In contrast to Commons, Wikipedia policy allows fair use of fully copyrighted works from any country. 9carney (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am sorry but your assessment is simply incorrect. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 20:01, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
    Cunard (talk) 05:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-- A Certain White Cat chi? 07:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
Reading the deletion discussion for the previous image, which was deleted on the grounds that the Flickr CC licence was not verifiable, should be enough to reverse the speedy deletion and restore the image to the article. We can then proceed with our normal careful and thoughtful processes of review for compliance with all other policies and guidelines. 9carney (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I just do not understand what there is to discuss. We need to have legal grounds how the file can be freely licensed. Belgium does not have FOP and that is that. It is not a mater of "copyfraud". If you can find an exception even something like this one, we would not have an issue. Another alternative is seeking a freely licensed photo from the copyright holder through OTRS where the file would be released with a free license. Now that would be a best case for all of us. They can decide the resolution, angle, lighting etc. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 10:38, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
  • Overturn - FOP isn't a problem, the image has a non-free use rationale for a depiction of a piece of art (essentially) for use in an article about that piece of art. Perhaps the Fair Use Rationale template's phrasing needs a slight tweak, but it's fundamentally good. WilyD 14:20, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Image was validly used under Wikipedia's fair use policy. Stifle (talk) 16:52, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore image. I rather suspect that the image does not have copyright protection at all under US law, but that is not relevant here. Assuming that it is in fact fully protected under US copyright law, it is used on Wikipedia under a claim of Fair use, that is, in accord with the WP:NFCC. That claim looks valid to me. But if an editor thinks that it is not valid, there is a proper procedure for contesting such claims, which does not include speedy deletion. The validity of a superficially plausible fair use/NFCC claim needs discussion, not an unreviewed decision by a single admin. WilyD and 9carney are correct above. DES (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, not a valid speedy deletion reason if there was a valid NFCC claim on it. Also, anyone that uses the word "copyfraud" in a non-ironic sense needs to be vigourously trouted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn, doesn't meet any of the speedy deletion criteria. In particular, White Cat's speedy rationale, "{{db|Per File:Atomium FlickR ctsnow.jpg uploaded by the same user}}", is wholly invalid, and his statement above fundamentally dishonest; the two files have nothing in common besides subject matter and uploader, nothing in the previous file's deletion discussion applies to this file, and nobody but he removed the image from the article before it was deleted. —Cryptic 16:42, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn a fair use rationale was included, so FOP or not is irrelevant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore As others have noted, this did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion. FOP images ARE allowed on Wikipedia, per the content POLICY Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. 17 USC §120(a) states: "The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place." That does not apply exclusively to architectural works in the US...it means pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of an architectural work have no copyright for the creator of the work (not the photographer/artist) if the building is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. Wikipedia is only subject to the copyright laws of the US per Wikipedia:Non-U.S. copyrights. Freedom of Panorama is not subject covered by any IP treaty between the US & Belgium (location of the work). This image should be tagged with Template:FoP-USonly and then re-added to Atomium. Per the Berne Convention, the US is not obligated to extend any copyright to a foreign work beyond what the work would have if it were first published in the US (exception made for the registration requirements of US copyright law before 1989). Since the work would not be copyrighted if it were located in the US, its creators have no copyright claim in the US. This is not different to the use of works on Wikipedia & Commons that are still copyrighted in the country of first publication but has expired in the US (eg. File:Littleprince.JPG, which is still copyrighted in France). AHeneen (talk) 14:00, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn because the deletion did not claim that it failed any speedy criterion and none seem to apply (in particular WP:CSD#F7). Even if the US courts might apply Belgian FoP law, US fair use provisions would mean a display on WP would not be a copyright infringement in the US. However, there are local WP policy considerations such as whether the image is adequately replaceable by a free image such as File:Minimundus117.jpg but discussion at WP:NFCR would then be appropriate and any subsequent improper deletion could be appealed here. Thincat (talk) 11:23, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn FOP is not a concern here. The picture is covered by {{FoP-US}}. Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2014 August 14#File:Atomium FlickR ctsnow.jpg resulted in deletion because there was no evidence that the photographer had licensed the photograph. If it is the same photograph as the one discussed in August last year, then overturn to speedy deletion under a different criterion (G4 instead of F9). If it is a different photograph, then overturn to undeletion. If someone thinks that there are problems with the file, then it's better to discuss the file at PUF or FFD instead. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Kadar Brock (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock was 5–1 to allow recreation. But Spartaz did not restore the article because:

The consensus was that the G4 was not justified but Guy subsequently deleted the graft on the basis of undisclosed COI editing and G11. That action is outwith this discussion and in the case of undeclared COI editing, the community feels strongly enough about this that am not prepared to undo Guy's action without a specific consensus at DRV to do so.

I am taking this back to DRV to seek that "specific consensus".

G11 applies only to:

Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic.

JzG wrote at the DRV: "Google the name of the creator: 'Studio Administrative Assistant at Kadar Brock Studio'." But G11 doesn't authorize speedy deletion of a draft when there's an undisclosed COI. It only authorizes speedy deletion for "exclusively promotional" pages.

I have not verified the creator's job title and workplace because I do not know who created the article. But Googling the subject and revealing his or her information here seems to strays too closely to violating Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#Avoid outing. WP:OUTING says that "personal information" includes "job title and work organisation".

When I reviewed the draft, I believed it was well sourced and sufficiently neutral. It did not violate WP:G11.

Restore draft and move to mainspace to enforce the consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 27#Draft:Kadar Brock.

Cunard (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • restore as per previous consensus. This was not a blatently promotional text of no value to the project. It needed copy editing, as most relativly new articles do, but it was sourced and the subject was pretty clearly notable, IMO. The statements made were factual, if generally positive towards the subject. One quotation was rather positive, but it was a sourced and attributed quote. If it was WP:UNDUE the solution would be to find a balancing quote or statement, or at most to remove the quote. As to any alleged COI editing -- I have not seen the evidence behind such a claim -- it is strictly beside the point. COI editing is not a reason for speedy deletion. Frankly this deletion strikes me as disruptive, if not arbitration-worthy, after there was a clear consensus to permit restoration. I am strongly tempted to restore and source the artticle further myself without any additional discussion, as in my view none is needed to enforce the previous DRV consensus. Any promotional nature of that version would have bean fully appareant to those viewing the draft at the DRV discussion, and the consensus clearly did not view this as promotional, much less blatently so. The content, not the author, is what makes an article promotional or not. WP:CSD says, in pertinant part, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases. If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria" If multiple experienced editors supported retaining the draft, it was not an obvious case for G11 deletion, so this deleteion was withotu consensus and to the harm of the project. I urge Guy to reveerse his action promptly. DES (talk) 19:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore as per previous consensus. In general, I've been very impressed with Guy's work, but this particular action really surprised me. The first DRV was clearly heading towards a consensus to overturn the previous deletion. That's not the best time to jump in with, OK, maybe not G4, but I'll play my G11 card and trump your consensus. DES gets it all right above. I wouldn't go so far as calling for arbitration, but I can see some trout swimming not too far away. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on Cunard's concern about outing: Wikipedia:Harassment says that "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted (as is the case here) such information can be used for discussions of conflict of interest (COI) in appropriate forums." JohnCD (talk) 20:49, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sentence I quoted comes immediately after yours, and starts with "However", so I think it is stating an exception to the general rule. JohnCD (talk) 21:40, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "However" sentence you quoted applies "if individuals have identified themselves without redacting or having it oversighted". Where has the user identified that he or she is a "Studio Administrative Assistant at Kadar Brock Studio"? Cunard (talk) 21:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cunard: I see your point, but if the "However" exception doesn't cover a case like this, it is pretty meaningless. To say that in considering COI we must close our eyes to information openly displayed on someone's LinkedIn or Facebook entry, because looking at it would be "opposition research", is going too far in protecting spammers. JohnCD (talk) 11:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse deletion of disguised COI editing. This doesn't preclude anyone creating a neutral article. Since notability isn't in question I really don't understand why Cunard has to bludgeon the debate with all those sources. They could have simply written a new article in the time it took to format that lot Spartaz Humbug! 22:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand how providing a list of seven sources is now considered "bludgeon[ing] the debate". The sources were provided to definitively establish that the subject is notable in case anyone had any doubts and wanted to take it to AfD.

    It takes far longer to write a new article with those sources than to find and format those sources. If you or anyone else wants to write a new article using those sources, then you are free to do so. But I think the draft article is sufficiently neutral and see no need to waste my time duplicating the creator's work. Cunard (talk) 22:45, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Where exactly is "disguised COI editing" a deletion reason, speedy or slow? How exactly was the draft blatently promotional? DES (talk) 23:01, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - speedy deletion shouldn't be applied to articles kept or restored in discussions (except G12). It's not a bludgeon to delete pages where you know you couldn't get a consensus to do so in a discussion. WilyD 08:28, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per DES. JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore as above. As I said in the previous deletion review anyone can send it to AFD, but I think the version deleted does not reach the "exclusively promotional" level required for G11 speedy deletion. Davewild (talk) 06:48, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and so overturn the speedy delete, the page is not excessively promotional, containing several totally neutral statements. Tone problems can be fixed by editing. A COI is not a reason to speedy delete. Drafts are there so tone issues can be fixed before going to mainspace. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 22:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Restore. Improper abuse of process. Here's another source to further confirm the artist's notability: The Art Assassin. Andrew D. (talk) 18:23, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Azerbaijan–Bangladesh relations (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion was closed as "no consensus" after barely seven days. Ten people left input but for an article on bilateral relations, this is insignificant; the AfD was largely hijacked by one editor's inclusion of a draft essay that caused drama. Closing admin's judgement that enough people had commented was flawed IMO, and there is no harm in allowing this to remain open to gain an actual consensus. I feel input of more people is needed here and will be helpful to avoid further drama if article is relisted for deletion. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:57, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse After a substantial 7 day discussion , where clearly incompatible but reasonable views are expressed by established editors, especially on a topic where there have been man inconclusive afds, there's really no necessity to relist instead of closing no consensus . Some admins would relist in this circumstance, some not--either is an acceptable option. The appeal here is unnecessary--you can just wait a few weeks, and list for AfD2--the reason for waiting a few weeks is that its more likely to result in a conclusive discussion. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, Northamerica1000 is a frequent relister of AfDs, so why this one was not given the same treatment is curious. Tarc (talk) 12:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing to see here, move along. This is silly. I might have relisted this, but I don't see anything wrong with closing it as NC. In any case, do something else for a while, then relist this per Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion if you must. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Relisting is done when there has not been sufficient discussion. A "tie" discussion is closed as no-consensus, as this one correctly was. Stifle (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was no consensus at the discussion and there was a reasonable level of participation, so per WP:RELIST relisting is not a substitute for a no consensus close and it was a reasonable decision by the closing admin. Davewild (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse enough people commented, it is unlikely that new policy based arguments would have been introduced by a longer time. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- the issue with the misleading draft essay was identified early enough not to really interfere with the result, and I don't see any consensus in the remainder of the discussion. Reyk YO! 06:02, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There is a question of the validity of sources which should be hashed out on the talk page before re-nomination or the outcome is likely to be the same. JbhTalk 11:53, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The mention of the draft could not have confused anyone as it was expressly described as a draft from the outset. There is no prospect of this reaching a consensus for deletion if left open, there is no consensus at present, and enough people have commented to leave it at that. James500 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Getting 10 editors to comment on this is more than topic deserves. Leaving the discussion open to provoke even more drama would be absurdly disruptive and would be quite unlikely to generate more of a consensus. Andrew D. (talk) 18:28, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse no particularly good reason to overturn (though it wasn't really a great AFD). It can be relisted sooner rather than later though. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:21, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Prolonging discussion would probably not result in a definite consensus; let someone tip the scale first before renominating it. Esquivalience t 22:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 July 2015[edit]

  • Ryan Lollis – Moot. Nothing to do here. Consensus seems to be that the original AfD close was correct based on the then-current information, but he's now played in a game so he passes WP:NBASE, but somebody has already recreated the article with better sourcing, so we're done here. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ryan Lollis (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article was re-created because Ryan Lollis was promoted to Major League Baseball, indicating he will make his debut there soon, which makes him notable under WP:BASE/N. A deleted article already exists that is much more thorough than the new one that was created. Alex (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So your argument is that he's made one step closer to meeting WP:NBASE (which is on a page which says GNG has to be met anyway), so someone recreated it despite him not actually meeting it, so we should ignore a previous deletion consensus and restore a previous article?--86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The second he plays in a major league game, he will be deemed notable. And the odds of him playing in a game are about 99.5%, since those who get called up but don't play in a game number in the dozens. So, yes. Alex (talk) 11:47, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to the guideline you've pointed to he still needs to meet WP:GNG, so the second he plays he won't necessarily be deemed notable. If "called up" is good enough, why isn't that what the guideline says? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:33, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, what it means is that anyone who's been called up is presumed to meet the GNG. Mackensen (talk) 15:18, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
So you it means something different to what it says? Since it says nothing at all about being called up. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, I phrased that poorly. If he plays in a regular season game then he's presumed notable. Otherwise he's just on the 40-man roster and nothing's changed. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse It's very well accepted that he will not be notable until he plays in a regular season game. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation the moment he plays in a regular season game. Mackensen (talk) 16:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{db-repost}} clearly does not apply to the article since the subject recently was recently promoted to Major League Baseball. Please speedy restore the article's history under the redirect since this is an uncontroversial request. This will allow the deleted content to be merged into this new article. Anyone who thinks the subject still is not notable will need to nominate the article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Cunard (talk) 19:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Routine coverage in local rags when he was a college player do not support a claim of notability, despite the usual squeezing-blood-from-a-stone efforts above. Tarc (talk) 12:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I endorse the original deletion as the only possible outcome of the discussion. Not sure what else we can do here as the new article is an improvement on the original article with additional sourcing, so a G4 speedy deletion as a repost would not be valid. Probably relist at AFD as I expect until he actually plays a game the consensus at AFD will be to delete but I could be wrong. Davewild (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hasn't he played a game already, Davewild (talk · contribs)?

    "Former Missouri OF Lollis makes major league debut". San Francisco Chronicle. 2015-07-05. Archived from the original on 2015-07-07. Retrieved 2015-07-07 – via Columbia Daily Tribune.

    The article notes:

    Rarely do 37th-round draft picks reach the majors after seven seasons in the minors. They usually resign themselves to other careers and hang up their spikes.

    Ryan Lollis, the former Missouri outfielder, is an exception.

    “Grit, grinding, all that good stuff. That’s the kind of guy I am,” Lollis said as he donned a San Francisco Giants jersey for the first time Friday at age 28.

    Lollis went 0 for 4 with a strikeout Saturday in a 9-3 loss to the Nationals in his major league debut.

    Cunard (talk) 05:54, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well in that case he now meets WP:NBASE doesn't he? So I have struck my relist at AFD, as in that case I can't see there is any chance that the article would be deleted at AFD. The history has already been restored so I don't see anything we need to do here, bu of course permit the recreation if that is really necessary. Davewild (talk) 06:40, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 July 2015[edit]

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

The article was deleted referring to the discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (2nd nomination). However, the fact is the new article was not a simple recreation from the previously existed page, it was a completely new article with another content that meets the wikipedia guidelines of notability and has good references to reliable sources. The content of the page is now completely different: there is a good description of the interface of the program, service it provides and the process of the development of the program (its history) since 2003. Concerning the sources, there are published books, journals and university researches. The article was created through Articles for Creation page, was reviewed, approved and moved from Drafts page to Articles by a wikipedia editor. The editor who approved the article and moved it from draft space to articles has not given any recommendations on the improvement of the page. Please see Portal:Poland/New article announcements AVS Video Editor started on 2015-06-15, score: 20. NeviRom (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Send to AFD; having reviewed the two versions of the article they are different enough, and the new one has sufficient extra references, that it seems inappropriate to speedy-delete under G4. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4. G4 only applies to pages which are A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy. I'm looking at the current version and the version that was deleted at AfD; they are substantially different, including the addition of several new references, so G4 clearly doesn't apply. Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AVS Video Editor (2nd nomination) had a grand total of one comment besides the proposer, so it really should have been relisted, or at best treated as a soft delete. The current article may still go down at AfD, but that's the right forum to decide, not G4. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly not a G4, but a G11, as expected given that it was largely the work of a WP:SPA who also edited the deleted article. Guy (Help!) 23:35, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored history for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • You didn't pay attention to the important qualifier: "independent" for sources. I don't think that sources which sell the tool are independent in wikipedia's understanding of the conflict of interest.Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AFD Staszek Lem (talk) 01:27, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The G4 speedy deletion was invalid as the new article was not a substantial copy and does seem like an improvement on the original version. I don't think it meets the G11 speedy criteria either as exclusively promotional and needing to be fundamentally rewritten. I do think the original closure of the AFD as delete was fine as it had been relisted once and both the nominator and the one other opinion made reasonable arguments for deletion. Once this deletion review is closed anyone can renominate at AFD if they think it should be deleted. Davewild (talk) 21:50, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AFD. I don't think it will pass an AFD and it looks likely promotional in nature, but there's enough doubt that a full debate couldn't hurt. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 July 2015[edit]

1 July 2015[edit]

  • Misty Edwards – Deletion is endorsed by a clear consensus and the editor who brought it to Deletion Review has withdrawn the request to overturn the deletion. – Davewild (talk) 21:39, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Misty Edwards (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Her article was erroneously deleted from this encyclopedia, AfD, and should be reinstated. See, Cross Rhythms (eight reviews), AllMusic (Biography), 13 Billboard magazine chartings, CBN interview, Relevant magazine interview, All about Worship audio interview, New Release Today "Behind the Song" feature, and CCM Magazine has reviewed her last two albums and probably more. She (Her article) is 100 percent notable, per GNG and MUSICBIO guidelines and policies, and this makes the deletion rather absurd, with regards to the article in question. If you kept the album article, created by myself, then couldn't you all see her profile articlewas notable? These are all reliable sources that I presented, and you may want to look at CCM sources to better familiarize yourselves with the publications, who cover Christian music. The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:09, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Could not be closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is VERY hard to see how we can justify an overturn of such a clear AfD. You would be better advised to discuss sourcing with the deleting adming, and before that, to consider seriously that the subject herself requested deletion. Has Misty Edwards been covered by reliable secondary sources providing coverage beyond her album? If not, then maybe, per WP:BIO1E, it is only appropriate to include an introduction on the album article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:54, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Musicians make music that gets covered and bought, and this is what makes them notable, at the end of the day. The reviews provide coverage of her music and the chartings show commercial viability, making her profile article well beyond just scratching the surface of notability, plus, The Christian Post, (has a lengthy interview), on her making her biographical article even more notable. You all evidently did not take into consideration, NEXIST, when you all were discussing the merits of the article in question, for the fact of "Notability is based on the existence of sources, not solely the state of sourcing in an article". I can recognize the article may not have been sourced well or sufficiently, however you all did not do your due diligence to research the topic, like I presented here and above. For your information, Cross Rhythms is the biggest Christian music/radio/former magazine/currently online publication in the United Kingdom, and they have reviewed eight of her albums, where I would call it notability alone! (Comment from another forum by myself to another editor)The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd say the interviews by Relevant Magazine, The Christian Post, All about Worship, and having a biographic in AllMusic, pretty much mean her notability has been established and anonymity busted up and shredded to pieces. Also, how can someone have 13 Billboard chartings and get deleted in the first place, when I can create a discography page off of an artist biographical page. At this point, I am highly considering recreating the article myself to show this community the err of its ways.The Cross Bearer (talk) 05:12, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of scope. From the instructions at the top of the page:
    • Deletion Review should not be used:
      1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
      2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination
    • Therefore I recommend no action. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did, Look Here.The Cross Bearer (talk) 08:48, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As always, I differ with Stifle on this point . A closing that does not reflect the actual situation is an error;--if the closer did not evaluate the information properly, he made an error; if the information available to the closer was not adequate or representative the closer also made an error, though it wasn't his fault. All systems have some way to rectify error. The over-riding principle is NOT BURO. We should not be erected technical barriers to restoring articles which should not have This is the place for evaluating closes, not closers. (I have no comment on the actual article--it's not my field) DGG ( talk ) 17:43, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have some sort of alert set to pop up whenever I post that someone's DRV listing is out of scope because they have failed to follow the process which has been long-established by consensus? I have told you over and over again that I believe such posts are misguided and that the correct venue for you to seek to change the filtering criteria for DRV listings is WT:DRV, yet I am not aware of you having tried to establish a consensus there. Were you not such a well-established editor I would be seriously considering reporting you for hounding. Stifle (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since, "Deletion Review should not be used", I went ahead and brought back the article, under extremely notable standards.The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:08, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe that you were warned above by @Stifle: to not do that, under caution of being blocked. Is the article that currently sits there identical to the version that was deleted, because if so, it would be deleted again as a recreation of a deleted article. Is it a copy that you retained before it was deleted? Were there other editors at any time who edited the article as well? If so, then the current one may be a copyright violation, as there is no longer attribution for the other editor's edits. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't believe it's eligible for G4 speedy deletion, the new article is much longer although it is based on the same sources. Still, it was very bad form and very WP:POINTy to recreate it while this discussion was on. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:21, 2 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]

All the information contained in the newly constructed article was written by myself, from the sources that I found. It is in my style of writing and my words, and no one else's. This is not plagiarism nor a copyright violation. I am truly sorry for my somewhat pointy behavior, however when presented with the information I found, then, I had to progress forward in substantiating the artists' notability once and for all.The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:02, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm confused as to why you are so hell-bent on including this article on Wikipedia, especially when an OTRS ticket was put in by the article subject stating that she did not want an article about herself on Wikipedia AND two previous AfD's resulted in a delete decision. Given the obscure notability of the topic, and the desire of the person to not be included it seems questionable to continue pursuing this when there are literally millions of other articles you could be working to improve, or other notable topics you could create articles about. Granted, you may have improved the article from the previous version, but the way you went about it, kind of makes it a moot point for me. I almost nominated it for deletion again before I saw this delrev, so I guess we need to determine now if it should be nominated for a third time or not in this review since the article has already been re-created. -War wizard90 (talk) 05:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD is completely unambiguous, I have applied WP:CSD#G4 to the re-creation. Guy (Help!) 08:09, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry, for the way I handled this situation regarding the article incorrectly and inappropriately, per Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Now, how can I go about salvaging the article in question? I am 100 percent certain, it is notable, for inclusion as part of this encyclopedia. Please, help me, someone!The Cross Bearer (talk) 09:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That "imagine a world" is a Jimbo-ism that I'd love to see sent down an Orwellian memory hole, never to be uttered again. Marginally notable people should have the right to not be written about by pseudonymous individuals, especially on request. That should be the higher precedent. Tarc (talk) 12:23, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The point I was trying to make, is that there are many non-controversial things that need to be worked on, and this seems to be a low-priority to many of those regardless of our policies regarding an articles subject being allowed to determine their inclusion or not. I'm familiar with the policy stating that notable subjects do not have the option, but sometimes it's better to let it go even if you believe the subject to be notable. I see your main editing targets are Christian musicians, and I'm sure there is all kinds of other work to be done in this area so why not focus on those? I'm sorry you've received so much flack for this, believe me I've been in your position with many other editors against me and I know it doesn't feel great. I apologize if I came across a little too harsh. Cheers. -War wizard90 (talk) 23:29, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion. Evaluating some of the sources presented here, I'm not terribly impressed. Many of them are interviews. That's not an automatic problem, but it's a red flag. See Wikipedia:Interviews.
Another problem is the niche aspect of many of the sources. The best sources are ones with the widest range of coverage and readership. When a major newspaper covers a subject, that says that of all the wide array of subjects out there which they might have possibly devoted space to, they felt this subject stood out as being of interest to a sizeable segment of their broad readership. As the focus of the publication narrows, the selectivity gets reduced. A publication which focuses on the entertainment industry will be more inclined to print anything entertainment-related than a broad-readership publication. This effect increases as the focus continues to narrow. A publication which focuses only on music is less selective than one which covers all of entertainment. And, publications which focus exclusively on a specific genre of music, even more so. In this case. most of the sources are publications which focus exclusively on christian music. That's a very narrow focus, so you would expect there's a lower bar for inclusion, as long as the subject falls into that genre.
FInally, I looked at the All Music source. Since they cover all of music, not just one genre, they seem like a more useful source than most of the others. But, after poking around their website a bit, I conclude that they exercise no selectivity at all. From their FAQ page, Artist information such as photos, written biographies (...) come from our data provider, Rovi. There's also instructions for how to get into the Rovi database, You can mail Rovi one copy of the product along with any relevant promotional materials. So, basically, if you send a press kit to Rovi, you end up on All Music.
-- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I will have to assess my value to Wikipedia, for the fact CCM sources are not adequate to substantiate notability, even with MUSICBIO being met by two or more benchmarks. The only reason, I am here editing as part of this encyclopedia, is Jesus Christ called me to do so, for his namesake.The Cross Bearer (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please, I hope someone will be my guest, and get this deleted and removed from the encyclopedia, for good. It is Little Bird (Misty Edwards album).The Cross Bearer (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be a diva. The article on the album is fine. Unlike a biography article, the article on the album does not invite continued coverage of personal life, family, views, and all sorts of intrusions that, as per WP:BLP, Wikipedia takes a proactive, conservative attitude to avoid, especially with respect to private individuals. Standards for sources suitable for building content on albums are more generous than for BLPs. There is a big difference between Christian Music articles and Christian musician biographies. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Explain to me what guidelines and policies, I am to follow then, with regard to future work on this encyclopedia? I am at a loss for words, for how to progress forward, at this point.The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are not very wrong about anything. I think you just didn't appreciate that WP:BLPs are held to a high standard compared to nearly everything else. For a living person, if there is no other full biography published, Wikipedia should not be the first to publish one, and in these borderline cases, the wishes of the subject are being increasingly respected.
Okay.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Misty does not want a page online where anonymous people are likely to add information about her parents, children, religious practices and political opinions. If you write articles about the music, that will be fine. The only thing I think you need to take more care of is the very conservatively written WP:BLP, and to note that it sits above any notability guideline. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:24, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay.The Cross Bearer (talk) 04:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, any admin who closed a discussion with that much participation where those involved unanimously asked for "Delete", in any other way, would have been raked over the coals, and rightly so. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:08, 3 July 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse 2 AFDs both ended in delete, 2nd was both recent and unanimous, no way it could have been closed any other way. DRV is not a place to merely express disagreement with an AFD consensus, as the page itself clearly points out. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:36, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I'm actually very surprised at the rejection of this article. While reviews of albums by an artist don't automatically render the artist themselves notable, they can be used in tandem with other sources to help solidify notability. The reviews, combined with the interviews and the AllMusic bio all come together to provide notability. To RoySmith - AllMusic is absolutely considered reliable and is indispensable to this project for music related content. It has been subject to numerous reliability discussions and it is a long-standing consensus that prose content, attributable to an author, on AllMusic is about as reliable as you can get for music journalism. As for the OTRS ticket, that I find interesting, and that might change my mind on this. Was there a particular reason that Edwards requested this? For instance, a BLP violation?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:21, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it isn't an absolute rule, generally the community is willing to accomidate reasonable requests by BLP subjects who do not wish to have an article, provided that the person isn't so notable that the omission would render the encyclopedia incomplete. Generally the specific reasons aren't made public (though sometimes it isn't hard to guess) and it's not even necessary that they have a reason--some people just don't want a WP article, and absent some very, very good reason to the contrary, we should respect that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:17, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you, Starblind. While Edwards is clearly notable, it is not so important to have an article about her as to over-ride her objection to having an article about herself. The Cross Bearer - please take notice of this. In all of the examples you have provided, I see none indicating an urgent need to include an article on Edwards on this encyclopedia against Edwards' own wishes.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 16:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The closing admin read the consensus correctly, there's no other way the discussion could have been closed. That the subject has asked for the article to be deleted hammers it home. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Endorse I will give her what she wants, and quit working on anything pertaining to her or her music, for that matter. She wants her anonymity and privacy, I'll relent to her request, and she is now totally off of my radar screen, for the foreseeable future. God Bless, Misty Edwards, and have a good life!The Cross Bearer (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close; nominator now !voting to endorse and nobody else has suggested overturning. Stifle (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_July&oldid=688090426"