Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October

29 October 2015

Joseph J. Allaire – There is a pretty clear consensus to endorse the result as being correct at the time, while also permitting recreation of an improved version article with new sources, subject to the concerns being raised in the AFD being addressed. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Joseph J. Allaire (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The page deletion resulted from factual inaccuracies in the deletion discussion. I reached out to the administrator who deleted the page, User:Sandstein, and was told that because I missed the deletion discussion, the facts basically don't matter. This seems very un-Wikipedia to me. I've highlighted and provided comments on the inaccuracies in the deletion review below. > "(note that his brother Jeremy Allaire, is notable as the inventor of ColdFusion but that's his brother, not himself)" This is the other way around. Joseph J Allaire was actually the inventor of ColdFusion rather than Jeremy Allaire (Jeremy provided input but otherwise didn't participate in the development of the product). Source: Data Intensive Computing for Biodiversity: "The first version of ColdFusion (then called Cold Fusion) was released in 1995, written almost entirely by one man, JJ Allaire. > "add a note on the brother's page about Joseph's minor involvement in his brother's enterprise -- sibling rivalry!!!" This is also incorrect. Joseph was the principal founder and leader of the company rather than Jeremy. He was both the developer of ColdFusion and founding CEO. After hiring an outside CEO Joseph continued as Chairman and Executive Vice President of Products. Jeremy was a critical part of the origin and evolution of the company but formally joined it about a year after its founding and subsequently held the positions of Director of Technology and Chief Technology Officer. You can verify much of this by reviewing the company's S1 filing with the SEC, just search for all instances of "Jeremy" and "Joseph" and note the accountings of role, etc. > "No notability outside being the ceo of Altaiere...he only additional thing this individual did is devised one of the minor components of what became the MS toolbar" This is also an incomplete account, and not just in the name of the company (Allaire). Joseph has developed a number of other highly successful software products: Windows Live Writer, a desktop blogging tool from Microsoft (2) Lose It!, an iPhone application which was the most Lose It! was the top free iPhone Health and Fitness application in both 2009 and 2010 (http://www.loseit.com/) RStudio, a widely used statistical computing tool (https://www.rstudio.com) that was named one of the top 25 technology products of 2015 by InfoWorld (http://www.idgenterprise.com/press/infoworld-announces-the-2015-technology-of-the-year-award-recipients). Would it be possible to reinstate the page? 10mbt (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment there is at least one problem with your source which says that JJ was the sole author of the original Cold Fusion. It cites that information to Wikipedia, looking back in our history it's here. That refers to an articles on TopHosts.com as its source. In the wayback machine I can find that here. But that (a) I'm not sure is reliable anyway, it seems to be user submitted content and no reason to beleive it's fact checked etc. and (b) doesn't support the claim made anyway. So we have no reliable source to support the original authorship of ColdFusion. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:34, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Here's a Computer World (AU) interview with Jeremy Allaire where he says himself that JJ was the "lead architect" of ColdFusion and he was more of a "product manager." 10mbt (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia's notability guidelines are largely based on the existence of significant coverage of the subject in third-party reliable sources. The article didn't cite any such sources and none were provided in the deletion discussion. I would suggest that anyone who wants the deletion to be overturned first try to locate such sources and post them for review. Even if the subject can reasonably be described as the inventor of ColdFusion it is unlikely that we would want to have a stand-alone article on him unless the sourcing can be improved. Hut 8.5 12:23, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse because the close reflected the discussion and it is not the job of a closer to decide what is "true". However, if there has been a mistake this should be corrected and the first step would be to create a well-referenced draft article. By our guidelines notability isn't primarily decided by whether someone is a lead architect or a manager but it depends of what the hacks write. However, even if someone is notable, for an adequate biographical article we still need to have sufficient reliably referenced material to tell us something worthwhile. And, hypothetically, if a page is merely a pastiche of an encyclopedia article and it contains just fluffy dross, I'll vote "delete" on it because such material is unencyclopedic. Thincat (talk) 14:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC) CommentHere's a source: an IDC report hosted by Adobe that recognizes JJ as the creator of ColdFusion in 1995. The S1 filing is also available. I'm attempting to right an important wrong; Jeremy is too often credited with being the sole creator of ColdFusion, when in reality, JJ was the author. There are plenty of articles available about the importance of ColdFusion (here's one) and the prominence of Allaire Corp., which the Allaire brother grew to a public company then sold to Macromedia. Additionally, not only is JJ the author of ColdFusion, he's also developed the Lose It! app, which has tens millions of users across the world, as well as R Studio, one of the most popular development environments for R. 10mbt (talk) 17:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC) To meet the WP:GNG though you'll need non-trivial coverage in multiple independant reliable sources about him. Your or my view of the signficance or otherwise of his contributions is not how notability is assessed. Given your statement I'm attempting to right an important wrong you might like to refer to righting great wrongs and wikipedia is not a soapbox --86.2.216.5 (talk) 23:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Comment (I was the nominator of the afd), but if he is notable there should be an article. As suggested, the best way to show there is notability is to try to write the article in draft space. It can then be evaluated more appropriately than here. DGG ( talk ) 03:49, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, but relist. Let's start with the simple part; given the discussion that existed, there's no possible way this could have been closed any other way. But, there is an assertion here about a factual error in the basic premise as to why this should have been deleted. That needs to get resolved, and it's never going to get resolved here at DRV. So, I suggest we re-open the existing discussion and let that run for another week. Writing a new version of the article in draft space, with appropriate references, wouldn't be a bad alternative. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 31 October 2015 (UTC) Comment I have some sources that should put the discussion of both his notoriety and his importance at Allaire to rest now. * Here's an article from the WSJ that reads, "[Allaire Corp.] company founder J.J. Allaire." * Here's a 1999 press release discussing J.J. and Jeremy earning the Massachusetts Interactive Media Council (MIMC) Young Entrepreneurs of the Year award, citing J.J. as the founder of Allaire Corp. * A Fast Company article lists J.J. as founder of Allaire Corp. Another from the Boston Globe listing J.J. as founder. * A Boston Business Journal piece details Lose It!'s ascent to and long reign at the top of the Apple App Store weight-loss charts and lists J.J. as the initial developer. * Ed Bott article that describes J.J. as founder of Allaire and creator of Windows Live Writer.″ * J.J. on the Forbes List of Most Notable Macalester Alumni * PC Mag article that reads, "J. J. Allaire, creator of the Web application server ColdFusion (acquired by Macromedia), is now chairman and CEO of Onfolio, which offers a Web research utility of the same name." * Venture Fizz profile of Charles Teague that describes J.J. as the founder of Allaire Corp. and Charles Teague as his first employee. What are the next steps? Should I write a draft article? 10mbt (talk) 15:11, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Those may indeed be sufficient to update the articles on various topics to note his involvement, however to have a bio on him, we need sources about him, not passing mentions, not brief statements in the context of other things, or directory type listings, or words he's written, but sources where the topic of him is a significant focus. (they also need to be intellectually independant, so the press release which is the second you list here is unlikely to be suitable). This is what WP:GNG requires. Do we have those? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:00, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Comment I added a draft article with the improved sources. Please take a look if interested! 10mbt (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Endorse but restore. The AfD close was correctly decided based on the unanimous consensus to delete. I have found several sources that discuss the subject in detail: Beal, David (1999-01-26). "From Macalaster to Millions//Newly Public Allaire Corp., Now Based in Boston, Springs From Liberal Arts-Grounded Talent". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02. The article notes: A liberal arts degree normally isn't a hot piece of paper in today's work world, but a 29-year-old Macalester College graduate just spun his into a cool $96 million. J.J. Allaire, who graduated from St. Paul's Macalester College in 1991, suddenly finds himself worth that much in the wake of a stock offering that took his company public last Friday. The software development company he started four years ago, Allaire Corp., was founded almost entirely on talent bred at Macalester. He and seven other friends from the small liberal arts school, including his younger brother Jeremy, were among the company's first 13 employees. Three of the remaining five were siblings or spouses of Macalester students. ... J.J. Allaire is the company's largest single shareholder with 19.2 percent of the stock, valued at $497.8 million based on its Monday closing price. That puts a value of $95.6 million on his stake. The article provides detailed biographical background about the subject: Green recalled working with J.J. Allaire in the late 1980s to develop a computer simulation of a presidential campaign. He said that project led to a course, "Constructing Political Theories," at Macalester and, eventually, to the concepts that underlie ColdFusion. Green said Allaire would say, a day or two before the deadline for a particular project or exam, that he was far from prepared. Then he would come in and breeze through it in good order. "He was always kind of an entrepreneurial guy. He's really imaginative. He took some computer courses, but not very many." Allaire is originally from Philadelphia. After his grandfather died when he was 12 years old, his family moved to Winona to care for his grandmother. After leaving Macalester, he did software engineering contract work for MTS Systems, Deluxe Corp. and Virtual University Enterprises in Bloomington. He also worked as an analyst for the Minnesota Department of Revenue. As part of the process of preparing to go public, Allaire turned over the CEO role at the company to a more experienced executive, 39-year-old David J. Orfao. Ojeda-Zapata, Julio (2006-10-11). "A New Frontier For Microsoft - A Former Twins Citian Is Helping the Software Giant Shed Its Image As a Plodding Pachyderm By Developing Windows Live Writer, a Small, Speedy Web-Publishing Program That Lets Blog Authors Post to Any Hosting Service, Not Just Those Run By the Company". St. Paul Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02. The article notes: When Minnesotan and Microsoft worker J.J. Allaire recently launched Windows Live Writer, a Web-publishing program for blog authors, he hardly expected the fanfare that surrounds landmark Microsoft releases such as an Office productivity suite or a Windows operating system. ... Allaire was working on his programs before Microsoft bought his Onfolio company in March, but has improved them since then. He offered them up as evidence that an exciting era is dawning at his Redmond, Wash.-based workplace. Allaire, a Macalester College graduate, said he and his Onfolio comrades are in good company at Microsoft. ... Allaire, in an interview, said he insisted on such broad compatibility, and met little resistance. The former Twin Citian -- who left in 1996 after founding Web-tech firm Allaire Corp. with his brother Jeremy -- said his blog-posting program may be built to work with Windows Live, but it's intended for all bloggers. It's part of a broad push to create a two-way Web in which anyone can publish content as well as read it, and develop an audience via blog-posting tools, he said. Wallack, Todd (1999-01-23). "Allaire sees stellar market debut". Boston Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02. The article notes: In 1995, J.J. Allaire invested $18,000 in a promising Web tool he had created, called Cold Fusion. Yesterday, the 29-year-old self-taught programmer cashed in. His Cambridge company's stock more than doubled in value on its first day of trading - giving Allaire a paper gain of $80 million. Allaire Corp. shares rose $23.75 to $43.75, raising $50 million. Not bad, considering the company has never turned a profit. But Allaire said he never thought about striking it rich when he started the Net firm in Minneapolis, a few years after he graduated from Macalister College. "It was really just about wanting to create a product," he said. He moved the firm to Massachusetts in late 1996. Allaire was planning a modest celebration with employees last night at a Somerville bar and another get-together over the weekend with friends. But Allaire, who owns just under 20 percent of the firm, won't be the only one to celebrate. Venture capitalists from Prism Venture Partners are also cashing in big. And Allaire said all 170 employees have at least some stock options. "I think people are really excited," he said. Rosenberg, Ronald (1998-08-18). "Web software firm Allaire plans $35m IPO". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02 – via HighBeam Research. The article notes: The company was founded in Minnesota in May 1995 by J.J. Allaire, then in his mid-20s. He relocated the business and its 14 employees to Cambridge nearly two years ago because he feared Minnesota couldn't supply enough technical talent. Kirsner, Scott (2004-03-15). "Start-Up Is in Search of the Next Big Idea". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02 – via HighBeam Research. The article notes: Talk to J.J. Allaire about his new start-up, Onpholio, and you get a 1990s-era blast of vision and ambition. "The problem of search on the Web involves how you find things," says Allaire. "Google came along and now you can find what you want more easily. But the problem of research on the Web is how do you organize and collect what you find? The product we've built gives people a place to put what they've found online." Allaire isn't trying to create a better search engine; the software that Onpholio is launching today is a tool for research. It plugs into Microsoft's Internet Explorer browser and allows you to categorize, annotate, and store Web pages that you find. It's something that would be useful to a salesperson researching prospects, a consultant learning about a specific industry, or even a journalist working on a story. Onpholio makes it especially easy to send a summary of your research to a colleague via e-mail or to publish it to a Web page on your company's server. ... The eight-person company, known as Project31 while it was in stealth mode, is based in Cambridge. So far, it has been funded out of Allaire's pocket. Allaire, along with his brother Jeremy, started Allaire Corp. in 1995. Allaire, which made software for developing and operating Web sites, went public, and then was eventually acquired for $360 million. Kirsner, Scott (2005-02-14). "Regrets? He's had a few". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02. The article notes: After bugging entrepreneur J.J. Allaire for more than a year to tell me about his new company, he agreed to give me first dibs on writing about it last March. I promptly got the company's name wrong, spelling it Onpholio. (It's actually Onfolio.) That forced Allaire to register the Web domain for my misspelling, www.onpholio.com. The Cambridge company sells software that helps researchers organize and share material they find on the Web. Walker, Leslie (2004-03-25). "Media Giants Need To Learn to Sing A New Tune". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2004-04-13 suggested (help) The article notes: Lately I've been testing several new software programs, which together make me think no amount of suing by big-media kingpins can snuff out the creative flame sparked by the digital revolution. One, called Onfolio lets you grab anything you find surfing online and store it in a database, then mix and match your Web gems to produce custom reports. With the click of a button, you can e-mail the reports, store them on your computer or publish them to the Web. Onfolio is deaf, dumb and blind to copyright law; any unprotected image or text you find on the Internet is fair game for this $30 scrape-and-store toolkit. Founder J.J. Allaire says he is pioneering a new category of software he calls a "search information manager" to help the Google generation organize stuff they find online. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Joseph J. Allaire to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 03:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Endorse- based on that discussion, there is no way the closing admin could have done differently. Allow recreation if better sources have since turned up. Reyk YO! 12:27, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Comment I added a draft article with the improved sources. Please take a look if interested! 10mbt (talk) 15:03, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Great work on the article, 10mbt (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 04:29, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:Alex Gilbert – No consensus to allow recreation. Please don't renominate unless something significant changes. –  Sandstein  10:31, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Alex Gilbert (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This page is clearly notable and it has gone through many deletions etc. Has had multiple media coverage in NZ and Russia. And no it is not about a single event. The sources also cover his Non-Profit Organisation and Book. DmitryPopovRU (talk) 01:08, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment for context see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Gilbert (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 24. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Don't not promote to mainspace I see no real improvement over the deleted version. Stuartyeates (talk) 01:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Hi Stuartyeates . Actually alot has improved on this page since the deleted version. I am unsure on how translated sources work. I could translate these. This page is clearly notable. It does not cover a single event. It has massive coverage in Russia and Media Coverage in NZ, NOT only about him tracing his Birth Parents but helping others trace their own for his Non-Profit Organisation. See https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/whangarei-boy-who-traced-russian-roots-helps-fellow-kiwi-adoptees-find-bloodlines-q06939.html and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11493462 - Yes they talk about his Birth Parents as a back story but the article is not about that. The Russia Media Coverage at first is about his Story but a STRONG source here - http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1557617/ is about him helping others just like the previous 2 sources from NZ. I suggest you take another look. Thanks --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2015 (UTC) For the record Russian language sources are more than welcome. I'm sure that someone neurtal can find a Russian speaker to take a look at them. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:02, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Ok I have tagged some Russian Administrators - User:Brandmeister , User:Daniel Case , User:Halibutt for them to possibly take a look. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPopovRU (talk • contribs) 08:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Stuartyeates (talk · contribs), Spartaz reviewed the Russian-language sources below and supports a relist. Would you also support a relist? Cunard (talk) 05:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Spartaz (the only Russian-speaker so far) was equivocal, leaning relist. I'm going to let this one run. Stuartyeates (talk) 06:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC) Could someone highlight the sources that were added since the last AfD? Hobit (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse doesn't appear to have had any massive notability leap since the last DRV in late August. Please don't attempt to nominate this every month. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Hi Andrew Lenahan . It clearly does. This has a huge notability leap since last August. This person gained alot of Media publicity in Russia, this was never highlighted before. The new sources as follows - **http://www.ntv.ru/peredacha/anatomia/m42880/o363224/ (Russia's NTV Network) http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1557617/ (Russia's NTV Network - a close article about Alex Gilbert and his Organisation) http://www.yarcom.ru/news/zhitel-novoy-zelandii-nashyol-svoyu-rodnuyu-mat-v-rybinske-101870 (Yaroslavl regional news, Russia) http://echo76.ru/news/novozelandets_aleks_gilbert_nashel_v_rybinske_svoyu_mat_brosivshuyu_ego_v_roddome/ http://76.ru/text/news/91642971541504.html?full=3 (this article talks about his story + talks about his Book and Organisation) http://progorod76.ru/news/view/8287 http://rweek.ru/2015/10/21/novozelandec-nashel-svoyu-mat-v-rybinske/ http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=2677588 (Vesti News, another main News Source in Russia) http://bsvesti.ru/news/usynovlennyy_roditelyami_iz_novoy_zelandii_molodoy_chelovek_nashel_v_rybinske_rodnuyu_mat/ http://www.uaua.info/semya/otnosheniya/news-42933-aleks-gilbert-zachem-priemnyie-deti-ischut-svoih-biologicheskih-roditeley/ (An article from one of the largest Parental Magazines in the Ukraine about why People should adopt. Another new article about Alex). Do not forget the ones I mentioned earlier which also brings up notability. See https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/whangarei-boy-who-traced-russian-roots-helps-fellow-kiwi-adoptees-find-bloodlines-q06939.html and http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11493462. Thanks --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC)| Comment Hi Hobit I have listed these above. Thanks --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 18:30, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Question This request was added to the page at 19.22 but contains comments written more than 18 hours earlier. Where do those comments come from? --Stefan2 (talk) 19:29, 29 October 2015 (UTC) the history says it was added at 1.08, there is another review on this page which started at 19.22 --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Oh, sorry. I didn't notice that the second review was added at the top. Normally, people add new requests at the bottom of this page. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:33, 29 October 2015 (UTC) My Russian is rusty but my reading of the news coverage is that Gilbert has now found his biological mother and that this has kicked off another round of press coverage which is pretty much the back end of the same event. For me the issue really is how 1E this now is and whether the coverage is now enduring enough to overcome `1E even if it kicks in. NTV is the national source, Ekho Moscow and Yaroslavl press are more local but not rubbishy sources - just a bit heart warming humany interest rather then hard news. I don't know whether this gives us a proper article for this young man that can endure though the years or its just another sweet tabloidy story that starts and ends for a very short section of Gilbert's life. I'm conflicted but I'd suggest the place for the discussion about the 1E is another AFD for I would recommend 'Relist Spartaz Humbug! 14:57, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Lots of people find their birth parents. That this man's story is covered in the media is not sufficient to warrant an article.-gadfium 21:33, 30 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, and delte the draft version. Notability has to be for something, and I don't see it. The over-personal draft version doesn't help things. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 31 October 2015 (UTC) relist/overturn first of all I think the original close was wrong. There were plenty of sources solely about the subject. WP:BLE is for a single event--there isn't one here. And arguments for WP:N not being met are just factually wrong. Now we have more sources. Yes, he hasn't done anything, but neither have the Kardasians (sp?) or folks of that ilk. We have coverage and nothing in WP:NOT applies, so we should have an article. (No, I wouldn't have closed this as keep, I'd have !voted, but it still isn't a policy-based close... Hobit (talk) 05:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Comment & Relist The article covers his Non-Profit Organisation 'I'm Adopted' which has been covered a lot throughout the Russian Media and the NZ Media. This article is notable and WP:BLE does not apply as yes the previous time this was nominated for deletion it was for this but the article has been improved. I have managed to find enough sources to show notability. It might need some work on the writing etc, and this article was reviewed and approved a few months back but then placed here for undeletion review the first time. This article is clearly notable. Yes alot of people find their Birth Parents, but do I have to say this a thousand times? The article covers his book and Non-Profit Organisation which has been covered enough in the Media and TV. People who are just looking at the English sources.. they need to take another look through the sources. English and Russian sources as these are allowed. This is from the show in Russia NTV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZQ502cPonA) the main story of this is about his 'Im Adopted' page, though it does include a backstory on his adoption which is a WP:BLE but the main reason for this story is about his 'I'm Adopted' Organisation. There was also clear notable sources on this here: https://www.tvnz.co.nz/one-news/new-zealand/whangarei-boy-who-traced-russian-roots-helps-fellow-kiwi-adoptees-find-bloodlines-q06939 , http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11493462 and http://www.ntv.ru/novosti/1557617/. Just also I have added a new source onto the page and I think we should relist at the end of the day as this article is clearly notable. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC) Allow recreation. The last AfD was closed 20 July 2014. There are several sources in the draft published after that AfD close. Here are two: Hurley, Sam (22 August 2015). "Whangarei boy who traced Russian roots helps fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines". Television New Zealand. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015. Newlove, Alexandra (August 7, 2015). "Russian adoptee shares stories". The Northern Advocate. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved August 7, 2015. The article notes in the first paragraph: "A former Russian adoptee raised in Whangarei is helping other adopted people share their stories." The coverage of Alex Gilbert's efforts to "hel[p] fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines" indicates that there is a good faith argument that WP:BLP1E no longer applies. Since the first DRV, the subject has received even more coverage based on the sources provided by DmitryPopovRU. The sustained coverage of the subject one year after the AfD indicates that concerns about the coverage being transitory were wrong. From the AfD "subjects of this kind of coverage have no ongoing notabiity (sic)" and "The amount and duration of coverage were limited, and fall short of establishing Gilbert as an ongoing notable individual." Cunard (talk) 02:28, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Comment Hi User:Justice007 you helped with this article also last year. This article has achieved notability with exactly what Cunard mentioned before. The article has gone through massive changes since its AFD on the 20th of July 2014 which clearly makes the subject notable now. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 05:32, 2 November 2015 (UTC) Comment Hi have found a new strong source which does make this subject clearly notable. http://www.nzherald.co.nz/northern-advocate/news/article.cfm?c_id=1503450&objectid=11539862 . Please see Cunard , Spartaz , Hobit , Stuartyeates — Preceding unsigned comment added by DmitryPopovRU (talk • contribs) 00:06, 4 November 2015 (UTC) That is a very good find. The article was published "12:30 PM Wednesday Nov 4, 2015". That is today. The article provides significant coverage about Alex Gilbert, disproves the claims in the AfD that the coverage of the subject is transitory, and provides strong evidence in support of a relist. Cunard (talk) 04:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Comment: the subject works in the New Zealand media industry. All the New Zealand coverage is either in the New Zealand Herald family of newspapers or Television New Zealand family of channels (where the subject has appeared and worked); there is no obvious mention in their competitors http://www.3news.co.nz/ and http://www.stuff.co.nz/ . Stuartyeates (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Comment Actually yes he does work in the media industry, but the new article for the NZ Herald, Russian Media are not anything to do with where he works Stuartyeates. That is not the point of the subject. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 06:37, 4 November 2015 (UTC) Comment no the subject hasn't worked at the NZ Herald or TVNZ. Where did you see that? He has featured only in articles and videos from these media outlets. This is getting silly, really. Please don't delete the Draft. I would like to work further on this article as I think it is clearly Notable and passes the General Notability Guidelines. --DmitryPopovRU (talk) 07:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 October 2015

File:Josh Byrne Step By Step.jpg – Withdrawn – Stifle (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Josh Byrne Step By Step.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore) Some IP user removed the image of the living person as replaceable. However, the person is a former child actor, and he has not been actively acting since he left one show. The photo was of an actor portraying a character on television at a very young age. Per WP:GUIDES, perhaps we can make an exception on WP:NFC#UUI; after all, it's a guideline, which can be treated with common sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by George Ho (talk • contribs) 16:55, 28 October 2015‎ (UTC) What's changed since the last time this was at DRV? —Cryptic 16:57, 28 October 2015 (UTC) I forgot that it existed. My apologies. --George Ho (talk) 16:58, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Shall I erase the whole thing, Cryptic? George Ho (talk) 17:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC) If you're withdrawing, we can just close the DRV as withdrawn by nominator. In fact, I'll do that, but if you didn't mean to withdraw, just revert it. (In which case I say keep deleted for the same reason as last time.) Stifle (talk) 17:09, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 October 2015

Angela Beesley Starling – Endorse. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Angela Beesley Starling (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) It appears that this was a sort of "under-the-radar AfD". The article has survived many attempts (I didn't even count) for deletion. It is very hard to believe the attempt would finally succeed without much fanfare. Some votes appear to suffer from COI: Angela has clear COI and there are some votes from those knowing her personally and are thus suspected of COI. I'm perfectly open to a new AfD but this one should be overturned. Taku (talk) 23:48, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse delete Is there such a thing as a speedy endorse? The AfD in March 2015 was open for 7 days and has several "deletes" and no "keeps", so the suggestion there was something wrong with the close is not even wrong. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 26 October 2015 (UTC) That's why I said "under-the-radar"; if I knew about the AfD, I would have voted "keep". -- Taku (talk) 10:14, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. There's nothing wrong with the discussion and this certainly isn't the first time a previously controversial topic was deleted without comment. The previous discussion was three years prior and rejected on procedural grounds; it appears the last "valid" discussion was almost eight years ago. The community moved on. Mackensen (talk) 02:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Closure was correct; consensus can change. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn on an IAR basis. It sends a curious message when BLPREQUESTDELETE is used to justify deletion of pages of people affiliated with Wikipedia management and operations while far more intrusive and uncomplimentary content concerning less noteworthy people is retained. I'm also uncomfortable with allowing wars of attrition to be settled by a single unrepresentative battle in the absence of relevant policy development or change. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2015 (UTC) The article was SNOWed with "delete"s after Angela's persuasive !vote. An overly detailed snapshot from 2005, wih excessive reliance on poor sources, becomes inaccurate and can't be updated because of no ongoing coverage in reliable sources. That was persuasive for the article as it was. Endorse its deletion. There may be a different question to ask here. Is the more stubby article, or even stubbier, acceptable? Does it escape G4 by having less material, if it explicitly covered the 2005 snapshot? Angela maintains an online profile, and it seems reasonable for it to be possible to find it via Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2015 (UTC) I didn't find Angela's argument persuasive. Quite the opposite. To me, the argument falls somewhere between enshrining "not notable any more" into our guidelines, which isn't compatible with the role of an encyclopedia, and enacting our own "right to be forgotten". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:44, 27 October 2015 (UTC) It is very doubtful that suitable sources to establish notability for a new article would be available. For this review, all that matters is that there was a clear consensus with policy-based reasoning, and anyone watching the article or AfD had seven days to see the discussion. BLPREQUESTDELETE was mentioned but it was not used to justify deletion, although a couple of people agreed with the opinion that the article was a snapshot from 2005 and was no longer accurate, and could not be improved due to sourcing and notability problems. Johnuniq (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, as I said in the discussion, this was pure Wikicruft and we wouldn't entertain any thought of keeping this if she weren't involved in Wikimedia. Angela did not contact me about the discussion, and to allege some sort of improper undisclosed COI is just fishing for controversy. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 27 October 2015 (UTC). Endorse deletion per above points: consensus can change. --Rubbish computer (HALP!: I dropped the bass?) 13:06, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Note on courtesy undeletion Looking at the history there has been BLP violations in the past dealt with by partial deletion of certain revisions. Unfortunately, this predates revision deletion so it would be impossible at this stage to undelete the article without restoring the removed content. On that basis I am not courtesy undeleting for the purposes of this discussion but I can confirm that the recreated article under the redirect is consistent with what was there before the page was deleted. Spartaz Humbug! 13:49, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion, unanimous agreement in AfD discussion and no actual reason to dispute that decision has been presented here, as far as I can see? Stormie (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse- Consensus to delete was unanimous and strongly grounded in policy. There is no other way the discussion could have been closed. Reyk YO! 13:21, 28 October 2015 (UTC) (Overturn this many repeated nomination for a deletion are an abuse of process. If one nominates an article enough times, the vvariability of aparitcipation here mean that it is almost certain to be deleted. The last time I saw an outrageous series of nomination like this was back in 2007, when the earlier series of nomination s came to a temporary halt. Certainly, our notability standards can change, but not to this extent. DGG ( talk ) 09:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC) As far as I can tell, the last meaningful discussion was 2007. Is there something more recent on that list? Hobit (talk) 12:46, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 October 2015

24-Hour Vevo Record – Highly improper NAC reverted – JohnCD (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
24-Hour Vevo Record (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I am uninvolved in this discussion. Anyways, this AFD was closed as keep by a non-admin. However, I notice a few problems with this close: a) the discussion was only open for 3 days, instead of the usual 7; b) the discussion only had 5 !votes, two of which were for deletion; and c) the closing non-admin !voted in the discussion (as a keep), violating WP:NACD. I request that this AFD be relisted for a more clear consensus. Prhdbt [talk] 18:32, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Manas Madrecha – WP:G11 deletion endorsed. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC) I have been asked to provide further explanation for this close: There is broad consensus here that the sources presented, while numerous, do not meet our requirements for independent, reliable sources, as described in WP:RS, and that the criteria for deletion under WP:G11 were met. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Manas Madrecha (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) This article is of a BLP, which, when published was in creation by User:AlwaysHappy by adding the {{increation}} tag, when it was deleted using Speedy Deletion by citing spam and insignificant. However, the person being dicussed abides by the notability guidelines of BLP, and had sufficient third-party references to prove the facts claims. It had more than 30 edits, edited by more than 5 distinct users/bots. The person is a public figure of Thane and Mulund cities (suburban areas of Mumbai, India). Relevant references were made while claiming his representation of notable college under Mumbai University. Moreover, the lead introduction was "Indian poet, writer and blogger". The article had over a dozen citations to validate itself and was patrolled too. I had put a {{stub}} tag, and some {{citation-needed}} tags for maintenance, which were rectified accordingly. So, in all, the article was notable and could have been improvised, and discussed on its talk page, before directly jumping for Speedy Deletion by a user who has been discredited in the past for hasty tags of Speedy Deletion. So, after futile debate with the administrator, I request here that the article be restored back, and instead of deletion, a maintenance tag be put on its top, upon restoration. AlicePeston (talk) 12:16, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse keeping. Yes, I agree with AlicePeston (talk). No reason exists to delete the article speedily. Maintenance tags could have been put. Even some sections of the article could have been deleted, but the entire article should'nt and needn't be deleted so hastily. The article could have been even proposed for deletion, and then discussion could have ensued. But, speedy deletion should definitely not be used. So, my opinion is to have the page back, and then improvements could be made on it.AlwaysHappy (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Restore- Over a dozen references, that are independent and reliable and belong to third-party sources have been cited to validate that the person is notable. It is sufficient to at least initiate a BLP article. In course, the article could be improvised and irelevant claims be removed, but deleting it via Speedy Deletion, without giving chance to be heard, isn't assuming good faith. And as for a sock puppet, I'm an active bonafide Wikipedian user for over a year. I don't request the article to be kept intact. I request the article to be restored, so that only relevant parts can be kept and rest deleted. AlwaysHappy (talk) 13:37, 24 October 2015 (UTC) You get to make one endorsement here. I moved your comment under the previous one. And no, the sources are not what we would consider reliable and independent. They look like mostly blogs, self-published, or brief mentions. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Strongly Delete It's not significant article on Wikipedia and the references provided by creator are only about a Blog (created by Manas Madrecha itself) and Facebook, Twitter. Also there is no search results for Manas Madrecha on Google News. Also i have some doubt regarding whether the AlicePeston and AlwaysHappy are sock-puppets. Wikipedia admin's are requested to see , where the reasons are already discussed on Jimfbleak, and the reason is already clarified within the talk page.Josu4u (talk) 12:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Only I am a resident of Mumbai city and have heard of Manas Madrecha. It is not my position to opine on whether the article should be kept or deleted, but the person is definitely notable. PoojaM1996 13:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoojaM1996 (talk • contribs) Argument Merely endorsing someone you agree with doesn't make you a sock puppet, sir, Josu4u (talk). If you want to know me, check my user page, however it's in my discretion to not to reveal my identity. I may have been determined on the restoration of this article, for there lie valid reasons, including notability, independent reliable references and article of a BLP. But I find that my plea falls on deaf ears, and now my only request is to restore the article to the extent of its relevance and reliability. AlicePeston (talk) 13:57, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Sock-puppet issue which i raised is just only a doubt. The references that provided within the article are not significant, you can also see the previous discussion about the article on . And I would like to explain about the references that you mentioned, the references that provided are from Blogger, Facebook and from some websites where anyone can be created just by signing into with an account. If he's notable there should be a single article which mentions about him on Google News, but when i search Manas Madrecha on Google News, i cannot find any results. So how are you saying that he is notable and all.Josu4u (talk) 14:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for getting that doubt clarified. Google news isn't a prerequisite for being notable; already the person has other online reliable citations. Being an internet public figure, blog reference is certainly going to be there. As for Facebook, it was a page reference dedicated for him and not an account's reference. Apart for references that appear doubtful, there were still a dozen of them plainly depicting his works being featured all over, making him notable. These were the references of him being "Indian post, writer and blogger" which is undeniable as these references validate the fact. As to his student leadership, he is more notable. So, from the list of reliable and independent citations I mentioned in that discussion, you may choose at least one of your own reference, that warrants the article's presence on Wikipedia. As to the administrator who deleted the page, has stubbornly stated he will not restore it and even delete it, if created again; the attitude reeks of Indophobia, as the person being discussed belongs to India. So, sir, Josu4u, I request you to restore the article as you being an admin yourself, and then using tags of maintenance, clean ups, blp tags, stub tags, removal of unreferenced claims, keep only those sections, that meet guidelines. AlicePeston (talk) 14:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry, I would like to say the admin Jimfbleak is 100% correct on the deletion of the article and he is not a Indophobia. He stands on the Rules of Wikipedia and you should respect him for his service.Josu4u (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Temporarily undeleted for deletion review. JohnCD (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. This is a classic example of WP:Bombardment - piling up trivial or irrelevant sources to mask a lack of notability. The WP:General notability guideline looks for "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," and says ""Reliable" means sources need editorial integrity" i.e. some sort of editorial control; so blogs, social media like Facebook and fansites are not reliable sources (see WP:USERG) because anyone can write anything there; nor is Wikipedia, for the same reason. To say the references in this article are "independent and reliable" is nonsense. Let us look at the sources listed: 1, 2, 6 and 12 are Manas Madrecha's own blogs 5 and 10 are his Facebook fan-page 11 "Best poems of all time" - its homepage is full of his poems, and it has a link to his "Simplifying universe" blog, so its seems to be another of his sites. None of those is independent, or reliable. 3 is Wikipedia - not a reliable source, because anyone can edit it. Someone has been pushing mention of him into the article about his school, but I would expect that normal editing will shortly remove that as WP:UNDUE weight on one pupil. 7, 8 and 9 do not mention him at all, they are about other people That leaves: 4, 13 Poemhuntercom. I don't know this site, and at least it seems not to be Madrecha's own site, but if you compare the glowing praise in its page about him with what it has to say about, say, Shakespeare or Milton, it is very hard to believe that his page was written independently. Conclusion: what I see here is energetic self-promotion, but nothing that indicates notability in Wikipedia's sense. Speedy-deletion was absolutely correct, to avoid wasted time deleting it at WP:AFD. JohnCD (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion: no reliable sources - poemhunter.com appears to be a site to which anyone can add poems of their choice. Note that the article appears to have been written as an autobiography, although the editor has recently attempted to remove mention of their original username by editing other editors' posts on their talk page. PamD 22:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. After examining the sources, I don't see anything that would confer notability to the subject. The number of sources don't matter as much as the quality. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse and protect against re-creation. I note the claim in the appeal here, that the person is notable in two neighborhoods of Mumbia. Even as a claim, that's very far from notability in an encyclopedic sense,and does not even amount to an indication of significance. DGG ( talk ) 05:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Despite claims that there is no COI, AlicePeston, AlwaysHappy and now PoojaM1996 have edited only the same small group of articles about him, his school and his college, and have explored every route except finding proper references to keep this article. They are obvious socks. The lengthy discussion on my talk page has already been linked to above. Since Indiaphobe was mentioned, I should perhaps mention that I've visited the subcontinent three times, most recently to Uttarakhand and Delhi last year Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:39, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Speedy Endorse whilst accepting the importance of having fair processes I can't help but think allowing things like this to drag on does anything but encourage frivolous requests. The article meets the speedy criteria. If it went to AFD the sources fail to be independent (FWIW I can confirm that the bio on poemhunter.com is something contributing poets get to write for themselves). The ""playing the race card" just shows the lack of any real substance here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:00, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Allow recreation @JohnCD (talk · contribs) I thank you very much sir for your such an elaborated reply. I assume that those references which you mentioned were of the article, and I agree that some of them don't comply as reliable. And, for that matter more were found. As to WP:Bombardment, quite a number of references were mentioned because the admin or any one else wanted independent reliable references. No one said about using them all in the article, but since even one such reference is sufficient to imitate a BLP article, the appropriate admin/other editor may choose from the following, so as to deem the article fit for being on Wikipedia, and restore it at least as a {{stub}}, with other maintenance tags. 1 - refers to an independent site that has featured his images, on its own. 2 - it's a fan page, though independent of his own intervention. 3 - the only blog that he has is the Simplifying Universe, that was, but now isn't being used as reference. This 3rd reference is of an independent site that features his poems, on its own, along with that of other notable Indian poets like Ramdhari Singh Dinkar. 6 - refers to the college to which he belongs, to cite his educational facts in the article 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 - refers to the independently reliable sites to have mentioned the person by featuring his poems, articles, images, or any other quote of his for that matter. 13 - refers to an independent directory of India's blogs, and the person is listed over there Conclusion: The original article had certain misleading references, maybe added hastily to not to keep the article as stub as it had been tagged. The lead description of the person was "Indian poet, writer and blogger", and the student leadership was merely secondary things. But now, the newfound references which do not break Wiki guidelines, adds to the person's notability being discussed, thereby validating article's restoration. @PamD (talk · contribs) Mam, with due respect, the reason as to why it is not an autobiography or WP:COI has been justified on my talk page. @Amatulic (talk · contribs) Sir, the reply would be same as given to JohnCD above, though thanks for your intervention. @DGG (talk · contribs) Sir, the notability isn't confined to those regions, but those areas are specifically mentioned for the as his leadership of respective city' students. As to protection against recreation, this review is for restoration for article. If my request is accepted, there won't be any need to do so. If it isn't, then I request you to transfer the deleted article to a draft, so that I can get the source code and more work can be done and references be found for it to be notable, and only then publish it after a year or two. Or better, restore it now as an article, as I have replied to JohnCD above. @Jimfbleak (talk · contribs) I don't know about AlicePeston or PoojaM1996, but surely if you scroll down my contributions, I have edited several Indian pages since a year. That surely doesn't make me a sock puppet, just because our views differ, sir. @86.2.216.5 (talk) Sir/Mam, the poemhunter reference may be dependent, but the others aren't, as explained to JohnCD above. @AlicePeston (talk · contribs) Mam, the admin Jimbleak is doing great service to Wikipedia, and just because you both aren't on the same page, it was unceremonious of you to unnecessarily accuse someone of Indophobia, or as said, "playing the race card". AlwaysHappy (talk) 12:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) I have struck your bolded sentiment, as previously noted above, you only get to !vote once. Repeating the same failed sources time and time again is not constructive. You really need to try and understand what a WP:RS actually is, and user generated crap with no fact checking from random people who we have no reason to believe their opinion to be worth anything is certainly not it, any fool can collect 1000s of those and it doesn't make them notable. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:00, 26 October 2015 (UTC) If you have read the discussion keenly sir, you may notice that the enumerated arguments proposed by JohnCD were of the references placed in the original article, whereas my list of references in the above discussion were "newfound" (as stated above). So, instead of "repeating the same failed sources time and time again", I have presented new references, with their explanation to independence and reliability. And, I have no idea of what kind of language is "user-generated crap", but if you mean for me understand WP:RS, then I have scrupulously been through the article, along with "Biographies of living persons", "Neutral point of view", "Verifiability", "Independent sources", "Notability" and "Notability (people)". So, as per WP:BASIC, "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Moreover, as per WP:AUTHOR, the person being discussed is notable as "the person is regarded as an important figure or is widely cited by peers or successors", in addition to "the person's work (or works) either (a) has become a significant monument, (b) has been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) has won significant critical attention, or (d) is represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums." So, none of the "fool" have "collected 1000s" of references. Also, as explained above to JohnCD, there is no WP:Bombardment. Plus, as per WP:WPNOTRS, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources, i.e., a document or recording that relates or discusses information originally presented elsewhere." As per WP:RS, "the term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources." As per WP:BIASED, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject." Conclusion: As per the provisions of Wikipedia quoted above, the person and the article meant for restoration are duly notable and worthy to be on Wikipedia. Merely calling it "user-generated crap" or a "fool to collect 1000s" references showcase lack of gravitas for the article, and does nothing to refute my claim for restoration of the article. References (newer ones) have been mentioned as against the old questionable ones and certainly the relevant Wikipedia guidelines have been complied with. So, the request remains to restore the article. AlwaysHappy (talk) 12:37, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Once again I have struck your additional !vote, you only get one bolded sentiment here, your restoration of that again is getting to the point of disruption. That you can selectively read policy whilst ignoring that the sources are user contributed and fundamentally unreliable is not something to be proud of. Please keep deluding yourself that the sources show this person to be of note to the world, but it isn't going to change the outcome here. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:02, 28 October 2015 (UTC) The first of that set of references, to http://tofo.me/manasmadrecha is interesting: it's a collection of photos, one of which appears to be identical to the one in the article, File:Manas Madrecha at Suraj Water Park, Thane.jpg, which is recorded as "Own work" by User:AlwaysHappy, who has no COI. PamD 22:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC) endorse deletion Put simply, there is no chance of notability, and an afd on thiswould certainly lead to deletion. There's no point restoring it. DGG ( talk ) 09:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC) @DGG Your bolded sentiment has been struck, as previously noted above, you only get to !vote once. Merely stating the same sentence with no renewed evidence, is not constructive, sir. Instead of repeating same previous statements, it would be better to prove them, as I have done to counter the endorsement of deletion, and further cement request for restoration. @PamD With due respect, the explanation is provided on my talk page. @86.2.216.5 It would have been an additional vote, had I repeated what I stated before, which is not the case here. If new information is found, then it renders the possibility to a new comment of Recreating Article, which is disrupting without you complying with Instructions on Deletion Review, As to the Wikipedia policies, it seems you've deliberately decided to ignore them, just because they clash with your view to keep the article deleted. In case of me, albeit, instead of deluding myself, I have stated the policies word to word, and if you seem unable to comprehend the meaning because of their legal language, then some other editor might. The policies are to be read as law, and thus, words like or & however are as much part of the policies as to what precede or follow them. In addition, merely stating something to be fundamentally unreliable doesn't make so, unless the evidence is presented. In case of me, I have thoroughly enumerated the references, with presentable explanation, that validates my evidence that the 'references are independently reliable. And, as to being proud, there's nothing about being proud of creating some article on an encyclopedia; but, if it's about pride for you, sir, then it's unfortunate for that's where ego ushers in and you conflict "neutrality". Thus, evidently uncontested, my request for restoring the article remains outstanding.AlwaysHappy (talk) 01:40, 30 October 2015 (UTC) My apologies for the duplicate !vote. Pure forgetfulness. DGG ( talk ) 03:55, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 October 2015

Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba) – ENDORSED – Spartaz Humbug! 20:10, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Afghan Jalebi (Ya Baba) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is an article on Indian song from film Phantom (2015 film). First AfD was closed as "no consensus" by admin RoySmith on 6 September 2015, then nominator of AfD challenged outcome on RoySmith's talk page where RoySmith suggested him to "re-nominate it but read Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion before that" which says AfD closed as "no consensus" should not relist at least for 2 months. Though Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion is just an essay and not proper Wikipedia policy still some essays can be well established norms specially when an admin suggesting it to read it. But still nominator re-nominated article on 6 October 2015, just one month after closure of 1st AfD. 2nd AfD actually had very less discussion/votes than 1st AfD and closed as "delete" by admin Sandstein. I am creator of that article but this "delete" closure was also challenged by very experienced User:Richhoncho. Read all discussion here. I had some big issues with nominator and some of voters on that AfD in past, I don't want to discuss that. Since first AfD I wanted to improve that article but I was blocked twice because of edit warring on that article with nominator, nominator himself was blocked once for that article for edit warring with me during first AfD. So because of my 2 blocks came from that article I felt discouraged and left editing that article and article remained quite underdeveloped. My only request is that restore the article as it was re-nominated within one month or at least allow me to recreate it.(Note: I have no complain regarding any admin or any other involved editor). --Human3015TALK  19:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC) DRV should not be used to "attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias". Your nomination talks of the behaviour of AFD nominator (which is me) and how since your unblock on 1st September you were left with only 40 days to edit the article but the article wasn't edited even once in this tiny time. Do you want to add something substantial to consider in DRV? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:55, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I don't think that I should discuss this issue with you. I already said that I have no complain against any editor. You can keep on your allegations. Anyway, you can read in block messages that blocking admin suggested me to not touch the article. I will not reply to your any further comments, we can continue our "traditional fight" somewhere else. Regards. Human3015TALK  08:40, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Comment only. I got involved by accident and have no view regarding the outcome of the AfD or this deletion review. On scanning the most popular song pages listing I noted that there was one redlink out of 1000 entries and that was for this article so I questioned with the closer (Sandstein), whether an article getting close to 15,000 WP hits in a month is truly non-notable. The popular pages list shows this article getting 14908 hits in September and being 161st most popular song article, and, for August, 7823 hits, being the 780th most popular song article. It appears to me that Hollywood film songs can be bought separate from the film, and if successful, chart and create their "separate" notability. This does not appear to happen in the Bollywood (and similar) film industries. There is little or no "singles market" on the Indian sub-continent, but high use of YouTube etc (these days). So some of these songs can be MORE popular than the latest Lady Gaga, Madonna, whoever is the big thing of the moment artist, yet fail WP notability guidelines. As I said I have no opinion on the outcome here and have responded because my question to the closer was picked up on and used as a reason for this DR. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC) WP:OTHERSTUFF, WP:POPULARPAGE, WP:LOTSOFGHITS and mainly User:Killiondude/stats#Are_they_real_pageviews.3F. Feel free to WP:TROUT me if this feels like a WP:VAGUEWAVE. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 10:38, 24 October 2015 (UTC) ...and you should read WP:MUST, WP:EANP and it's companion piece, WP:ONLYESSAY, a re-reading of my comments might also be in order - under the circumstances consider yourself self-trouted. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Closer's comment: I don't really understand the argument Human3015 is trying to make here. Any misconduct or blocks of himself or others aren't relevant to the AfD closure, which I read as concluding that the song isn't notable (yet). If the renomination had been too soon, the discussion would have reflected that. As always, if new relevant sources are found, the article can be recreated. Some have been offered on my talk page, but without an explanation of why these sources weren't cited in the article or put forward in the AfD discussion. That's why I'm not, myself, interested in restoring the article, but if others see this differently I won't object to a restoration with new sources.  Sandstein  10:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. My earlier comment, that Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion suggests 2 months before renomination, is being put forth as a reason to declare the 2nd AfD invalid. This isn't a law-school contracts class, where the goal is to analyze everything to death and find some little procedural flaw which invalidates the contract. We're here to write an encyclopedia. Dragging this argument through two AfDs and a DRV isn't helping that goal. For the record, I have no problem with the 2nd AfD. Let's move on to something more important. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Comment A number of years back, I worked very hard here to establish the current good practice that rapid renomination was in general not a good idea. (At the time, articles were being renominated in quick succession 5 or 6 or even more times , even after successive keeps, before by the laws of chance participation they got deleted). Various fixed rules were suggested, but it was generally thought that it depends on the circumstances. Personally, I think the times listed in the essay are considerably longer than even I would have wanted. I would normally advise at least a month after most non-consensus closes where the reason for non-consensus was a failure to agree despite substantial participation (as was the case here at AfD1) , because the longer the time the better the chance of getting consensus instead of just repeating the disagreement. (In case it's nonconsensus because of inadequate participation, most re-nominators also wait a while, because if it comes as an entirely fresh issue it may attract more comment.) . I have just now modified the essay to reflect what I think current practice. DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 25 October 2015 (UTC) You'll want to update the This page in a nutshell box, too. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:18, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Comment: Article is in my sandbox. As suggested by one experienced user on my talk page, I will improve article in my sandbox until song gets any nominations for awards then I will move it to main space. I have only one request that do not nominate my sandbox for deletion. --Human3015TALK  09:30, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Simply winning a nomination or even some random award doesn't make it any more notable. Also, DRV says "3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Please get it clarified if DRV is must for such recreations. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:39, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Whataboutism – Endorse. – -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Whataboutism (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Article in question is a non-notable neologism, synonymous with tu quoque, that doesn't have any treatment by reliable secondary sources as required by neologism rule and therefore was nominated for violating it. On AfD discussion I've also presented proof that Wiki is being used to promote and validate this new word. Here is another example where wiki is being used to promote and validate this neologism, this time by Washington Post [1] (the link was ironically provided by the editor who voted to "keep"). Article also includes synthesis that attempts to tie neologism with an idea that it represents, when the word itself is never even mentioned in a source. Neologism rule was specifically created for cases like this, but although article meets all the requirements for deletion it's been kept instead. During discussion nobody have had presented a counter-argument that article doesn't break the neologism policy. Instead, commentators simply reiterated that there are supposedly plenty of sources (nevermind that sources provided merely use the word, and such case is explicitly addressed in neologism rule as not sufficient; one of the sources doesn't even have the word anywhere at all). One of the editors suggested possibility of merging article with tu quoque. Then, editor Davey2010 closed discussion as "Keep", cause in his view consensus was to "obviously keep". I've messaged him that consensus should be based on arguments and no arguments that actually addressed violation of the rule were presented. After some contemplation he reopened discussion. The very next day two more "votes" to keep were cast with an empty reiteration of an "ample of reliable sources" and he closed discussion again as "an obvious keep", even though according to him, and I quote: "Admittingly the NEO side hasn't been address" [sic]. To me it seems as a clear misinterpretation of consensus in favor of keeping the article that violates rule sufficient for it's deletion. Niyaro (talk) 14:32, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Closer comment - Before anyone bites my head off as I said on the AFD I probably shouldn't have closed it early the first time round but after reopening there were more Keeps coming and all with different reasons - Although individual sources wasn't posted- the results on Google was so it met GNG, I closed it the second time as it seemed pointless to drag it on any further, I admitted on tp NEO wasn't addressed but it was up to the nom to dig further which he didnt ... He'd just left the AFD to its own devices so if noone mentions NEO then it's not really my problem, But anyway I personally would say there was overall consensus to keep, If anyone wants to relist I have no objections. –Davey2010Talk 14:50, 23 October 2015 (UTC) What do you mean "noone mentions NEO"? The article was brought for AfD specifically for violating the neologism rule. In every post that was made by me, and I made several of them, the rule have been linked, quoted or directly mentioned as the reason for deletion. And that's including the opening post. You are either being extremely dishonest or you haven't actually read discussion before closing it, which is beyond ridiculous. Niyaro (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) That's the point - You mentioned NEO but No one else did..., So clearly everyone disagreed it failed NEO or didn't think it was relevant, Nope you're right I've been doing AFD for the past 2 fucking years and I only close on fucking numbers eh!, Give me fucking strength!. –Davey2010Talk 16:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I apologize for the rant above (which I've amended now anyway), No point arguing & losing my shit!. –Davey2010Talk 17:01, 24 October 2015 (UTC) That's the second time you do that. You know, crossing out your swearing or personal attacks don't make them disappear, so stop doing that. Niyaro (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) And that's once again blatantly not true, since other editors tried to counter my "non-notable neologism" argument by claiming that the term (or phrase as one called it) is notable because it can be seen used in plenty of sources (like Мандичка below). [2][3][4]. This clearly shows that other editors were on the same page as me and were discussing article in light of WP:NEO policy. What actually got ignored is a citation from WP:NEO that says that sources that merely use the word are not suitable, and just because it got ignored doesn't make it any less true. Niyaro (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse keeping. First, deletion review is only to be used if someone believes the closer of the discussion (in this case Davey2010) interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Since all seven responses to the discussion were in favor of keeping the article, and nobody supported deleting it over a one-week period, I don't see how Davey2010 misinterpreted anything. Secondly, neologisms can be notable and over and over we listed how it was notable (with links to said reliable secondary sources). So nobody in the discussion was ignoring policy. —МандичкаYO 😜 23:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, deletion review is being used, because someone believes that consensus was misinterpreted. That's exactly what I've said in my opening post, with an arguments why. No need to repeat that. No need to repeat your vote for keep, too, since you've already put exactly same argument in AfD. And you are misinterpreting consensus as well, cause it doesn't matter how many people voted for something. It's not a voting contest. Arguments matter. And those who voted had exactly same argument that was answered several times. But let me answer it again, by once again quoting neologism rule: "an editor's personal observations and research (e.g. finding blogs, books, and articles that use the term rather than are about the term) are insufficient to support articles on neologisms". And you're precisely ignoring this very policy, since from all the sources provided so far the only thing that is about the term itself is that it was coined by The Economist journalist, which is definitely not notable to warrant wiki-article. You clearly confuse notability of the topic (which is Appeal to hypocrisy and is clearly notable) with notability of the neologism itself. And here is what neologism rule says about that: "in a few cases, there will be notable topics which are well-documented in reliable sources, but for which no accepted short-hand term exists. It can be tempting to employ a neologism in such a case. Instead, it is preferable to use a title that is a descriptive phrase in plain English if possible, even if this makes for a somewhat long or awkward title." Well, guess what, Appeal to hypocrisy already exists. And, thankfully, it doesn't have ridiculous claims, made by the same The Economist journalist, that "Russians often overuse the tactic." Niyaro (talk) 11:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Notably, the current article has been skewed to claim it was first coined in 2008 - this was done by someone who amusingly stated "I have never heard of this, and if at all common at one time; it was merely political and in perhaps one or two countries" and then made other leading edits claiming "Major rm and cleanup per WP:NOTMANUAL, WP:SYNTHESIS, WP:OR, WP:LEAD, WP:OR, WP:NOTSOAPBOX, WP:NEO." This is a Cold War-era term and was in fact coined during the Cold War, as has been stated by several reliable sources. It was not invented in 2008, but it was reintroduced and explained then. This is a 20th-century neologism, not a recent one. And because the article was linked to on Reddit (along with other links) does not "prove" the Wikipedia article is being used to promote the term, which is fairly ridiculous considering how often this term is used by respected journalists and experts who are not shills of Wikipedia. It would appear, however, that the opposite is being attempted - to delete the Wikipedia article in an attempt to discredit the term. —МандичкаYO 😜 14:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Notably, you once again avoid answering citations from WP:NEO directly relevant to this article. You attempts to present this neologism as if it was "reintroduced" doesn't change that it is still neologism with no presence in any dictionary and WP:NEO still applies. Furthermore, contrary to your assertion, the only source in the article that claims that the term was used before is Edward Lucas from The Economist and according to this paper from Google Scholar, written by Associate Professor from Institute of International Relations and Political Science [5] Edward Lucas is the one who coined the term. If it's not neologism, but an old widely used word then surely you'll find a lot of proof for that. I'll save you the trouble for searching: there are no results for this neologism in Google Scholar earlier than 2012 [6], no results in Google newspapers whatsoever, which includes newspapers from 19th century [7], no results in Google Trends prior to 2014 [8], and google search limited by date from 1900 to 2007 gives 16 result all of them are dynamically generated pages with recent (2010-2015 year) content injected into them causing them to fool google. No dictionaries, no online archives of old newspapers, no nothing. Additionally, if you read my opening post you'll see that The Washington Post also linked Wiki [9], so it's not only Reddit users who are using Wiki article to promote this neologism, but journalists themselves. Niyaro (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse with WP:MINNOW to User:Davey2010 for NACing when he could and should have let someone else do it. The deletion discussion could not have been reasonably closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 26 October 2015 (UTC) I'm not getting into a debate or nothing but I simply couldn't see the point in it being left open as IMHO even it was closed in a week I reckon we'd still be here anyway - I did admit above I shouldn't of closed it the first time round but meh we all make mistakes, –Davey2010Talk 11:13, 26 October 2015 (UTC) It could be reasonably closed by following WP:NEO policy. Unless, of course, you are in favor of turning Wiki into journalists battleground. Niyaro (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2015 (UTC) So journalists now are behind this conspiracy to promote whataboutism too, because one paper linked to the Wiki article? LOL. The Washington Post fills its articles with external links and regularly links to Wikipedia. Look how many external links are in that article alone. The reason why nobody is paying any attention to your WP:NEO claims is because everyone can see that multiple sources discuss the term in-depth, not just use it as you insist. Not a single person believes this article fails WP:NEO. It's pretty obvious you're promoting your own agenda and are trying to delete the article because you personally don't like it. I'm done here. —МандичкаYO 😜 20:16, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of cases of police brutality in the United States – No Consensus. Those arguing to endorse were certainly in the majority here, but I don't see the overall weight of opinion being so firmly on the endorse side that I'm willing to call it a consensus. There are some well-reasoned arguments to overturn, from non-involved editors; this further leads me to believe there is no substantial meeting of minds here, and thus no consensus. Procedurally, of course, that means the AfD decision stands. I would like to add one comment, however. There was a statement that There were even admins voting for keep. Arguments from admins cary no greater weight than those from non-admins. The weight your argument is given is determined by how well you show it is supported by our policies, not by what hats you wear. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of cases of police brutality in the United States (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Deleting admin seems to have formed their own view and deleted this article, despite opinions being almost equally divided. Points were raised by both sides. Per discussion here such divided opinions should be closed as no consensus. AusLondonder (talk) 10:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion: The closing admin properly observed that most of the keep votes were not policy based. Niteshift36 (talk) 12:17, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse - AfD discussions are not a vote. While the numbers of keeps vs. deletes are similar, the keep !votes were generally of the "It's useful" and "I like it" variety. The delete !votes, OTOH, were generally policy/guideline based, citing problems with the list that the keep !votes simply did not address. - SummerPhDv2.0 12:41, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion: The closing admin properly observed that "delete" votes were based on policy, while "keep" votes were based on personal preference. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn note many of the endorsing parties voted for deletion. I think that the closer made some conclusory claims without really analyzing why he feels deletion was proper under the standard and the content of the article. Shouldn't the discussion be over whether the closer's actions were proper procedurally? Not re-hashing the merits? There were even admins voting for keep. The result was clearly no consensus and that favors keeping--JumpLike23 (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) On the contrary, the closing admin weighed the strength of the various keep/delete arguments and reached a reasonable conclusion based on the evidence. They even explained their thought-process and why they believed the "delete" arguments were stronger. Therefore, the closure was proper here. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 16:15, 23 October 2015 (UTC) For the record: he decided: "The result was delete. Opinions are divided. But I find the "delete" arguments significantly more persuasive in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "delete" side advances numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion, such as the lack of clear, objective and usefully limiting inclusion criteria, as well as BLP concerns. The "keep" arguments mostly do not address or gloss over these concerns." Here, he does not cite what specific policies and guidelines the closer was relying upon. Thus, it is very difficult to respond. --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2015 (UTC) The closing admin said they considered arguments from both sides and found that the policy arguments advanced by the "delete" votes were stronger and more persuasive. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:01, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse as a reasonable exercise of administrative discretion. The close would not preclude creation of a substantially different list article with clearly and appropriately defined inclusion criteria. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 16:21, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Where does this admin discretion come from? Is there a policy allowing for it? The problem is that the proponents for deletion do not believe a criteria can ever exist and would not support a list for police brutality or terrorism--due to multiple definitions--yet many such lists exist on wiki. I never got a thoughtful response. Should we go ahead and delete all lists on police brutality --JumpLike23 (talk) 16:28, 23 October 2015 (UTC) The fact that other lists exists doesn't make this one proper. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS isn't a reason to keep. Again, no serious response to the fact that multiple other lists exist with the exact same title. None of the examples are analogous...nothing in that refers to lists. Those of us who supported keep cited policy and even included definitional issues in the actual article. Those were not addressed by the closer per WP:CLOSEAFD. There is no supervote power included in that guideline. The result was no consensus. The debate should have continued if nothing else.--JumpLike23 (talk) 21:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Your characterization of the closing as a "supervote" is misleading. The closing admin considered arguments presented by both sides and found that the "keep" votes "gloss[ed] over" relevant policies and guidelines. WP:LSC and WP:SALAT were directly on point, and the closing admin acted well-within their discretion. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 23:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC) By "included definitional issues", you aren't referring to that law dictionary nonsense are you? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn The closer says clearly that opinions were divided and so there was no consensus. He then picks the argument he likes best but that's not consensus; that's a supervote. His claims about strength of argument seem quite tendentious. For example, the nomination cited no specific policy whereas there were Keep votes which cited specific policies and quoted scholarly sources. Note also that we have numerous pages and lists about police brutality and so it seems quite bizarre to be singling out this one. Note also that the police themselves are known to be whitewashing such topics and so the possibilty of partisanship may be a factor. As the topic is extensively monitored and analysed by scholars, the Department of Justice, &c, it seems absurd to suppose that there's no scope for improvement. All that seems needed is some refinement such as distinguishing cases of excessive force, unreasonable search, &c.Andrew D. (talk) 17:18, 23 October 2015 (UTC) And because there was an incident of someone from NYPD editing articles (and I looked at the article you cite and those changes are pretty mild), you start talking about whitewashing and partisanship. That's a lack of AGF. You don't even have enough evidence to start floating an idea like that, let alone suggest it may be a factor here. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC) I agree that COI isn't an issue but this user makes the same compelling points that many of made that were super-vetoed and not responded to.--JumpLike23 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Very good point regarding the supervote of the closing admin. As you rightly state, they themselves admitted "opinions were divided" and then chose what side he viewed as most correct. The list is common as you note and has received media coverage. WP:NOTCENSORED should come into play as well. Those wanting to remove seem determined to cover-up acts of police brutality, even when well-sourced. AusLondonder (talk) 22:34, 23 October 2015 (UTC) You apparently did no real research. I voted (reluctantly) for delete, but after spending a lot of time editing that list, removing unsourced material and trying to establish a reasonable criteria for inclusion. For you to breeze in and start making allegations about cover-up's is pretty insulting. BTW, several of those who voted never edited the article at all, making your cover-up allegation look less than credible. Sourcing the incidents was never the issue, so I'm not sure why you think "well-sourced" is something to talk about. The issue was the criteria for inclusion. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:10, 24 October 2015 (UTC) jumplike23 & AusLondonder: As I am sure you are well aware, a division of opinion is not evidence of a lack of consensus. Rather, consensus is determined by "quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy" (see WP:CON). Here, the closing admin weighed the quality of arguments presented by both sides of the dsipute and determined that the quality of the "delete" arguments were stronger than the quality of the "keep" arguments. Indeed, the closing admin said the "keep" votes "gloss[ed] over" relevant policies and guidelines. There were no procedural flaws in this close. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 00:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Procedural flaws are very noticeable. As noted below, lists often have disputes over inclusion criteria. That does not = deletion in violation of WP:GNG. In addition to that, consensus was simply not in existence in favour of deletion AusLondonder (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn - I did not participate in the AfD but I looked it over. I don't believe there was a clear consensus based on quality of arguments. Many lists have arguments over criteria and in the end it always comes down to what the reliable sources say. I don't see why that could not be considered in this case. That was pointed out right before the discussion was closed - this idea merited further discussion IMHO. —МандичкаYO 😜 00:53, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Wikimandia, in addition to WP:LSC and WP:SALAT, there were other policy arguments that favored deletion. These included WP:BLP violations (BLP was cited by the closing admin as one of the reasons why deletion was warranted), WP:NPOV violations, and potential WP:LIBEL violations. The closing admin specifically noted that deletion was appropriate in light of these "numerous, prima facie valid arguments for deletion". Although you may disagree with the strength of individual arguments, the closing admin followed procedure by weighing these policy arguments in their determination that deletion was appropriate. There was no abuse of discretion, and therefore we must let this stand. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2015 (UTC) What at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists supports deletion? See also: List of cases of police brutality in Argentina; List of cases of police brutality in Iran; List of cases of police brutality in India; List of incidents of police excessive use of force in Canada; List of cases of police brutality in Pakistan; List of cases of police brutality in the United Kingdom; New York City Police Department corruption and misconduct should all be proposed for deletion and we can broaden the discussion--rather than have one supervote? The more I think about, it is curious that the U.S. article is being pushed for deletion amidst the black lives matter movement and other criminal justice reform issues going on in the United States. --JumpLike23 (talk) 04:39, 24 October 2015 (UTC) To answer your question about Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists, WP:LSC requires the inclusion criteria to be "unambiguous" and "objective." In the deletion discussion, I explained (at length) why the list violated WP:LSC. I haven't had a chance to review the other lists mentioned above, but if inclusion in them is based on speculation or the subjective beliefs of inexpert commentators, then they may also violate applicable Wikipedia policies. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse - the closing admin made his decision based on policy. The only way the list could be kept from perpetually violating various basic policies would be to clear, then fully protect it and only add entries after clear consensus on its talk page. However, I suspect the talk page would be one long, never ending argument. VMS Mosaic (talk) 00:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Further points to consider: The deletion of a well-sourced, academically and topically relevant and notable list is embarrassing and counter-productive to Wikipedia and its mission WP:NOTCENSORED should be considered. The removal of a list which American police forces and politicians so detested is an extraordinary act of self-censorship. Some of the editors "voting" delete have long histories of right-wing POV pushing. Simply covering up the extraordinarily poor and violent record of American police won't make it go away Prior to its removal, the page had received 14,725 views this month alone. In the 90 days prior it received 52,151. This is an important topic anyone would expect to be covered by an encyclopaedia. It is very common see List of cases of police brutality in India or List of cases of police brutality in the United Kingdom and part of te Category:Lists of cases of police brutality AusLondonder (talk) 04:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC) "Some of the editors "voting" delete have long histories of right-wing POV pushing" Your own POV notwithstanding, if you're going to throw AGF out the windown, why not go all in and start naming names? No passive-aggressive dancing around, spit it out. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:18, 27 October 2015 (UTC) Comment - As the editor who nominated the article for deletion, and the primary foil to Niteshift36's attempts to keep the article (see the article talk page), I'd love to see a detailed exposé of my "right-wing POV pushing". - SummerPhDv2.0 02:44, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Comment The extreme POV "the extraordinarily poor and violent record of American police" is exactly why this list is nothing more than extreme POV pushing. The comment shows an utter failure to understand WP:NPOV. It is the perfect example of why the closing admin was correct. VMS Mosaic (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2015 (UTC) No, because this is a discussion page. I wouldn't insert that in an article. Nor is that a reason for deletion in any circumstance. Are you delusional? Some sources about US police violence (1) and the books SWAT Madness and Rise of the Warrior Cop AusLondonder (talk) 05:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) I'm absolutely happy to debate what equals police brutality and also each individual case included on the list. But to suggest deletion is preferable is disturbing, lazy and censorious. AusLondonder (talk) 05:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC) You don't live here (as far as I can tell, or ever have) and yet you proclaim yourself an expert on police brutality in the US? There are around 920,000 officers with power of arrest in the US. It would be utterly unbelievable if a very, very, very small number of them didn't committed some type of brutality. In any case, most of the national news cases of purported brutality have been shown to be completely false including Ferguson. If editors who are unable to be neutral like you are going to be heavily involved in managing this list, then there is zero hope that it will ever meet WP:NPOV. VMS Mosaic (talk) 06:03, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Bringing up nationality is wrong and puerile. Often outsiders can be better at taking a non-emotional, less partisan approach. I'm not an expert, nor did I ever claim to be (you're certainly not) but the sources are. Stop your appalling arrogance and check your facts. "US police kill more in days than other countries in years" Why is US prison population third highest (proportionally) in the world? By the way, no requirement exists for absolute talkpage neutrality. I have NEVER edited the page by, the way, which you have ignored. Finally, enlighten us, what did Fox Radio tell you was a myth about Ferguson? Was the killing of an unarmed African American teen a New World Order plot to take the guns away? AusLondonder (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Sorry, but you just showed your utter absolute ignorance about Ferguson. The Obama justice department said there was absolutely nothing wrong with the Ferguson policeman's actions. Fox news was the only media outlet to get it right as the facts came out. This is why outsiders should keep their noses out of things they (like you) know nothing about except what was wrongly reported by extremely biased media outlets. I don't give a sh*t about your nationality, but I do care about outsider ignoramuses who, like you, don't have the slightest clue what they are talking about. As far as the Guardian, even Wikipedia says it is a far left organization, but putting that aside, there are over 100 million guns in the US, many in the hands of criminals, so there are of course many fatal shootings by police and of police (a black officer was killed this week by a shot to the forehead). As far as the prison population, it is due to the idiotic war on drugs supported by ignoramuses on both the left and the right. Many Americans are finally waking up to just how stupid the war on drugs is. I have no idea what you are talking about as far as talk page neutrality; all I know is that what one says on a talk page can only be assumed to be what the writer believes. VMS Mosaic (talk) 12:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC) One more note: you call me appallingly arrogant, but yet haughtily proclaim you know more about America than an American? Who went and made you God? VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Closer's comment: I don't have much to add to the closing rationale, except to note that while I'm not an American, my general impression is that police violence is a problem in the US, as in many other countries, and that as an editor I think that a list of notable or otherwise significant incidents of police brutality might well be useful to Wikipedia (although a synoptic treatment of the topic, showing developments based on statistics and legal or academic sources, rather than news articles, is much more important). However, I have to close the discussion as it was had, and in it the arguments for deletion were clearly more grounded in policy and practice than those for keeping. I agree with Hullaballoo Wolfowitz that a recreation is possible if editors agree on unambiguous inclusion criteria based on reliable sources, perhaps focusing on something narrower than "police brutality", for which the definition seems to be contested. – Admins should hat much of the above discussion, because this is not a forum for discussing the politics of the issue.  Sandstein  11:08, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Your comments indicate that you agree that the topic is basically sound. This was my point in the discussion - that the topic is notable and well-covered by good sources. What you fail to explain is why the issue of exact criteria trumps this. This does not seem to be a policy-based argument because it is our well-established principle that Wikipedia is a work-in-progress - that articles do not have to be perfect and so hashing out the details, such as exact criteria, is an expected task in developing the topic. You say that editors should work this out before bringing back the topic but the trouble is that you have deleted the place where this is supposed to happen – the article's talk page. Such action is clearly disruptive in that it prevents editors from improving the topic. Deletion also makes the edit history and details of previous drafts inaccessible and so this is disruptive too. Andrew D. (talk) 11:59, 24 October 2015 (UTC) The problem is that the topic is not well-covered by "good sources". Most media (I might say all foreign media) never reported the actual truth about Ferguson, that the Obama US Justice Department officially declared that the policeman's action were not only not wrong, but were appropriate. Many so called good sources still maintain that it was a case of police brutality. While I understand that Wikipedia requires only "good sources" regardless of what the actual truth is (i.e., Wikipedia is about what can be sourced instead of being about the truth), my fear here is that the POV pushers will only use the "good sources" that agree with them and ignore the "good sources" that tell the other side just as they ignore them in the case of Ferguson. VMS Mosaic (talk) 13:09, 24 October 2015 (UTC) So, as someone with a legal background let me say, there will never unambiguous inclusion criteria based on reliable sources, that would have to come from within wikipedia That is because "Police brutality is the use of any force exceeding that reasonably necessary to accomplish a lawful police purpose." The key word is reasonableness which naturally results in a balancing test. As the source I included in the actual article noted, what is reasonable will vary across the United States. So, Sandstein, now that you are here, what more are you looking for? The only realistic standard can be notability. Mr. Mosaic, you are really testing me with your out of bounds comments. Please refrain from brining in your personal views that are clearly irrelevant to our project. --JumpLike23 (talk) 18:00, 24 October 2015 (UTC) What makes you think I care the least bit about how much I am testing you? You really need to read WP:OWN in regard to "our" (i.e., your) project. Yes, my personal POV is that this list is highly unlikely to ever be more than the personal POVs of various editors. If that can be shown not to be the case, I will change my !vote. VMS Mosaic (talk) 23:48, 24 October 2015 (UTC) jumplike23, it sounds like you are conflating "brutality" with "excessive force" (we discussed this at length on the AfD page). If you have a legal background, then I'm sure you are well aware of this distinction. In any event, the inclusion criteria problem was only one of the "numerous" reasons why the closing admin agreed deletion was appropriate. -- Notecardforfree (talk) 19:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC) What is police brutality? Depends on where you live which I included in the article as referenced above. And, this reliable source conflates excessive force with brutality. That is, when excessive force is used, police brutality lies. --JumpLike23 (talk) 19:27, 24 October 2015 (UTC) That NBC piece really doesn't answer the question. It also uses the terms police brutality and excessive force interchangeably. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC) that is exactly my point, that is, that there is a definition of police brutality. You are deciding that you reject the conflation...no sources do such. --JumpLike23 (talk) 07:04, 25 October 2015 (UTC) That piece never defines it, so it "proves" nothing. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:55, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn The opinions were clearly divided, and therefore should have been no consensus. The entries can be included so long as they have reliable sources indicating that it is "police brutality". Otherwise, we can just merge the page, or move it to a draft. Kiwifist (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. AfDs are not a vote. The closer is expected to weigh up the strengths of the arguments against policy. So while this one was a difficult close, it was well within the discretion of the closer. And good grief, how could that list ever be encyclopaedic? We can't allow a list to grow to every reported case of police brutality in the US. The only sensible way of keeping it within bounds would be to limit entries to those that have risen to having their own article. That wasn't the deleted article and per WP:TNT the best course is to blow it up and let someone else start over. An eminently sensible close. SpinningSpark 14:24, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, valid closure. We empower admins to judge consensus, not count heads. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 26 October 2015 (UTC) User:Stifle, if you think this discussion was a consensus I have no words for you. AusLondonder (talk) 07:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC) This is dangerously close to being unWP:CIVIL. If you disagree with this !vote, please explain how the admin was in error in judging consensus. VMS Mosaic (talk) 07:10, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Good coming from you! Please don't talk to me again. I will not reply to you, User:VMS Mosaic. AusLondonder (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. As alluded to by others, WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS states: "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." Contrasting most of those recommending "overturn", the closer's rationale made it clear that he understands that when !votes are divided, then the strength of the supporting arguments needs to be evaluated. (I did not participate in the Afd, but my reading of the discussion leads me to believe he properly took into account the various opinions and the weight of those opinions.) - Location (talk) 05:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Dave Nalle – Wrong venue. See AFC – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dave Nalle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2013, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:240:C701:45F0:D4D0:C320:BB31:BF69 (talk) 05:59, 23 October 2015 (UTC) Comment, the correct procedure is to submit the article for review at AFC, there is a link to do this in the template at the top of the article. SpinningSpark 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Just noticed that DRV says "3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". So it seems that the nominator IP is right. Also, I have seen (and probably taken myself) some AfC articles to AfD and then to deletion. So what exactly is the procedure? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 03:43, 29 October 2015 (UTC) What is the significant new information? Article was deleted in 2013. I don't see anything in the article that discusses anything more recent than that. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC) Just to clarify, I was asking only for clarification on the procedure. I have no opinion on this subject topic. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 04:09, 29 October 2015 (UTC) It would be if significant new information came to light, which is not the case here. For example, if an article on a writer was deleted for lack of notability but then it was discovered the subject won a Pulitzer Prize, therefore easily passes notability. —МандичкаYO 😜 05:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC) So irrespective of new information, should an article deleted at AfD go to AfC or DRV for recreation? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:49, 29 October 2015 (UTC) If significant new information comes to light, DRV. Otherwise, AfC. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC) The point in this case is that the page has already been restored, along with all of irs history, when it was moved to draft space. There is nothing to undelete, hence there is nothing to bring to DRV. This is definitely the wrong venue for deciding whether a draft is ready to be moved to mainspace, which in any case is something that any confirmed user can do. SpinningSpark 07:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 October 2015

David Morgan-Mar – Wrong venue. See AFC. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David Morgan-Mar (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2013, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:240:C701:45F0:C5FB:43DC:C7BB:2DAF (talk) 11:34, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Comment, the correct procedure is to submit the article for review at AFC, there is a link to do this in the template at the top of the article. SpinningSpark 13:31, 25 October 2015 (UTC) @Spinningspark: Although the other two drafts have the template, this one doesn't. I'd add it myself, but I'm unsure of the exact process. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 25 October 2015 (UTC) Done. SpinningSpark 18:21, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Beth Sotelo – Wrong Venue. See AFC. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Beth Sotelo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This page looks like it has been improved significantly since it was nominated for AFD in 2011, and been in Draft space for a while now. I think it should be restored to mainspace so that more people will work on it. 2601:240:C701:45F0:C5FB:43DC:C7BB:2DAF (talk) 11:26, 22 October 2015 (UTC) Comment, the correct procedure is to submit the article for review at AFC, there is a link to do this in the template at the top of the article. SpinningSpark 13:32, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 October 2015

Template:San Jose State Spartans women's basketball coach navbox – speedy relist – JohnCD (talk) 16:46, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:San Jose State Spartans women's basketball coach navbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This was an inappropriate closure because it was closed as keep by an editor who had advocated keep in the discussion. They claimed that opposers were wrong because the template now met WP:NAVBOX but it still only contains two links and the topic link, so I would have argued it fails the "rule of five" suggested at WP:NENAN. This supervote needs to be reverted. BethNaught (talk) 07:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC) PS I contacted the closer, Arbor to SJ, two days ago. They have edited since but not replied. BethNaught (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relist While WP:NAVBOX No. 4 in the nomination was refuted and not contested, WP:EXISTING and having "nothing to navigate" seem to have some weight. The last comment about another article having been created was made by the eventual closer, which does not explicitly address the EXISTING concern. The "part of a series" support !vote is not based on a guideline, so I give it less weight. The TfD, though never relisted, was open for a sufficient time at 20+ days. I would have endorsed a "no consensus" close, which would have effectively kept the template anyways. However, we are here at DRV, it doesnt make sense (and it might not be allowed?) to overturn to "no consensus" just to have to renominate it, so it makes sense to relist and leverage the existing !votes.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Relist, I essentially concur with the opinion above; and the discussion being closed by a participant is a serious enough error to warrant overturning and relisting regardless of the content of the discussion itself, in my opinion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC). Get an admin to signoff or reclose. Not an egregious abuse of process, it looking like an obvious close, with User:Arbor to SJ doing most of the work associated with the template, and with TfD suffering from a lack of hands. Advise User:Arbor to SJ to not close discussions in which he has a stake. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I don't believe there was intent for abuse. I remember seeing somewhere about a change in TfD close process to decrease the blacklog, but couldn't find it. Does anyone know the link?—Bagumba (talk) 23:47, 20 October 2015 (UTC) See Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD, particularly the subsection Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#Alternative Proposal: Allow Orphan as a close result. A later discussion, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion#Clarification request: non-admin closure of own nomination, concluded: "There is consensus against closing a TFD by an involved editor, except in rare situations." The closer at this TfD was an involved editor in the TfD. There is also a related discussion about the RfC at the bottom of Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September 17#Template:Useronline (another TfD closed by a non-admin). Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Per WP:BADNAC there is no way as seeing this as anything but a bad closure. Editors who have taken part in a discussion aren't allowed to do a NAC except in just one instance- If they are 'closing their own withdrawn nomination as a speedy keep'. If not for their agreeing to a relist, Arbor to SJ at the very least earned a trout slap....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:34, 24 October 2015 (UTC) Relist: I was getting impatient with the hold-up, since the discussion hadn't been formally closed once 7 days had passed. I admit making a mistake and do not wish to repeat such ever again. As such, I welcome a second discussion, given the current situation surrounding this template. Arbor to SJ (talk) 01:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Speedy relist since the closer supports a relist. Cunard (talk) 05:11, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Speedy relist per Cunard....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:12, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 October 2015

CVS (Commercial Valuers & Surveyors) – Deletion endorsed. –  Sandstein  08:24, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
CVS (Commercial Valuers & Surveyors) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The above page was deleted for being too promotional. I would like the opportunity to make the page neutral and more notable. Thanks. Martin Tide (talk) 13:53, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Obvious endorse. AfD was unanimous and emphatic. Suggest this be speedy closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Both the version created by the requester here at CVS (Business Rent & Rates) to evade scrutiny during the AFD and the nearly-identical one recreated at the original title by Lordkneel afterwards could have been speedied as spam. Both were steps backward from the one originally created by Cvssurveyors. If you're serious about getting an article for your company here, you're going to have to 1) immediately declare your (blindingly obvious) conflict of interest as required by our terms of use; 2) provide actual in-depth on-topic third-party (preferably non-local) coverage, not the press releases and barely-even-reworded copies of press releases you did before; and 3) demonstrate that you can write in a remotely encyclopedic tone instead of the advertisements you already inflicted on us. —Cryptic 00:45, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Unused local copies of files on Commons – The problem is that the policy is unclear enough the any closer is pretty much going to have to make it up on the hoof and this discussion has not really moved that position forward. Usually, we would relist if the outcome isn't clear or feels unsatisfactory but I can't see that will improve matters either as the next close will have the same problem. I'm therefore closing this as no action but suggest to the nominator that they open an RFC to garner wider input into what our policy should be for keep local images. – Spartaz Humbug! 22:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:500 Block Wabash Avenue.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) File:Ballard County Courthouse KY 2.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) File:BSA Laughery Creek Hiking Trail.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) File:Building at 810 Wabash Avenue.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) File:Caldwell County Courthouse KY 2.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) File:Citizens' Trust Company Building.JPG (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Unused local copies of files on Commons. The keep rationale by the closing administrator was that the files were tagged with the {{Keep local}} template. However, the only policy page that mentions this template is WP:CSD, which states that files tagged with this template are not eligible for speedy deletion under criteria F8. They are still eligible for deletion under other criteria. These files should have been deleted under under the Wikipedia policy WP:NOTWEBHOST, which says that files not in use will be deleted. Kelly hi! 08:39, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Comment WP:NOTHOST was not mentioned in any of the FFD nominations. If the discussion doesn't mention that part of the policy, I'm not sure if we should expect the closing admin to remember or consider that part of the WP:NOT policy. If this is to be considered 'new information', the files could maybe be relisted at FFD. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:29, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Fair enough, though the nominations did mention that they were unused, which is given as a reason for deletion in the WP:FFD instructions. Kelly hi! 10:36, 19 October 2015 (UTC) overturn As the {{keeplocal}} template explicitly entertains the idea that images may still be deleted "If you desire to nominate it for deletion, notify the tagging editor", closers rationale amounts to a supervote based on their own opinion that keeplocal is in some way binding and/or the result of previous deletion discussions creates a binding precedent, neither is true. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Comment by closing administrator. There is a lot more to this issue than what's on the surface, and it does not surprise me that there is no mention of it here. It begins with the {{Keep local}}, which has been nominated for deletion three separate times (1 2 3) since 2009; discussion resulted in keep in all three occasions. Consensus best expressed as to why the template and its usage were justifiable in the second nomination discussion, which I recommend reading. My closures of the above discussions were based off of that, so to accuse me of a supervote is terribly misguided and stems from a place of bad faith. Two of the images linked above were previously nominated and deleted in the past despite one opposition (1 2), which were later undeleted by User:Nyttend, who cited the Keep local template; I noted this in my closures for those two files (1 2). Consensus of the viewpoints on the aforementioned template has not changed, or at best, has not been fundamentally reversed. The nominator attempted to start an information RFC at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#F8 - "Keep local" tags, which ultimately proved to be fruitless. I haven't closed any similar nominations since the ones listed, which continue to get pumped into WP:FFD. That has only facilitated the growth of the backlog there. The most comprehensive attempt in trying to get rid of these files comes from this nomination, where more than 80 images by User:Bedford are up for deletion. The uploader still argues to keep them, and has cited this issue as the reason why they don't frequent the project as often. As I mentioned in the informal RFC, I would have no problem abiding by the consensus if it dictated to delete images despite being tagged with the template. But no such consensus has been established, which should be the main concern to be resolved before nominating countless of files for deletion. — ξxplicit 05:27, 20 October 2015 (UTC) "so to accuse me of a supervote is terribly misguided and stems from a place of bad faith." please withdraw your accusation of my mentioning supervote as being bad faith - I have no idea what you base that on, but it's bollocks. My comment is based on your closing statement of the review, which is very terse and mentions pretty much none of the other stuff you list here. If you don't want your closes to appear as i have read them, the solution is to provide more cpmplete closes. pathetic. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:22, 20 October 2015 (UTC) A TfD discussion can't change policy, and policy mentions files with {{keep local}}. TfD can't do anything apart from placing red links instead of a template on the pages using the template, and it is obvious that it is inappropriate to have red links on lots of pages. Therefore, there was no other possible outcome of the TfD nominations. WP:F8 is, as far as I can tell, the only part of policy where the template is mentioned at all. Other policies, such as policies for deletion discussions, seem to be silent on the matter, although it seems to be clear that files with copyright problems which have this template are to be deleted. For example, you (User:Explicit) deleted a number of files with {{keep local}} at PUF one or two days ago. When a file is listed at FFD, I think that it needs to be carefully evaluated: Why is the local file being kept? Is it kept for the purpose of violating WP:NOTHOST, or is there some other reason? There was a recent request at WP:REFUND which was declined citing WP:NOTHOST. Is someone taking care of the huge task of keeping the local file and the Commons file synchronised? It is inappropriate if we have one 'up-to-date copy' and one 'outdated copy' for a long time. For example, there is another editor who has posted a number of low-resolution copies of files to Wikipedia with {{keep local}} with a higher resolution copy under the same name on Commons, with no attempts having been made to upload the high-resolution copy to Wikipedia for several years. We currently have one of those files at FFD at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2015 October 3#File:Suffolk CWGC Cemetery 1848793584.jpg. I note that the FFD nominations do not discuss these issues, though. A problem with discussions which attract little attention from other editors, I suppose. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse - nominations with no rationale for deletion that are huge violations of the general principle that we shouldn't treat other editors with unmitigated contempt for no encyclopaedic reason should be closed with no action. WilyD 09:57, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Nobody is treating anyone with contempt here. And the page you linked also says "no editor owns an article and any contributions can and will be mercilessly edited and redistributed." Kelly hi! 10:26, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Yes, you are. If you had any consideration for your fellow editors whatsoever, you wouldn't nominate {{keeplocal}}ed files for deletion unless the request was in bad faith, and you wouldn't hound admins who are protecting others from your uncivil, uncollegial, hostile actions. You'd apologise to those editors from having behaved like a jerk, and endeavor not to treat them (or any of your other fellow editors) with this kind of contempt in the future. There's no upside to deleting these files (certainly none has been raised). It's merely thoughtless smashing of what other editors are doing. By aggressively trying to smash what other editors are doing - and for no encyclopaedic reason - you're treating them with utter contempt. WilyD 10:03, 21 October 2015 (UTC) So by researching, improving, and generally cleaning up the file pages of this user's uploads, and making them more widely available and encouraging their use on other articles and projects, I've "thoughtlessly smashed" his contributions? All righty then. Kelly hi! 10:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC) No, by ignoring the reasonable requests of other Wikipedians in order to accomplish nothing worthwhile, you're treating them with contempt. There's no upside here. Your requests don't accomplish anything good - if these files had been deleted, those contributors would've been treated like dirt, and absolutely nothing good would have been accomplished. If you think fiddling around with where files are located is more important than giving consideration to your fellow editors, I don't see how we can have a dialogue about why being collegial is important in a group project. WilyD 16:59, 28 October 2015 (UTC) Comment. I have no doubt that everyone involved is acting in good faith, especially Explicit. The only reason I raised this is that I believe the decision is an incorrect interpretation of policy. {{Keep local}} only applies to speedy deletion, not the FFD process. There's no other policy or guideline that would suggest it allows users to keep unused photos here in violation of WP:NOTHOST. It's unfortunate that Bedford has all but stopped participating here, as he was a prolific and valuable editor. So far as I can determine, years ago he took a lot of photos of historic markers and uploaded them here; someone else subsequently moved them to Commons. There were multiple mistakes in that process, as the markers were under copyright and Bedford's photos were derivative and therefore non-free. This should have been spotted by the person(s) making the moves and/or the admin(s) deleting the local copies and it wasn't. The files were subsequently deleted at Commons, which apparently upset Bedford, and he seems to have marked all of his contributions with {{Keep local}} as a result. However, the images would almost certainly have been deleted here even if never moved to Commons. Regardless of the reason these files were tagged, the fact is the 6 files listed above are not used anywhere on the project and there's no reason to keep them per WP:NOT. They are certainly potentially useful which is the reason I've copied them to Commons. But the local file information pages have not been maintained or updated since upload. See, for instance, File:Citizens' Trust Company Building.JPG and the Commons equivalent - the latter has geolocation information, information regarding its status as a building on the National Register of Historic Places, links to photos of the same building, and a link to its record in the archives of the National Park Service. The local file has none of these. We want our site visitors to land on the most complete and up-to-date page. I'm not seeing any reason, either by policy or by common sense, to keep these local copies. With respect - Kelly hi! 10:13, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse The interpretation of the policy at NOTWEBHOST doesn't seem unambiguous: "Please upload only files that are used (or will be used) in encyclopedia articles or project pages; anything else will be deleted. If you have extra relevant images, consider uploading them to the Wikimedia Commons, where they can be linked from Wikipedia.". I would tend to regard it possibly reasonable to interpret " used or will be used" to include anything with a reasonable potential use. There needs to be a proper discussion of this issue in general. DGG ( talk ) 17:28, 20 October 2015 (UTC) I have taken a look at a number of policies to see what they say about the matter. WP:F8 says that files with {{keep local}} may not be speedily deleted as Commons dupes. However, the speedy deletion is only for unambiguous situations where it is obvious that a page should be deleted. WP:F8 also notes that files with copyright problems can't be deleted under F8 either. Such files typically get a normal PUF discussion which mirrors a deletion discussion on Commons, unless the files qualify for fair use or for deletion under a "copyright problem criterion" (F3, F4, F9 or F11). You can compare this to WP:A7 and WP:A9. The CSD policy identifies a few situations where it is very unlikely that an article meets the notability criterion, and such articles may be speedily deleted. Other articles which appear to fail the notability criterion do not qualify for speedy deletion, but the speedy deletion criteria do not prevent such articles from being deleted at AfD. The note about the {{keep local}} template seems to imply that it isn't obvious that files with {{keep local}} should be deleted (and that speedy deletion therefore shouldn't apply), but does not rule out deletion at other venues. FFD is one venue where files may be deleted under criteria other than the speedy deletion criteria. For example, files which violate WP:NOTHOST may be deleted at FFD, but they may not be speedily deleted (except in very special cases: WP:F10). Wikipedia:Deletion policy makes no mention of the {{keep local}} template, so I assume that requests for deletion of {{keep local}} files as Commons dupes at FFD should be individually evaluated and that the user who closes the discussion should determine the consensus of the discussion. WP:FFD states that requests at FFD may be closed as 'delete' if no objections have been raised within seven days. No objections were raised – no one chose to comment on the deletion rationale – so 'delete' was a valid outcome. WP:QUORUM states that the discussion 'may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgment', so 'keep' and 'no consensus' also seem to be valid outcomes. It looks as if the closing administrator therefore essentially has the authority to supervote when there are no follow-up comments at FFD: the closing administrator can choose any of 'keep', 'delete' and 'no consensus'. To avoid unnecessary abuse of power, I think that we should have a very low barrier for relisting file deletion discussions which received few comments, a point I also stated at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 8 about a file which was deleted for a completely different reason after very little discussion. In this situation, it may, as I note below, be a good idea to discuss a few things at WP:VPP and amend policy, and it may be better to wait with any potential relisting of discussions until after policy discussion has been held. It may also be a good idea to postpone closing currently ongoing FFD nominations until after such a discussion has been held. A few of the files were discussed at FFD in 2012 where User:Fastily closed the sections as 'delete'. In 2015, User:Explicit decided to close all discussions as 'keep'. As policy seems to allow the closer to choose any of 'keep' and 'delete', both Fastily's and Explicit's closures seem to be within policy, so I suppose that we should endorse the closure of the deletion requests for the files which had not previously been listed at FFD. As noted by User:Explicit, a few of the files were deleted by Fastily and then restored by User:Nyttend. As Fastily's deletions of the files seem to have been in compliance with policy, Nyttend's undeletions seem to have been incorrect. However, given the fact that User:Kelly later listed the files at FFD a second time, it is the outcome of the second FFD which should determine the files' presence on Wikipedia. I think that it was impressive of Explicit to note that the files previously had been deleted. The old discussions were not mentioned in the second discussions, and there was no {{oldffdfull}} template on the file talk pages. I think that Kelly and Nyttend disagreeing on whether the file should be on Wikipedia, and the apparent lack of a policy discussing what to do with files like this at FFD, should have invalidated any 'keep' or 'delete' closure of those files. The discussions should either have been relisted for another week or closed as 'no consensus'. Therefore, overturn those closures to 'no consensus'. I don't think that it is very useful if admins freely can choose any of 'keep' and 'delete'. I that we need to go to WP:VPP or some other suitable venue to clarify a few things related to the {{keep local}} template and amend policy: When may the template be used on files? Looking at the TfD nominations, some of the users requesting to keep the template seem to think that it should be possible to use the template indiscriminately, while others mention specific situations in which the template may be used. WP:OWN suggests that no one has the sole authority to decide that a template must or mustn't appear on a specific page, so I take it that there are some situations in which the template may be removed from file information pages, although it is unclear when you have one of those situations. I suppose that you could theoretically start a request for comment on a file talk page and try to find consensus on whether the template should be on the file information page or not, but I don't think that it would beneficial for the project to start 4,637 different requests for comments to have the template removed from all files. Should it matter if the tagging editor is active on Wikipedia or not? I have recently seen some users boldly removing the {{keep local}} template from files uploaded by editors who no longer seem to be active on Wikipedia, and I'm not sure if this is the correct way to go. It sounds like a good method for starting heated conflicts. How should FFD handle requests to delete files with {{keep local}} as Commons duplicates? Since policy seems to be silent on the matter, it seems that admins often get the choice to pick any of 'keep' and 'delete', and this seems to turn FFD more into a 'lottery process' which I think is detrimental to everyone involved. The outcome should ideally depend as little as possible on who the closing admin happens to be. --Stefan2 (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist. I see two problems with the closes: Lack of participation: I know wp:FFD is not one of the most popular hangouts on the site, but there was NO participation except for the nominator in any of them. In cases like this, if the closer is going to bring new reasoning to the discussion, the closer should contribute to the discussion themselves and let others close it. Invalid reasoning: The closer's rationale is based on Template:Keep local, which only impedes speedy deletion. It is not at all binding, and cannot be used to justify even a keep !vote, let alone a closure. Please note that I do not call into question the good faith of the closer or the nominator.--Aervanath (talk) 11:29, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 October 2015

List of Rhett and Link Ear Biscuits episodes – Speedy close. Violates WP:DRVPURPOSE item 8. – Stifle (talk) 08:20, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of Rhett and Link Ear Biscuits episodes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The majority of votes were against deletion. As noted, this list is very helpful in promoting the show and would enhance Wikipedia by encouraging more Rhett and Link fans to come here. The admin has no right to ignore the votes or to destroy this work. The fact that most people find it helpful is a good reason to keep it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.50.162 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Keeping in mind that I'm generally in favor of keeping around pages like this, you should be aware that our policies (in particular WP:GNG), which dictate what articles we keep around and which ones we don't, describe the rules for what we keep around and what we don't. If there are "reliable" sources (basically fairly mainstream, see WP:RS) that have reviewed some of the episodes, these lists might have a chance. Otherwise, they will probably get, and stay, deleted. The basic idea, for better or for worse, is that we only keep around articles that cover topics that other "reliable" sources have covered. That deletion discussion, just like this discussion, are not at vote. Rather, it's a discussion about if the topic meets our guidelines for keeping the topic as a article at Wikipedia. I hope that makes sense. Hobit (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Note – This IP is part of the exact same range 166.170.48.0/22, who has been stalking and harassing Ricky81682's actions since August. --MuZemike 02:47, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Earlier than that apparently, the highly visible disruption has been on WOP related stuff since August; I'd suggest closing this DRV and allowing any good faith editor to open one if there's a need. —SpacemanSpiff 05:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC) Given that, I've no objections to closing this. Hobit (talk) 23:15, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 October 2015

Nathan Norman – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nathan Norman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) WP:ENTERTAINER requires an entertainer to have significant roles in multiple notable works to have an article. Nathan Norman satisfied this through his significant role (Lead guitarist) in the notable rock band Devo 2.0, and his significant role (Lead villain) in the notable movie 16 Stones. Administrator ignored this and deleted the article based on majority vote. The fact that Nathan Norman is now running for president may have convinced his opponents to bombard the discussion with delete votes. Giant Bernard (talk) 17:32, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Update: now it looks like some campaign opponent moved an article about a sea captain over the old one.--Giant Bernard (talk) 17:35, 15 October 2015 (UTC) That move was a perfectly normal thing to do, and you should not be accusing the editor of an ulterior motive. If we only have one article on a person named Nathan Norman, then we don't put a disambiguation in the title, they just take the main title. The move can just as easily be undone if this review decides to overturn the AFD decision, so it should be of no importance to you and is irrelevant to this discussion. I did not ignore the additional information, but I noted that participants continued to call for deletion on policy-based arguments after the Devo 2.0 and 16 Stones information had been introduced to the debate. SpinningSpark 18:07, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, the claim that the subject of the article had any claim to notability through WP:ENTERTAINER was pulled apart quite decisively by User:NewYorkActuary, despite a number of allegations of bad faith made against them. The closing administrator acted entirely properly on this one. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:23, 16 October 2015 (UTC). Endorse- the article was relisted at AfD and the discussion after that was unanimous to delete. There is no way the closing administrator could have done differently. Rearguing the AfD and attacking delete voters is not what DRV is for. Reyk YO! 17:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse And calling 16 Stones notable might be stretching it a little, fwiw. DGG ( talk ) 02:53, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Clear consensus of lack of depth of coverage, clear case for deletion. Yet again, Wikipedia:Notability (people) fails to convey to new editors what is required for an article, particularly on subject where there is possible perception of promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Deletion review is a place to review failure to follow the deletion process. It is not a de novo appeal venue or a chance to get a second bite at the cherry if the AFD hasn't gone your way. Stifle (talk) 08:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:Global University, Missouri – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Global University, Missouri (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I, the author of the draft, had access to the original sources at Global University that is found on the Malta website (http://www.globaluniversity.org.mt/homepage.htm). The Malta School is a satellite school of Global University and has access to the same materials as I did, but did not reference the original materials like I did in my draft. If I need to reference this website in my draft, I am more than willing. However, the original source of the information on that website is, in fact, the information that I am including in my proposed draft. Thank you for all your help! Jedisteve0001 (talk) 16:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Material on other websites is copyrighted and we can't accept it here, referenced or not, until and unless the content is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License 3.0. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2015 (UTC) And even if the copyright is release, making an article from a single source is not the way to go. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 October 2015

Mate Tsintsadze – Recreation permitted – Spartaz Humbug! 22:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mate Tsintsadze (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) He have played for the Georgia national team, which makes him notable per WP:NFOOTY. Source. MbahGondrong (talk) 17:01, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse I don't see how he now meets WP:NFOOTY. Tsintsadze has only played club football in Georgia, in leagues that don't appear to be fully professional, and has only gained international youth caps, which are not classified as FIFA tier 1 international matches. He was named in the Georgian senior team for a friendly against Ukraine last June, but did not make it onto the pitch. Procedurally, this was first PRODed and then deleted again at AfD more than a year ago. It was salted back in February after being repeatedly recreated. Fuebaey (talk) 00:38, 14 October 2015 (UTC) That source claims he played for Georgia in a Euro 2016 qualifying match against Ireland on 7 September 2015 for 14 minutes. [10] supports this. Hut 8.5 21:54, 14 October 2015 (UTC) My apologies, I misread the competition acronym. He did play here on the 7th. I'd allow recreation then. Fuebaey (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Restore. Has played for an international team at the top level, which meets the requirements. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

David L. Jones – keep close endorsed. – JohnCD (talk) 21:44, 24 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David L. Jones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Incorrect interpretation of guidelines and consensus. There is no evidence that the IP votes are anything but genuine, and they comment directly on policy matters. The keep votes are simply cover ground that was covered in extensive discussions on the talk page and rejected. ゼーロ (talk) 12:19, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Closer's comments: This is another case where I discounted IP comments because they appeared to be canvassed or sockpuppeted. For example, they were all made in a relatively short period of time, and all used the same unusual format of recommending "DELETE", in capital letters ... just like the nominator. See, in more detail, User talk:Sandstein#David L. Jones decision. I remain of the view that the consensus was to keep the article.  Sandstein  12:38, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. It is a very old and venerable custom to discount IP comments and Sandstein has given ample reason why doing so was correct on this occasion as well as in general. Stifle (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. The originator did not substantiate the claim "Incorrect interpretation of guidelines". I don't see any. In any case, that's the nature of guidelines as opposed to policies in wikipedia: a person is not forbidden to deviate from guidelines, and to prevent them from doing so you must prove that it was detrimental for wikipedia. I don't see that neither. Staszek Lem (talk) 16:27, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Every anonymous "delete" !vote was from an IP with very little or no edit history outside of this AFD and related pages. Details are under the hat. Extended content 86.2.115.144 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Pure SPA - no contributions before or since, unless you count one from six years ago. IP merely said "does not meet WP req for BLP", without describing any specific BLP violations. 4.26.51.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) near-SPA. Static IP assigned to dialup (!) user. Prior to AFD !vote, one edit to David L. Jones page and five to the talk page. IP had also made three edits to Antistatic bag, which are seemingly unrelated... but what the IP did there was to add a "dubious" tag to a point that was referenced to one of Jones' videos—seems related to me. A couple of unrelated edits earlier this year, then nothing for 17 months prior. IP merely said "does not meet WP:N" (echoing the nom) and cited "BLP" but with no specifics. 2600:1000:b106:6cf1:0:17:9713:4a01 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) One edit to the AFD. No other edits before or since. IP reiterated previous arguments. 32.213.188.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Sole prior participation outside of this issue is one unrelated edit on 9/12. Note that the edit on 9/21 was to slap an "advert" tag on David L. Jones (the offending material? a mere quotation of YouTube statistics, a simple statement of referenced fact). IP echoed previous comments about the interviews and mentioned "BLP" without specifics. Jeh (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2015 (UTC) ADDED: I wish to point out that the IPs' !votes were all similar in that not one of them added any new arguments. They all might as well have said "Delete per nom". (Or, rather, "DELETE per nom.") Most mentioned "BLP" but gave no specifics. (I have added to the above hat'ted material a summary of each IP's arguments showing this.) Per WP:DISCUSSAFD: "When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy." (emph. added) Just waving a red flag with "BLP" on it is not enough. Jeh (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and delete. That is a very serious allegation, Stifle. You are saying that I sock-puppeted those accounts because they wrote "DELETE" in capital letters. I really hope you have more evidence than that before making such accusations. I ask that you try to assume good faith, or remove yourself from the proceedings and ask another editor to step in. As for the guidelines issue, look at the discussion page for the article. Note how all of the keep votes fail to address any of the issues, or just repeat points that have already been discussed and rejected. The article fails to meet notability guidelines and has a severe lack of good sources. Democracy is not appropriate in this instance, it's an issue of the article not meeting guidelines or policies for a long time and having no realistic prospect of being improved to do so. ゼーロ (talk) 09:02, 13 October 2015 (UTC) I would also add that there were some good contributions from IPs on the talk page, which rather suggests that they are not sock puppets and are in fact genuinely concerned editors. Given the harassment that we have seen from the EEVBlog forum and Mr. Jones in the past, I can understand that some editors may not want to log in and risk reprisal. ゼーロ (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Whuch IPs are you talking about? I reviewed the IPs' DELETE !votes again and concluded that they might as well have all written "DELETE per nom". As for "harassment from EEVblog and Mr. Jones in the past", you are assuming facts not in evidence. There is in particular no evidence of sockpuppeting or canvassing among the "keep" votes; all of the "keep" votes had significant prior edit history on WP, a point that I documented here and will copy here as necessary. Please give evidence supporting your accusation. Jeh (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, as a participant in the discussion. The aggressive badgering of two users aside, there was clearly a widespread view that the sources provided were adequate to demonstrate notability. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:03, 13 October 2015 (UTC). I disagree. While some editors piled in once the AfD had started, they did not contribute to the discussion or improving the article beyond the current stub. They made the same points that had been discussed and rejected on the talk page. In other words, when challenged the view that the sources are adequate to demonstrate notability does not stand up. The discussion on the talk page cannot simply be ignored. The AfD is not the place to be making those arguments, it doesn't last long enough and there is no real mechanism for a proper discussion. The decision should be based on WP guidelines, policy and long term discussion. ゼーロ (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC) re:long term discussion - wise words. Look into a mirror, colleague. Do you see a dead horse behind your back? And by the way, please don't make false and disparaging statements about "some editors", if you want arguments taken with respect. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Agree with Staszek Lem. The points ゼーロ claims were "rejected on the talk page" were rejected by ゼーロ himself and the other dead horse beater, Ronz. And there were additional arguments brought up in the "keep" !votes. It is intriguing btw that ゼーロ complains that the "keep" !voters made no additional arguments, but also says that an AFD is not the place for such - seems to me that ゼーロ can't have it both ways. Anyway, the notion that new arguments should not be made during AFD is absurd; part of the entire purpose of an AFD is to get the question out where people not previously involved with the article, but interested in AFD topics, can see it and perhaps bring up previously-unconsidered aspects of P&G. An AFD is not like a court of appeals where only questions of procedure are allowed to be introduced but no new evidence. (I think a DRV is like that, or should be, but I don't think that notion has any standing within WP policy either.) Jeh (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Overdorse. I don't have any problem with discounting the IPs, for the reasons outlined above by Jeh. And even if you gave the IPs full weight, it's hard to see how you'd end up with anything further towards the delete end of the spectrum than No Consensus. That being said, none of the sources cited in the (current version of) the article meet the requirements of WP:RS and WP:N. The discussion is deeply flawed because all of the people arguing to keep seem to not get what WP:RS and WP:N are saying. You can't blame it on the closer when the participants do a bad job. People asserted that there were plenty of good sources out there. OK, let those people add them to the article. If a few months go by and the sources haven't appeared, this should be re-nominated and hopefully will get a better evaluation. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)# Can you clarify what an "overdorse" is? Stifle (talk) 08:51, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Part overturn, part endorse. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:24, 15 October 2015 (UTC) I believe that RoySmith is failing to see everything that WP:N, particularly the part in the beginning that says it's a guideline and not policy. As for WP:RS, that's a new one - the sources have not much been challenged on reliability grounds. They've been challenged as being mostly primary, but there is no blanket rule against primary sources on WP, not even in WP:BLP. Against "misuse" of primary sources, yes, but nobody has shown such misuse by the article. Oh, sure, they've claimed it, but no details have been forthcoming. In fact, when I recently asked for such details re a BLP tag, I was simply sneered at in a rather blatant display of article WP:OWNership). Jeh (talk) 20:12, 14 October 2015 (UTC) This meme that discounting IP votes is wrong is nonsense Please see the following historic discussions going back a decade (that's 10 years for our younger readers) demonstrating that this is a long standing practice in deletion discussions. Basically, its an accepted norm and objections to deletion based on this have no basis in community standards. [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. The moral of the story? Do your research folks and don't raise spurious arguments because you are too lazy to find out what we do round here. Hint: Its taken me the same time to find the evidence using that lovely search facility we have as it has taken me to write a sarcastic comment here. No need to thank me, you are welcome... Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse - sources are rather marginal, but it's reasonable to infer that a spew of poorly argued DELETE votes all in a row that show multiple lines of being inexperienced users is the result of canvassing. If the subject wanted it deleted, I might entertain BLP being relevant. But I see no evidence of that. WilyD 10:00, 15 October 2015 (UTC) endorse, and specifically endorse what Spartaz has said above. This very afd & del rev seems an excellent instance of why we need tha rule. There can as for any rule be borderline cases about its applicability, but I do not see this as at any way borderline in that respect. It would have been very unusual for any admin to give full weight to some of the !votes in that afd. DGG ( talk ) 02:59, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse I would have closed this identically. It was correct to discount the marginal !votes, by the very long time (and well known) existing practice of doing so in AfD discussions. Subject person of this articles is at least marginally notable, so defaulting to keep is the expected outcome. jni (delete)...just not interested 20:04, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 October 2015

Liam Payne – Wong venue. This is already at AfC. The consensus here is that AfC is where this should be decided, and that the three year old AfD result is not binding on a new article getting created via the AfC process. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:06, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Liam Payne (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) AfD outcome in 2012 was redirect to band's article. Standalone article has been repeatedly requested since then. There is now a sourced article at Draft:Liam Payne, which keeps getting denied at AfC. What do people think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:48, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Pinging JohnCD the AfD closer, SwisterTwister the most recent AfC patroller, and other AfCers Rankersbo and LukeSurl who have been involved previously — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the ping MSGJ. I am not at all interested with One Direction but I would say it's simply a matter of whether he is independently and acceptably notable now. I have to say I almost accepted it but I wasn't sure if it was set for a separate article yet. SwisterTwister talk 19:53, 11 October 2015 (UTC) If it keeps getting denied at AFC, then listing here seems rather like forum shopping :/ Stifle (talk) 12:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Forum shopping by whom, exactly? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Whomever listed it in another place because it was being denied at the first. Stifle (talk) 08:50, 16 October 2015 (UTC) So it is me you are accusing of forum shopping? I don't think this is fair as I have never requested this article and don't really have much of an opinion of it. When I came across it, I suggested on Draft talk:Liam Payne that the proper course of action was to get the draft up to scratch and then list it at DRV. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:51, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Decline Jurisdiction; the proper venue for this discussion is AFC, and we should back whatever they come up with. DRV shouldn't become a dumping ground for issues not specifically related to review of article deletion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC). Note: this was brought here on the explicit instruction of the closing admin of the AfD. I would have hoped that he would comment here, actually. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:08, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Comment by deleting admin: sorry, I missed the ping. That AfD was three years ago, and my direction there that appeal should be to DRV was in the context of repeated re-creation and sock-puppetry. Three years on, he may now be independently notable, and if an article is accepted at AfC I will unprotect the title on request, or any admin can do that. Suggest this DRV is closed as "recreation permitted if a draft is accepted at AfC". JohnCD (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks for your comment. I agree that this would be a sensible approach. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:37, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ramchandra Siras – seems pointless waiting a week to get the show on the road when the outcome is very clear. – Spartaz Humbug! 22:05, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ramchandra Siras (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Apart from the nomination, there was only one comment. Both failed to consider WP:PROF; Siras won the Maharashtra Sahitya Parishad award for his 2002 collection of poems, therefore passing this notability test. He is also notable for having a film made about his life, the ground-breaking court case in 2010 which was brought by Siras and has been a fundamental case study of Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code, and he was recognized as a "literary genius" of Mirarathi poetry[18]. With the film being premiered in London this weekend, I was hoping to expand the article about the Professor. I would like to see the article undeleted so that reliable sources and material can be added, and at a time when it will be of most use to the general public for their education about the facts of the Professor's life, the legal case and the controversial circumstances of his death. It should be noted that the statement "he was a Gay and that's why he was suspended from his job of Professorship at the University" was used in the deletion discussion and went unchallenged. I would hope that if this goes to another deletion discussion it will be better moderated. Fæ (talk) 13:42, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Relist. Although the deletion nomination went unopposed – and I myself have closed discussions with a similar headcount as "delete" – in this case the only opinion apart from the nominator's did not address our inclusion criteria, but can be read to advocate deletion because of prejudice against the subject's sexual orientation. An outsider reading the discussion might well conclude that this was the reason, or part of the reason, for the deletion, and this could bring Wikipedia into disrepute. The discussion should therefore be relisted in an attempt to gather policy-based opinions about the subject's notability. I don't have a considered opinion about that, but the obituary-style article in the Times of India is a strong indication that he was in fact prominent enough to merit inclusion.  Sandstein  16:13, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Relist. Per Sandstein. Mackensen (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Relist per the above. I would have expected a nomination which only attracted one comment apart from the nominator to be relisted anyway, particularly when that one comment was seriously flawed and apparently motivated by homophobic prejudice. Hut 8.5 17:34, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Relist. This AfD saw virtually no participation. There's no rush to close these things; it should have been relisted at least once to try and garner additional input. At the very least, this should be treated as a WP:SOFTDELETE. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC) The DRV instructions state that issues or queries about a deletion discussion should be raised with the deleting admin before listing here. I don't see that having happened on this occasion; merely a notification that the DRV was open. Can the nominator clarify why he/she chose not to follow that instruction? Stifle (talk) 12:58, 12 October 2015 (UTC) DRV says "please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly", so the emphasis in the guidelines is that this is a good idea as it might be a quicker process than DRV. However, the closing admin last edited the English Wikipedia in mid-May (six months ago[19]), despite several enquiries and invitations for them to give views on their talk page. As stated the point of recreating this article at the same time as the global releases of the film about Siras' life, is so that Wikipedia can be improved in a timely way to make an impact on public knowledge. With this context, it seemed reasonable to both notify the closing admin and get a DRV started as soon as possible, as it would be highly unlikely that the closing admin would reply either on their talk page or here; and in fact they have not. I am aware that the "DRV instructions" are neither Wikipedia policy nor community approved guidelines, but friendly procedural steps for how to best approach DRV, so this would seem weaker than the basic rule of thumb given by WP:IAR, "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it" which seems to apply nicely and directly in this case. Had the closing admin had an issue and wanted to discuss the case, then I would have been happy to withdraw or pause this DRV until that alternative was explored. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:59, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Higher up on the same page, we also have "Deletion Review should not be used... when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination" and "Before listing a review request, please discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first". It's repeated in three places because it's important — and the reason for the instruction is so as to avoid the unnecessary bureaucracy of a week-long listing when a simple talk page message would often have obtained the necessary result. However, as you note, the closing admin has not been heard from in five (not six) months; I therefore agree that following the step would not have accomplished anything. Seems like a relist is appropriate here. It is unusual to close AFD discussions after the minimum one-week period with only two participants. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jose Landi – Endorse. No problem with discounting the IP comments under the circumstances – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:11, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jose Landi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) IP comments were discounted. Additionally, it looked like there was about to be a no consensus. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC) You have neither discussed the deletions with Sandstein not notified him of this discussion and disagreeing with the outcome is not a valid reason to start a DRV. Finally discounting IP votes is usual if their opinions are not policy based. Very suboptimal nomination and I'd like a good reason why I shouldn't just close this as an abuse of process. You have been around long enough to know better. Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC) I spoke to him now. The opinions seemed to be strong arguments for GNG. Being number one ranked in a weight division across various fighting federations seems to make someone noteworthy. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:49, 11 October 2015 (UTC) WP:somewhatnoteworthy appears to be a red link. Perhaps you meant non notable by virtue of being a blp that does not meet the GNG?Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Closer's comment: I discounted the IP comments because, judging by their similarities, they were likely canvassed or sockpuppeted, and also because they didn't address the inclusion criteria that are relevant according to our guidelines (i.e., generally, coverage in reliable sources, not competitive rankings). I see no reason to change the outcome of the discussion.  Sandstein  21:14, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Sandstein was correct to discount the IP's. Looking at their contributions, it's pretty evident that there were shenanigans afoot. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:30, 11 October 2015 (UTC) This meme that discounting IP votes is wrong is nonsense Please see the following historic discussions going back a decade (that's 10 years for our younger readers) demonstrating that this is a long standing practice in deletion discussions. Basically, its an accepted norm and objections to deletion based on this have no basis in community standards. [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]. The moral of the story? Do your research folks and don't raise spurious arguments because you are too lazy to find out what we do round here. Hint: Its taken me the same time to find the evidence using that lovely search facility we have as it has taken me to write a sarcastic comment here. No need to thank me, you are welcome... Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion Given that the IPs are of questionable independence and offer no supporting evidence for any policy based reasons to keep the article, the closing admin made the correct decision. Papaursa (talk) 02:18, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Undelete these individuals seem to gang attacking one person who has challenged a deletion. I believe this screams of cyber bullying and racism. This needs to be seriously addresses. 96.127.236.62 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Sadaki Nakabayashi – Endorse. No problem with discounting the IP comments under the circumstances – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:12, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Sadaki Nakabayashi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) IP comments were discounted. Additionally, it looked like there was about to be a no consensus. CrazyAces489 (talk) 03:46, 11 October 2015 (UTC) You have neither discussed the deletions with Sandstein not notified him of this discussion and disagreeing with the outcome is not a valid reason to start a DRV. Finally discounting IP votes is usual if their opinions are not policy based. Very suboptimal nomination and I'd like a good reason why I shouldn't just close this as an abuse of process. You have been around long enough to know better. Spartaz Humbug! 10:52, 11 October 2015 (UTC) I disagree with the discounting of IP edits. Also being recognized as a master makes someone noteworthy. CrazyAces489 (talk) 20:50, 11 October 2015 (UTC) disagree as much as you like but practise is against you. Where is the policy that says being a master makes you notable?Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Closer's comment: See my comment regarding Jose Landi above; this is the same situation.  Sandstein  21:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. Sandstein was correct to discount the IP's. Looking at their contributions, it's pretty evident that there were shenanigans afoot. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC) This meme that discounting IP votes is wrong is nonsense Please see the following historic discussions going back a decade (that's 10 years for our younger readers) demonstrating that this is a long standing practice in deletion discussions. Basically, its an accepted norm and objections to deletion based on this have no basis in community standards. [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]. The moral of the story? Do your research folks and don't raise spurious arguments because you are too lazy to find out what we do round here. Hint: Its taken me the same time to find the evidence using that lovely search facility we have as it has taken me to write a sarcastic comment here. No need to thank me, you are welcome... Spartaz Humbug! 18:04, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion Given that the IPs are of questionable independence and offer no supporting evidence for any policy based reasons to keep the article, the closing admin made the correct decision. Papaursa (talk) 02:17, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Undelete these individuals seem to gang attacking one person who has challenged a deletion. I believe this screams of cyber bullying and racism. This needs to be seriously addresses. 96.127.236.62 (talk) 23:38, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 October 2015

User:Cipher66/sandbox – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:44, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Cipher66/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) No one but the nominator discussed this. Admin conducted a super vote instead in approving the discussion. Should be overturned and relisted with more time for actual discussion. 166.170.45.57 (talk) 23:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Did you mean relisting the discussion? 104.32.108.117 (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2015 (UTC) MFDs are not customarily relisted for low participation. Endorse - might reconsider if User:Cipher66 were to request and explain how it benefits the encyclopedia to have this page in place. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, an obviously abandoned userspace fork with no edits at all in over two years. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Well the article is now deleted as well so we need this copy to have at least one version around. 166.170.50.162 (talk) 19:45, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

List of devices supported by CyanogenMod – Deletion endorsed. –  Sandstein  09:59, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of devices supported by CyanogenMod (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This is not a catalog but a list and there are already lots of pages of lists that also have references like this one and are useful for Wikipedia users. If this page is finally removed more pages like this one will also need to be removed. Please, allow Wikipedia to be useful. Jsmithbetterwikipedia (talk) 10:22, 10 October 2015 (UTC) I could not not contact the administrator who deleted the page because Courcelles (talk) has protected his talk page, so other users cannot contact him. Jsmithbetterwikipedia (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC) temporarily restored the page history for discussion DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion This is a classic example of content that , however useful to people, does not belong in an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 10 October 2015 (UTC) Do you want this kind of content removed from anywhere on the Internet? Or would you be OK if it was under other Wikimedia project? Is there such a project? What is the actual problem with this content being in Wikipedia? In what ways it makes Wikipedia worse? Jsmithbetterwikipedia (talk) 21:52, 10 October 2015 (UTC) At first glance, https://wiki.cyanogenmod.org/ seems like it would be the perfect place to host this information. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 10 October 2015 (UTC) That's precisely where it's hosted; see the devices page. That page would always be more current than the copy maintained here, and would be the main reference for the Wikipedia page, too. -- Mikeblas (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2015 (UTC) Just to clarify, my comment above should be taken as endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 17 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse; WP:NOTCATALOG correctly applied. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. (NB: I was the nominiator.) The material is available wholesale elsewhere on the internet, and in another Wiki. The list will never be sourced here in any reliable way; it's just a copy of that other list, referenced by that other list. This copy will always be out of date. WP:NOTCATALOG applies, but so doe WP:NOTMIRROR. The repeated objection is that "Wikipedia needs to be useful", but the deletion of this material doesn't prevent Wikipedia from being useful. The Cyanogenmod page can link to this information externally without a problem, and it seems more useful to directly link to the material at the site where it is primarily published and managed. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't a reason to reverse the deletion. -- Mikeblas (talk) 03:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, correct reading of the debate, rightly discounting WP:USEFUL-style arguments. Guy (Help!) 17:44, 14 October 2015 (UTC) Question. I'm not sure if this is normally brought-up here, but User:Jsmithbetterwikipedia is a single-purpose account, having only done enough editing to create this AfD review. -- Mikeblas (talk) 05:01, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 October 2015

File:Babyface lovers.jpg – Deletion endorsed. –  Sandstein  11:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Babyface lovers.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) I don't know why a well-known cover art is deleted other than allegedly violating WP:NFCC#8. The original album cover is deservingly used, but almost no one knew that the image existed. It was a reissue cover art, but that shouldn't make it merely decorative, should it? No one voted for or against this image because no one was aware of the FFD discussion. --George Ho (talk) 05:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC) As a minimum, relist. Nobody can be expected to follow all discussions, and when wider attention is needed, this is a good place to ask for it. DGG (at NYPL) -- reply here 16:54, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Sounds like a reasonable objection, no reason not to relist given lack of participation. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Not seeing a clear argument that this meets NFCC 3a. Procedurally I've no objection to a relist, but it seems pointless, and given that policy was followed (though policy I'm not fond of) I'll endorse. Hobit (talk) 22:45, 19 October 2015 (UTC) The deletion process has been properly followed; FFD process states that unopposed nominations are closed as delete. Therefore, it is endorsed pending new information or argument. I would note that NFCC#3a is likely to be the key issue here in that multiple covers would not be considered compliant with that criterion absent actual critical commentary on the alternate cover, and a strong rationale detailing why the removal of the image would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. Stifle (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2015 (UTC) the deletion process is inadequate when it has unrepresentative participation: the entire system of WP depends on control by the overall community, not cliques at special processes. Since nobody can follow all potentially relevant processes, the only practical way is to allow review on the merits to a general and widely watched place. DGG ( talk ) 13:17, 9 October 2015 (UTC) I agree process was followed correctly. But I also believe that a discussion without any participation should not have a high bar to a relist request (much as WP:REFUND works). Hobit (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC) I'm hoping to pre-empt going around the circle again by asking the nominator what arguments he/she proposes to advance at a theoretical FFD which would overcome the high bar that is NFCC#3a. Stifle (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Reasonable, though I'll note it was deleted under #8 I believe. Still 3a seems to be the main issue. I don't see the bar as high as you do, but I too would like a more clear explanation. I think that's more of a FFD issue, but don't see the point in doing this unless a reasonable argument can be made (DRV doesn't have to agree that the argument is enough to clear the bar IMO, merely that they have a rational argument--I don't know enough about the subject to see such an argument (and one may not exist...). Hobit (talk) 22:00, 12 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse the process was followed. In other circumstance such as an article, then relisting would be a sensible option. In a case such as this where the onus is on those wishing to keep to show nfcc is met, then absent some sort of apparently reasonable argument NFCC could be met (given the general observation that allowing two "similar" images is an exception not the rule), such a relisting seems unneeded. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2015 (UTC) This image was used in Lovers (Babyface album) (link to removal). George Ho (talk · contribs), do you have a response to Stifle's response above about WP:NFCC#3a? If you have a good faith response, relist. If there is no response, keep deleted. I agree with DGG and Hobit that a discussion with little participation should have a low bar to relist. But I also agree with Stifle and 86.2.216.5 that the image should not be relisted if there is not a good faith explanation about why it doesn't violate NFCC#3a. Is there "critical commentary on the alternate cover"? Cunard (talk) 05:58, 19 October 2015 (UTC) @Stifle: Both images look different. Original has balloons; reissue has a fireplace. Babyface smiles in original; he frowns in reissue. As for critical commentary, I could not find sources describing the reissue image. I just added "different cover" with a reference. "Contextual significant"? I am unsure how the removal affects the readers' understanding of the album, but MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation discourages extra images that are used for mere display. Readers can see a different reissue image on Amazon and iTunes without needing Wikipedia. Original cover has more value because it has never been used since Epic acquired rights to the album. George Ho (talk) 06:38, 19 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you for the response, George Ho. Unfortunately, like Hobit, I don't see a "clear argument that this meets NFCC 3a", so this would very likely be deleted at WP:FFD. Instead George's comments seem to support deletion until NFCC 3a ("I could not find sources describing the reissue image" and "I am unsure how the removal affects the readers' understanding of the album, but MOS:MUSIC#Images and notation discourages extra images that are used for mere display.") Changed to endorse. Cunard (talk) 04:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC) Comment Original nominator at FFD here. WP:FFD tells that 'Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised.' The file was listed at FFD in November 2013 and deleted in February 2014. During that time, no objections had been raised, but there were also no comments to my original message. It seems that the process was followed, but I don't think that we should have a very high bar for relisting files when the participation is low. --Stefan2 (talk) 10:21, 19 October 2015 (UTC) I don't know whether caption notice helped a lot as discussions usually are empty. However, it wasn't added at the time of nomination. George Ho (talk) 16:37, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 October 2015

Jhoom (album) – No consensus to overturn the closure, but renomination allowed. We don't agree to reopen the discussion, but most agree that the discussion was unsatisfactory, so the "keep" does not prevent anybody from renominating the article for deletion. –  Sandstein  08:17, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jhoom (album) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The Afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jhoom (album) was closed by a non-admin user as keep and they have now asked me to reach here. While all the 3 votes on the AfD did vote for keeping the article, I would like to point out that per WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any)." I feel that arguments made by keep voters were quite week and when re-questioned no replies were given yet by them. Hence requesting to relist or reconsider the closure. Btw, am not very sure if arguments that are really meant to be on AfD should be placed on DRV or not. But the subject album, even after winning an award and claiming to be in top charts, has mediocre mentions. One ref from where all the notability claim is made is a 5 sentence article; 2 being quotes from the artist. Rest all are just passing mentions or pre-release promotional news features. Highligthing WP:NALBUMS here "...must meet the basic criteria at the notability guidelines, with significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Notability aside, a standalone article is only appropriate when there is enough material to warrant a reasonably detailed article...". The subject fails NALBUMS for these clauses. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 05:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse close – no-one supported the nomination. It seems to me that WP:NALBUMS is seriously at fault if entries in the albums charts of India and Pakistan are not recognised as notable. Oculi (talk) 12:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I didn't understand you. Why do you think NALBUMS is at fault? It is based on GNG. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 16:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Wikipedia:Record charts does not mention either India or Pakistan, which seems a glaring omission. Oculi (talk) 18:30, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Because there are no charts which would satisfy our notability standards. Many radio stations have their top 10 listings but with no transparency on how listings are done. These radios even turn out to be media partners of films and production houses and then its COI to promote their vested interests by playing same songs again and again. You are more than welcome to suggest additions to WP:CHART. Until that happens you have to prove notability of these so called anonymous charts over here. But how will you if you don't even know what charts they are! §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, could not have reasonably been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Nothing prevents renomination at an appropriate time. Stifle (talk) 07:58, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Reopen in order to more effectively determine consensus: I get the impression that this is rushed, although I don't support deleting the article. --Rubbish computer 16:10, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Reopen I don't fault the close, per-se. It certainly looks like a slam-dunk keep on the surface. But, despite the near-unanimous keep sentiment, nobody has actually produced any sources which satisfy WP:RS. Just saying, It doesn't seem difficult to find references, isn't good enough. Show us the sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I keep adding references: there is one from the Times of India and 3 from the Citizen Tribune, which both appear to be reputable sources. I find it surprising that his other albums do not have articles. Oculi (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. RoySmith is right in principle, but I believe the references in the article are sufficient to support the claims in the AFD. A review in a major newspaper and a report of being top-selling from an RS, even if brief, ordinarily suffice, absent a less superficial analysis to the contrary than has been advanced. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 17:49, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Well... claiming to top the charts and not mention which charts is superficial enough. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 02:43, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. The nominator failed to get others to agree with him. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, a lot of the "Keep" opinions are pro forma and lack depth (the one by User:Yash! aside which brings a reliable source backing up a claim made in the article to the table), but on the other hand you couldn't really close a discussion where every opinion apart from the nominator was "Keep" in any other way. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 October 2015

Jacques Peretti – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jacques Peretti (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The is a question of a judgment call. On 6 October administrator Randykitty closed the Afd discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacques Peretti with a ruling of "no consensus". On its surface it looks like there was no consensus. Four editors had recommended deletion, and two editors had recommended keeping the article. However, deletion discussions are not a vote, and as Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators says: Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted. In this case the four who urged deletion based their argument on the lack of adequate coverage to meet the guidelines of WP:GNG, although only one of them specifically mentioned WP:GNG. The two editors who urged keeping the article did so on the basis "Seems notable to me, with 4 documentary films or series on UK national TV". Which may have been a reference to the guideline at Creative professionals #3. (I haven't been able to determine any other notability basis that that might be referring to, nor has Randykitty suggested any.) However, there is no evidence that Peretti's body of work meets the guideline requirement of In addition, such work must have been the subject of an independent book or feature-length film or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. in fact, the opposite, as in searching for coverage perforce coverage of his work occurred. So the net result is that the arguments in support of deletion had a basis in the guidelines, with only one substantive article on Jacques Peretti being found, while the other arguments did not seem to be based on policy or guidelines, but to the extent we extend good faith, they failed. I contend that in closing, looking at strength of argument is essential. When I first saw the result, I thought that Randykitty might have been rushing when she/he made the closure and thus did not do an in depth analysis of the arguments, so I went and talked with Randykitty, but Randykitty assures me that enough time was taken. There do not seem to me to have been any policy arguments made during the Afd, but Randykitty indicates: The "keep" !votes argued that the "4 documentary films or series on UK national TV" indicate notability, which is a policy-based argument, I think. Randykitty indicated that the afd had run for long enough that closure was proper. I agree with that. My contention is that insuffient weight was given to the strength of arguments in rendering the closing judgment, and that assessing that weight is required. I did not participate in the Afd discussion and this is not my feelings regarding the correct interpretation of the debate. This has to do with whether the strength of arguments were assessed and the closing guidelines adhered to. Randykitty foreclosued further discussion and suggested that I take the matter here. If this is not the proper forum, please let me know. --Bejnar (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. I note that the debate was relisted twice, so presumably two other editors (Sandstein and Tom Morris) also thought there was no clear consensus. But we can't keep relisting forever, so I don't see what else the closer could have done. StAnselm (talk) 23:29, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, although I do wish that closer's of contested discussion would give at least some commentary on why it was closed that way. The discussion is easily read as "no consensus", it was well within admin discretion. There were multiple participants, but the depth of the conversation was low. It was, I suppose, "leaning to delete", but it was not decisive. I recommend following advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Yes, this is the correct place to review the close of a deletion discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:14, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Comment My discussion with Bejnar of this issue is here. --Randykitty (talk) 07:51, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, a "no consensus" close was perfectly within admin discretion here. I do feel that the "delete" arguments are not as strong as asserted in this nomination; they're eseentially "no this does not meet policy"/ "yes this does meet policy" on a purely subjective matter. I've also looked at the discussion on Randykitty's talk page and there's nothing improper that I can see about how they conducted themselves there, if "foreclosued further discussion" is meant to suggest that they did not allow for adequate discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:18, 7 October 2015 (UTC). Admin Lankiveil concluded about deletion arguments that said (1) The Daily Mail ref is significant, but he would need more of these to be notable. (2) No claim to notability. Yes there are references, but they just prove that he exists. They do not prove that he is notable. (3) Delete for now as there's simply no better coverage for a better article with my searches here, here, here, here and here. and (4) The available references don't show that this person meets the notability guidelines ... currently, through the search engines, not enough turns up to show they meet WP:GNG.:  I do feel that the "delete" arguments are not as strong as asserted in this nomination; they're essentially "no this does not meet policy"/ "yes this does meet policy" on a purely subjective matter. If this is in fact the standard against which the work of editors on Afd is evaluated, then editors need to say much more about coverage, than just their conclusions about it. Of cource with lack of coverage we are dealing with proving a negative, and apparently even listing what sources were found was not sufficient for admin Lankiveil who still concluded that it was just a subjective option. So what kind of statements at Afd are acceptable when the issue is lack of coverage? What evidence should be presented at Afd to demonstrate lack of coverage?If all expressions of an editors analytical conclusions are purely subjective, how do we prevent Afd from just being a vote? Again, while I believe these questions go to the heart of the matter, if there is a more appropriate forum, please let me know. --Bejnar (talk) 02:19, 8 October 2015 (UTC) I cannot conclude that the closure was manifestly unreasonable. Stifle (talk) 13:27, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I don't conclude that the closure was manifestly unreasonable either, just that the arguments were not analysed for weight. I requested a review of the decision making process, not necessary a change in result. Your comment, while appreciated, does not address the issues. --Bejnar (talk) 17:08, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse - marginal sourcing, fairly ambivalent arguments (on both sides), relisted twice without result, balanced headcount (wit Poisson error) - no consensus is perfectly reasonable. WilyD 13:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Deletion log archive – To answer the question - probably but too much work needed to strip of the edit summaries - which are unsuitable in some cases for public sight. I don't think there is any objection to this but you need to find an admin willing to do this. Good luck with that. I don't have time or inclinaction to do it and no volunteers in the seven days this has been open. – Spartaz Humbug! 19:41, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:Deletion log archive (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) In September 2006 User:Ral315 deleted all Wikipedia:Deletion log archives (not the Wikipedia:Old deletion log though it seems) and replaced them with a notice saying they have been deleted for concerns of libelous edit summaries. While everything up to September 2003 has been restored, October 2003 onwerds is still deleted with the messages in place. Should October 2003 onwerds be undeleted with summaries removed for historical purpouses? 189.25.205.82 (talk) 14:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 October 2015

HappyFunCorp – Deletion endorsed. –  Sandstein  07:51, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
HappyFunCorp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) This article was deleted based on only 5 votes, which basically stated that the company (HappyFunCorp) is not notable enough to deserve a page. Based on the Wikipedia guidelines, I believe HFC is more than deserving of a page, and they have received even more reliable 3rd party press since the page's deletion. I ask that the page be restored, new sources added and the language be reviewed to ensure it is not PR or publicity. Cheers! Also, please note I'm writing this for deletion review because the admin (User:Randykitty) who deleted this page says he won't be active on Wikipedia for a while. HappyFunCorp Imarapaholic (talk) 18:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Nomination edited to avoid impression that RandyKitty signed it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Let's keep this simple. Could you provide the two or three best sources here? By best, I mean those sources which most clearly meet the requirements of WP:RS and serve to demonstrate notability. Thanks! -- RoySmith (talk) 19:33, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Essentially unanimous outcome based on arguments soundly grounded in policy. Take any new draft to WP:AFC. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:38, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. Please do not take a new draft to WP:AFC. Instead, see Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. Yes, it is a great company that deserves a page, just not on Wikipedia. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse. The deletion discussion received an above-average amount of attention, and was unanimous. Any possible recreation would need to be preceded by specifying and linking to the alleged sources, rather than merely asserting they exist. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you (User:RoySmith) and (User:Stifle). HappyFunCorp is mentioned in numerous publications, including Forbes, Inc., TechCrunch, FastCompany and BK Mag. Here are a few links to sources: http://techcrunch.com/2015/01/12/built-in-brooklyn-happyfuncorp/ - http://www.bkmag.com/2014/07/15/a-technology-academy-grows-in-brooklyn/ - http://www.fastcompany.com/3045128/passion-to-profit/this-web-development-shops-passion-project-injecting-your-company-culture- - http://www.forbes.com/sites/shanerobinson/2012/11/01/who-should-you-hire-to-build-your-web-startup-tips-for-non-technical-tech-entrepreneurs/. Thank you for posting those. I took a look at all four. I tend not to put much weight in TechCrunch or FastCompany articles when it comes to establishing notability. Both of them largely react to company-supplied press releases, so they're not good sources of independent coverage. Brooklyn Magazine is local coverage, so I don't give that much weight either. Forbes is clearly a significant publication and a high-quality WP:RS, but this is a passing mention. The name of the company is mentioned once, and buried many paragraphs into the article. I just don't see this adding up to the standards of WP:N. Overall, I'd have to give this a weak endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse the !vote was unanimous against the article creator. No other outcome was possible. The sources shown up here are dubious, at best. The "Forbes" piece is a blog post ("Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own" clearly visible disclaimer at the top)... Kraxler (talk) 23:53, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Thank you (User:RoySmith for looking through the sources. Alas, if you have written off TechCrunch (a major news source for Tech SMBs) as a good source, then I'd have to agree with your notion that HappyFunCorp has not received enough coverage to warrant a page. As to the standards of WP:N to which you alluded to, I have read through the notability guidelines several times (see my user talk) and found nothing detailing such a "standard." HFC has more than 15 pieces of reliable third-party press - I have seen many pages with weaker sources and much more bias which have not been flagged. This company is notable, plus cool!, and as soon as they receive more press I will reach out again. Thank you very much for your help.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Saryu Usui – Nac overturned and article deleted. – Spartaz Humbug! 05:43, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Saryu Usui (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) (see below) Esquivalience t 20:08, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Pinging all participants: Spartaz, T Kanagawa T, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, MichaelQSchmidt. Esquivalience t 20:15, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Non consensus closes are almost by definition not suitable for a non-admin close and you seem to have closed by the numbers not by the arguments. As the bad wolf pointed out, the keep side were characterised by an argument that Japanese language speakers were required rather than providing any reliable sources of their own - which is hardly a policy based argument to overcome delete votes based on analysis of the sources. I was surprised that rather than address the issue with HW you came straight here and I have to say, your response seemed rather unflexible and arrogant. You should have simply voided the close and left it to an admin to close. This is, after all, what this discussion should do. My vote is overturn and reclose by admin. That doesn't need a seven day discussion, any passing admin can do that now. Spartaz Humbug! 20:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse This AfD seems to be mostly an argument over whether WP:GNG is met. It's met if there are secondary sources, and a number of potential sources are linked; unfortunately, those sources are in Japanese, so it's hard to tell if they're valid or not. It's incorrect to assume that all the sources are necessarily incorrect just because we can't read them. Likewise, it's also incorrect to assume that there's any relevance to the sources, again because we can't read them. As a result the AfD can't be decisively closed until someone who understands Japanese turns up. In the past (when I was last heavily involved with AfD, many years ago), the usual option would have been to leave the AfD open, with !votes like "Wait". A WP:NPASR close has pretty much identical behaviour to repeated relisting (i.e. wait until someone can verify that the subject does or doesn't meet notability guidelines), and has the neatness advantage that the AfD doesn't stay unclosed for ages, so it seems like a perfectly reasonable close in this case. --ais523 22:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn per Spartaz and per my comments on the would-be closer's talk page. First of all, this was a controversial deletion discussion, and wasn't suitable for a non-administrator close. Esquivalience has made no effort to provide even a token explanation as to why their departure from policy is justified. Second, Esquivalience cast a supervote rather than evaluating consensus. There certainly was no consensus support in the AFD for the idea that Wikipedians fluent in the native language must contribute to a discussion on a subject from a non-English-speaking country for the discussion to be valid, and no grounding whatever in policy. Once again, Esquivalience makes no attempt to justify their action. Third, Esquivalience didn't come close to properly weighing consensus. There were three !voters and one commenter in the discussion. Two experienced users argued for deletion, citing policy and guidelines in some detail. One extremely inexperienced user (making only their 16th edit) !voted keep making a general argument about pornography in Japan, without attempting to assess the specific performer's notability. The experienced commenter argued that because so many non-English-language turn up in Google searches, we should wait for a Japanese-speaking editor to review the many, many Japanese-language sources and evaluate/translate them -- but if no editor has volunteered after a sufficient period of time, it will be acceptable to "let a possible deletion be without prejudice for a return when such is done", which isthe standard delete outcome. It's been a month since the discussion opened, and no Japanese-speaking volunteer has come forward. All but one of the discussion participants apparently find a routine delete outcome -- not article salting -- acceptable. It's quite hard to accurately read that outcome as no consensus or, as Esquivalience now grudgingly admits, a slight delete consensus". Fourth, Esquivalience's close is a clear departure from consensus in similar AFDs. Seven or eight similar AFDs regarding Japanese porn performers have closed in the last month or so, without following the principle that Esquivalience says governs. Note in particular Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hitomi Tanaka, which while not an exact parallel develops the underlying issue in some detail. I pointed this discussion out on E's talk page, but they again refused to discuss. And, further, I've never seen a DRV opened like this. The would-be closer refused to provide a policy/guideline-based rationale on their talk page, refused to engzge in discussion, and instead game here with an opening statement that evades the substantive issues and instead casts needless aspersions on the editor challenging the outcome. That's grossly unacceptable, and deserves at the least a stern warning that any recurrence of such misbehaviour will not be tolerated. If I'd made comparable comments about a closer the DRV would be summarily shut down and I'd probably be sanctioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 01:09, 6 October 2015 (UTC) @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: I am not accusing you of anything, and WP:NPASR (is part of WP:DELPRO, which is a guideline) means that there is no definite consensus. I closed it on the basis that there was a slight delete consensus, but more discussion is needed. I am only opening this DRV because I am looking for community input, and your accusations of "gaming the system" and "not providing a policy/guideline-based rationale" are empty and baseless. If you would like to take it to AN(I), which is the next step if proper dispute resolution can't take place, you can, but nonetheless this would better be judged by the community. Esquivalience t 02:04, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Please don't rewrite history. Your nomination was sarcastic about HWs request - really - and actually, this is a classic example of a discussion not suitable for a non admin. The fact that you came running here instead of addressing HWs well reasoned and reasonably put policy based objections shows that dealing with this close was beyond you. Instead of vague waves to the community you should just admit your error and void your close for an admin to reclose it. Your conduct here is not what I would expect for someone stepping into fill an admin role. Perhaps you should consider that... Spartaz Humbug! 06:43, 6 October 2015 (UTC) I am overturning the non-admin close here and reclosing as Delete. (WP:NACD suggests reopening the discussion, but as this one has been relisted three times already I don't think that's a good idea.) While it would certainly be preferable to have a Japanese speaker look for sources to demonstrate notability, notability requires verifiable evidence and an assertion that there may be sources available cannot ultimately counter an argument for deletion based on the notability guidelines. WP:NPASR is for closing discussions with very limited participation, this one had four participants which is enough to get round that and it certainly doesn't support closing a discussion based on the language skills of the participants. I will leave this discussion open in case anyone else wants to review this. Hut 8.5 20:36, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Not an unreasonable close, but an NAC should be reverted on any reasonable request. They should be for clear cut cases. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Had Hut not done anything I would've said Overturn & Delete - To be fair it had been relisted 3 times and didn't gain much !votes and the Keep !vote wasn't really relevent to the AFD so atleast in my eyes it was an obvious delete. (Thanks Hut 8.5 for reclosing/deleting.). –Davey2010Talk 23:42, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Comment: After some (lots) of thought into this closure, I must agree fully that my actions within this AfD closure was sub-optimal, really suboptimal, and falls behind the civility required to maintain a collegial environment on Wikipedia. Sarcasm and ignorance just isn't productive, and I exactly did just that. I apologize to Hullaballoo Wolfowitz for my comments which could reasonably and fully be construed as needless attacking; thank you Hut 8.5 for taking the time to assess the merits of this close. Esquivalience t 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2015 Russian air raids in Syria – Deletion overturned, discussion relisted. –  Sandstein  07:48, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2015 Russian air raids in Syria (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) It was not duplicate article. It was subtopic (airstrikes) in a broader topic (intervention). It was created on 30 September, not as fork. Deleted by Materialscientist without correct discussion (only 1 hour after it was started on night), without merging etc. Please restore and send back to AfD for giving of arguments by another users. 178.94.165.139 (talk) 16:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist. Not held open for the minimum duration. I personally believe the article should be deleted under NOTNEWS, but process is important. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist. Not eligible for A10, and a deletion discussion needs to be kept open for more than eighty minutes and one comment beyond the nominator. Unlikely to survive, but that doesn't justify ignoring process requirements. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:35, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn. The encyclopedia is not improved by allowing a culture of high handed hasty decisions by administrators. The community must be allowed input. Leave it open seven days. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:25, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist, if it is "Clearly ... an unneeded fork", then there should be a cavalcade of "Delete" options making a snow close a possibility. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:21, 7 October 2015 (UTC). Overturn and trout. Being an unneeded fork is not a WP:CSD. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist on process, as I agree that this was not discussed for sufficient time. Mamyles (talk) 01:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. It was two paragraphs long, cut and pasted from another article. It really should have been speedied rather than AfDed; Materialscientist made the correct call given the out-of-control number of useless WP:NOTNEWS content forks about this subject (currently the subject of an ANI) which is only a week old. There is no point in wasting the community's time; everyone on this thread agrees it should be deleted, so it was and is a SNOW however you look at it. Softlavender (talk) 05:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) "It really should have been speedied" Under which CSD criterion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:56, 12 October 2015 (UTC) The point of WP:NOTNEWS to discourage routine news coverage such as ordinary weather or celebrity parties. The topic was notable and the air strikes were considered significant enough to appear on the main page in WP:ITN. There was therefore no case for deletion. Andrew D. (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn Clearly, this was a supervote, not a proper close. It's also a faulty conclusion because, per WP:CFORK, forks are addressed by merger not deletion. I queried the close at the time. That was 8 days ago and there's still no reply here or there. Per WP:ADMINACCT, "Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed." Andrew D. (talk) 07:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 October 2015

Kyaw Zin Lwin – Restored because of new sources. –  Sandstein  07:46, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kyaw Zin Lwin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Article was deleted (see here) because it failed WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, which the subject did at the time but now qualifies these requirements by having played in a professional match for his country's national team (see source here). Thanks. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I tried to contact the closing admin but they had not responded back for a couple days. Inter&anthro (talk) 23:47, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Restore as now meeting the requirements. No shame on the admin. Stifle (talk) 08:00, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Restore all the deletion arguments, while correct at the time, have since been invalidated by events. That's enough to permit recreation, and it seems like the deleted article is useful, so undelete it. --ais523 22:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 October 2015

File:Sonyvhotz.djvu – Endorsed. (NAC) – Armbrust The Homunculus 20:42, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Sonyvhotz.djvu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore) Public domain status is unclear as it was seemingly produced by Sony and not fed govt but I don't see a problem with using at least a scaled down version of the doc with a claim of fair use. Assuming there is no free version available, it could be theoretically used that way. 189.25.205.82 (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Question, in which article do you propose to use this document, and how is it essential to understanding that topic? I'm having a hard time coming up with a scenario in my mind for how a DJVU document could meet our Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:43, 4 October 2015 (UTC). Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Hotz. --189.25.205.82 (talk) 05:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse, having looked at the document it's quite clearly that portions of it are not PD, and I don't see how it would meet the NFCC for that particular article. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:14, 6 October 2015 (UTC). endorse if this is a scan of a legal document. it's either going to be readable or unreadable, if it's readable then the 'low-quality' is irrelevant, we are using it for it's original 'market' purpose nfcc#2 and just acting as a file hosting service, if it's unreadable then it's pretty hard to see how it could improve a readers understanding of the matter at hand nfcc#8. from what i can see the document was being used as a reference, we don't need to host a copy of the file to reference the document, so i cannot see the point in this. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC) i've updated the article to link to the complaint as hosted by the eff. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Beta Uprising – Relisted. Consensus is that this should undergo a full deletion discussion, also because a potentially relevant source has since been published. –  Sandstein  10:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Beta Uprising (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closed as speedy delete on the day of nomination, when multiple people said to keep it, and the closing admin did not provide the speedy deletion criteria she deleted it under, only saying "speedy", completely bypassing consensus. Please revert this bizarre close. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:31, 3 October 2015 (UTC) For reference, the closing admin gave these criteria on the talk page: Wnt, Chess, Gandydancer and Darth Viller, as you know, it's a question of sourcing. With something like this the first version needs to have solid secondary sourcing so that Wikipedia isn't leading with it. Darth, I saw no scholars using the term. The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on, though you could perhaps add the phrase to another relevant article. It indeed wasn't the main subject of the BBC News source, though it was the main focus of the article in The Frisky, and had additional mentions in other reliable media. Darth Viller (talk) 20:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC) @Darth Viller: True, but it she can't unilaterally say that it is not enough to base an article on and then delete the article. We're supposed to come to those conclusions by consensus, not one admin deciding whatever she says is law. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:52, 3 October 2015 (UTC) @Wnt and Gandydancer: Thought you'd like to know of this. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 20:53, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I put some other mentions at the AfD discussion. The page was deleted at 20:00 UTC today, when the AfD looked like this. --Rubbish computer 21:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict)::I thought @EamonnPKeane: might also like to be pinged, and I will tell the IP in case they also have anything to add. --Rubbish computer 21:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Comment. The article began: "Beta Uprising is a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit to refer to violence or support of violence by 'socially awkward' males against 'alpha males' and women." It contained a section on the Umpqua Community College shooting. I speedy deleted it because notability had not been established, and when I checked it on Google it was obvious that notability could not be established. The sources I found were primary sources, with a passing mention of the phrase by the BBC [34] and two other outlets. Yet the Wikipedia article – which contained unsourced passages and SYN violations – had already been picked up by Google. There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase. I hope it is obvious why we ought not to do that given the circumstances. I've offered to email a copy to its creator, if he doesn't already have one, so that he can create Draft:Beta Uprising. That way, other editors can be involved in the search for secondary sourcing and the decision to publish. Sarah (talk) 21:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC) To clarify: in case it matters, I had decided this was a candidate for speedy deletion before the article was nominated for AfD (as I recall); I was looking for secondary sources when I saw it had been nominated. Speed was important because of the nature of the claim and its timing in relation to the Umpqua Community College shooting. I deleted it under WP:A7: web content with no credible claim of significance. Web content is: "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet," according to Wikipedia:Notability (web). The phrase beta uprising has appeared on 4chan and Reddit. It isn't clear whether it's intended as a serious claim or a joke. There are no secondary sources discussing it; only three mention it in passing. The article was fluffed out with a section on the shooting, unsourced material and SYN violations. (I assume good faith of the creator; this seems to have been a question of being unfamiliar with the sourcing policies.) Wikipedia:Notability (web): "Wikipedia should not have a separate article on any web content that does not meet the criteria of either this guideline or the general notability guideline, or any web content that, despite meeting the rules of thumb described above, for whom editors ultimately cannot locate independent sources that provide in-depth information about the web content." Sarah (talk) 00:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @SlimVirgin: Do you mind trying to keep a consistent deletion rationale? At first you said [35] that it was deleted because "We would need secondary sources to show that Wikipedia was following the sources and not leading", which doesn't seem to be based in CSD policy. You then proceeded to say [36] that it needs to be deleted because "This was an admin action based on my view that we were about to cause this idea to spread, rather than simply reporting it", which is also not at all rooted in policy whatsoever. You also said before, [37] something which added on to your deletion rationale by saying "The secondary sources were the BBC and one or two others mentioning in passing that some posters on those boards had used the phrase. That's not enough to base an article on...". You essentially said that the article either did not pass WP:GNG, or WP:VERIFIABILITY, both of which should be decided in an WP:AFD discussion, not a unilateral decision by one person. You've now proceeded to state in [38] that the article was deleted "because notability had not been established", which also is not rooted in policy, and appears to be a misreading of A7, which states that certain types of articles needs to have a claim to notability in them. This article did not fall under one of the certain types of articles listed in A7, and did make a claim to notability. You also said "There was therefore a danger that we would become the main vehicle for the spread of the phrase." You're now stating that we need to suppress information because you don't want people knowing about it. You're essentially saying (and doing) censor Wikipedia. You really need to restore the article, and re-open the deletion discussion, because it is obvious you are very confused about how the WP:AFD process works. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC) I readily admit I am not familiar with how wikipedia works in terms of getting things removed, but I just don't understand how this could possible be an article. I stated something similar on the talk page before it was deleted, but the entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on r9k, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on r9k, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. People have a view point of why these shootings are happening, and with a lack of concrete evidence, turn to using a phrase said in jest as evidence. There is even a fair chance that the entire reason that this is being talked about, the perpetrator of the shooting in Oregon, never even used the term in his life, or knew what it meant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 21:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Restore. I realized that this article might have a tough time at AfD - there are sources about it, but they are not exclusively about it. However, the deletion log message cites A7 "no indication of importance", which is clearly wrong, and "WP:SNOW", which is clearly contrary to fact when 2/0 voted Keep. Moreover, deleting admin's comment " It's important, for obvious reasons, to make sure Wikipedia isn't responsible for spreading that idea." is clearly an indication of personal bias rather than a reason for deletion, and contrary to WP:CENSOR. In short, there is no policy reason for deletion. "It is inappropriate to re-argue the AfD here" - people love to say that on DRV when an AfD finds for deletion, so I think I'll say it this time. Wnt (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Wnt, what exactly is the "indication of importance" that was clearly present in the article? I can't see the original, but from what's posted here, the only alleged indication is that it's a neologism used on two websites. That's not exactly an "indication of importance" (or, if that really is an indication of importance, then AFD could be turned into an CSD-proof article with the lead sentence, "an initialism used on one of the world's most popular websites to mean that your article is probably going to get deleted"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Comment & reply I read the article before it was deleted. The article seemed problematic. The lead opened with something ominous sounding and something not true to the limited sourcing. I can't remember word for word, but it originally opened with something like: "The Beta Uprising is the name given to the upcoming violent revolution..." It went on to suggest "alpha men" and women would soon be violently targeted by "uprising" "beta men". The lead made it sound like BBC saw this as legitimate and impending revolution. Before it was deleted, I rewrote the lead to match the very limited sourcing which briefly discussed "beta uprising" as a phrase used online by people source called "socially awkward". My rewrite of lead was as follows: Beta Uprising is a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit to refer to violence or support of violence by "socially awkward" males against "alpha males" and women. The violence or support of violence carried out by others is said to be a response to lack of intimacy, romantic success and sexual gratification. The phrase "beta uprising" has been used by media organizations like BBC News in the aftermath of the Umpqua Community College shooting. The article didn't appear to meet notability guidelines. The phrase "beta uprising" was only mentioned in passing in the BBC piece as phrase used on 4chan. If additional sourcing is located, I do support Sarah's suggestion on her talk page that this article be created in draft format first, preferably with input of multiple wikiprojects and experienced editors so Wikipedia isn't misused as a tool to promote this as a thing by the guys involved in online chatter about this, which seemed to potentially be occurring. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 22:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC) There wasn't at any one time a statement of an upcoming revolution, it was "expected" in the sense some group may have eschatological expectations - though some stuff did get vandalised away all the time, so the qualifying statement wasn't always there. The immediate use of "alpha" and "beta" was also a later edit. The article did lack a clarification that the phrase also gets used a lot for teh lulz, but that was absent in the sources, too, except for some quotes from Reddit in a pair. Darth Viller (talk) 23:10, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks, I think it was "expected revolution" not "impeding revolution", but it struck me as problematic because it didn't seem to accurately reflect the limited sourcing. The article actually seemed problematic to me on many levels. It seemed to portray "socially awkward" "beta guys" as a group of unstable spree killers the likes of which include Christopher Harper-Mercer and Elliot Rodgers etc...like there is some organized and evil group of shy "nice guys" that are out there plotting to take down humanity via violent revolution. I do tend to agree that "beta uprising" is a somewhat notable phrase on 4chan and has some minimal reliable sourcing, so maybe deserves brief mention in some related article, but it seems to devote an entire article to this we should have some serious scholarly sourcing (or at least the kind of sources that investigates how much of this is Internet trolls trying to be funny) . Seems that perhaps WP shouldn't make socially awkward guys seem evil and crazy, even if a small number of sensational reliable sources sort of do. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 23:41, 3 October 2015 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing: A7 mentions that only articles falling under the topics of "real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event" can be nominated for A7. As mentioned in WP:WEB, "Web content includes, but is not limited to, blogs, Internet forums, newsgroups, online magazines, other media, podcasts, webcomics, and web portals." An internet "meme" does not fall under "web content". Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 21:54, 3 October 2015 (UTC) It says that web content "includes, but is not limited to" a variety of things. It does not say that a phrase on some website is not included, even if we say that it's a meme. I am therefore dubious of your assertion that it doesn't qualify for A7. The very next sentence in WP:WEB says, "Any content which is distributed solely on the Internet is considered web content for the purposes of this guideline", which appears to describe "a phrase used on 4chan and Reddit" quite nicely. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC) @WhatamIdoing: The "Beta Uprising" might (hypothetically) be an organized event, so I would prefer to focus on demonstrating what the importance is. A number of news media publicized that Edinburgh University had been threatened by a copycat killing after Umpqua, and said that the UK police were investigating, a comment about the "beta uprising", which they proceeded to define. [39] Just before that, posters citing "Beta Uprising" are alleged to have cheered on the Umpqua killer's rampage [40] (The FBI is said to be investigating 4chan right now, and there is a chance we could see quite a reprehensible purge indeed before this is over) Many of these quoted the "beta uprising" specifically - do read the archived thread here, which is quite entertaining. Wnt (talk) 22:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC) These links do not demonstrate any importance to me; based on this, at most, I would give this phrase one short paragraph in the article about actual events. If the article did no better at conveying importance than the links, then I think that A7 is not an unreasonable interpretation. I would therefore endorse deletion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2015 (UTC) The beta uprising is a sort of "idea", like Helter Skelter as preached by Charles Manson. Just because it is on the internet didn't make it "web content". It is wholly divorceable from the internet, unlike things like an advice animal meme, which are intertwined with an internet culture. The beta uprising is not internet culture, it is more of the culture of mentally ill people who can't get laid. Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. For now, this is best covered in the article on the shooting itself. Andreas JN466 22:19, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Shouldn't we at least give User:SlimVirgin a rebuke for this obviously out of turn deletion? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) I posted a lot of this in a different thread, but it is relevant to this discussion. Endorse deletion The entire concept of a "beta uprising" is just a joke on /r9k/, it isn't something that people are actively taking part in and trying to go out an kill "normies" or whatever. Far from being confirmed that this guy posted on /r9k/, it's even being stated his beef was with organized religion, the only reason "beta uprising" is even being talked about is because news reporters saw the thread, and not understanding the joke, took it to be something real. Again, just my opinion, but from the way the wikipedia article was worded, it really seemed like there was a desire to try and frame these shootings using these type of concepts as a pretext or cause, when there is no evidence that that is what is causing them. The entire premise of the article is predicated on the fact that there is a movement afoot for some sort of social revolution, using the actions of one person and their supposed postings as evidence, when it is entirely possible, and in fact becoming more probable that they never posted the statement in question and did not hold those views, how can you have that in what is supposed to be an encyclopedia? Forget him, there is no other instance that can even be brought up as an example of this supposed wide-spread simmering movement in action. It's just conjuncture based off of mis-information from bad reporting in the moments after a tragedy. Most media articles are taking the issue super seriously, and writing a wikipedia article at this time lends that viewpoint credence, because, let's face it, there are a significant number of people who will google the term, end up here, and think it's a real movement. So, even if, a week or two down the line, it becomes clear that the killer did not hold the views in question at all, and that any post related to the matter on places like /r9k/ or reddit are satire, there wont be new media articles saying we were wrong, it was all just some inside-joke, none of these events are related. We will have a wikipedia article that will have been viewed however by many people, perhaps even media personal themselves looking up information to write further articles, that presents the this movement as something taken seriously by people, and that is causing actual harm to other people. SOFIXIT. Give sources to show it's a joke. I gave sources above to show the American and British authorities were investigating it, and they're traditionally not very funny. You correct the misinformation by providing sourced data for an article that corrects misinformation, rather than having Wikipedia not do its job. Wnt (talk) 22:36, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Sources? How? Would more 4chan screencaps about how it's all just trolling count as a source? Because that's what every one of these articles have been using, literally one screengrab from 4chan, and then some other posts people made afterwards, as sources for this "movement". If all it takes to establish authority as a source is to publish s screenshot in a "reputed" news source along with some commentary, I think you should be able to accept the screenshots I provide, along with any commentary I give. I hope that sounds as ridiculous to you as it does to me, but here we are debating sources that did exactly that. As for authorities investigating, of course they are. That's there job, to investigate any leads. They have to do so. But notice how they haven't said that he did in fact post the post in question, or give any indications of a viewpoint that was similar? They just said they were investigating, and that's it. I would wager that we never hear of it again as the weeks go by, since it turned out there was no relation. Unless of course we make a wikipedia article about it, and make sure to popularize this theory. This is all just my opinion, I have no knowledge of the workings of wikipedia on how articles get vetted, but this case just seems pretty cut and dry not a real thing to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:101C:40D9:8981:97A8:9F44:E95C (talk) 22:47, 3 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and trout This looks like an obvious supervote. I can see no justification for invoking WP:CSD here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:49, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Restore There was some original info on the first version of the page, but it can be rewritten with sources following investigation into the shooter's motives --The war on shrugs (talk) 01:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. There is no "beta uprising". It was a non-notable meme picked up by confused writers and mentioned in passing. SV was correct in preventing Wikipedia from being used to spread memes without good sources. I suggest everyone who wants to keep this non-topic have a look at WP:NOT as the delete was appropriate per that policy. We are not a rumor mill. Viriditas (talk) 02:29, 4 October 2015 (UTC) @Viriditas: So do you think any admin should be allowed to delete any article they want to based on their interpretation of the notability guideline? Grognard Extraordinaire Chess (talk) Ping when replying 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) User:Chess, the article was deleted appropriately per A7. There is no "beta uprising". It is a non-notable troll routine. There is nothing to relist or discuss. Viriditas (talk) 06:28, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Oh, come on. You and I both know this wasn't deleted appropriately per A7. That A7 doesn't apply to the topic (not a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event!) is a black and white call. I don't even see how one could twist those words to get this to fit. Further "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases." Given the discussion here and at the AfD, this wasn't even close to obvious. Hobit (talk) 15:50, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist; as much as I agree with the sentiment, there isn't a sufficient IAR justification for this clearly out-of-process speedy deletion. CSD A7 is not valid as there are reliable sources that discuss it, even if in passing, which is good enough as an assertion of importance. Let the community decide how they want to handle this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:51, 4 October 2015 (UTC). References Temporarily restored history for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Relist I'm not sure whether or not it should be deleted, but I am sure it was not a valid speedy deletion. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion. I'm tending to agree with Viriditas. I've made a few previous comments about this to say it should be kept, however at the time I thought that it was another of the things that kids are talking about these days that I don't have a clue about. That does not seem to be the case here. When I google it, it seems to be a term being used by only a small group...but then on the first page you see Wikipedia has an article on it...meaning that we're helping to spread the term as I type, I guess. I can see where an argument could be made to remove the title for now while it is being discussed. Gandydancer (talk) 05:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC) IAR Endorse- Sometimes I think we should hold off writing an article about very recent murders until the facts are clarified, and we can do a responsible job. The deleted version is full of poorly sourced speculation and coatrackery, and reads more like an editorial hit piece than an encyclopedia article. Reyk YO! 06:53, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Relist. A7clearly does not apply to memes. WP:SNOW clearly does not apply when all commenters at the AfD except the nominator have !voted to keep the article, providing at least some policy-based rationales. WP:NOT is not a criterion for speedy deletion. "IAR endorse" amounts to "we couldn't trust the community to reach the correct decision at the AfD". Should it be deleted? Probably yes, but not in this way. Process is important. Let the community endorse the deletion for good. Huon (talk) 09:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Relist. A7 did not apply here and WP:SNOW did not apply here. Whether or not it was deleted should have been determined through consensus at the AfD. --Rubbish computer 10:03, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion The article (undeleted permalink) clearly has no indication of importance (WP:A7) in the sense of encyclopedic knowledge. Some may view the topic as important in the sense of epic trolling, or epic lulz in its portrayal of a webforum as having significance, but there is no content other than an explanation of terms like chads and staceys, and the mention of ephemeral media attention due to an actually significant event. Encyclopedic knowledge about "beta" is here. Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2015 (UTC) That sums it up for me. Andreas JN466 12:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion per Andreas, Reyk, Johnuniq & my earlier comments. The article was created via OR and synth. Only three of the six sources referenced even mention the phrase "beta uprising", one only in passing. The existence of "beta uprising" as a minimally notable phrase on 4chan perhaps warrants a brief mention on the 4chan article or shooting article. I understand WP is not censored, and perhaps we could go ahead and keep this article online for a few days, until the community deleted it per GNG, but it also seems that we should probably have some sort of minimal editorial responsibility, because having this article makes it look like a thing. In most of its formats, this article suggests a "violent revolution" has begun or is expected to begin shortly, some of the versions appear to be a call to inspire others to act out violently. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 14:10, 4 October 2015 (UTC) This isn't supposed to be decided based on what you think that someone might be "inspired" to do. But since most of the delete votes are on just this basis, then I will restate what I said at the AfD: this meme is actually interesting and important and can inspire people not just to commit mass slaughter, but to reevaluate and correct aspects of society that may be leading misguided people to commit such crimes. The premise is that a fundamental change in the pattern of sexual relations throughout society have consequences. More broadly (I don't know if those discussing the meme really consider it) the widening gap between rich and poor has more than economic consequences - it has social consequences when some men feel reduced to insignificance in every way, including the sexual. The flip side of the "beta uprising" meme, (indeed, the original beta uprising such as it is) is the Christian ethic of enduring one-to-one marriage, something which most people take on faith to be derived from nothing but random, irrational superstition. Now I don't know what my POV about the meme is - I just smell that it is the tip of something interesting and significant in society. Now usually, the way society responds to such phenomena is to suppress discussion, ignore them, until some day far in the future some writers for Time magazine are vapidly trying to work out how al Qaida managed to recruit hundreds of thousands of young discouraged nobodies, and conclude that it's complicated. But I would have hoped that Wikipedia would actually be not censored, and let editors have a fair shot to try to scrabble together enough sources to lay down some basic ideas for others to think about. Wnt (talk) 15:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Wnt I actually agree with you that the topic is interesting, but our role as WP editors isn't to spread interesting ideas in a way that reliable sources haven't or to give a topic significance in a way that reliable sources haven't done so yet. A lot of what was interesting in that article was OR and synth. I do agree this could be part of a larger and interesting topic of societal sexual norms and their effect on societal stability. This is a bit off topic, but I've read that historically, the cultures that had harems were thought to be less successful and less common than monogamous cultures, not because of women's rights or anything (because most societies rejected harems when women had basically no rights), but because if one man had 10 wives that meant 9 men had no wife at all, and societies with large numbers of young lonely, frustrated and desperate men aren't particularly stable. I also believe there has been some serious scholarly discussion along these lines with issues men face in China where, due to the practice of sex selection/aborting females, there is a large surplus of men. Despite it's potential to fit into a larger interesting scholarly topic, I think we need to wait for high quality reliable sources to make this connection first and wait for quality sourcing to look into how much of this is a joke and how much of it is serious and makes sense in terms of sociological theory etc. In the meantime, it seems current sourcing on the phrase "beta uprising" perhaps warrants a couple sentences on the 4chan article, perhaps under the threats of violence section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4chan#Threats_of_violence --BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC) @BoboMeowCat: I recognized that this might have trouble at AfD, but there is no way to know in advance how much data will be brought to the table once people get into the discussion. That's why the process is to leave the article in existence while people argue, especially in close cases. And of course the notion of expunging "bad" topics by administrator fiat is absolutely no part of anything we want Wikipedia to be. I do recognize that the best outcome would be if you or someone else can suggest a way to tie this in with past sociological work on polygamy and/or social inequality in general, so that it ends up as a few lines in a more relevant article. But I am not happy with the notion of sending it to 4chan, because there is no particular reason this concept should remain tied to that one source. Wnt (talk) 17:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Wnt, I can agree with the intellectual dissatisfaction of putting this in the 4chan article, but given the current sourcing, I'm having a hard time thinking of another article where a section on the phrase "beta uprising" would not be wp:undue. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 17:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relist. It's alright to make an IAR speedy deletion close in obvious cases, but this wasn't obvious enough. There are enough sources online to hold a debate, and the close was out of process. It's likely the article would get merged or deleted, but I don't see any reason why we can't give it a full 7-day run. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 17:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion after taking time to look into it this morning, and per SV, Andreas, Johnuniq and BoboMeowCat. Victoria (tk) 18:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC) Relist unlikely to be keep-worthy, but that is why we have AfD, for the unlikely cases. This is not a good example for a sppedy close, especially as a SNOW close was out of the question. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC). Relist The reasons given for deletion were outside of administrator discretion. The existence of sources is an editorial matter to be decided by consensus, thus the purpose of the AfD. If it can be explained to me how this falls under our criteria for speedy deletion I will certainly reconsider my position. HighInBC 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relist, then delete again It should briefly exist for procedural reasons, but if Milhouse is not a meme isn't meme enough after all these years, how can something that's only been trendy for a few days measure up? Lack of serious sourcing aside, the concept is flawed. Elliott Rodgers whined about creating a mountain of skulls, then died far short of his goal. Harper-Mercer claimed to want fame, but took the coward's way instead of braving the jailhouse interview spotlight. These betas didn't rise up, they chickened out. And if there ever is a succesful uprising, it'll mean those behind it weren't really betas. But it's mainly the lack of sources. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relist even though it probably would not survive an AfD. Speedy deletion is only when there is broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, and A7 does not apply to culture. sst✈ 05:03, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist. No speedy deletion criterion applied. Stifle (talk) 08:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn/Reopen - even when your politics are righteous, Wikipedia ain't the place to do battle with your opponents. WilyD 09:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion - Relisting at AFD is just process wonkery since it has no chance as it is currently sourced. shoy (reactions) 14:14, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Endorse deletion - Completely non-notable subject. Relisting would be a waste of good editors' time. This is why we have WP:IAR. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 15:02, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Utterly out-of-process deletion. Meets no speedy criteria, WP:IAR isn't a good idea when there is clear and significant opposition. Looking, the sources may well hit WP:N. May not, but that's why we have a 7 day discussion. On top of that, this was a stupid deletion. If we are going to delete it, I'd prefer it _be_ deleted rather than hang around in DRV for a while and then AfD for a while. Better it just stay in AfD. And yes, the fact that a DRV would be coming when speedy deleting an article with all (2) !votes as keep was pretty obvious. overturn and list at AfD Hobit (talk) 15:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relist - Absolutely textbook example of an IDONTLIKEIT supervote. That's not how AfD works. That's even more draconian than how Speedy Deletion works. Trout to the closer. (P.S. I'm probably in the Delete camp when the matter is fairly considered at AfD). Carrite (talk) 16:04, 5 October 2015 (UTC) Relist I searched for this topic after reading reports on the BBC and twitter about "Beta uprising". Previous diffs of the article informed me of what the concept was and I feel more informed than before reading the article balor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.66.65.200 (talk) 10:44, 6 October 2015 (UTC) Relist This smacks of politically motivated supervoting. Only in death does duty end (talk) 08:57, 7 October 2015 (UTC) Relist. For the record, I agree that this article would eventually be deleted and I doubt very seriously that it would pass AfD at this point in time. However I think that this should go through a full AfD because the closure makes this very, very easy to contest - especially as one of the justifications for deletion was that the admin didn't want to popularize the term. I don't think that this is a good reason to close, although I can understand the sentiment. I started working on a version of this in my userspace and so far I'm really not finding enough to justify this having an article. However a full AfD will give this the chance of having a better consensus and a stronger argument against inclusion - and with things like this it's very likely that there will be attempts at re-creation. While it may seem obvious that this should remain deleted, having a closure of this nature can have the unintended consequence of pushing people away. Hear me out on this: when people delete recreations of articles the main thing we point towards is the AfD, even if there was a DRV. If the first thing people come across is the AfD closure this will potentially only reinforce the idea that Wikipedia edits and deletes with an agenda. There is some personal bias here on behalf of the closing admin and while I (as a fellow editor) can see the policy behind her assertion, someone unfamiliar with policy will likely just see the bias and figure that they shouldn't edit here. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I'm going to paste my version into the article history of this and then revert. I figure that people are more likely to see that then they are my posting here. I can't remember if we can make edits to an article at DRV or not. A quick scan doesn't show anything against it, but I'm slightly leery of this so if it is verboten then just do a history delete. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:40, 7 October 2015 (UTC) As far as reclosure goes, I'd argue against reclosing it without a more full AfD for the same reasons as leaving it closed. It might be seen as an inevitability here, but I'd feel more comfortable with this having a full AfD rather than the previous AfD and a DRV, as DRVs are rarely as easily seen and well attended as AfDs are. There's only a very slim chance that this could pass currently, but I'd like for it to at least have that chance, despite my own thoughts on the topic. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 11:16, 7 October 2015 (UTC) @Tokyogirl79: You missed the Edinburgh "threat" investigation, and neglected to mention that the FBI was reported to be investigating the threat in Philadelphia. You make it sound like it is just some idea a few people had on 4chan that no one else reacted to. Wnt (talk) 19:02, 7 October 2015 (UTC) I was just doing a fast and dirty version of it with the expectations that it would be expanded. The main gist I got above is that this is a joke/trolling effort from 4chan/Reddit and the news articles, once the hysteria died down, seemed to suggest this. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 03:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC) Also, a threat was posted about an alleged act of violence at Leiden University (that never materialised). A 21 years old man from Valkenburg who's a student at the university was arrested. A troll, but on the national news, no less. Darth Viller (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC) A recent Washington Post article has some baring bearing--perhaps putting this into the range of meeting WP:N. It also probably means we'll be seeing yet another DRV on involuntary celibates. Hobit (talk) 12:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC) And I've got to say, it feels like an article written for the purpose of meeting WP:N on a number of topics here. Anyone commenting here want to fess up to being Caitlin Dewey IRL? Hobit (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC) The word is "bearing", as in relevance, not "baring", which means to remove your clothes. That article does not demonstrate encyclopedic notability at all, and involuntary celibacy is still just as non-notable (although the usual suspects are at it again, this time with incels). Viriditas (talk) 00:39, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Thanks, that word kept looking wrong but I couldn't figure out why. Thought it was spelling, not wrong word. Given the fact I'm grading some 250 pages of text this weekend, I probably shouldn't be making mistakes like that... In any case, could you explain why a source in a national newspaper primarily on the topic doesn't help meet WP:N? Or are you using encyclopedic notability in some other way than the sources that count toward our general notability guidelines? Hobit (talk) 02:13, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Malapropisms aside, I cannot see how the Washington Post article supports the creation of an article on the so-called "Beta uprising", and besides mentioning it as a joke in passing, it's not even about that topic. Seriously, this kind of nonsense has gone on too long. If you can't see the problem, you probably should stay away from article creation. Stick to video games. Viriditas (talk) 03:31, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Really? The term is in the title of the article and the article is largely about how these folks interact with the world. The hook of the story is the recent shooting and how it may well have been someone who posted on the forum. I agree it may not move us past WP:N's bar, but it certainly contributes to the notability of the topic, even if the topic is a "joke". Hobit (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Here's a question: is there enough coverage to show a link between the two to where beta uprising could be merged into the current article for incels? This together could probably show a keep for one whole article rather than several separate things. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC) I think that may be the best way forward. I suspect at AfD I'll !vote to merge. Hobit (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Creating an article on the combined topic of "incels" and "beta uprising" would probably involve a great deal of OR and synth. Most of the sources that mention "beta uprising" do not use the neologism of "incel". I don't think we can justify combining these in a single article based on 1 article that discusses them together.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:02, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Overturn and relist This does not qualify under WP:CSD (BBC article alone rules out A7), and the rational for closing is inadequate. The closer is probably right in their analysis, but procedurally that should have been added as a delete vote, not prompted closing of the discussion. Mamyles (talk) 01:34, 9 October 2015 (UTC) Relist and possibly merge with Incels (if that article survives AFD). Also, a new and very reliable source for this concept just appeared: [41]. FiredanceThroughTheNight (talk) 15:12, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 October 2015

David L. Jones – Speedy close as moot, per SmokeyJoe – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
David L. Jones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Discussion was flawed, did not focus on WP guidelines e.g lack of secondary sources, lack of notability etc. Subsequent discussion on talk page has addressed these issues, concluded that article should be deleted. Most of the information on which the original decision was based has been removed from the article now. ゼーロ (talk) 09:09, 1 October 2015 (UTC) RELIST or OVERTURN. The article is just a stub, most of the references have been removed because they are primary or of extremely low quality. Most importantly, despite much discussion nothing has been offered to establish notability. The almost complete lack of secondary sources and inability to improve the article cannot be ignored. ゼーロ (talk) 09:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Given that the AfD is from May and ended in No Consensus I'd suggest just starting a new AfD (which you don't need to come here for). The arguments for keeping it do look rather weak to me. Hut 8.5 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC) Procedural endorse, being that this was closed as no consensus in May. That being said, I have no complaints about a new AfD being started. Kharkiv07 (T) 01:57, 2 October 2015 (UTC) If one of you guys wants to close this appeal and start a new AfD, I'd support that. That's actually what I was trying to do, but got redirected to the old discussion and couldn't figure out how to do anything other than appeal >_< ゼーロ (talk) 07:50, 2 October 2015 (UTC) WP:AFDHOWTO explains the method. Note in particular the part of the instruction marked "If the article has been nominated before..." Stifle (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Can we have a valid link to the AFD please? The one in the header is malformed. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 2 October 2015 (UTC) I tried to sort it out. If it's still wrong please just correct it. ゼーロ (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC) Close this DRV in favor of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David L. Jones (2nd nomination) created by ゼーロ 10:16, 2 October 2015 (UTC). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:26, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.