Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 September

< August 2015	Deletion review archives	October 2015 >

30 September 2015[edit]

Prophet's Day – merge endorsed – JohnCD (talk) 11:23, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Kind attention: Onel5969, Caeciliusinhorto, Lfstevens, BattyBot, Jackninja5, Northamerica1000, Iqsrb722, Messiaindarain, Jonesey95, Maproom, Hmainsbot1, Sandstein, AnomieBOT, Everymorning, Worldbruce, Spirit of Eagle

Hi all! I were engage in different issues and failed to watch the discussion on the page Prophet's Day‎. Moreover, to claim for a deletation review is very new to me. Somehow, I am here to submit my demand for a deletation review regarding the page Prophet's Day‎.

Though, earlier was acknowledged about the article Mawlid, I have created Prophet's Day as a separate article because:

In the very easy form, first to say, Mawlid is a celebration that depends on the Lunar Calendar (Muslim calendar or Hijri calendar / AH) meanwhile, Prophet's Day is the celebration that observes in the aspect of Solar Calendar (Gregorian / AD). Here, the almost 11 Days of difference between a lunar and solar calendar should be considerable.

Secondly, the ceremony Mawlid has been celebrating as a National program since Hijri 4th century and as international program since Hijri seventh century. In contrary, the Prophet's day is being celebrated since 2013. Therefore, it is a quite different program.

Moreover, the Islamic Calendar did not exist at the time when Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) appeared in the worldly life. According to historical analysis, Prophet (pbuh) appeared in 570 AD (Julian Calendar Era) it means, the (Gregorian / AD) began since 769 years before his advent. In contrary, the Hijri Calendar even has never introduced by the entire lifetime of Prophet (pbuh). It has been being countdown since 17 year back from its beginning, commemorating the year of migration (from Makkah to Madina) although, initiated/ inaugurated/ introduced 7 years later than the Prophet (buph) passed away.

It clarify that, the Islamic Calendar, it-self, is not a calendar initiated by the Prophet (pbuh) own-self. Therefore, the demand of celebrating a ceremony according to the earlier calendar, the solar calendar- Gregorian is more preferable than the lunar. It is quite different.

There have much more difference between even the season/monsoon. Because of being celebrated according to the lunar calendar, after each 2/4 years, the program become observed in a quite different season. Aside, Prophet's day, as it is being observed according to solar calendar, will remain in same season/monsoon each year. Never change it. Therefore, a difference between these two programs really exists.

Mawlid as being celebrated based on the converted day 12th Rabi-I, It can be celebrated in January, March, July or any month in rotation. It was converted depending on the sustaining other calendars like Julian, Roman or more. But the Prophet's Day is being celebrated based on the really existing calendar in that era that is Julian (Presently Gregorian) so, that, it's date and time will never be changed in the ever future.

I personally am working with the subject Sufism since 1996, contributing on Wikipedia for two years. Most of my works are trusted and stable at bn.wikipedia in fact, you may watch my contribution log. Above all these are my own opinion since I have been writing on the issue and lately following the discussions behind the article Mawlid. In fact, from my perception, in the above all circumstance, both articles should remain as two individual articles holding individual identity in parallel to Father's day or Mother's day or even the Women's day (International Women's Day). However, first two articles or second two articles can be merged in one but will be improper. --- Sufidisciple (talk) 11:27, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the original closing decision. The above is substantially the same argument made against merging as Sufidisciple stated here: Talk:Mawlid#Discussion: Merge or Keep Separate - Prophet’s Day & Mawlid. As such, it is not significant new information to this participant in the deletion discussion. Sufidisciple edited Prophet's Day while it was proposed for deletion, and had ample opportunity to weigh in on the three-week discussion. Worldbruce (talk) 17:24, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial endorse. The close obviously reflects the discussion. New information, or new arguments, belong on a talk page, Talk:Mawlid#Discussion:_Merge_or_Keep_Separate_-_Prophet.E2.80.99s_Day_.26_Mawlid. This is not a deletion matter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue where failure to follow deletion process correctly is dealt with. Mere disagreement with the closure is not dealt with here. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus. I don't see any consensus here at all. On the headcount front, we've got 1 delete (the nominator), 2 keep, and 2 merge. Looking at the merge !votes, we've got no policy-based arguments at all. One simply says, Merge with Mawlid., and the other says, Merge with Mawlid, as per above editors. There's also a mention of a previous merge proposal (which I can't find) which failed. That's the sum total of all the arguments for merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:51, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One of those keeps was added to the middle of the discussion today, 13 days after the closure, and in direct contravention of the "Please do not modify it" notice on the archive. The other keep was my initial position, which I modified during the discussion to say that I considered merge a reasonable outcome. My apologies if I didn't express it properly at the time, but the closer correctly interpreted my position. A merge was proposed with this edit and the merge proposal removed in this edit. No discussion pro or con took place while the proposal was open, but a month later this argument was made for keeping them separate, an argument I would liken to "Easter is celebrated on different days according to Eastern and Western Christian calendars, so Wikipedia should have two articles about it." Worldbruce (talk) 16:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: I've now again removed the "keep" opinion that was added after the closure. This means that everybody who participated during the discussion supported either deletion (the nominator) or merging (the others). Sandstein 16:07, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Struck my comment above. I'm still a little concerned about the outcome, though. Clearly, without the !vote added after the close, the close looks fine the way it is. But, we're supposed to be more about doing the right thing than about standing on process. Obviously, voting late is contrary to process, but if process isn't the most important thing, then it seems we should give some credence to an opinion, even if added after the deadline, no? In any case, I'll abstain on this one. If there really is a consensus that the merge should not have happened, that could certainly be discussed on the article's talk page and if consensus does appear to support a resplitting, it's easy enough to do later. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Piggate – Decision endorsed. Closing early per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) – Mz7 (talk) 01:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This was a contentious and well-attended AFD. Consensus was overwhelmingly and unambiguously in favour of keeping. 50 editors indicated their support for a keep, as opposed to 22 supporting deletion. 13 indicated a merge and 4 supported a redirect. Many pointed to WP:GNG. Astoundingly, the admin interpreted this as "no consensus". This raises questions of judgement. I would like this decision overturned in favour of keep AusLondonder (talk) 08:41, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's comment: For the reasons given in the closure and on my talk page, I'm of the view that we have a majority, but not a consensus for keeping – particularly if one considers that the relatively many "redirect" and "merge" opinions are also by editors opposed to keeping the article. AfD is not a vote, and consensus requires more than a majority in favor of a proposal. Also, the distinction between "keep" and "no consensus" is largely academic, because in either case the article is kept until somebody decides to start a new deletion discussion. Sandstein 08:57, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ignoring the redirect and merge for now we have 50-22 in favour of keeping. Include them and it is still 50-39 majority in favour of keeping, if you presume all redirect/merge = deletion. This is overwhelming for such a contentious issue. "No consensus" is not acceptable for such a situation, especially given it is already encouraging the vocal minority opposed to this article to start further disruptive "discussions" ALREADY AusLondonder (talk) 09:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Far too many of the keep votes (especially from a suspicious amount of accounts with very few edits) were of the WP:ITSNOTABLE and WP:ARTICLES-ON-OTHER-SCANDALS-EXIST type. Even if we ignore that problem, 50 v 39 is "No Consensus" every day of the week. I would be very surprised if any other administrator would have closed it differently; I certainly wouldn't have. Black Kite (talk) 09:11, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What is consensus, then? 100%? AusLondonder (talk) 09:46, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not, but in a contentious discussion 56% certainly doesn't cut it, even if we count all the dubious Keeps. Black Kite (talk) 11:16, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Black Kite: What makes one's opinion worth less than someone else's? Huritisho (talk) 06:35, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Accounts with a very few edits whose first edit (or first edit for a long time) were to an AfD are always looked at as possibly being an issue. I'm not saying they all are, but when there are a number of them, the closer has to take that into account. Black Kite (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist, for the reason that the case has evolved considerably since it was initially listed for discussion. A lot of the delete comments came in early on, before Cameron had even commented on the issue. --ERAGON (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - the point is quite rightly made that the lasting notability is unclear, and that people saying it will or it won't are all making wild guesses. In general, immediately dragging articles to AfD which obviously meet WP:N but have unclear (either way) long lasting significance is a jackass move, for which I believe the essay WP:TROUT was written for. Ditto participating in them, except perhaps to argue close with no outcome. Give it three or six months, when it's clearer, and figure out what to do when it's more than pointless grandstanding. Wily D 09:49, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close. Really, a deletion review to consider whether "no consensus" should have been "keep"? The default outcome is keep where there is no consensus, so it really doesn't matter. Let's move on and not waste time. WJBscribe (talk) 09:55, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - Per the nom, reviewing the deletion discussion it seemed clear to me that a super majority (i.e. >66%) of respondents favored keep. I was a little confused when the closer chose no consensus using "headcount" as the chief rationale. That said, the actual "headcount" was subject to interpretation, largely due to some participants making "keep/merge" or "delete/merge" votes rather than pure "delete" or "keep" votes. The closer chose to interpret "keep/merge" and "delete/merge" votes in a way I think was wrong. That said, Deletion Reviews are only really called for when there's an obvious misapplication or misinterpretation of policy. That is not the case here. Additionly, as pointed out by WJBscribe and the closer, this discussion is mostly academic. NickCT (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as participant Even I opined "keep" but many of the deletion reasons offered were reasonable issues. There were many substantial arguments on both sides and many people backing them. "No consensus" I believe correctly describes the situation - David Gerard (talk) 12:44, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: AfD is not a vote and even if it was, look at Collect's "Note to closer"—about a dozen or so keeps looked very suspicious at that point in the discussion and probably should have been marked as SPAs; more keeps from suspicious accounts or IP addresses were later made. In addition, a lot of votes were based on unsubstantiated conjecture that violate WP:CRYSTAL (e.g. "Piggate may be [Cameron's] political epitaph") or argument by assertion (e.g. "it's definitely a significant story"). Disclosure: I !voted to delete the page. — Bilorv_(talk)^(c)(e) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and speedy close. I haven't even looked at the AfD, but arguing over whether to overturn a No Consensus to a Keep is just pointless process mongering. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, speedy close. I read through all of it and although there were a lot of keep votes the comments and reasoning behind them when taken in total shows there was absolutely no consensus as to why we were keeping it, same with the deletes. No consensus. 97.126.235.119 (talk) 18:19, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Good close. That was not a consensus-finding discussion, with divergent opinions talking past each other, with reasonable "merge" opinions unexplored, and evidence of vote stacking. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:23, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Vote stacking was certainly alleged, but evidenced? Pointing to !votes and using WP:WEASEL ("looked very suspicious", "probably should have been marked") are making allegations, not offering evidence. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and speedy close - I suggest the OP read WP:AfD, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Consensus, and try to understand it. Kraxler (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I opined "keep" (and still do) but User:Sandstein was correct to offer "no consensus" as a summary. In passing, I would add that "no consensus" is not a valid reason to immediately relist the article for deletion and some weeks of quiet wikignoming are indicated to improve the Call Me Dave and Piggate articles, rather than perpetual WP:KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED moves. Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close. I read this as 'keep', not 'no consensus', but Sandstein's judgement of it was within reasonable difference of opinion. Certainly no reason to challenge it. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable interpretation of a not-entirely-satisfactory discussion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:21, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and snow close: each side had legitimate arguments and "no consensus" was well within the closer's region of discretion. (I would have !voted merge if I had seen it.) BethNaught (talk) 21:12, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I would have happily seen the closer go further, to suggest he went to far in favour of not keeping the article seems like the opinion of those who want to keep this very poor very recentism attack article on the UK PM.♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 00:05, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 September 2015[edit]

28 September 2015[edit]

27 September 2015[edit]

Sucharit Sarkar – A7 speedy deletion overturned; may be nominated for regular deletion. Closed early because of unanimous, substantial consensus. – Sandstein 10:16, 29 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This not-newly-created (then) article was speedily deleted without notifying the original creator (which smacks of avoiding scrutiny) but some backlinks weren't removed. Deleting admin says, "holding a professorship at Princeton is not of itself an adequate assertion", which is true, but that is also a sufficient assertion not to speedy deleting (and again without notification it is hard to figure out the article existed in first place). The subject has highest citation count of 171 and 97 in a low citation field that is mathematics which, at least considering recent academics afd debates, should be enough. His colleague at Princeton, Manjul Bhargava (a Fields Medalist), has in turn has highest citation count of 107. Someone speedy deleting the Bhargava article without full discussion would be considered vandalism. Why double standards here? Solomon 7968 20:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

temp undeleted for review -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn speedy and list at AfD. WP:A7 is for articles which make no credible claim of importance. This guy won a gold medal in something. I doubt the article will survive AfD, but IMHO, the gold medal is enough of a credible claim of importance to make A7 not apply. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The International Mathematics Olympiad is generally considered the most difficult mathematics problem solving competition at the pre-collegiate level. Winning a gold medal is a rare feat. It may not be enough to make him notable, but it is a strong enough claim of notability that the article should not have been speedied. Ozob (talk) 00:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, no prejudice against relisting at AfD. Most research-level academics are ineligible for A7 deletion (even though many have been deleted at AfD), as it is not a career one can get into without doing something of note. Sarkar has an IMO gold medal; this is probably not enough by itself for notability at an AfD but it should be enough of a claim of notability to prevent speedy deletion. Finishing a doctorate and achieving employment at an Ivy League university is also not enough to pass WP:PROF by itself, but it again should be enough to create the suspicion that there might be some notability there and save the article from speedy deletion. And the statement "He is working on Heegaard Floer homology" wasn't written in a way that would make it obvious to non-experts, but it can also be viewed as a claim of notability when one pokes around a little further and discovers what it actually means: that he has two highly-cited publications on the subject, both of which are in Annals of Mathematics, one of the most highly regarded and highly selective journals in mathematics. Although it looks the weakest, I think this third claim is actually the strongest one, since unlike the other two it could be used under WP:PROF#C1 at an AfD. If the admin who deleted this didn't see any of these as being signs of notability, it's not something to be ashamed of, but it indicates an ignorance of academic notability that suggests that working on other subjects would be a better choice. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:34, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm not sure the article should be kept, but it should be discussed. I don't understand why the deletion was speedy rather than a "proposed deletion". The latter results in deletion if nobody challenges it within a specified time (a week, I think?) and if somebody does challenge it then the person proposing deletion can take it to AfD to be discussed. However, one thing puzzles me: doesn't "speedy" mean "speedy"? "Speedy" means with no discussion, and I thought if one administrator can delete an article with no discussion, then another can equally speedily undelete it and then a discussion must ensue unless those wishing for deletion decide not to pursue it. In about 2005–2007 we had a huge number of new articles on mathematical topics getting deleted by administrators who saw that an article was on a mathematical topic and treated that as grounds for speedy deletion. I speedily undeleted some of those and took the deleters to task for behaving irrationally, and I'm glad I did those things. Michael Hardy (talk) 02:41, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn personally I would say that holding an associate professorship at Princeton is an assertion of significance sufficient to get past A7, and even if it isn't then the Olympiad medals clearly are. A7 is meant to be a lower bar than notability, it is entirely possible for a non-notable subject to not qualify for A7, and the description of A7 as requiring an "assertion of notability" is wrong. Hut 8.5 06:16, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Assistant professorship, actually. Assistant professors are usually WP:TOOSOON to be notable enough to pass AfD but I agree, it should be enough to get past A7. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:50, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is there a link to some random FFD page in the header? Stifle (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No clue why, but I fixed it. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This might or might not be deleted at an AfD (I suspect that I would !vote keep), but the medals alone are enough that an A7 Speedy was not justified. Other claims of significence are less obvious, but also enough, as per others above DES ^(talk) 11:22, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, but with no prejudice against it being taken immediately to AFD. Clearly not a valid A7, as there are clear assertions of importance in there. The deleting admin's defense that there is no "assertion of notability" is not relevant as CSD A7 does not require any such assertion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:56, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

All-Africa Games sports – Deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I created the page since a few days, maybe one day after, a request of deletion was put on Wikipedia, reason is that the article does not introduce any additional or relevant information. At this time the article was poor however i puted a template of "article need expand" and some days after I worked hardly to expand the article. But the article was deleted by vote. All multisports competitions have similar articles (Olympic sports, European Games sports, Asian Games sports, Pan American Games sports ...etc), I think All-Africa Games can have the same article. Of caurse I put this request after discuss with the closing admin. Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:22, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse and Usefy. I don't see any particular problem with the AfD. There's no reasonable way it could have been closed differently given the discussion. I think what makes the most sense here is for you to write a new draft of the article in your sandbox. I'd be happy to undelete the existing version and move it to your user space so you can start from that. Once you've got something which addresses the concerns raised at the AfD, ping the AfD participants and see what they think. The fact that other similar articles exist is not an argument which is going to gain much traction. For all we know, those articles should be deleted too. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:51, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse fairly low turnout but with three delete opinions (including the nominator) based on some sort of policy reasons, and one keep based on a "what about X?" reasoning, it's hard to see how this could have ended any other way. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 13:33, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I feel bad for Faycal.09, but there was little else I could do. Drmies (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse deletion. Deletion review is a venue where we handle failures to follow the deletion process. It is not for use when you simply disagree with the outcome of the deletion discussion. Stifle (talk) 08:13, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note. There is already a userspace draft in progress as User:Faycal.09/Draft 2, plus a parallel discussion at Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#All-Africa_Games_sports -- RoySmith (talk) 12:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow userfication as already done. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The page need some expansions but for my modest opinion, I think that's allright. Of caurse I will try to develope it always when I can. U can see it now (User:Fayçal.09/All-Africa Games sports). Best regards. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:01, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:Anything for you album gloria estefan miami sound machine.jpg – Deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I want to discuss the image, containing the title "Anything for You", with deleting administrator, but I can see that he is not always available. The image was used in Let It Loose (album) as a second infobox image, but it was removed by ESkog as redundant, citing WP:NFCC. Fearing that the image will be cyclically undeleted and then removed, I decided to have its deletion reviewed instead. I couldn't add it back in the article when it was tagged "orphaned". George Ho (talk) 02:48, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep deleted. WP:NFCC item 3a prohibits excessive use of non-free media, and item 8 states that non-free media may not be used if its removal would not be detrimental to readers' understanding of the article. The image was appropriately deleted — as a free encyclopedia, Wikipedia has very strict policies on the use of non-free content. Stifle (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted since no reasonable theory has been put forward to suggest that two images would be required in the article such that NFCC could be met. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:34, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

26 September 2015[edit]

25 September 2015[edit]

24 September 2015[edit]

Archive navigation templates – Vacate closure. I'm not up on the nuances of how TfD works, so I'm a little out of my depth on this one. In general, I'm willing to give non-admin closures more leeway than seems to be the norm here. But, in this case, not only was the discussion very complicated but there is also deep disagreement here that it was closed correctly, so I'm going to go with Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator. I don't feel qualified to impose a replacement closure, so I'm just going to back out the close and let some other admin (who knows more about templates) come along and re-close it. – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2015 August 24#Archive navigation templates

Thoroughly improper closing of a TfD. The closer, Codename Lisa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), did not adhere to the correct procedure (as described at Wikipedia:Closing discussions#How to determine the outcome) - instead of weighing the merits of the arguments made, they treated it purely as a numeric vote. They confirmed by writing this comment on their user page, in response to a request to reopen the debate: I would have gladly closed it as "no consensus" if merger had achieved 45% to 55% acceptance. But it has only achieved 30.7%. — Scott • talk 19:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and allow another closure, not necessarily with a different result. I also believe this needs to be reviewed, and was coming here to post this when I was linked to the request. In response to me saying she claimed there was consensus to keep, Lisa stated that she never said that, and merely said there was no consensus to delete. This is at odds with the listed outcome, though. I think that Lisa's intended interpretation of her close is that there is no consensus to keep or delete but more people seem to favor keep than not, but that's not consistent with a closure as "keep". I could be well off base, though, as Lisa's explanations of her closure haven't been very clear to me. The close as it stands is too confusing to shed any light on the issue. It also does not provide any written analysis of the arguments, which is necessary to help all involved editors find a compromise or clearer consensus in the future. A more clear closure should be carried out by another editor, preferably an admin, who is willing to provide a detailed and clear explanation of the closure. This will be extremely helpful in achieving clarity even if the second closure achieves a keep or no consensus outcome. ~ Rob^Talk 21:13, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (closing Wikipedian): Hello, everyone.

I have said before in my talk page and I say it again: I deny having disregarded the merit of each argument; I actually took them into consideration. How about I show you some of them? Let's start with our dear review requester, Scott. In one of his comments:

Jesus wept. This is an encyclopedia, not Pinterest.

This comment comes in response to Tryptofish's assessment, and implies it was atrocious without saying why. Does any of my esteemed colleagues here expect me to allocate any weight to this ad hominem sentence? Or how about the comment by Stranger195, which is literally a "per nom" comment? The best I can do for it is to hold it to the same assessment of the nomination. (See below.)

So when I said "it has only achieved 30.7%", I was actually cutting it some slack just to be polite. The actual result is more than 69.7% value for keeping.

There were many other issues with nomination that the participants had correctly identified and I couldn't disregard:

{{Talk archive navigation}} and {{Automatic archive navigator}} are only Lua wrappers. (A wrapper has the same assessment status as a redirect). After merging and doing a lot of substitutions, all we get is a slightly slower performance because of wrapper-level complexity.
Merging {{Talk archive}} and {{Archive-index}} simply has too much caveats and nobody has given the slightest though to it.

Finally, there were simply twice the number of editors with bona fide concerns about the merge who advised against it. I simply won't disregard them.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 21:32, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly have no idea what an ad hominem is, so I would suggest not using that phrase in an argument. — Scott • talk 22:35, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The correct way to use phrases in an argument is shown here: [1], in a comment about this ~~close~~ TfD discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:50, 24 September 2015 (UTC) Duly corrected, but the point remains valid. --Tryptofish (talk) 01:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I like having people praise my opinions. By the way, you need to be better at reading timestamps. — Scott • talk 23:49, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. There was nothing contrary to policy in the close. It really does not matter what the numbers were, because the discussion was approximately divided between editors favoring keeping, merging, or intermediate outcomes. There was relatively little in the way of arguments from one side causing editors to change their minds. In particular, editors who wanted some amount of keeping made arguments that really were not refuted – disputed, yes, but not demonstrated to be without merit. I think that there is some appearance here of editors who were disappointed in the outcome trying to get the result that they wanted. It is difficult for me to imagine any other policy-compliant close that would result in a significantly different outcome – at most, we would get a "no consensus". --Tryptofish (talk) 22:14, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think that "Keep" is the best interpretation of consensus in this case. I don't see any particularly significant strength in the merge proponents' arguments over the majority's. Though, I agree that the explanation for the close, "Merger has not achieved consensus," is inadequate and possibly misleading since it suggests that the result should have been no consensus. Mamyles (talk) 22:26, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mamyles: To be clear, that's my main issue with this close. I'm not necessarily seeking another outcome. I'm seeking a detailed close that is more clear, so that any consensus (or lack thereof) here can be useful in the future. As it stands, the closing statement is contradictory and somewhat meaningless. ~ Rob^Talk 23:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus with thanks to Codename Lisa for helping out with the massive TfD backlog. This discussion was closed with too much emphasis on the numbers. The last TfD DRV (WP:EIEIO) was about some trivial, infrequently used userpage template, so it made sense not to invest too much effort in weighting the technical arguments compared to the more general points. This discussion is about templates whose functionality is widely used in contexts where consistency has a significant advantage, so the technical arguments from those interested in working with the templates should have greater weight than arguments from those with specific interface preferences. Furthermore, it is implausible that a few customizable templates would be more confusing than the current situation with many slightly different and sometimes mutually incompatible templates whose names give little indication of the differences between them. That said, Codename Lisa's comments here are correct that a more clearly described proposal front-loaded with some advance work to demonstrate the proposed merged functionality would likely be better received. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:16, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Opabinia regalis: I'm concerned that your argument here, as when you said "Furthermore, it is implausible...", is based on your own opinion about the templates, and even if valid, is like a super-vote when offered here in DRV. While it is certainly reasonable to say that the outcome was really "no consensus" (as I said myself just above), there would be no practical change in terms of the templates. @Codename Lisa: would you be willing to voluntarily revise your close to say "no consensus", and thereby render this DRV discussion moot? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: My point is that implausible arguments offered without evidence should be downweighted relative to numerical results. This is the template equivalent of "I can't find any, but there should be sources!"

I generally think it's a waste of time to overturn various flavors of "don't delete", but this is a case where "no consensus" better reflects the balance of arguments and leaves scope for a future, more well-developed proposal if there is interest. Opabinia regalis (talk) 01:58, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The reason it's important to appropriately assess whether consensus was to keep or there was no consensus is that it has significant effects on future discussions. I guarantee that if this close remains as keep, it will be cited in future discussions related to redundant templates used in the userspace as support for the viewpoint that personal preference outweighs maintenance concerns. ~ Rob^Talk 03:11, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both for your replies to me. My greatest initial concern on seeing this DRV was that editors were looking to have the result changed to "merge" or "delete" (and I think one can see some battleground-ish inclination in that direction above in this discussion). If, hypothetically, there is a reassessment resulting in anything beyond "no consensus", I would feel obligated to start another DRV. But I would have no objection to a reassessment in which, per BethNaught below, a consensus is found against merging some of the templates, and no consensus is found for the others, and I can agree that such a reassessment would be helpful for future TfD discussions. (And, as I said in my own comments at the TfD, I would have opined differently if there had been evidence of present-day maintenance concerns, as opposed to hypothetical future maintenance concerns.) --Tryptofish (talk) 21:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note quickly that I opened this DRV with no specific change of result in mind - just something that's based on a thorough and explicit assessment. My feeling on the matter is that it's unlikely that such a reassessment would result in anything other than "no consensus", which is of course fine. — Scott • talk 21:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Tryptofish: Hello. About your request for the compromise, I feel obliged to inform that we are not talking about waiving one of my rights, privileges, opinions, recommendations or stock options. The one who closes a deletion discussion is in the position of a judge and that's a huge responsibility. A judge needs to have fidelity. And I will not betray the principles of fidelity just because some people here have chosen to put their hands over their ears and shout "Numbers! Numbers!", thus ignoring all arguments to the contrary. I weighed all arguments appropriately and at the end of the day, I saw the arguments in favor of keeping far outweighed the arguments in favor merging. Not that there is any problem with numbers either. These participants weren't spammers, puppets or careless voters. They had genuine concerns of practicality, burden and net value.

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 04:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks anyway. I felt that it was a question worth asking, and while I'm here I'll also register my disappointment in the battleground-ness of some of the other editors commenting here, and my concern that a reopening will reopen that as well. And good luck with those stock options. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I second your disappointment and concern. And yet, I cannot fend off the feeling that there is a what goes around comes around kind of condition here. Make no mistakes, I do not feel satisfaction from people going through hardship. Only I cannot stop them. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn or reopen This is a very bad close. Counting "votes" (to decimal fractions of percentages!) is most inappropriate; as is counting nuanced comments such as "Keep {{tan}} as is. I have no opinion on what happens to the rest" and Tryptofish and User:Alakzi's detailed proposals as either bare "keep" or "delete" numbers. Anyone reviewing the discussion on the closer's talk page should bear in mind that they have been removing critical comments, and falsely describing those comments as personal attacks, while at the same time the claims they make in that discussion, about being attacked, are also bogus. Finally, the closer's "slightly slower performance" claim, above, suggests that a "supervote" is at play, since the matter was not raised during the discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The supervote part is untrue; Avicennasis said that a merger must have no side effects and Swarm said that a merger must have definitely something positive. CL has spotted both a side effect and no benefits. Fleet Command (talk) 02:07, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reopen for detailed analysis and close: in this TfD which involved many templates and threads of argument it is necessary to have a close which more thoroughly analyses the arguments. Personally, after a cursory read of the discussion, I think there might be consensus against a merge, but only for some templates, and no consensus for others. Certainly this needs to be properly determined. BethNaught (talk) 09:48, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There is no procedural closure problems. Most participants said "Keep" an defended their position. The quotation on which the nominator of this DRV has founded his argument appears in User talk:Codename Lisa, not the TfD page. However, this discussion proves that Andy, Scott and ~~Rob~~ had been denouncing the discussion and cursing the closing person two days before the closure. They knew what was coming and were becoming ready to attack the closing person and give him or her hell. In fact, even before CL responded in her talk page, Andy said "much good it will do". WP:STICK. Fleet Command (talk) 01:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FleetCommand: I would appreciate if you would strike my name from your comment. I did not post there at all until after the closure and after I started the discussion on the closer's page. Even then, I did not even read the contents of that section. I went to the nominator's talk page, searched for a section related to the comment I needed to make, and let them know a discussion was ongoing (which was maybe ill-advised, given the posts that followed). If you read my comments here, on Lisa's talk page, and in that discussion, you will find no instances where I've attacked Lisa or "given them hell". I've made every effort to remain civil throughout. It's not even true that I think the result should change, just that we need a clearer and more detailed close to assist with future discussions. I have and continue to thank Lisa for her contributions here, even if I disagree with the close. ~ Rob^Talk 03:40, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - ~Rob My apologies. You are right. Done. Fleet Command (talk) 08:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- @FleetCommand: I would appreciate if you would strike my name from your comment; or better strike the entire comment, as the allegations you make are false. As for "Most participants said 'Keep'": that's again vote counting; and several of the people who did use the word "keep" went on to qualify that as referring to only one or some of the nominated templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:02, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Oh, no. You sent a message to someone and then described it as "I've commented there; much good it will do", meaning that you assumed bad faith in advance. What's next? You simply adhere to the opposite of "comment on the contribution, not contributor". Fleet Command (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hello, Fleet Command. Quite frankly, if someone told you that you would die from not replying to every message, he or she lied. If anything, you will live longer. And happier. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 14:38, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Before lecturing me on your perception of my assumption of bad faith, please assume good faith yourself. The imagined meaning you attach to my words - which do not foul NPA by a long chalk - is only one of many possible interpretations, and it is for your to prove your accusatation, not for me to disprove it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This poisonous and hysterical accusation: ...Scott... had been... cursing the closing person two days before the closure. [He] knew what was coming and [was] becoming ready to attack the closing person and give him or her hell. is pure fantasy. FleetCommand, I request that you strike my name from it. Given the comments above from Rob and Andy, you would do well to retract the entire thing. — Scott • talk 18:45, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'll make it easy for you: Same deal as Rob. Please provide an alternative explanation as to what this discussion means. Because right now, I think it means you have been planning to game the system by starting this discussion two days before it was closed, and by doing so you betrayed the spirit of the mop you are holding. Specifically, what sanctimonious post inspired you to call "some people" selfish, ignorant and short-sighted under a topic titled "Archive navigation"? And why should I believe that you, who is so disillusioned by TfD, came here with no harmful bias? Fleet Command (talk) 12:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I don't pander to the demands of fantasists and abusive editors. If your reading comprehension is that poor, it's really your problem. — Scott • talk 16:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen As in many of the dreaded multi-nominations at AfD, the close needs to be more nuanced when the comments contain a large number that aren't simply "Keep", "Merge" or "Delete". It would do no harm for the discussion to have a few more eyes on it anyway. Black Kite (talk) 12:05, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen. Should never, ever, have been a non-admin closure; NACs are only permitted for brightline and obvious outcomes. I personally would have closed no-consensus. Stifle (talk) 08:15, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- This may be splitting hairs, but it being a non-admin close is not, in and of itself, a valid reason to reopen, even for a non-brightline discussion, per the consensus at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Archive 12#Review, which is cited at the top of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, but... when a discussion like this ends with a lot of different opinions and suggestions being thrown around, that may or may not be mutually exclusive, it usually helps to have a more detailed explanation of why you've made the close that you have than what we see here. My advice to the closer would be that a little verbosity can go a long way in difficult cases like this. That being said, there is clearly no consensus at all for deletion here, and the support for a Merge seems lukewarm at best; if this really was a slamdunk and obvious case for a merge surely there wouldn't be so many arguing against it. I did remark on a similar DRV a few days ago that there is an argument that the consensus model might not be the best way to deal with technical matters such as these; however that should be addressed by examining the model, not trying to jam caselaw through the older flawed way of doing things. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:03, 29 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

Hi. I like your suggestion. Should I do it now? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that horse has probably bolted by now, but if this discussion is closed as anything but overturn, a link to this discussion should be inserted into the header of the original close so that folks coming across it later can see the entire context. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:10, 30 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Please do not touch the original discussion before this review has concluded. — Scott • talk 12:05, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please recant your factually inaccurate statement claiming that I treated treated discussion purely as a numeric vote. — Codename Lisa (talk) 16:48, 30 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to "no consensus", which is essentially what the close says, except that there is a bolded "keep". ie: "The result of the discussion was keep (non-admin closure), no consensus achieved for proposal to merge." --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

23 September 2015[edit]

22 September 2015[edit]

21 September 2015[edit]

20 September 2015[edit]

File:Madonna-Material-Girl-333295.jpg – Endorse. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

It was used in "Material Girl" until I replaced it with the American artwork. I chatted with the administrator who deleted the image per FFD a couple years ago. At first deletion was the right decision, but discussions, such as Talk:Finally (CeCe Peniston song) and Talk:I'm Coming Out, convinced me to have second thoughts. WP:NFCC has been enforced to restrict amount of cover arts to normally just one, but majority said keep two images in FFD. I did vote "delete", but now I'm unsure whether it was the right vote. George Ho (talk) 05:58, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I can't see "I've change my mind" as a DRV criteria. Regardless the two discussion you've listed are pretty poor with the majority of participants not concerning themselves with NFCC, as the original closer of the FFD discussion here said "Ultimately, the NFCC cannot be overridden by a local consensus.." which is exactly what you seem to be requesting. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about ‎Talk:Wildside (Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch song)#Infobox image? --George Ho (talk) 09:11, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? It's another discussion trying to decide a local consensus about an issue in that article, it isn't an FFD discussion about if the relevant fair use rationales are met. NFCC doesn't have a hard and fast "one image only" rule, and those discussions aren't really trying to determine if WP:NFCC is met or not, mostly they are assuming a valid rationale exists. This leads to two points (1) we don't fragment discussions on such issues everywhere, if it isn't determined by WP:FFD then it's no where near a definitive view, people don't trawl every article looking for such discussions to implement WP:NFCC (2) each situation is different, just because one article has two fair use images and WP:FFD agrees they are both valid claims for that article, does not mean every other similar article can then have two fair use images. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:42, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse own deletion. As I said in my closure, local consensus cannot override Foundation policy on non-free images. Other images not being deleted should be resolved by deleting the other improper images rather than restoring this one. Aside: this decision is over two years old. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Allow relisting - NFCC doesn't limit to one image, but to the minimum needed. For an album charting in both America and Europe, there's an argument to be made both are needed for identification. It's true it's old, but given the structural problems where keep decisions have a forum to be endlessly revisited, but delete decisions generally don't, DRV needs to serve/enable this, as old delete decisions are otherwise enforced but no venue exists to question them. Lastly, closures where the closing admin cannot maintain an uninvolved appearance need to be closed by someone who can be seen to be acting as a neutral third party. Wily D 12:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Anomalous local closes do not justify widespread exemptions from otherwise governing nonfree content policies. Our practice concerning books doesn't allow multiple cover images for books released in multiple countries, nor does our practice regarding movies all multiple DVD covers for internqtional releases. If anything, the individual outcomes cited by the OP should be overturned rather than applied more generally. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:34, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus Granted this is old and I was a part of the original discussion, but this close has sat well with me. Three editors for and three editors against the image all arguing the for and against the same points of NFCC should have been a no consensus close. As much as the closer claims their close is not a supervote, it is when is they take down one side's argument while not talking about the other. Jhead's very thorough opinion based on different points of NFCC and past discussions is simply wiped away by saying it is WP:OSE. I also do not like the close because it attributed something to me that I made no claim of while dismissing my argument because I never said the image was the subject of critical commentary. I stated what the current consensus is/was: "The current consensus for alternate images on album/single articles are that the alternate cover has to be significantly different from the original, widely distributed and/or replacing the original would pass the criteria for identification or an alternate image that is the subject of sourced critical commentary about the image would also be acceptable." I was arguing that this image passed the first part and not the second part. Aspects (talk) 02:58, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think parts of the FFD closing statement were somewhat mistaken. WP:NFCC policy makes no stipulations about "critical commentary". It is the widely-accepted content guideline WP:NFC that gives advice about this and a well-argued consensus that the guidance is inappropriate in a particular case would be entirely acceptable. The AFD nomination was more firmly policy-based than the AFD close – it did not mention "critical commentary" and questioned how the reader's understanding might be affected by the image. It is only wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy that cannot be overridden by any consensus and it is possible for the broader WP:NFCC policy statement to be legitimately challenged. However, in this AFD discussion the challenges were to the guidance rather than to the policy. Thincat (talk) 09:24, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You mean wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy? I saw an extra 'o'. George Ho (talk) 10:11, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did mean that and I've now corrected it, thank you. The blue colour of the link misled me. Thincat (talk) 10:55, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Hullabaloo Wolfowitz, and also per WilyD's evidence-free attempt to claim the closer wasn't neutral. Black Kite (talk) 12:09, 27 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Uninformed closure when interested parties had not been informed that the category was up for deletion. The closing admin wrote: "Those in favour of deletion have the stronger guideline-based arguments here (a vague statement, to say the least), and added "...the closing of the previous discussion was not intended to be interpreted as meaning that we should take all of the articles that were previously categorised in Category:Welsh-speaking people and create subcategories by occupation. It was intended to reflect the consensus of that discussion, which was that the category should only contain subcategories for occupations in which speaking Welsh is integral to it, such as Category:Welsh-language singers or Category:Welsh-language poets. There are now quite a few subcategories of Category:Welsh-speaking people that are questionable under this standard. I apologise that the previous close did not make this crystal clear; I had thought that it would have been understood by the context of the discussion as a whole. I'm assuming here that the creation of the subcategories was an honest misinterpretation and not a back-alley attempt to get around the result of the discussion."

Apart from the inaccurate appraisal of the relative merits of the arguments, it is suggested in this statement that the creator of the new category was misinterpreting the outcome of the discussion on whether to containerize the category "Welsh-speaking people". Yet that proposal specifically excluded the possibility that articles previously included in that category would no longer be in any category that recognised the defining characteristic of being a Welsh speaker. Although the proposer suggested a small number of vocational categories that might be created, it was at no time implied that these would be the only categories "allowed". I have raised certain points with the closing admin to demonstrate that this is indeed a valid category by his own criteria. Time difference is at present making it difficult for us to get together to discuss it further.

Equally importantly, it appears that those contributors who were involved in creating and populating the category were not informed that it was up for deletion. I certainly was not. Although there may be no rule that specifically says we should be informed, it must be clear that those who opposed the deletion were hindered from participating in the discussion by this omission. Deb (talk) 19:18, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-endorse (as closer). The category was correctly tagged with Template:Cfd, which is the notification requirement for categories. "I didn't know about the discussion" is not a valid reason to pursue a review. (If you care about a category, place it on your watchlist—then you will be notified when it is tagged for discussion.) I think my close accurately reflects the strength of the arguments presented in the discussion. Those in favour of deletion were guideline-based and in harmony with the previous discussion's outcome. (If you want to know what those guidelines were that I referred to in the close, see substance of the discussion.) Those in favour of keeping generally were not.

This is related to the previous discussion, but the statement above that "that proposal specifically excluded the possibility that articles previously included in that category would no longer be in any category" is not correct. I cannot see that this suggestion was made in the discussion at all.

(As a side note, I get the feeling that those who oppose deletion of the category think that those who favour of deletion "just don't get it", and they have repeatedly been condescending in this regard. One participant in the discussion wrote to another user, "It may be difficult for you to understand this, but please try to do so...". User:Deb hardly attempted to discuss this with me on my talk page, opening her comments with the not-very-productive, "It doesn't appear that you understand the issues...".) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist That the participants to a discussion were not representative is a reasonable ground for relisting. Personally, I think this sort of notification should be required, and not doing it is an outrageous unfair process favoring the personal views of the few people who follow this process. I have no personal view of the merits. DGG ( talk ) 04:47, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it can reasonably stand that a potentially unlimited group of people, whose identities cannot be readily established, should be required to be notified of deletion discussions. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And, DGG, one doesn't have the follow the CFD process—all a user has to do is put the categories they care about on their watchlist, and they will be notified of any proposed rename or deletion! It's not that hard and it's a bit of a cop-out to try to shift the onus of "notification" to other users when every user has the tools under his own control. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist - effectively a supervote - whether language is important to sports or not is asserted, but not shown (and it probably is, given that pro-sports teams are largely rallying points for cultural identities). That the closer has come to this discussion and acted in a highly involved manner reiterates the need to have the discussion closed by an admin who can at least act like a neutral party. WilyD 12:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- The reason I came here was because the nominator did not wait to discuss this with me first on my talk page, which is recommended. If you can point to evidence that I "acted in a highly involved manner" prior to my comments above, you might have a point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:39, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Concur with WilyD and Good Olfactory. CfDs are centralized for a reason, and categories are watchlisted for a reason. The rationale DGG is applying could be used overturn all processes, from XfD to RM, in which anyone claims they feel they should have been personally notified but were not. WP simply does not work that way. Consensus is formed by whoever is around to form it, and it can change, so people need to quit climbing the Reichstag over the matter every time something doesn't go their way, or everyrone they wished showed up to a discussion didn't. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 00:10, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (closer). Since this nomination was begun, I've been able to respond to the nominator's initial inquiry on my talk page. If you would like to read more about my rationale for closing, you can read it here. I'm hesitant to post these thoughts here as well, since a user above has already suggested that I'm not acting uninvolved enough. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:51, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The close adequately assesses the arguments presented in the particular case in question, and perhaps more importantly the overall picture, including the previous CfD which supporters of this trivial-intersection category sorely misinterpreted. This isn't even about this particular category anyway, it's about WP:TRIVIALCAT generally. We do no categorize people by skills they possess, though we do categorize occupations by skills they intrinsically involve. Category:Welsh-language poets is a valid category. Category:Welsh-speaking sportspeople was not. Playing football and racing cars has no relationship to what language someone uses. It's exactly like Category:Trombone-playing physicists. I find it very telling that these language overcategorization efforts appear to be limited entirely to Celtic language categories. This is entirely a matter of Celtic language advocacy/activism. I say that as a 25-year Celtic language activist, BTW. I just know when to put my pet issues aside, and not push them inappropriately on the encyclopedia. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 23:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close was entirely proper; the language skills of sportspeople is unnecessary to their notability or their job; if we have such a tree, we'll have no end of Category:Fooish-speaking jobholders with every combination of each. We categorize by language spoken only when integral to the job (writers, poets, tv announcers, singers); not sportspeople, fast-food workers, beekeepers, or astrologers. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Make more noise at the developers to implement Wikipedia:Category intersection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- How would this be used in this case? A previous discussion had resulted in individual articles being removed from Category:Welsh-speaking people (ie, it was converted into a container category for subcategories only). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:38, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would, I hope, enable cross-referencing Category:Welsh-speaking people (and subcategories) with Category:Sportspeople (and subcategories), for example. This would remove the perceived need to create random category intersections (aka WP:TRIVIALCAT), such as the one being discussed here. I like to thing that dynamic category intersections would both make categories very much more useful, and reduce the excessive creation of categories based upon individuals' interests. Random intersection are frequently wanted for passing custom purposes, but it is obvious that pages should not be bottom-tagged with categories for every perceivable intersection.

Wikipedia:Category intersection appears, to my surprise, to not assume that dynamic category intersection will be able to search not just all members, but all members of subcategories recursively. I think this is necessary.

The absence of this feature of Wikipedia:Category intersection creates this perpetual problem of good faith editors wanting to improve the category system coming into conflict with serious maintainers of the category system who know that the creations of category newcomers are unworkable if completed. This discussion is a mere example of the perpetual problem. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the potential usefulness, though I think it wouldn't have been helpful in this case. Category:Welsh-speaking people had no individual articles in it after the previous discussion, so unless the sportsperson was also categorized as a Welsh-language writer or a Welsh-language singer (or some other occupation for which being Welsh-speaking is central), they would not have been categorized in the Category:Welsh-speaking people at all. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it is desirable to be able to find all Welsh sportspeople, then it would become useful for editors to ensure that all Welsh are in some Welsh subcategory, and all sportspeople would be in some sports category, so if Wikipedia:Category intersection were a feature, the situation would be different. I expect that there would be more very broad categories, probably more tolerance of hidden categorisation by non-defining attributes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, depending on how it's implemented. I might say these two variables are unrelated, but you might say they matter to you so you would search by that combination without cluttering other readers navigation. At least I hope that's where it takes us. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We already can find all Welsh sportspeople. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That category tree is excessive, far too many lowly populated subcategories, probably hopelessly under-maintained. Are you really confident that there are no pages belonging in that category tree but uncategorised? The ability to search by category intersections, and similar operations, should remove the desire for so many thin categories. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:49, 26 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the closing reflected policy and the nature of the discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The argument here seems to be that, if different editors participated, the outcome would be different. That's true enough, but this forum is really for mishandling by closing admins or policy violations. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Procedure For WikiProject Notices If any editor at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales (or any WikiProject) would have tagged the talk page of the category and the nomination would have automatically appeared in Wikipedia:WikiProject Wales/Article alerts. But, since no on in that or any other WikiProject tagged the category talk page, no notice went to a WikiProject. That's how it works; it's not on the nominator or closing admin's shoulders to do that. While most articles have WikiProjects on their talk pages, many categories do not, and it's worth your going through category trees you care about. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:54, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It's hard to take seriously the idea that WP:WALES cares a whole lot about this silly category if they didn't even tag it. I'd bet good money that nearly no one in that project even knew it existed. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As the nominator of the original discussion (not this discussion under DRV) I had noted that many biographies that weren't in subcategory already were not verifiable in terms of their Welsh-speaking. On the other hand, biographies in subcategories like Welsh-speaking actors and Welsh-language activists are obviously allowed as Welsh-speaking, because for them it is verifiable. Deleting Welsh-speaking sportspeople is a consequence of this same reasoning: since sportspeople don't speak Welsh as an obvious part of their sport occupation, it is a non-verifiable characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment reads as if it it not possible to verify claims that any particular sportsmen can speak Welsh. Is that really your opinion? In what way is it not verifiable that George North can speak Welsh?[2] Recently I have become concerned that rather too many CFD discussions have lost contact with reality. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, it's not in general, in the sense that a language skill is a defining characteristic for sportspeople. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:05, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse in this case, but not more widely -- In my CFD comments, I perhaps did not think enough about whether this was a trivial intersection: is the ability to speak Welsh relevant to their sporting prowess? In field and track sports (which are essentially individual) it is probably irrelevant. However in team sports, the players will speak to each other during play. If the team language was Welsh, they might have an advantage in that their opponents would be unable to understand what was said. However, that may only be a theoretical issue, as there are (I believe) few professional sports teams in the areas of Wales where the language is most dominant. I think that in practice almost every Welsh-speaking Welshman is bi-lingual. In some parts of Wales, the language is in practice extinct, but in others it is the usual language for local people. Welsh-speakers are a subset of Welsh people; certainly so, if we are talking about those who regularly speak in practice. Any Welsh-speaking category should be for those who regularly do speak it, not for those who in theory have the ability. I write this as some one who lives in the English Midlands, but periodically visits Wales: I have been addressed in Welsh at the National Library of Wales, but as soon as I utter an English word, they continue in English; the same applies in shops, where the shopkeeper may be chatting in Welsh, but as soon as I ask for something in English, the shopkeeper will switch to English. Clearly presenters on the Welsh-language TV channel S4C need to speak Welsh. Those who perform or write in Welsh clearly need a category. However, being qualified to represent Wales at an international level in sport does not depend on linguistic ability. I suspect that there will be a follow-up nom to this one, and I would discourage trying to apply the conclusion more widely: the appropriate course might be to purge a singers category of singers who could speak Welsh, but always performed in English. Finally, I recall a description of a planning inquiry, where Welsh participants insisted on speaking Welsh, so that a translator had to be employed. The Inspector was English. The question was asked why a Welsh-speaker was not the inspector; the answer was that there were such inspectors but they refused to take cases such as that one. This is a sensitive issue: there are implications in Nationalist politics. This is an area where I would suggest that those without local knowledge should hesitate to vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:31, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I certainly agree that we would not want to see some move to delete categories like Category:Welsh-language singers (and that they should be purged of people who do not actually use the language as it intersects with their occupational category; lots of famous English writers also know Spanish or whatever, but we would not categorize them as Spanish-language writers). However, I don't see anyone proposing such a deletion of the actual relevant categories, and everyone seems to be distinguishing between them and this one, so I wouldn't worry about it. As for the "If the team language was Welsh ..." point: There's still nothing "intrinsically Welsh" about being on a sports team that happens to communicate in Welsh. They don't do it somehow differently from teams who communicate in German or Japanese; the language in incidental. They have to communicate in some language. It's rather like categorizing films by the brand of camera they were shot with, or books by what layout system was used to set them up for publication. If there were a constructed language, analogous to "Klingon Battle Speech", specifically for sports teams, that enabled faster and clearer exchange of team-sport-related collaborative communication, and it were shown to have a demonstrably positive effect on the win-ratio of teams using it, then maybe we'd need a category for teams using that. And it would be for teams, not for individuals. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼ 06:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 September 2015[edit]

18 September 2015[edit]

Brenda Gerow – The close is clearly controversial bearing in mind that a previous NAC was reverted after push back. There is, as noted, no satisfactory policy based outcome from that discussion, but the issue is the naming of the victim without sources not necessarily the notability of the crime. I have therefore vacated the NAC and moved the page back to Pima County Jane Doe. I'd suggest that the best way to move forward for those that have disagreement is either to find the elusive sources linking Brenda Gerow to this victim or open a RM discussion about what location the page should sit at. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Closer gave no justification, other than !votecount. When asked, told me to come here. Geogene (talk) 19:04, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here's questions I raised with two successive non-admin closers [3], [4]. My understanding of policy is sometimes wrong, but I'm pretty sure that policy is supposed to matter, and that Wikipedia is not a democracy. Otherwise AfD is really just a tossup of whose browsing AfD's that day and whether they care about sourcing, and there's no way to predict who will get more "votes". Might as well flip coins. Geogene (talk) 19:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - (edit conflict) It is 'not required' to justify when closing, given that the result is intuitive. When you asked me on my talk page, I not only asked you to come here, but also stated, I closed the AfD based on the strong consensus to keep the article and based on the value of every single argument by other editors, for which you gave me an uncivil reply. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 19:17, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what "intuitive" means here. I asked you which of the keep !votes you found most persuasive. That's a fair request, because the close goes against my sense of policy, and also because, as the closer, you have read and weighed at least some of them. There's also conversation on that article's talk page that is worth a look. Geogene (talk) 19:25, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See discussion for talk page of the article. As the author of the article, I supported changing the page back to its original title (as "Pima County Jane Doe"), as the article was created months before the rumored identification took place. The page was not renamed by me, but by a different subject that did not add any discussion before moving it. I feel the case is still notable and that it is perfectly fine to remove information about the identification that has no reliable sources, yet all other information on the case that is given in the article is from reliable primary and secondary sources. Not having sources to back up the identification does not justify deletion, as the case was notable prior to the identification.--GouramiWatcher^(?) 19:27, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (mostly). When no editors endorse a deletion nomination, and multiple users oppose deletion, an explanation is not ordinarily required. That said, NAC closers need to keep in mind that WP:NAC allows them to carry out speedy keeps, but not SNOW keeps; as WP:SK says explicitly, "The 'snowball clause' , , , is not a speedy keep criterion itself". As a recent DRV concluded, the "full" discussion period should run, and that is seven full days. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It may be that it's not ordinarily required, but if asked, it should be possible to provide one. If one can't be provided, it's fair question whether consensus actually existed. Although it might be a better exercise for somebody to try to find a single reliable source that talks about "Brenda Gerow" per se. Geogene (talk) 20:33, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Consensus was keep and not every close needs to be policy based, As an aside Geogene I wish you would stop linking to that particular edit summary! - As I explained at the AFD [5] if you're going to speak to me like shit you're going to get told to fo it's as simple as that!, Treat others as you wish to be treated. –Davey2010^Talk 19:47, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Those are the questions I raised relevant to this closure, making it relevant to this review. Your edit summary is incidental. Probably neither of us should give civility advice. Geogene (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The fault isn't in the close, it's in the discussion. Given the discussion that exists, it's hard to see how this could have been closed any other way. But, I can't ignore the fact that there is indeed not a single reliable source which ties the name Brenda Gerow to this Jane Doe. It seems likely that there should be, but I looked at every source in the article, and none of them qualify. I also searched a bit myself, and couldn't find any. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of whether the name goes with the person described seems irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. The article existed for months before it was associated with the name "Brenda Gerow". If you think there aren't reliable sources that link that name to the person described, then edit the article back to how it was before and move it back to the old title. Calathan (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

~~I would not be opposed to that~~. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a start, but then you're back to "the police are requesting information about a photo" which seems to be the only verifiable fact in the article, aside from a Jane Doe that was found around 1980, which may or may not be linked to the photo. Do you want an article about the body, or an article about the photo? Geogene (talk) 23:10, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good point. I've stuck my willingness to go along with just the title change. Again, I'm not blaming the closer. The people who contributed to the discussion did a spectacularly poor job of evaluating the references, and the fact that there was near-unanimous agreement to keep, doesn't change that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:20, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - There was a clear consensus to keep. Several participants stated that they voted to keep because of they felt the coverage or sourcing was sufficient. That is about the most straightforward argument someone can make in favor of keeping an article at AFD, so I don't understand why Geogene thinks more explanation is needed. Calathan (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Because I checked to see if sources exist, and found there are virtually no reliable sources that cover either Brenda Gerow or Pima County Jane Doe. That's a good enough reason to delete the article. That it didn't get deleted based on a !vote count is unusual. ~~That the closers were utterly unable rationalize the close is absurd.~~ Here are some Google searches to prove the point: Pima County Jane Doe: [6]. Google Brenda Gerow: [7]. If not for the Web discussion boards, I'd have templated the page as a hoax. Which begs the question: how many of those "Keep" voters actually checked to see if sources exist, when they didn't notice the problem with the name? Does "Consensus" exist in spite of that? This should have been a straightforward delete. Geogene (talk) 23:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I can see how this looked like an easy NAC keep, but the comments themselves lack sufficient depth or engagement with the nomination rationale to justify drawing any conclusions from them. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:34, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

17 September 2015[edit]

Speedbird – Non-admin closure vacated, discussion relisted. – Sandstein 18:11, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Non-admin inappropriately closed the discussion as snow keep before the discussion was allowed to run for the full 7 days; however, since the discussion at that time had two Redirect votes and four Keep votes, this hardly satisfies WP:SNOW. sst^flyer 16:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Template:Useronline – Endorse. There is near-unanimous consensus here that the close was correct. It's less clear between, Endorse NAC vs Overturn NAC on purely procedural grounds and have an admin re-close with the same result. That seems like that's a policy issue which is best discussed elsewhere and not really germaine to the DRV proposal, so I'm just going to leave this alone. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:31, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Unfortunately, this good-faith non-admin close is flawed. It failed to adequately take into account the copious amount the evidence provided, that the template does not serve any useful function, and is misleading in nearly all of its transclusions; and thus unreliable in every case. Furthermore, the closer relies on the number of !votes rather than their content - or in some cases the total absence of anything addressing the nominated template at all. Others are wholly dependent on impossible technical fixes. In response to my request to reconssider, the closer states that "the template was edited in the course of the discussion to admit it might be incorrect" - itself further evidence that it serves no useful purpose. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:22, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closure strongly endorsed (or overturn closure to "keep") - A nigh-unanimous discussion that could not be closed any other way -- I even think that a "no consensus" is somewhat lenient, and I would've closed as keep. Alakzi ~~(now indef-blocked~~ this wasn't relevant nor appropriate) and Andy (TfD nominator) were the only ones out of the dozen-or-so editors who commented on the TfD to advocate its deletion. All that being said, I personally would've voted for deletion if I had come across this TfD, but that is irrelevant to this DRV. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Alakzi is only indef blocked by their own request. And you're again counting votes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 05:01, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're right that my comment about Alakzi's self-indef-block was out of line. I've amended my comment accordingly. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 11:55, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse or overturn to keep - There seemed to be a consensus that the template should be kept. Andy's position here basically seems to amount to "I was right and everyone else was wrong, so all their opinions shouldn't have counted". However, a relatively large number of people saw his arguments for deletion and yet thought the template should be kept anyway. In the end his arguments failed to be convincing to the participants in the discussion, and there clearly wasn't a consensus to delete the template. Calathan (talk) 18:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy overturn to keep~~ - Clear consensus that the template should be kept. Closing ~~admin~~ user misrepresentated as no consensus, and I would have closed it as Keep. Andy, DRV should only be used for misrepresentation of consensus that led to deletion or keeping, which is not precisely the case here, instead what you're saying is just a blatant case of "I'm right and they're wrong" (now where is the essay for that...). Changing vote to Endorse per Mackensen's vote. --TL22 (talk) 11:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As the closer, I'd like to make two comments in reply: firstly, I'm not an admin, as I stated in my close, and secondly: I determined "no consensus" on the balance of arguments, not, as Andy Mabbett alleges, by vote counting. I consider that some of the keep !votes were conditional, or not reasoned in policy, or the condition or the policy point was disputed by pro-deleters. On balance, as I explained, I thought the arguments roughly balanced which is why I closed as "no consensus". Of course if the consensus here is that I misweighed the arguments in any way I will respect that and take it as a learning experience. BethNaught (talk) 21:05, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Striked the speedy, and corrected my statement. Thanks. --TL22 (talk) 21:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - "only two editors advocated deletion, compared with 9 explicit keep !votes" isn't counting votes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - That was only one part of my rationale. If I had been taking an exercise in vote-counting, I would have closed as keep. Please reread the part where I weighed up the arguments. BethNaught (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - I've not only already read it, but I addressed it in my OP here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:53, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. It could possibly also have been closed as keep, but the closer's rationale was reasonable. WP:COLOUR simply doesn't apply to the template namespace. It says so right on the tin. Even if it did, it's a guideline. Sure the template appears useless but the participants at TfD didn't feel that way, and in the absence of a governing policy that's the outcome. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Both you and the closer are wrong on that point; WP:COLOUR explicitly states that its "advice on contrast ratios is applicable more generally"; even more importantly the WMF non-discrimination policy applies to all namespaces. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:57, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The only reason it said that is because you yourself added that line during the middle of the debate. Some would accuse you of deliberately changing the goalposts to undermine your opponents' views. BethNaught (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - And with this baleful attempt at making policy say what you want it to and then shoving your own words in the faces of people you disagree with as if your word was law, I've lost the last of whatever assumptions of good faith I still had towards Andy. This behavior reflects poorly on yourself. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 21:07, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I recall Raul654 joking--oh, must have been ten, twelve years ago--about changing policy during a discussion and then citing it to support his position. It was funny and we all laughed (also, he didn't do it). This is pathetic. Furthermore, unless I'm very much mistaken, WP:NDP applies to Foundation employees only, and doesn't govern in content discussions. Andy, did you have a different policy in mind? Mackensen (talk) 21:19, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - This unilateral change of policy seems to warrant a (temporal) ban from TfD and maybe from DRV. It is disruptive to see an user attempting to challenge consensus and changing a policy to win against their oponents. Of course, any comments about this are welcome, as I'm not really sure about it. --TL22 (talk) 01:22, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - To clarify, that edit was made on 12 August, during the original debate, not during this DRV. It is also entirely reasonable on its face, and stood unchallenged for six weeks. Citing it here wasn't a great strategy, but not exactly the cynical manipulation you all seem to be assuming. Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sorry Andy, the discussion as it stood at the time of the close could not have supported a delete result (even though the template is in fact useless, and is a good example of why 'consensus among whoever shows up' is kind of a pathological way to make essentially technical decisions). Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- "the template is in fact useless" It is this, not the number of votes, which TfD is supposed to determine. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Unfortunately not. TfD, like most Wikipedia processes, works with consensus exclusively. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 19:43, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Put another way: closing that discussion as delete would have been an invitation to end up right here at DRV, so either way we've already wasted more time discussing the significance of its uselessness than anyone has ever invested in actually using it. Opabinia regalis (talk) 21:26, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Andy Mabbett, please see WP:DRVPURPOSE. Your arguments fail the 5th point of what DRV is not. Furthermore, please note that DRV is not XfD Round 2, its for discussing misrepresentations of consensus in closures of deletion discussions. --TL22 (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- They meet point 1, and arguably point 5, of what DRV is. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:19, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to see your argument for point 5, If your accusation is my failure to account for some points or some policy, that's a misinterpretation of consensus, not a procedural error. BethNaught (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]
Endorse, I have some sympathy for the point of view that User:Opabinia regalis puts forward above, but the truth of the matter here is that this process works by consensus, and consensus was not to delete the template. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:32, 20 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn for reclosing by an actual administrator. I don't know when it became OK for non-admins to close controversial discussions, which the closer clearly believed this was. WP:NAC doesn't quite reach policy/guideline status, but it's cited in the actual deletion policy page as providing useful explanations. It states quite clearly, "No consensus closes (with the exception of WP:NPASR closes) should generally be avoided, as they require more difficult analysis of consensus". The general rule is that nonadministrators "may close some non-controversial discussions with "keep", "merge" or "redirect" closure when they can". This close falls outside the general rule and the specific analysis concerning "no consensus" outcomes, and should be overturned pending action by an administrator. I think that, on the merits, this was a bad close, and something of a supervote, with the would-be closer rejecting the consensus analysis as insufficient rather than determining it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 19:49, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A few points:

Have you seen the backlog at TfD recently? There was recently (a couple of months ago) consensus at an RfC to allow non-admins to close discussions because the backlog was so bad. Even now there is a backlog going back to August 9. Other non-admins have been closing non-simple discussions; for example, Alakzi did before they requested a self-block. If non-admins had not helped out, the only major closer would have been Opabinia regalis, who is the only admin closing a significant number of discussions.
Can you please explain why you think I misread the debate and supervoted? I ask that both on content grounds and because I don't find your last sentence grammatically clear.
Do you believe an administrator would close the discussion as it stands in an effectively different manner?

BethNaught (talk) 20:07, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where/when was this RFC? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 23:23, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk · contribs), the RfC is at Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#RfC: Proposal to allow non-admin "delete" closures at TfD. The original proposal was unsuccessful in gaining consensus, but the alternative proposal, Wikipedia talk:Templates for discussion/Archive 19#Alternative Proposal: Allow Orphan as a close result, gained consensus. Since this close was "no consensus" (not "orphan"), I do not believe the RfC can be used to support it.

Cunard (talk) 04:03, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In practice the outcome has been that non-admins can perform delete closures, by orphaning the template and applying a CSD tag. This has not AFAIK been controversial. My general point was "desperate times call for desperate measures" in point 1. BethNaught (talk) 06:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If it helps, I'm willing to endorse this close as an admin, as BethNaught has closed it in the same way I would have. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:48, 22 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

I think that does help, thank you, though it is a pity we seem to have needed your help. Thincat (talk) 11:09, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on admin endorsers. I've been working slowly from the back of the backlog, but would have gotten to this one eventually, and would have done the same thing; in fact, you likely got a much more thoroughly explained closing rationale from BethNaught. I have to point it out on the rare occasion someone else is wordier than me! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 September 2015[edit]

15 September 2015[edit]

Time slip – Recreation allowed. – Sandstein 18:57, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:Valoem/Time slip

I've changed the article considerably. It was originally written with a focus on the fringe phenomena. In actuality this is a notable device used in fiction with over a 100 years of relevance. Here is a good source [8]. I am requesting allow restoration with full history intact to show the evolution of the article. I have included from coverage of the fringe concept because it has been covered by secondary sources. This subject could have always been cleaned up. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 12:47, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Move to main space - My impression when I saw this at AFD was that a time slip was likely a notable plot device (i.e., discussed in reliable sources), just based on the prominence of some of the works that use it (e.g., A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court). I didn't personally know of any such sources, so I didn't comment in the discussion, but it did seem to me that many of the participants were overly focused on the fringe aspect and probably not even looking for sources about this as a plot device. It looks like Valoem has added some sources that discuss this as a plot device. I think his version would pass the notability guidelines, so I would support moving it into main space. Calathan (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to main space as suggested; it's a reasonable article at this point. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace per Valoem's good work on the article.
This source in the article strongly indicates the topic is notable:
1. Tess Cosslett (2002-04-01). "Project MUSE - "History from Below": Time-Slip Narratives and National Identity" (PDF). muse.jhu.edu. Retrieved 2015-09-15.
Cunard (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

14 September 2015[edit]

13 September 2015[edit]

12 September 2015[edit]

User:Gregaga – Overturned NAC. Gregaga's last mainspace edit was in March 2013, They are actively editing to use wikipedia as a webhost and I see no justification for their being treated differently – Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:32, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

User:NE Ent non-admin closed the MFD stating there was no attempt to resolve this with the editor. As stated in the nomination, this was not the first time this editor has misused user space a a web host. His sandbox was previously deleted for this same reason. He had an alternate account which he used for the same purpose. I asked NE Ent to reconsider, and he declined. At the time of close, there was one other editor providing a delete opinion. I am requesting the NAC be overturned and the MFD left to run its course. Whpq (talk) 00:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Gregaga; as I said on my talk page: Long ago the individual was a contributor, and in the past they were assisted in keeping the page by an admin, so it doesn't really hurt anything to attempt to resolve the issue with the least amount of intervention, which is simply blanking the page and leaving them a note. Hopefully by suggesting the alternate of wikia.com they'll find a non-disruptive way to pursue their interest, and by leaving the content accessible in the edit history they can copy the content without having to have pester an admin to email it to them or temporarily restore the page. I've got the page watchlisted and if they restore the content we can take more assertive measures then. If that doesn't work for you, DRV reviewer, a full MFD would be bureaucratic overkill; just speedy the page. NE Ent 00:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That assistance was in 2009. Since 2009, he has repeatedly used Wikipedia as a web host for fantasy reality games. It is also not eligible for deletion under any of the existing speedy deletion criteria. -- Whpq (talk) 00:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment for anyone who can see the deleted content is there any connection between this content and the content from User:Not_David_Brown/sandbox below? It sounds fairly similar, and was created about 30 minutes after the recreation of the delete content there was redeleted. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

11 September 2015[edit]

User:Not David Brown/sandbox – Deletion endorsed – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 18 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Sandbox deleted for being creative basically. I was creating a lot of practice projects to increase my knowledge on templates. I did create a lot of fake seasons of the reality TV shows and other articles that I will be editing for their next seasons. I don't understand why I'm not allowed to be creative while practicing. Plus, the sandbox is used for both drafts AND practice. I would like to know why I can't keep my own personal sandbox for being "creative." I added all of the content back, will delete if an admin tells me to.

Delete User:Not_David_Brown/sandbox as a WP:NOTWEBHOST violation. No idea what Not David Brown (talk · contribs) is doing here at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete per WP:CSD#G4 per Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Not David Brown/sandbox. See Wikipedia:Alternative outlets. This sort of creativity is not allowed because there has previously been far to much of that sort of stuff in violation of WP:NOTWEBHOST. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Wikipedia is not a free web host for makey-uppey reality show grids. I have re-deleted the content. Stifle (talk) 08:30, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can (to a degree) understand the idea of experimentation and using something more "realistic" to experiment with, i don't understand the concept of "practice" here, I don't practice things by looking over past work, but by new work. Regardless of my lack of understanding here, I'd have thought asking an admin to email the deleted content would act as a sufficient record of past practice is such is required. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- More than happy to email the content if needed. Stifle (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 September 2015[edit]

Starkillers – Deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 18:10, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Hello Members of Wikipedia! About a month ago Starkillers page (a.k.a Nick Terranova) was deleted from the Wiki based on the deletion discussion (linked above). I have discussed the matter with the admin who deleted the page and upon his guidance I am bringing up this matter here for discussion. I believe that Starkillers notability was not thoroughly considered by the participants of the discussion and that the article should be given a second thought. Based on the notability and music notability guidelines of wikipedia Starkillers sufficiently meets the criterion, as you can see I have provided a breakdown below of Starkillers based on the criteria of notability for musicians WP:NMG, including relevant 3rd party references .

Extended lists of items that support claim of notability

1. MAGAZINES

Vibe - References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] Guampdn - Reference: [1] Magnetic Mag - Reference: [1] The Dj List - Reference: [1] Broadway World - References: [1] [2] [3] The Bangin Beats - References: [1] [2] Stupiddope - References: [1] Sceen FM - References: [1] Pronto Radio - References: [1] Less Than 3 Blog - References: [1] NME India - References: [1] Vibin FM - References: [1]

2. SINGLES (charted)

Nadia Ali, Starkillers & Alex Kenji - Pressure Belgium (Ultratip Flanders) - #37 Belgium (Ultratip Wallonia) - #16 Netherlands (Single Top 100) - #97 Slovakia (Rádio Top 100) - #46 UK Singles (Official Charts Company) - #108

References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

3. AWARDS

Nadia Ali, Starkillers & Alex Kenji - Pressure Best Progressive Track at 27th International Dance Music Awards [1]

4. RADIO

Discoteka by Starkillers on Judge Jules BBC Radio Essential Tune Judge Jules got the name wrong to Starvieuw it is Starkillers as shown here: [1] [2] [3] Sriracha by Starkillers & Dmitry Ko on BBC Radio 1’s Residency by Steve Angello B. @ss Trick by Starkillers on BBC Radio 1’s Essential Mix by DJ Zinc Don’t Hold Back by Starkillers on BBC Radio 1’s Dance Anthems Pressure by Nadia Ali, Starkillers & Alex Kenji on Slovakia’s Radio Top 100 Silence by Starkillers & Alicia Madison #10 on BDS Dance Radio

5. COMPOSITION (notable and awarded)

Nadia Ali, Starkillers & Alex Kenji - Pressure References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11]

Nadia Ali, Starkillers & Alex Kenji - Pressure Best Progressive Track at 27th International Dance Music Awards

6. RECORDINGS

Starkillers tracks published by Sony ATV Music (Ultra Records Publishing): Starkillers - Cantina Starkillers, Richard Beynon & Kai - Rampage Starkillers & Bl3nd - Xception Starkillers, Dmitry KO & Amba Shepherd - Let The Love Starkillers & Alex Sayz - Harem Starkillers & Richard Beynon Ft. Natalie - What Does Tomorrow Bring

Starkillers tracks published by Spinnin Records BV: Starkillers - Discoteka Starkillers - Scream Starkillers & Dmitry KO - Big Disco Starkillers, Pimp Rockers, Tom Hangs & Marco Machiavelli - Insomnia Starkillers & Nadia Ali - Keep It Coming Nadia Ali, Starkillers & Alex Kenji - Pressure

7. RECORD LABEL

In 2014 Starkillers started his own label Brawla Records which features release from artists including Baggi, Dmitry Ko, Sex Panther, Alicia Madison. References: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]

8. OTHER REFERENCES [1] [2]

Kiran chandani (talk) 01:12, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Deletion review is not a location to re-argue an AFD, only to point out if the process was not properly followed. Stifle (talk) 09:21, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. DRV is not AfD round 2, and there is no significant new information here. Guy (Help!) 09:46, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Proposer would be well advised to re-read what Postdlf wrote, I would suggest you instead take some time to better familiarize yourself with Wikipedia. You focused on the part where he said deletion review was possible, and ignored the part where he said what was a better idea. We welcome new contributors, but please understand that we're here for a purpose, and that purpose is not to provide free publicity for companies or artists. It would be useful (well, essential, really) for you to read WP:COI. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle Guy (Help!) RoySmith thank you for your input on this! To my understanding from the deletion discussion, there wasn't sufficient sources to back up the information provided on the page. Understandable. So as above I have only provided the information that could be potentially used if the article was allowed to be recreated (not by me, but anybody for that matter). Kiran chandani (talk) 17:29, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add the following reference under Magazine coverage: [1] The Starkillers page that was deleted did not have sufficient references to back up much of the content. This is exactly what I have provided, the references needed to back up factual statement. So no I am not here to promote an artist, just here to provide much of the facts and references that were overlooked in the deletion discussion. Kiran chandani (talk) 20:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Given the promotional aspects, the only practical way forward would be through Articles for Creation. If you do have any financial connection you must declare it, but not if your interest is just as a fan. DGG ( talk ) 03:43, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 September 2015[edit]

Manika (singer) – No Consensus. While a majority (from a head-count point of view) are favoring overturning the close, there is deep disagreement in the discussion here, so calling a consensus would be a stretch. I might be willing to make that stretch if the consequences were substantial, but they're not. The close allows for an immediate recreation, and the old text can be userfied to anybody who's willing to own doing the rewrite. All that needs happen is for somebody to step forward and agree to do the work. The general rule here is we're not about process wonkery, we're about what's ultimately best for the encyclopedia. If we were about process wonkery, I would probaby have closed this differently. – -- RoySmith (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Discussion with closing admin

There was a clear consensus to keep. There was no consensus for "TNT delete". Both of the editors at the ANI discussion supported retention. Please reconsider your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manika (singer). Cunard (talk) 03:00, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, we had support for the concept that the current contents were absolute rubbish, and most of the keeps focused on the concept that the article's subject was notable. These two concepts are not incompatible. You're free, and indeed encouraged, to write a new article about the same subject; the point is that we need to start over. Nyttend (talk) 03:09, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your comment here, there was no consensus that "we need to start over". Otherwise, the participants would have voted "WP:TNT delete", which they did not. Cunard (talk) 03:14, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Let me be clear: this is the solution closest to where the discussion was going. We count concepts and arguments, not votes. Nyttend (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus in the AfD to keep in spite of the article's minor defects. The article did not violate Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, which would necessitate such a consensus-overriding deletion. As Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) wrote in the ANI discussion to Bondegezou (talk · contribs) (my bolding):

The AfD is a mess, the article is even worse, and there were were some silly edit wars a few days ago (Serols is lucky somebody didn't block him for violating 3RR), but your work is heading roughly in the right direction. The insane amount of inline templates shotgunned over the article makes it unreadable; if you are absolutely sure a source is unsuitable (anything Soundcloud or obviously user generated probably is, the magazines I'd have to check in detail) should just be removed per WP:BLP, not even tagged - that will at least make what's left understandable at a first glance

This does not support the closing admin's WP:TNT interpretation of the AfD.

The correct action is (1) to revert to a clean revision by Ritchie333 or Bondegezou and (2) semi-protect to prevent the promotional edits and vandalism by new accounts and IP editors. Deletion is unsupported by the consensus and an overreaction.

Overturn to keep.

Cunard (talk) 03:32, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn (keep). Must of the discussion, and apparently the close, did not take into account the improvements made during the discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Weird looking discussion and close, but a reasonable way forward was provided. Userfy to Cunard's userspace, and allow re-creation on his judgement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The close was a Wikipedia:Supervote. The closing admin wrote: "In other words, the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over." There was no support in the discussion for the article's being "hopelessly irreparable".
I and many of the participants in the AfD believe in the principle Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required. We supported retention because we believed the article was redeemable with some editing. It did not contain WP:BLP problems that necessitated overriding the consensus and deleting the article.
I don't understand "Userfy to Cunard's userspace, and allow re-creation on his judgement." I think that though the article is imperfect, its current state is acceptable enough to be retained in mainspace under Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. Cunard (talk) 04:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the interest of peaceful collaborative editing, I suggest overlooking the inconsequential rough close, accepting the offered userfication, performing the "some editing" required to "redeem" the article, and moving it back to mainspace. I suggest that it is not productive to make an issue over whether WP:EP (probably our loosest policy) allows existence in mainspace of the un-redeemed article. Some participants thought that it needs to be redeemed as a precondition of being in mainspace. Let them have that point, fix the worst of the problems in userspace, and then move it back. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some participants thought that it needs to be redeemed as a precondition of being in mainspace. Let them have that point, fix the worst of the problems in userspace, and then move it back. – which participants in the AfD expressed the sentiment that "it needs to be redeemed as a precondition of being in mainspace"?
Other than the closing admin, I see zero. That is the definition of a Wikipedia:Supervote.
Editors either supported deleting because they thought the subject was non-notable or they supported keeping because they thought the subject was notable.
Are you volunteering to do the the "some editing" required to "redeem" the article in the interest of peaceful collaborative editing?
It is not "peaceful collaborative editing" to require editors to "blow it up and start over" when editors have already significantly improved the article, and there is no support in the AfD for destroying their work. Admins should not be able to act against a strong "keep" consensus to force editors to rewrite articles to their satisfaction.
Cunard (talk) 05:45, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Redemption of the article. I paraphrase your words above.

The Supervote allegation may have merit but I choose to not address that, as there is an easier way forward. I read the close as a Soft Delete. A statement that the article had problems, but an acknowledgement that it can be fixed. "Weird", I also said.

I read that the delete !votes citing lack of notability were rebutted, largely on the basis that good sources exist that can be added (your !vote in particular).

I am afraid that I am not interested in this subject.

I too am not a fan of the terminology of WP:TNT. However, today I am in the mood to live and let live. Attempting to fix that essay is probably more trouble that it is worth. I have in mind the great trouble Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 August#WP:Don't feed the divas, which started from a similar opinion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:59, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Peaceful collaborative editing" and "to live and let live" would mean overturning the supervote so that editors can continue cleaning it up (if they'd like to) or leaving the article as is (if they're as disinclined against editing the subject like you).
You are correct that the path of least resistance is to just rewrite the article. But it would leave this AfD discussion's incorrect result in place and set a terrible precedent. I do not want admins to have the power to delete an article against n overwhelming consensus to keep because the admin thinks the article is "hopelessly irreparable". Why even bother having an AfD in the first place?
It essentially would give admins the power to delete any articles tagged with Template:Citation and verifiability article maintenance templates because the admin believes the article is "hopelessly irreparable". The policy that says imperfect articles like Manika (singer) should not be deleted merely because they are imperfect is Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required.
Cunard (talk) 06:19, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send back to AfD I started improving the article, trimming out the worst excess, and also noticed it had an extensive history going back several years, so there was at least the possibility of rolling it back. As Cunard says, he can't improve a deleted article except from rewriting it from scratch, which is a job he won't necessarily want. I haven't got time to completely redo it myself as to be perfectly blunt I don't get paid for editing Wikipedia so my life has to take priority towards things where I do! Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 08:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - Cunard, just fix it. It's that simple. I think we have a case here of an article that was in such a piss-poor quality that it was probably right to ignore the usual knee-jerk keeps and get it out of mainspace until it can be fixed. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse as the article clearly met CSD G11: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic." Definitely applies to the article at the time of nomination, which read something like "she recently performed at so-and-so festival that was streamed to x number of people; her new single is on radio now!!". It was more of an essay for why marketers should work with the subject than an encyclopedic overview of her career. The article wasn't even particularly large once the PR cruft was taken out, so I'm not sure why editors are vehemently opposed to doing a quick rewrite. Chase (talk | contributions) 14:15, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

An often overlooked part of the CSD criteria, including G11, is that every single version of the article must meet the criteria - this is to prevent somebody doing a hatchet job on an article and then putting a speedy tag on it. The article has an extensive history and I cannot say that every single version ever met any CSD criteria at all. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse: Let me say this right off the top: I voted to Keep, and feel that there are enough good sources to maintain an article. But I strongly feel that DRV should be for rotten decisions or abuses of process -- Nyttend's decision was neither. Unlike Cunard, I feel equally strongly that admins not only have the power to rule against consensus at AfD, but that they ought to do so a lot more often than they do. Over and over again, we're told that Wikipedia is not a democracy, and that we don't "vote" here -- something that's a lie. RfA, for instance, is absolutely a head count: 75%+ and you always make it, and fewer than one in fifty pass with less. Ten Keep votes over three Deletes, and people scream blue bloody murder if the AfD is ruled anything but a Keep.
I don't agree with the admin's decision here. But it's defensible, and I freely admit that I'm not going to clean up the article either, so I have no skin in the game. DRV is already far too much by way of a second bite of the apple for those who don't like the first result for my liking. We ought not be deterring admins from ruling in favor of policy over headcount. And honestly, I'm with Tarc: Cunard, if you care that much, fix the article yourself -- I'm quite in favor of it being userfyed to you. Ravenswing 14:44, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, there are some articles that I think are a waste of space and would improve Wikipedia by not existing, Commonground/MGS is one, most things listed here probably are too. But I can guarantee if I ignored all rules and deleted them, even if I had a reasonable rationale for every one, to get flak for it. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(shrugs) I'm not suggesting that it's an outrage a DRV was filed here; indeed, controversial decisions draw flak. I'm explaining my reason for advocating endorsing. Ravenswing 16:49, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to Keep - The closer did not respect WP:CONSENSUS which was based on our notability guidelines. The AfD was created due to notability concerns, not article condition. WP:TNT is not a policy or even a guideline, it's a suggestion by a limited amount of editors.. When an article has what appears to be insurmountable problems, then reduce it to a stub. The closer simply committed WP:BATHWATER. Having stub articles on topics that are considered notable by consensus are always better than no articles.--Oakshade (talk) 16:02, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The time and energy that some editors are spending whining here could instead be used to recreate the article with its (very limited) usable information, which would automatically render this DRV irrelevant. Just saying. Chase (talk | contributions) 20:34, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One would think. Ravenswing 23:11, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mild Overturn, with no prejudice against deleting admin. I understand why Nyttend took the action he did, and in my mind it's defensible. However, even though I'd rather see the article gone, I think that TNT isn't going to deal with the root problem here, which is COI editors fluffing any "good" version of the article with promotional junk. I also note that the article was largely cleaned up by User:Ritchie333 before deletion, which I think made the IAR not necessary in this case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]
Tarc: "Cunard, ask for a userfied copy, shut up, and fix it. It's that simple." (comment later revised) – Tarc, it's not that simple. As explained by Lankiveil (talk · contribs) above, the revisions by Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) resolved the article's issues. I am not going to "ask for a userfied copy, shut up, and fix it" because it has already been fixed by Ritchie333 (talk · contribs).
Ritchie333 wrote above, "As Cunard says, he can't improve a deleted article except from rewriting it from scratch, which is a job he won't necessarily want." – Ritchie333, you are correct that I do not want to rewrite the article from scratch. This is required by the closing admin despite there being no support in the AfD for this action: "the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over ... you need to rewrite the article from scratch".
Ritchie333 wrote: "I haven't got time to completely redo it myself as to be perfectly blunt I don't get paid for editing Wikipedia so my life has to take priority towards things where I do!" – this perfectly explains why I too don't have time to rewrite a perfectly valid, already cleaned up article.
The editors above (SmokeyJoe, Tarc, and Ravenswing) who have volunteered me to rewrite this already cleaned up article won't lift a finger to improve the article. They instead tell me to "shut up" and to stop "whining" and that I should engage in "peaceful collaborative editing".
They fail to understand that my time here is finite: I do not have time to waste rewriting an article that Ritchie333 already cleaned up.
Thank you, Ritchie333 and Bondegezou (talk · contribs), for the quality work you have done on the article.
Cunard (talk) 03:37, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: We're not the ones advocating that the article be restored. Ravenswing 03:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously said cleanup wasn't good enough, as the article was deleted. If you do not want to spend your finite time on it, then perhaps you should not spend so much time with Text Walls at DRV defending it. Tarc (talk) 03:48, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That was the unilateral decision of a single admin who has failed to explain why the cleanup wasn't good enough and why "the only solution is to blow it up and start over". There was no consensus in the AfD "to blow it up and start over". Cunard (talk) 03:57, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You use the phrases "unilateral decision" and "single admin" as if there was something sinister or suspect about there being only one admin working the close, making the decision on his own authority ... that being, of course, the standard operating procedure used in 99% of AfD closes. Ravenswing 09:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus to blow it up and start over is not required. If an article is problematic enough, one administrator can make that call under WP:CSD #G11. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard, I don't think I did anything so rude. The most interesting point you've repeated is that the article was already cleaned up. Does anyone disagree with that? If it is true, then the article should be simply undeleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I think it is rude to disregard the clear "keep" consensus in the AfD. There is no point in having an AfD if the closing admin can just override the consensus by citing an essay, WP:TNT, instead of a policy. Instead, the closing admin's action is contrary to policy; from Wikipedia:Editing policy#Wikipedia is a work in progress: perfection is not required: "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." This article is far better than "poor".
I think it is rude to demand that an editor rewrite an imperfect but decent article (or you will endorse deletion or support userfication), though you yourself cannot be bothered to help improve it.
I did not think you were correct to tell me to waste my time rewriting an already cleaned up article, though this is understandable since your comments were made before the temporary undeletion.
Here is the diff of the article before Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) and Bondegezou (talk · contribs) cleaned it up. Here is the diff after. Neither version of the article was in a WP:TNT state, though the new version is much improved.
Cunard (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think that both the closer and I failed to take into account, sufficiently anyway, the improvement already made by Ritchie333. I therefore !vote to "overturn (keep)". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - an admin thinking it's sensible to start over is free to stubify (which makes sense here - see what Ritchie333 did), of course, but not ignore a discussion and close an AfD entirely from their preferred action. Wily D 07:43, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, supervote. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored the article history as documented in the procedure at Wikipedia:Deletion review#Temporary undeletion so more eyes can look at it and make a more informed decision. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:14, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Nyttend did not abuse his discretion. Would support userfying. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, with no prejudice against deleting admin. As others, I understand why the deleting admin acted so. However, I think TNT was rather more than necessary. Starting from scratch seems unproductive when the final version of the article is much improved. What may be needed is semi-protection and perhaps some WP:3RR warnings. Bondegezou (talk) 08:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to NC I understand the call made by the deleting admin, but it's the wrong call. The version at the time of deletion was only poor and certainly not a good case for WP:IAR. There was no consensus in that discussion and no policy-based need for deletion (in fact, I'd say the keeps were on the whole stronger. Hobit (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep and trout closer. This is one of the clearest cases of a supervote I can recall offhand. The closer says that the consensus is for keep, but relying on an essay (WP:TNT) that was raised and objected to during the AfD, the closer delertes on the ground that cleanup is too hard. Well WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP is a case in point, as is "If in doubt, don't delete". Closers should not overide a valid, policy-based consensus in this way. DES ^(talk) 12:33, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing about the AFD process prevents the creation of a new and better article about the same topic, and nothing about the process of creating a new and better article requires the restoration of an old and bad version. If you think a better version is possible, then you're absolutely free to work on that to your heart's content — it does not require the retention, even temporarily, of a version that was not properly compliant with our rules. So, since the creation of a new article is not dependent on overturning or restoring the old one, there's not a single legitimate or worthwhile reason to even have this discussion. Endorse closure, no prejudice against a new article if one can be written that's neutral and based on reliable source coverage instead of the completely worthless unsourced advertorial piece of guano that the first article was. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is always possible to have a better version of every Wikipedia article. That does not mean that "the page is so hopelessly irreparable that the only solution is to blow it up and start over ... you need to rewrite the article from scratch". This throws away the hard work of Ritchie333 (talk · contribs) and Bondegezou (talk · contribs) who did a significant cleanup. They do not have the time and energy to "blow it up and start over". Neither do I.
Cunard (talk) 03:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn to keep The close stated "he majority of voters supported keeping, and I'm generally discounting the delete voters because the keep voters (who came later) presented evidence of sourcing that the earlier delete voters said didn't exist. " That's reason to justify a keep. The close as delete was justified by the comment "Keep and cleanup, though attempting to do so is making my head hurt" That's not an argument for deletion. Closing as delete because one personally thinks it should be deleted is not the way to go. Instead one comments analyzing the evidence as one sees it. It is possible that if the closer had done so, it would have affected the balance of the argument when someone else closed. I usually avoid this field, so I am not going to try to figure out the relationship between chart placement and the GNG. We have the ability to interpret the SNGs as we choose, though if there is an established interpretation it's best to be consistent. Myself, I think anything quantifiable is better than the GNG; arguments involving the GNG lead to elaborate discussions quibbling about the exact meaning of the qualifying terms, "substantial" an "independent". As neither has an exact meaning, and many sources will be in an intermediate position, the net result is that the GNG is no help in borderline situations. DGG ( talk ) 23:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

1vot

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

Fiddlesticks! (interjection) – Non-admin closure vacated; re-closed as delete – Stifle (talk) 09:27, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Non admin closure that violates WP:NAC "Soft redirect to wikitionary" on a WP:DICDEF deletion. An outcome that was never discussed in the entire AfD and a clear nonconsensus. It should be relisted if anything. Savonneux (talk) 02:23, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn.

(1) I see a clear consensus for a straight "Delete".

(2) NAC closes should be reverted on any reasonable objection. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:03, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. I clearly was not thinking correctly. I should not have WP:NACed this. This should have been closed by an admin as a delete. sovereign°sentinel (contribs) 08:36, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you've recognized that you made an error, the best thing to do is correct it yourself (i.e. revert your own close). No shame in that. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have vacated the closure in line with WP:DPR#NAC and am re-closing it as delete. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 September 2015[edit]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Robert Martinson – Moot. no content there to discuss and DRV does not second guess arbcom – Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:10, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Can someone restore this, it was cut and pasted to Robert Martinson instead of using the move function, then deleted, the article was then rewritten from scratch, but the original still contains information not in the current article. I can then tag it for deletion after the missing facts are migrated. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:28, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is no history at that title. Somebody moved the page to Robert Martinson to fix the cut-and-paste move and that article was subsequently deleted for violating an ArbCom restriction. Hut 8.5 21:43, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the history that was at Robert Martinson, how did it disappear? How can it be recovered? It violated no ArbCom restriction by my hand, someone cut and pasted it from my user page. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:23, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The history is at Robert Martinson, it is still there and admins can still see it. It would be technically possible to restore it but I would not recommend doing so - this page contains examples of the kind of copyright violations that prompted the sanctions in the first place.
True, you didn't create the page yourself, but when you were made aware of it you asked an admin to move your version into mainspace (and the admin did so because they weren't aware of the sanction preventing you from creating new articles). That's hardly outstanding behaviour on your part, and is covered by the restriction. There is a lengthy ongoing ANI thread about this here. Hut 8.5 19:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you confirm that the current version made absolutely no use of the deleted versions? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:06, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Very odd. The page was moved from his userspace, and then no revisions from the userspace versions were left intact? It is not OK for ArbCom to mandate violation of Wikipedia:copyrights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:01, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How do you think Wikipedia:copyrights is being violated? The whole article was deleted and someone else wrote a new version from scratch as stated above, there is nothing left of the original copyright material. There is nothing left of the original article, so no copyright claim from that source - we don't need to attribute something which doesn't exist. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:28, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"was deleted and someone else wrote a new version from scratch"? OK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is no problem, the cut-and-paste problem was taken care of to my satisfaction with the exception that my original work was deleted permanently instead of migrated back to my user space. The new version is from scratch, but it would be nice if we could have the old NY Times references to use in the new article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 September 2015[edit]

6 September 2015[edit]

Peter Park – Endorse. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

This page was deleted by administrator Randykitty, who said there was consensus to delete it and linked to WP:TNT as a part of his rationale (which isn't even a policy, nor does it apply in this case that the article was hopeless spam). This was a very bad misunderstanding of the comments there, there was definitely no consensus to delete the page, looking at the AfD, it definitely should have been closed as no consensus and the page should have been kept. There were both 4 delete votes and 4 keep votes. I know that AfD is not a vote, but in my opinion the keep votes had better rationales and more weight. For example, everyone on the keep side, including me, argued that the article has sufficient references to establish notability. One of the keep voters who evidently did his homework wrote "Over approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park. This proves his notability. For example, some missing news show he acted remakable outstanding role for making the Youth Identification Card in Korea, and also the Wikipedia article doesn't contain many his notable works such as Chungcheong Region Metro Railroad. [9], [10], [11]. [12]." That statement should've been taken into consideration by the closing administrator, as should the rest of the keep votes.

One of the delete votes didn't even provide a rationale for why it should be deleted, just said "no-no is a no-no", so that should have been discounted. Another one was "delete this vanispam", while he didn't even provide examples of what in the article constituted spam. A third one ~~said it was a copyright violation (again, without providing any proof),~~ and that it wasn't notable. A fourth one said that the article wasn't notable. Combining this altogether, there were really only 2 legitimate delete votes, and a third semi-legitimate one (it would've been better if he provided evidence of why it was spam), and a fourth delete vote that wasn't valid. All the keep votes were valid. As such, this should've been closed as no consensus, not as delete. SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 22:03, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am sorry, but the above is not a correct representation of my close. I copy it here verbatim: "The result was delete. I am closing this as delete, per WP:TNT. As argued below, this rather hopeless article is "vanispam" or, at best, a beefed up CV. If the subject is notable and good sources exist, no prejudice against recreating a neutrally written and properly sourced article." Copyvio was not mentioned anywhere by me. --Randykitty (talk) 22:08, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:CV links to Copyright violation, and "CV" are the letters you used. What was I supposed to think? SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 23:37, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I imagine he meant Curriculum vitae. Mackensen (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I literally said "beefed up CV", I don't think I've ever heard of a "beefed-up copyvio" :-) Sorry for the confusion, but this is actually the first time that I see "CV" interpreted as "copyvio" and not "curriculum vitae". --Randykitty (talk) 07:58, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 08:33, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse There were some AfD-inexperienced !voters not understanding why their !votes weren't gaining traction, but the discussion was clearly headed to "delete". Re-creation is an option on the table, but authors should note WP:NOTCV, that an article, a biography, should not be written like a Curriculum vitae, but should be based on the content of independent secondary sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
~~Overturn~~ per my nom statement SuperCarnivore591 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can't vote twice, your nomination here counts as a vote already. Kraxler (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2015 (UTC) [reply]

Overturn to no consensus or relist to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Park (2nd nomination) to have a discussion untainted by sockpuppetry on both the "delete" and "keep" sides.
I've reviewed the Google cache of the page and think that the minor promotional issues are surmountable—certainly not in WP:TNT territory. The AfD discussion's participants were split on this issue, and there was no consensus to delete the article because of any promotion.
Altostratus (talk · contribs)'s comment at the end of the discussion should be discussed further:
Over approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park. This proves his notability. For example, some missing news show he acted remakable outstanding role for making the Youth Identification Card in Korea, and also the Wikipedia article doesn't contain many his notable works such as Chungcheong Region Metro Railroad. [13], [14], [15]. [16]--Altostratus (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2015 (UTC)
The quote that there are "approximately 100 news, blog and articles about his human rights, policy making, public official activities and ect, with his Korean name rather than references in the wikipedia article Peter Park" strongly indicates that he passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. A relist would allow these Korean sources to be provided, summarized, and discussed in further detail.
I don't see a consensus in the discussion on the two main questions: (1) Is the subject notable? (2) Is the article so promotional or poorly written that it is in WP:TNT territory and should be deleted?
Therefore, I think that the only possible close to this discussion is "no consensus".
Cunard (talk) 22:35, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion Perhaps an acceptable article can be written, but this would need such a radical rewriting that it would be better to start over. I might have closed as nonconsensus on the basis that the previous discussion was a mess, as indeed it was--and my personal preference is to close as nonconsensus in such case to get an uncontaminated discussion,; but the close as delete is equally justifiable, for the reasons originally given. DGG ( talk ) 05:06, 8 September 2015 (UTC) .[reply]
The closure was appropriate in all the circumstances and I endorse it. Stifle (talk) 09:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Pretty much per DGG and Stifle. T. Canens (talk) 04:01, 14 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 September 2015[edit]

List of popes said to have had sex with men – Speedy deletion endorsed. I'm mostly discounting opinions expressing the view that this was an inappropriate G10 (attack page) deletion, because the deleting admin has made clear that this was an error and they meant to delete the page as A10 (recently created article that duplicates an existing topic). Among the remaining opinions we have consensus that this speedy deletion was ok as A10 or for other reasons. – Sandstein 07:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Does not meet criteria for speedy deletion. No hate speech involved. The list specified that these were accusations. There is no way to deal with the topic of same-sex sexual behavior by popes without dealing with accusations. They are central to any discussion of the topic. To say a pope engaged in sex with a man, or men, is not negative, or not intended (by me) that way. The list does more good than harm. deisenbe (talk) 19:42, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. The list was deleted under {{db-attack}}—"G10: Attack page or negative unsourced BLP"— which is clearly inapplicable. The Google cache shows that this was a well-sourced list sourced to encyclopedias and books. None of the people listed in the article are living people. Cunard (talk) 21:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy deletion. Clearly not a WP:BLP, appears to be reasonably sourced, and not obviously hate speech. This may well fail at AfD, but I don't see how WP:G10 applies. Tempundeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (or overturn and re-CSD as A10) - G10 may not be on point, but A10 certainly is. Compare the text of this article to List of sexually active popes, from which the text is more or less copy/pasted. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:35, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that WP:A10 might apply, but then again, this might be considered a (poorly executed) case of Wikipedia:Splitting, in which case it wouldn't apply. WP:CSD says, Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases.. While I agree that A10 is plausible, I don't think it goes as far as being a most obvious case, so I recommend this get sent to AfD to get a clear read of community consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think WP:A10 applies either since this is clearly an article split. After the speedy deletion is overturned, any editor who thinks this is not a valid topic should be allowed to list it at AfD. Cunard (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be perfectly honest, I intended to delete this as an A10, and thought I had changed the rationale in the dropbox. The fact that I did not, and that the template tossed it over to G10 (as it had been nominated), seems to have caused a great deal of confusion, for which I apologize. It is obviously not a BLP, and G10 doesn't apply to the content as it stood when nominated. I have no objection to restoration, if consensus leans that way, but I think it's gonna need a new title at a minimum. If restored, I get the impression that an AFD would be forthcoming. But that's why we have a process, and that's why I should have been more careful with the deletion. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 05:42, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, a quick talk page message would have sorted this article out within 10 minutes. "Oh shit, yeah I screwed that up, here - I've restored it." Easy. Something to consider for next time, perhaps. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 05:44, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes this is exactly why we have step 1 of listing a deletion review, which as far as I can tell hasn't happened. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 08:30, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was a terrible article, and had multiple reasons for speedy deletion. G10 certainly is not explicitly restricted to living people, as Wikipedia:Attack page makes clear. (Indeed, Template:Db-attackorg is one of the suggested redirects.) St Anselm (talk) 01:52, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Bad G10 call. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be deleted, but no, it didn't meet the precise wording of CSD#G10. It is sourceable (badly, sourceable accounts of biased hearsay) and related directly to List of sexually active popes. These decisions should be made by the community, not by offended administrators. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, textbook CSD:G10. Stifle (talk) 10:14, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't give a rat's flaming tookus what acronym you pick from WP:SD, pick the closest fit and toss this ridiculous BS into the furnace. Any editor who thinks "List of <important figures> rumored to be <something they find offensive>" has a place here is working in the wrong project. Tarc (talk) 21:01, 7 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Well discussed historical topic, for which there are abundant sources. The ones listed are primarily in English, but a great number could be found in other languagesalso. G10 does not apply--who or what is being abused--a group of long-deceased historical characters? Using G10 in that circumstances in nonsense. I can only characterize the 2 arguments just above by Stifle and Tarc just above as IDONTLIKEIT. DGG ( talk ) 05:11, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just as you "don't like" Sexuality in Star Trek, your favorite bugaboo of an article, DGG? Tarc (talk) 12:25, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You must mean some other article; I didn't participate in either of the two AfDs on that one. Surely you remember I've supported most " Whatever in some fictional work" articles. DGG ( talk ) 18:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse this clearly isn't a G10 but is justifiable under A10 as all the content is taken from List of sexually active popes. Splits are exempt from A10, but this wasn't a split - no content was removed from the source article and the creator obviously intended the two articles to stand side by side.[17] Applying common sense the source article isn't long enough to make a split necessary and even if it was this isn't the most obvious subcategory to choose. Hut 8.5 06:13, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse it was an unnecessary WP:CONTENTFORK and confusing G10 for A10 is a minor mistake, nothing can possibly gained by flooding AfD (we have more than 130 posts per day, lately) or by undoing this SD and then doing a different SD, Wikipedia is not a WP:BUREAUCRACY. Kraxler (talk) 16:00, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid A10, and a hearty trouting for User:Deisenbe for not raising this with the deleting admin which could have avoided opening this pointless discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:48, 9 September 2015 (UTC).[reply]

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

4 September 2015[edit]

3 September 2015[edit]

Category:1 BC deaths – No consensus. Deletion review is a forum for reviewing errors in deletion process, but the discussion is almost entirely about the same issues already discussed in the CfD, i.e., how to apply our categorization policies to this case. Perhaps unsurprisingly, as expressed by RoySmith, this review produces no consensus either about that nor, which is what matters here, about the procedural correctness of the "merge" outcome. That outcome is therefore maintained by default. I recommend that any further discussions are had in the appropriate specialized fora, such as via an RfC. – Sandstein 07:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Closer's recommendation taken up at Wikipedia talk:Categorization of people/Archive 10#RfC: BC births and deaths categorization scheme --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

An initial discussion took place at the administrator's noticeboard. There are two issues at stake: there is a conflict between consensus in a discussion (in favour of a double upmerge of categories) and a guideline (that mostly prohibits upmerging biographies to non-biographical categories). The conflict is entirely unintended, as far I'm concerned, as nominator for the merge proposal. There is also a practical issue, the implementation of the merge has been stopped halfway: the merging has already taken place but the emptied categories still exist. Basically there is a stalemate situation now that can probably only be resolved by a DRV. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal, I'm willing to remove the biographies from the year categories manually, if consensus would agree on this, in order to have the nomination go ahead according to its intentions while keeping within the guideline. It would take quite some time to do this manually, obviously. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see a problem with the discussion or the close, or a discussion between yourself and the closer. From a DRV perspective, I'm seeing an Endorse (go back and sort out the details with the closer). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/Overturn - I don't think this is really an issue for deletion review, and disagree with the people who said to bring it here. Deletion review is generally used for when the close doesn't reflect the consensus or when there are other procedural problems with the close. In this case, I think the close does reflect the consensus, but the consensus was made in ignorance of the relevant guidelines. However, I also don't think we should just keep punting this discussion to other locations, so now that it is here, I think we should discuss it here. As such, I'll give my opinion. I think the close should be overturned in its entirety. The reason given in the CFD discussion for making this change was WP:SMALLCAT, but that section says it doesn't apply when "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme". These categories seem to clearly be part of a large and well accepted sub-categorization scheme, as spelled out in the guideline Wikipedia:People by year. Therefore WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply to these categories, and there wasn't a valid reason for changing them. While it seems reasonable to me to group the years with few birth/deaths into decade categories, it doesn't seem necessary. I think the right place to discuss such a change would be WT:People by year, as such a change should be reflected in the guideline page. If the guideline gets updated to support grouping some years together into decades, then it would be reasonable to have CDF discussions on categories that look like they should be grouped together. However, I don't think a CFD discussion should be effectively changing a guideline without first discussing the guideline itself. As has been pointed out, the additional upmerge into the year categories that weren't for people also went against the guidelines, and I certainly think that part should be overturned (as even the person who proposed the merge seems to be suggesting that part should be undone). So basically, I think all the changes that were made as a result of these CFDs should be undone in light of the guidelines contradicting them. Calathan (talk) 17:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- There have been multiple nominations for early history where the consensus seems to be that WP:SMALLCAT every year subcategorization scheme applies less with ancient dates. That approach may or may not be appropriate but this nomination does fit within that context. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Complete Half of Dual Upmerge Per Marcocapelle offer to manually remove the biography articles from the year category and leave them in Category:0s BC deaths. The intent of the nomination can be completed and still comply with policy. That seems like a reasonable balcneRevelationDirect (talk) 03:03, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, the outcome was not conforming to Wikipedia:Categorization of people. Participants in the CfD and its implementation merely argued "it was not their task to see that incompatibility". OK, good, you're all exonerated from doing something that shouldn't have happened. That however does not solve the problem that the categorization as implemented is incompatible with Wikipedia:Categorization of people. As has been shown, that situation can't be remedied really without overturning the inititial decision, and returning to the situation ante. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For clarity: my overturn rationale is based in "Deletion Review may be used: ... 3.if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" from Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Challenging a deletion. The "significant new information" that "has come to light" being the incompatibility with Wikipedia:Categorization of people. All participants in the CfD and its implementation that have commented thus far confirmed that they were unaware of that information at the time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Give me back the single year categories. I have published this comment in different places before. Hopefully this is finally the right one: Unfortunately I've seen this too late, when you started merging, but it affects a lot of pages I use. I had already written a comment in August, but probably in the wrong place. In my daily research Wikipedia Categories are one of the instruments I use most and I have to say that I really do not appreciate the changes decided on this one. The new config makes it much more complicated to find specific persons. Previously it was easy to find a person who died for instance in 333 BC and if my search was for someone who died in the 330s I had to click only a maximum of ten pages. But now, to understand who died in a specific year, I have to click many dozens of pages. This makes my work much more difficult. Actually, it is my impression that people discuss and decide these changes who have rarely used the instrument at all. I would therefore prefer a return to the previous situation. And if that is not possible, I'd invite everyone to reflect and and try to understand the function of a useful instrument before you "simplify" it to something much less useful. Unfortunately I have noticed this not only here, but even in other places, where guidelines were forced to "simplify" or "unify" things and the result was the exact opposite. Most features on Wikipedia were introduced for a reason, and the fact that someone doesn't get it on the fly should not be enough for abolishing them. --Lamassus (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 01:23, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 10:00, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 10:29, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I understand your concern. Categories are meant to find related articles easily. With the single year categories it was very difficult to find related articles because many categories consisted of only 1 of 2 articles so you had to go to the decade parent, then go to another year etc. Categorization by decade facilitates finding related articles a lot. I think for your purpose listification would be much more suitable than categorization. And these lists already exist, see e.g. 333 BC. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:21, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – for clarity, this DRV applies to both lists of categories, as well those at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 25#1st to 5th century BC births as those at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 May 30#1st to 6th century BC deaths – or was I missing something here? --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, both should be covered by this discussion. – Fayenatic London 11:44, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong forum. I'\ve made a couple of attempts to close this, but I keep coming back to the conclusion that it never should have come here, nor to Admin Noticeboard before that. How categories work, and the policies behind that, is a bit of a specialized area. The right people to be figuring out how best to proceed are the folks to work in that area every day. Appealing to AN or DRV doesn't help because most of the people who hang out in those places are not experts in the area. So, I recommend closing this as NC. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Pardon, I'm an expert in the area, and not the only one in this discussion. I suggest to ignore the previous comment apart from recognizing it is a "bit of a specialized area", and that goes for those specializing in ancient history too. I don't know but I may be the one with the highest combined expertise in categorization of people and ancient history in this discussion, so let's stop commenting on people participating in the discussion and where it is. This is the forum for a DRV, let's do it then without commenting on who's here and who isn't. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:25, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As this might end up as 'No consensus' anyway - which would be in nobody's interest, I presume - it might be worthwhile to also discuss the benefits of the proposal I made at the start of the discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the suggestion, but imho that proposal is half a solution creating more problems than it solves. But you agree the current situation is unsatisfactory ("stalemate" in your words). No "wrong" is done by retracing our steps and start from there with a better proposal, that might have a better consensus. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why this change is no progress: For my kind of research it is exactly the opposite. I'm a writer of novels with exact historic reference. When I come to a specific year, I start looking for potential victims of murder and similar situations. To this purpose the yearly categories were perfect. Currently I'm writing on the year 226 BC. Previously to the changes I had a very simple overview over the people dying that year, but now the category 220s BC deaths has over 40 entries and I have to read each article to understand who died in 226 BC. Please consider that many ancient bios haven't yet been categorized. One more example: In one of my novels (yet unpublished) I killed the philosopher Dio of Alexandria. I didn't know about him previously and I don't remember how I came upon him, though it wasn't the wiki category, because his year of death (57 BC) isn't given in the English article. But if he was categorized it would have been very easy to find him. However now the new category 50s BC deaths has already 44 entries and if it was only half complete there would probably be hundreds. That means the more it gets complete the more it gets useless for my kind of research. And I think that my kind of research is exactly what the categories are made for. One last consideration: All these specific references like year of death or place of birth and similar have been included by the hands of Wikipedia editors who have done a lot of research to be as precise as possible. It is quite easy to undo with a single bot what was done by thousands of hands, but I don't think it is very fair. It would be more productive to help and categorize more bios regarding the year of death instead.--Lamassus (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2015 (UTC)--Lamassus (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

International Space Elevator Consortium – Undone theNAC. To me it looks like apossible merge but needs a bit more clarity on the sourcing. hence relisted. – Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:53, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Per WP:NACD, this should be closed by an admin because it is a close call. The decision hinges on the question whether any of the sources provide non-trivial coverage per WP:ORGDEPTH. There were good arguments on both sides. The closer, @Samtar, gave no indication that they even considered this question. I have spoken with the closer and was encouraged to send this to review. RockMagnetist(talk) 16:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

overturn not an obvious/uncontentious keep, so not an appropriate non-admin closure.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 16:40, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I'm not sure how I would have closed this, but I can tell you that a non-admin close on this one is entirely inappropriate. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 19:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relist NAC closure of this one is inappropriate. --Randykitty (talk) 19:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I suppose this doesn't meet the strict letter of WP:NAC, but really, there's no way this was going to get closed as delete, which is all that really matters. Some might find it useful to argue the fine distinction between NC and Keep, but I'm not one of them. And if the choice was whether to merge or not, that's a decision which doesn't require an admin to descend from the heavens and wave their magic mop. So, I guess that adds up to endorse -- RoySmith (talk)
I see an obvious keep, but as a rule, NAC closes should be self-reverted on the basis of any protest. I expect that an admin will then re-close more or less the same way. Alternatively, an admin may add their signature to the close. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:44, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Although not an appropriate NAC closure, the discussion did not have a delete outcome and an admin wasn't necessarily needed to close 'em. The !vote seems to dwindle between merge and keep. So, an admin review would be appropriate here. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 04:06, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Poetry in the early 21st century – G12 speedy deletion endorsed. Consensus is that this speedy deletion criterion also applies to copyright violations committed by failing to properly attribute content taken from other articles. – Sandstein 16:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Reporting WP:HOAX by disruptive IP-hopping editor following report by EdJohnston and other admin regarding the disruptive editor for IP-hopping and trolling

Recently some articles at Wikipedia went through rapid RfD deletion following false reports from IP-hopping editor(s) who have since been blocked and identified for repeat trolling and vandalism. Originally, admin had given the then new IP-hopping editor false reports credence following good faith assumption for new IP-editors. The false compyright complaints were then actioned by other Admins for rapid RfD and deleted. Following these article deletions, the IP-Hopping editor appears to have felt empowered to then initiate a trolling campaign on another page for Birdman (film), where the IP-editor was blocked and the Talk page there is now page protected. The IP-hopping editor is now blocked and the false report concerning copyright violations of material outside Wikipedia is now discredited. There are no copyright violations in the article deleted for "Poetry in the early 21st century" which is in agreement with all policies stated in WP:CWW and which is rated as an article of "High Importance" by WikiProjects.

The false copyright reports from the now blocked IP-hopping editor should now be corrected and the page for "Poetry in the early 21st century" should be restored along with its sibling articles. Now that the disruptive IP-editor has been identified by separate administrators, then there is no reason to support their past false reports and the article for "Poetry in the early 21st century" should be restored. MusicAngels (talk) 14:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Material copied by User:MusicAngels from User talk:EdJohnston. Click to view. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you provide links? This is a large problem and it's hard to sort out. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does take a few links to do this. This is the main link where the IP-hopping editors were finally fully identified for disruption by admin: [18]. The RfD deleted pages due to the false reports from the IP-hopping editor were at Poetry in the early 21st century, Poetry in the early 20th century, and Poetry in the early 19th century which should come up as redlinks following their being deleted although you should have access to them from your account. I am doing this extra effort since the "Poetry in the early 21st century" article was rated as "High importance" and the sibling pages are already reviewed by WikiProjects and WikiPatrol as useful to readers and editors. If you need more links for this large problem (the IP-hopping editor has gotten away with it for several weeks), then I did keep track of even more of the links if you need them and just let me know and I'll provide whatever I have available. Let me know what you need and I'll try to get it to you for trying to complete the repair. MusicAngels (talk) 15:46, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The three 'Poetry' redlinks were deleted by User:Nyttend as G12 copyright violations. The articles were previously discussed at ANI (permalink). You could post at User talk:Nyttend and ask him to reconsider his deletion. If you can't reach agreement with him, you can raise the matter at WP:Deletion review. People may be reluctant to bring back a copyright mess. Sorting it out properly would require an investment of time which someone would need to devote. When umbrella articles are created on Wikipedia it is common to use WP:Summary style. This leads to creation of main articles and sub-articles. Wholesale copying is not one of our usual methods for creating umbrella articles, since shared material can get out of sync. I think you would have an uphill battle to have these articles created in the way you prefer. EdJohnston (talk) 23:50, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As the WP:TNT essay notes, deletion of a page on copyright grounds is basically a situation of "blow it up and start over". Unlike deletion for most other common reasons, a copyright-related deletion makes no statement about whether the topic itself is suitable for an article, or whether it's a good idea, or anything else. Anyone is free to recreate new pages on these topics, but one may not use copyrighted text of any sort without complying with the text's license(s). Nyttend (talk) 01:37, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, I was preparing to re-write some sections of WP:Copyvio and WP:CWW concerning emphasis being placed on copying outside of Wikipedia on the one hand, and on the other hand copying within Wikipedia. My examination of the various Noticeboards was that many editors and administrators were using the term "copyvio" interchangably to apply to both. I read the following text in WP:Copyvio: Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. This seems to suggest that there is an exclusion for re-using old Wikipedia material in new Wikipedia articles from the use of the "copyright" phrase at it is largely applied at Wikipedia. My question is, is "copyvio" being used as a term-of-art at Wikipiedia to describe the re-use or forking of old Wikipedia articles into new Wikipedia articles, or is this a misapplication of the legal code understanding of the phrase which recurs in the day-to-day usage of the term among many Wikipedia editors and administrators? (I am asking this about the Wikipedia side of things and not the legal code side of this question.) Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MusicAngels, but I've been busy off-wiki. I don't think that re-using parts of old articles into new ones is at all a copyvio. However, it's good practice to use the edit summary to say what one is doing. For example, write "copying some text from Leprosy to Leviticus". Bearian (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (Reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks to User:Bearian for this, which now makes the other discussion above make more sense to me about unraveling what the WP:HOAX by the IP-hopping editor has caused following his false report of copyright violations. My understanding is that before we found out about the IP-hopping editor Hoax, that User:Nyttend took a "better safe than sorry" approach and when the articles were deleted User:Nyttend then automatically marked them as G12 based only on the false report of the IP-hopping editor which was credited then but is fully discredited now as a WP:Hoax [19]. There was never one single sentence of the article which was quoted as causing a G12 problem, not a single one, and it was only the false claim from the IP-hopping editor (before he was discovered) which was believed prior to discovering the WP:Hoax only after the event. Since I am a meticulous author and editor who abhors any type of copyright violation, the personal insults made by the identified IP-hopping editor should no longer be perpetuated. Following the comment from User:Bearian above, an authority in this field, the articles should be restored as having no violations. They are not dudds to be TNT'd, and "Poetry in the 21st century" has been rated as being of "High Importance" to Wikipedia readers and editors by WikiProjects and WikiPatrol editors, and are worth restoring. The WP:Hoax of the discredited IP-hopping editor against 6 administrators should not prevail. My assurance to all 6 administrators that I have followed Wikipedia policies for WP:CWW fully and I am acknowledging fully the assistance from User:Bearian in offering his clarifications that there are no copyright issues "at all". MusicAngels (talk) 15:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC) MusicAngels (talk) 15:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I've put some material that MusicAngels copied from my user talk in a collapse box above. It is uncommon to see material being copied wholesale from talk pages, without getting permission first. (Ironic because of what we are discussing here). Since the decision to delete Poetry in the early 21st century was taken by User:Nyttend, I hope he will comment here. EdJohnston (talk) 16:05, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't rightly see the problem here. MusicAngels seems to be arguing two things. a. there was no copyvio; b. the copyvio report was a hoax and half a dozen admins fell for it. Well, I'll be glad to cite the very first paragraph of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia:
Wikipedia's licensing requires that attribution be given to all users involved in creating and altering the content of a page. Wikipedia's page history functionality lists all edits made and its users. It cannot, however, in itself determine where text originally came from. Because of this, copying content from another page within Wikipedia requires supplementary attribution to indicate it. At minimum, this means a link to the source page in an edit summary at the destination page—that is, the page into which the material is copied. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. Content reusers should also consider leaving notes at the talk pages of both source and destination.
No such notes were made, of course. I just looked at Poetry in the early 21st century, where the biographies of A. R. Ammons, Gwendolyn Brooks, and Octavio Paz were copied into, without a note of proper attribution, in an edit summary or on the talk page. So that's quite clear--unless, of course, MusicAngels wishes to argue that all that text and all its coding was copied from another site which had copied it from Wikipedia but somehow MusicAngels didn't realize this. I don't think they would want to argue this.
Now, this and other articles were deleted because it was deemed impossible to sort through the mess and figure out what text came from where, and that's why these were deleted--besides other qualities deemed unsuitable, I suppose. In other words, once the copyvio is established, the IP editor is no longer perpetrating a hoax the six admins of the Apocalypse fell for. (That the IP editor is in other respects a complete jerk is beside the point.) Drmies (talk) 16:17, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Yes, that quote given by User:Drmies from WP:CWW also gives the criteria for the authorised reuse of old Wikipedia material which was done by links to the source pages being included in the Lede section and in the article by: "this means a link to the source page." I have also felt that further supplementary links and dummy edits could be made to further show this reuse, though the links were already there as indicated by WP:CWW. There is no copyright violation here, as User:Bearian has aptly stated it in the above text, the old articles belong fully to Wikipedia and the new articles belong fully to Wikipedia. There is no copyright issue "at all" as stated by User:Bearian and WP:CWW confirms this. The opening paragraph in WP:Copyvio also excludes the application of procedures for copyvio even for materials found outside of Wikipedia if they originated from Wikipedia and are owned by Wikipedia in the first place (for example, from KnowledgeGraphs or other sources which copy material from Wikipedia.) The Wikipedia article being discussed here has no copyright issues at all to my knowledge (it fully belongs to Wikipedia in the same way that the old Wikipedia articles fully belong to Wikipedia) and the article should be restored. MusicAngels (talk) 16:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's not about "belonging". You seem to be arguing (again, "seem to be" because I think you do not sufficiently grasp the terminology) that because you wikilinked those articles you have somehow given attribution. You haven't. What you should have done, and this is quite clearly spelled out in the policy which you don't seem to want to read, is state explicitly what content comes from which article. That's the rule. That's how we do it. I echo Nyttend, who says, below, that apparently you just don't get it. Let me reiterate: there is nothing in any of the edit summaries or on the talk page that indicates material was borrowed from elsewhere, and (as was discussed in the ANI thread) there was so much material lifted from so many articles that giving proper attribution after the fact, which can be done in simple cases, simply wasn't possible here. That is all: you misunderstand our policy, and you are under the mistaken impression that you adhered to it anyway. Drmies (talk) 03:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion - MusicAngels' claim that the copyright concerns were invalid doesn't hold water. If we were 100% satisfied that the copyright problems were solved, we would then have the option of another level of review, that is, whether this article is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia. (That's an AfD level issue). But we aren't there yet, and it doesn't appear that MusicAngels will be at all cooperative in addressing the copyright issue. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - First of all, the old articles do not belong to Wikipedia, nor do the new articles. Wikipedia owns no articles. They host material that is owned by hundreds of thousands of editors like myself. This is why copyright infringement against Wikipedia editors is not treated differently than copyright infringement elsewhere. It is the same. Anyone who tells you that you can copy/paste from within Wikipedia is wrong, the policy (and US law, where the servers are hosted) say otherwise. If this had been a few instances of copyright infringement OR this had been an extraordinary article, we would still enforce the rights of the original editors and insist on proper attribution, but we might think it is worth the time to fix. In the case, there seems to be a great deal of infringement, plus the article is riddled with other problems and is not extraordinary by Wikipedia standards. Deletion was and is the only logical solution. I can believe you didn't mean to, and no one has asked for sanctions that I'm aware of, but you need to learn our copyright policy better. As for "hoax", I don't know or care, I just know it can't be undeleted because of the copyright issues. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:28, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Option A: Regarding ownership of copyright of Wikipedia articles the WP:Copyright page states that it is in the collective possession of Wikipedia's editors and contributors. This is what is published under WP:Ownership stating that no individual author has the right to act or have expectations associated with them "as though they are the owner of a particular page":

No one, no matter how skilled, or of how high standing in the community, has the right to act as though they are the owner of a particular page. Also, a person or an organisation which is the subject of an article does not own the article, and has no right to dictate what the article may say.

Some contributors feel possessive about material they have contributed to Wikipedia. A few editors will even defend such material against others. It is quite reasonable to take an interest in an article on a topic you care about − perhaps you are an expert, or perhaps it is just your hobby; however, if this watchfulness starts to become possessiveness, then you are overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

I have already stated that I am all for further attribution of the articles being used and have previously offered to add templates for "Main" or "Further" to give further attribution. Nonetheless, even though I have followed the current instructions for WP:CWW attribution by linking to the articles adapted into the article, there may by a better solution. Since I was never fully pleased with the quality of the short biography adaptations which WP:CWW encouraged me to adapt, I can offer to rewrite them one-by-one into better quality material (it is a "C"-class article now as rated by WikiProjects after I did the Start article, and I had wanted in the future to refine it into a "B"-class article as part of its eventual improvements.) If the article can be restored as a "Draft" article then (since I know where all the linked and adapted passages are) I can delete them from within the "Draft" and include a temporary note to the edit community like "This subsection should include a 150-200 word summary of Poet XYZ". I would do this throughout the article and it would give the larger edit community a chance to collectively contribute to a better version of the article, possibly a "B"-class version. If I need to do this myself, it will take me about a month since there are 14-15 poets per article in its draft form. With assistance from others at WikiProjects it might possibly take less time. I offer this since I only wrote the article as a Start article because it was not previously available on Wikipedia, and the article was quickly rated as of "High Importance". The outline and supportive text is still entirely original and fully usable, and I know that it is unlikely that someone else will be found to entirely rewrite the full article from scratch. No-one had previously done it or even tried to do it in the last fifteen (15) years of Wikipedia. Is it a worthwhile option. MusicAngels (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. [Note that I'm the deleting admin]. Of course, if this were all a lie by the IP in question, it would be different, but a quick search for random text from Poetry in the early 20th century demonstrated that claims of copying from other articles without attribution are definitely accurate. For example, MusicAngels had copied the entire "Poetry" section of the Arthur Rimbaud article into the early 20th century article, even including the picture of the poem on the wall. MusicAngels copied material from other articles without attribution. As I noted in my statement at his talk page, this is an infringement of other authors' copyright, and by ignoring the text license's mandatory attribution clause, the license for the text in question was no longer valid for MusicAngels: to quote the license itself, This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. MusicAngels violated applicable law and now wants us to restore the content? This deletion review request demonstrates that he doesn't understand what he did wrong. Nyttend (talk) 20:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Recently, I was preparing to re-write some sections of WP:Copyvio and WP:CWW concerning emphasis being placed on copying outside of Wikipedia on the one hand, and on the other hand copying within Wikipedia. My examination of the various Noticeboards was that many editors and administrators were using the term "copyvio" interchangably to apply to both. I read the following text in WP:Copyvio: Some cases will be false alarms. For example, text that can be found elsewhere on the Web that was in fact copied from Wikipedia in the first place is not a copyright violation – at least not on Wikipedia's part. In these cases, it is a good idea to make a note of the situation on the discussion page. This seems to suggest that there is an exclusion for re-using old Wikipedia material in new Wikipedia articles from the use of the "copyright" phrase at it is largely applied at Wikipedia. My question is, is "copyvio" being used as a term-of-art at Wikipiedia to describe the re-use or forking of old Wikipedia articles into new Wikipedia articles, or is this a misapplication of the legal code understanding of the phrase which recurs in the day-to-day usage of the term among many Wikipedia editors and administrators? (I am asking this about the Wikipedia side of things and not the legal code side of this question.) Cheers. MusicAngels (talk) 20:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks MusicAngels, but I've been busy off-wiki. I don't think that re-using parts of old articles into new ones is at all a copyvio. Bearian (talk) 01:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) (reposted by MusicAngels (talk) 14:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC))[reply]

In this case, you did not add the next sentences from Bearian: "However, it's good practice to use the edit summary to say what one is doing. For example, write "copying some text from Leprosy to Leviticus". Which you didn't follow. So can we put this to rest now? Drmies (talk) 17:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My support was fully in agreement with him on this, regarding my support for adding further supplementary "edit summary to say what one is doing." My Talk page shows that an extensive template was all but prepared and ready to be transposed into the article when the article suddenly disappeared. Even though CWW in its current form does not currently require the supplementary summary at this moment, I was ready to supplement it anyway to allow for even more attribution than the required links to the source article as currently indicated in WP:CWW as the requirement, and all of which were included as links in the Lede. MusicAngels (talk) 18:29, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse - I was glad to see the article removed. I saw no reason for a large article to exist which left out many influential minor poets. Any visitor to the page (this one or similar pages I see were also deleted -- I think it was Poetry in the early 20th century) would not know about minor poets such as H. Cordelia Ray or Albery Allson Whitman, even though these poets were influential at the time. Any article of such a combined nature would tend to limit and the blessedness of wikipedia is that there are no space limits. JRW03 (talk) 02:54, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
comment on copyvio. Copyright on a wikipedia page belongs of course to the individual editors, not to Wikipedia. Nonetheless the original editors have no further control of what they post on Wikipedia, for they have given Wikipedia--and anyone who may choose to copy it from Wikipedia-- an irrevocable license to copy or make use of it in any manner provided they are given attribution. Our rule therefore say that any other person may modify or remove or copy whatever it is they have posted on Wikipedia, without permission, and this includes moving it to another WP page, or copying it onto another WP page. All that is necessary is to maintain attribution. Our practice and our interpretation is that a link to the relevant WP page is sufficient attribution, though it is very much preferable to do it as a permalink to a specific version of the page,and that this can be done in the edit summary (Even if the page has been removed from view, the chain still exists,including the edit summary, and can be recovered, because almost never is any material deleted from the database.) How specific this needs to be is a matter of common sense. In some cases our practice has gone below the level of common sense,and we need to be much more specific than we sometimes do. Equally, sometimes the requirements asked for go beyond common sense--if it is obvious exactly where the material can be found, this is usually sufficient regardless offormal statements. I am not now commenting on how this applies to the present situation, which I have not yet been able to decipher. DGG ( talk ) 06:37, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Conditional overturn. First I endorse Nyttend's close. His deletion was absolutely valid and proper and it was indeed a copyright violation. Yes, MusicAngel, the same type of copyright violation as we use that word in other contexts. DGG above has explained this in large part. Let me elaborate a bit because your statements above, your questioning of "the term "copyvio" [being used] interchangably [sic] to apply to both" (and your conflation of WP:OWN with copyright; total apples and oranges), is off target.
When I write an article (or other page) or contribute to an existing one – when I am the author of it or some of its creative expression – I personally own the copyright to that material. Yes, me, personally, full stop. When others contribute to that same article (and their contributions are sufficiently creative to be copyrighted), they personally own the portions they contribute. However, the material I contribute, though it really is copyrighted with all that that implies (the ability to sue, for example, if my copyright is violated) has been agreed by me to be, and is automatically co-licensed under two free copyright licenses, the sum and substance of which is that the only necessity to use my material, without infringing on my copyright, is that I be given attribution when that creative expression, that I own, is used by others.
Moreover, by contributing, I have agreed not only that my contributions will be co-licensed as I've stated, but that the attribution requirement can be fulfilled in other on-site uses by the easily-met attribution requirement of providing in an attribution statement a link to the article (or other page) where the page history containing my contributions can be accessed—that doing so fulfills the CC-By-SA 3.0 Unported License's requirement of giving me credit in a "reasonable manner" (under its section 4(c)), and under the GFDL.
Anyway, what this means in turn is that it is rather easy to fix a copying-within-Wikipedia attribution problem—that is, if the source of the copying – what parts came from where – is straightforward. This can be done relatively easily through dummy edits, which can be bolstered by using a template like {{Copied}} on the talk page. The problem here is that it is not at all straightforward to know which parts came from where since there appears to have been an integrated intermingling.
So this takes us back to my "conditional overturn". If you agree you have the ability and will provide to me a comprehensive and detailed list of where every line that comes from another article came from (listed by each revision in the page history, e.g., "In this diff I took the first sentence from X, and the rest of the paragraph from Y, and the next paragraph from Z; and in this diff, I took...), and will do so upon a conditional overturn within a short time period, I am offering to undertake providing the attribution fixes. P.S. as a matter of disclosure, MusicAngels contacted me on my talk page and asked me if I might come here (apparently because I have made a number of recent edits to the WP:CWW guideline).--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Agree: @Fuhghettaboutit: Following WP:CWW, these are the biography articles which WP:CWW states needed to be linked to the source articles as the requirement for WP:CWW which was done in the Lead section of the articles which were deleted. The links were provided in the Lead section of the article itself as they were also included in its two sibling articles as well. My understanding in providing these lists is that User:Fuhghettaboutit is able to restore the articles under the condition that he retain the right to further supplement the minimum requirement of WP:CWW for linking the source articles with any further supplemenary notations and notices he feels are warranted by the discussions on this Drv. The links for "Poetry in the early 21st century" include the following biographies as listed and linked in the Lead section of that article:

Octavio Paz, Derek Walcott, Gwedolyn Brooks, James Dickey, W. S. Merwin, Anne Carson, Henri Cole, Rosanna Warren, John Ashberry, Seamus Heaney, Geoffrey Hill, Mark Strand, and Wright (these names are listed from my memory as the pages were deleted and the names identified and already linked in that article "Poetry in the early 21st century" should be taken as the full version of this list.)

The further list of links for the two (2) sibling articles "Poetry in the early 20th century" and "Poetry in the early 19th century" may also be found as fully linked in the Lead section of those two respective sibling articles as required by WP:CWW. If requested, I shall provide the full list for the biography pages used in the sibling articles as well whenever they are requested. (p.s. Full disclosure. I contacted User:Fughettaboutit for comment here as he appeared to be the resident expert on matters concerning the WP:CWW page guidelines.)-- MusicAngels (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

MusicAngels: That's a start but not what I need and asked for (see where I wrote about the need for diffs, with you stating exactly what parts of the content were taken from where). I know you can't provide that now because you can't access the diffs while it's deleted, but I would need you to state that you understand what I will need and that you will provide it, were it deleted. More specifically, proper attribution would not be provided by dummy edits stating "some content came from link". It would be multiple dummy edits, with edit summaries in a form like "Copyright attribution note: the revision as of 16:46, April 18, 2015 included content from the existing article on Octavio Paz, from this revision: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Octavio_Paz&oldid=664470227; see its history for attribution." In short, there's no guarantee that the closing admin will conditionally undelete this, but I think it's more likely if you affirmatively state (possibly in response to this post?) that you understand this, agree you will provide this in the labor-intensive, detailed form I've described – and will do so promptly upon undeletion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Sultan ul Faqr Publications – Deletion endorsed. – Sandstein 15:52, 10 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

AfD discussed with the closing admin already.

The initial concern was notability but a number of independent sources exist:

Available sources Google Books [20] Google Scholar [21] The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.s

Sultan ul Faqr Publications is a notable publication house in Pakistan. Sultan ul Faqr Publications does not advertise itself as it is non-commercial. It is dependent upon funds and contributions which is which is why it should not be expected that it would have media news. The publication runs mainly on its online readership system where e-books can be downloaded for free. Hence, if significant coverage in independent sources cannot be found for a topic, deletion due to lack of notability is inappropriate. As the publication is included in the List of Urdu language book publishing companies, its notability criteria should be judged by comparing the other companies enlisted in the same article:

[29] –No third-party sources
[30] –No third-party sources
[31] -2 possible third-party sources
[32] –No third-party sources

The active participants in the AfD do not belong to Pakistan and have no idea about publication houses in Pakistan but the article belongs to the Portal:Pakistan and the editors unfortunately are ill-informed about the notability of this publication and publication houses in Pakistan.

Also, the article is a stub and of course requires improvement but this does not qualify the article to get deleted. Various other publication pages exist as stubs and the far less content and certainly less or no sources. It is a biased decision to even tag this article as deleted. The article was created on the 8th July 2015 and like most articles in general require time for improvement by editors so does this article. Kindly, restore the article. Markangle11 (talk) 03:06, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Have anything to add that isn't covered by WP:DRVPURPOSE #1, 3, and 5? —Cryptic 05:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. This same list of sources was refuted by user @Jeraphine Gryphon: in the AfD. Deletion review is not for plugging away again with the same arguments, this isn't a second chance for you to argue the case, but rather to review the actions of the closing admin for possible errors or missteps. The closing admin found a consensus to delete based on the arguments presented. Tarc (talk) 16:01, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. That someone would say, with a straight face, that this bit of user-submitted content actually provides "significant coverage" is utterly ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 16:20, 3 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to address errors or issues in the deletion process. It is not an appeal forum or somewhere to get a second hearing of the same arguments. Stifle (talk) 15:16, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 September 2015[edit]

Paul Manners – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:42, 9 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Paul Manners is a notable person whom is recognised from Britain's Got Talent 2015. the many sources used in the references are from well-known newspapers and articles. I can confirm that I was not paid in any way to create the article and I am actually a fan, writing from a neutral perspective. His page has simply been caught in the crossfire along with this scamming thing which is ridiculous; as these people are now spoiling it for the up and coming celebrities whom have many fans, such as over 190k followers on twitter and even a VERIFIED Facebook page: being a notable and public figure. There were over 14 references put into the article and Paul's name is now cropping up in the daily express and Independent (including his picture!). The sources were carefully considered and there has been no exact reason for the article to be deleted in detail. The page had met all notability requirements and his photograph even remains on your system. He is currently being approached by a BBC Radio station and journalists. Please kindly reconsider and undelete the page, or allow recreation from this misunderstanding. Claire Morgan 13:31, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Endorse - Seems to be some nasty business surrounding this article, stories of blackmail and yet another paid editing scandal. I'd recommend denying any attempts by "new" editors to create anything listed at Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Orangemoody/Articles. Tarc (talk) 13:51, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse own deletion. Even apart from the OM affair, I have serious doubts about the notability of Mr. Manners. For someone whose principal claim to notability is an appearance on Britain's Got Talent (series 9), he's not even mentioned on that page. Also, the deleted version of the article contains a whopping 11(!) references for the sentence "He performed at Peter Andre's brother's wedding in Cyprus in 2014". T. Canens (talk) 20:13, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
endorse for several reasons. First, if an article is primarily promotional and can be fixed by normal editing, this is an equally good reason for deletion. it is obvious to me that the content on this article qualified as such. Second, if an article is entered in violation of our terms of use, it also can and should be deleted. It seems obvious to be from the editing record that the contributor is likely to be in violation of the terms of use. Even if not, it has clearly been written by someone with a conflict of interest. If it is a nonfinancial conflict of interest it does not violate the preset terms of use, but it does violate our COI policy. I have no idea if the subject is notable--I personally do not think people with no more significance than an appearance on Who's got Talent without any additional career is not appropriate for a WP article; Facebook and twitter handle the situation very adequately. But I am not at all sure this is the consensus at afd.

The question has arisen about the re-creation of articles deleted as part of the Orangemoody COI investigation; it isI think agreed that some few articles so deleted are sufficiently notable that another attempt might be justified, but in the situation I would very strongly advise waiting whole.I personally intend to wait at least 6 months before writing articles on the2 or 3 subjects I have in mind. (the rationale for this is to deny recognition). DGG ( talk ) 06:58, 8 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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