Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 February

27 February 2016

Dr. George William Mackay – Speedy deletion overturned, without prejudice to a normal deletion request. –  Sandstein  18:45, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dr. George William Mackay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) I had translated it from zh wikipedia.偕叡廉But it used to be deleated by speedy delete in A7。But it in Zh wikipedia has references! Please put the article back, thanks.--Cjackh (talk) 20:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn speedy deletion. The deleted article noted that he was a Canadian missionary, a son of George Leslie Mackay. The deleted article incorrectly noted in the lead that the subject was born in 1995 but correctly noted in a category that he was born in 1882. Here is a source about the subject: 許俊雅 (2012). 低眉集: 臺灣文學, 翻譯、遊記與書評. Taipei City: 新銳文創. p. 323. ISBN 9866094731. Retrieved 2016-02-28. The book notes in the Google snippet: (Reverend George William Mackay.1882~1963)承父親遺志,自加拿大籌款建造,1914年借牛津學堂校舍成立,1925年著名建築八角 2 這作品雖以真真實實的時代與生活背景為主加以構成,但終究祇是一篇小說作品。......儘管時代、生活、感情無一不真,但情節上 Here are the sources listed in the deleted article: 《淡水學用語辭典》 《續修淡水鎮志》，未刊本，（淡水區公所，2012）。 姚聰榮主編《淡江中學校史》，（臺北：臺北縣私立淡江中學，1997）。 柯設偕《淡水教會史》，（未刊本，1933）。 張建隆《尋找老淡水》，（臺北：臺北縣立文化中心，1996）。 淡水基督教長老教會《滬尾江河—淡水教會設教120週年紀念冊》，（臺北：淡水基督教長老教會，民國81年10月）。 The sources clearly assert notability, so {{db-a7}} does not apply. Cunard (talk) 00:20, 28 February 2016 (UTC) On what basis do you conclude that the sources assert notability? I do not read Chinese, so the best I could do was copy-paste the references into an automated translation tool. Not surprisingly, the results were so poor as to be essentially worthless. Do you read Chinese? Can you tell us what they say, and in what way they assert notability? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC) RoySmith, these books are talked about mackay and his family. And Dr. George William Mackay also be called mackay second. And he living and preaching people like his father. so all at all these books are be notabled, OK?--Cjackh (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I think that the existence of Chinese sources about a missionary born in Taiwan is enough to assert notability to pass the {{db-a7}} bar and require community discussion at AfD to delete the article. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I have no problem with overturning the A7 and bringing this to AfD. WP:CSD is supposed to be for uncontroversial deletions; once there is discussion about whether it was correct, then almost by definition it wasn't uncontroversial. And, AfD is the right place to debate the quality of the sources, not here. I'm just puzzled by the concept that without even being able to understand the language something is written in, one can claim that it clearly assert[s] notability. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I don't think there is anything puzzling about it. It is not necessary to know the sources' content. The sources were published in 1933, 1996, 1997, and 2012, which indicate that the subject has had enduring coverage years after his death in 1963. That the subject has been discussed in Chinese print sources published over the span of decades is a clear assertion of notability in regard to {{db-a7}}. Whether that clear assertion of notability will pan out into actually establishing notability or not would be based on the sources' reliability and depth of coverage of the subject. Cunard (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC) OK, that's a more useful answer to my question than your first answer :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn with no prejudice against immediate listing at AFD. It looks like there's enough here that the community needs to review before deciding whether to delete it. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC). As per Lankiveill. A7 is for when there is no point in discussing. Undelete and, if stil desired, list at AfD for discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Sources exist and indicate notability for this historical figure. Eg http://www.presbyterianarchives.ca/FA5000Mackayfamily.pdf. The A7-ed page was pretty poor and with gross errors, so no shame on the tagger or deleter. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 15:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Here is a nice discussion of the subject in the Presbyterian Church in Canada Archives source SmokeyJoe linked above: The Rev. Dr. George William Mackay was born in 1882 in Taiwan. He received his early education in Hong Kong and at St. Andrew’s College, Toronto. He attended the University of Toronto, and completed graduate studies at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts. In 1911 he was appointed as a missionary educator to Taiwan by The Presbyterian Church in Canada. In the same year, he married Miss Jean Ross, daughter of the Rev. John Ross and Anna Ross of Brucefield, Ontario. They had five children: Anna, Wm. Leslie (who served in the air force during World War II and was killed on March 13, 1942), John Ross, Isabel, and Margaret. Soon after his arrival in Taiwan, George William was elected as an elder in the Presbyterian Church in Tamsui and for many years was an honorary member of the Taipei Presbytery. A leader in educational work, Dr. Mackay was instrumental in founding the first fully accredited private middle school, Tamkang Middle School, and served two terms as principal. A nearby street was later named after him. He also made a notable contribution in the translation and revision of the Amoy Bible, and organized the first course in the Taiwanese language for missionaries in the north of Taiwan. During World War II, the family left Taiwan and returned to Canada. He and Mrs. Mackay were appointed as missionaries to British Guiana, arriving in early 1943. Dr. Mackay served as Principal of the Berbice High School until august 1946. In 1947, they were able to return to Taiwan. In 1948, Knox College, Toronto conferred upon him the degree of Doctor of Divinity. He retired in 1952, but maintained an interest in the educational and religious work in Taiwan, setting up a Bible study centre in Tamsui, as well as several preaching chapels in the area. He pas sed away on July 20, 1963. Cunard (talk) 19:08, 28 February 2016 (UTC) Permit recreation at George William Mackay. The deletion was fine--keep in mind that page as deleted gave a date of birth of 1995, and used present tense when discussing him. I would have pulled the trigger as well as there's nothing in that article to indicate that this person is notable. If someone wants to write a proper article then that's fine. Mackensen (talk) 13:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC) We need to be careful to distinguish between notable subjects and well written articles, particularly when the author is not a native English speaker. As for the present tense issue, my understanding is that Chinese has a very different way of representing tense than English. So, it should not be surprising to find instances of the wrong tense being used in a translation from Chinese. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 29 February 2016 (UTC) Permit re-creation I would be very reluctant to speedy an article with an equivalent in another WP for A7. It would normally at least merit a discussion. DGG ( talk ) 02:17, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 February 2016

Federal Way Public Academy – No Consensus. Headcount is pretty much even, and I don't see any killer arguments or patently invalid arguments on either side. Which means that the original AfD decision to merge, stands. As of this writing, that merge is yet to be performed. – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Federal Way Public Academy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The closing admin wrote, "The article's subject is found to lack the required notability to have a stand-alone article." I do not see such a consensus in the AfD. Secondary schools generally are considered notable. Federal Way Public Academy educates students in grades 6–10. Editors disputed whether educating to grade 10 rather than grade 12 was notable enough. "Merge" editors said the school was not notable because it is is not a diploma-granting high school, while "keep" editors noted that this American school "educates to the school-leaving age in many countries so does count as a secondary school". I provided reliable sources about the school from the Federal Way Mirror, The News Tribune, and The Seattle Times that demonstrate the school passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. "Merge" editors asserted that coverage by papers in the Seattle metropolitan area was insufficient to establish notability because they are local sources. An American high school that teaches up to grade 12 is considered notable because there is a presumption that there are local sources about it. It is not necessary to find non-local sources for diploma-granting high schools to establish notability. The same standard should apply for an American high school that teaches up to grade 10. There was no consensus in the AfD that the local sources were insufficient to establish notability. Just Chilling and I believed local sources were sufficient, while DGG, John from Idegon, and Onel5969 did not. As I noted in the AfD, The Seattle Times is the largest daily newspaper in the state of Washington. Coverage in a regional or statewide source like The Seattle Times strongly establishes that the school is notable. I have not contacted the closing admin prior to taking this here because the closing admin wrote at User talk:Coffee/Editnotice, "If you want to ask me about a deletion I made, take a look at our deletion policy. If you aren't satisfied with my actions or want them changed, feel free to take it to deletion review, and leave a note here saying that you opened a discussion there." Overturn to no consensus. Cunard (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to no consensus per Cunard without prejudice towards opening a merger discussion. No one, not even the nominator supported deletion, so this should not have been brought to AFD. !Votes on keep v. merge were closely or equally divided. There were reasonable policy/guideline supported arguments on both sides (although the underlying notability seems to be solidly demonstrated). A well-framed merger discussion is the best way to approach the matter, rather than one using deletion criteria as the starting point. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:24, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse I do think that the discussion there was leaning towards a merge/redirect rather than a keep. The main arguments for keeping were that it's a secondary school or high school and those are presumed to be notable. I don't actually see any evidence for the claim that secondary schools are presumed to be notable and WP:OUTCOMES contradicts this by saying that middle schools usually aren't notable. High schools are presumed to be notable but as pointed out although the age range of this school overlaps with high schools it isn't itself a high school. Cunard offered some sources, but the other editors who analysed them concluded that they were all local and/or press releases. I can see where both sides are coming from on the question of whether the Seattle Times coverage elevates this beyond local coverage and so I don't think we can treat that as a knockdown argument. I don't see how the fact that this educates beyond the school leaving age in some countries is at all relevant here. Hut 8.5 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC) High schools are presumed to be notable but as pointed out although the age range of this school overlaps with high schools it isn't itself a high school. – there was no consensus in the AfD that "although the age range of this school overlaps with high schools it isn't itself a high school". Some editors in the AfD agreed with your stance that a school with overlapping grades with grades 9–12 high schools are not high schools. But a roughly equal number of editors said that a school with grades that overlap with grades 9–12 high schools should be considered a high school. From High school: A high school (also secondary school, senior school, secondary college) is a school that provides adolescents with part or all of their secondary education. Because of this disagreement, and because Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and Wikipedia:Verifiability are met through the sources I provided, there is no consensus for a merge. Cunard (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Actually no. Only one person argued that the subject is a high school after John from Idegon pointed out that the grades corresponded more closely to middle school. While I'm not too familiar with the American education system that comment does look pretty clearly wrong and wasn't backed up with evidence when challenged. I don't see how your definition is relevant here: it is true that high schools provide people with secondary education, but it certainly doesn't follow that all secondary education institutions are high schools. In the case of organisations we have to interpret the GNG through the conditions at WP:NORG, and verifiability isn't relevant here at all. Hut 8.5 00:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC) The "keep" AfD participants were aware that some of the grades corresponded with middle school while some of the grades corresponded with high schools. John from Idegon's pointing out that some of the grades corresponded to middle school does not invalidate the "keep" AfD participants' views. To discount their reasonable views oversteps the bounds of administrator discretion. From Wikipedia:Notability: A topic is presumed to merit an article if: 1. It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right; and 2. It is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. As noted by the guideline, WP:NORG, a subject-specific notability guideline, cannot be used to delete articles that pass the general notability guideline. And regarding the WP:NORG argument, two editors (Just Chilling and I) thought local sources could be used to establish notability while three editors (DGG, John from Idegon, and Onel5969) did not. There is no policy-based reason to choose one side over the other. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I'm not sure we can make that inference. Until this edit the article contained an assertion that the subject taught until grade 12, which would make it unambiguously a high school. With the exception of that one reply by Just Chilling every other comment which asserted that notability was gained through it being a high school was made prior to that edit and didn't indicate that they were aware the school did not in fact teach until grade 12. After that edit Keep proponents switched to discussion of sources. The primary criteria of NORG outline how the GNG should be applied to organisations - namely what exactly constitutes significant and independent coverage in that topic area. If an article on an organisation tries to demonstrate notability through source coverage then these criteria need to be met. I don't in fact see anyone other than you arguing in that AfD that your sources constituted more than local coverage, but I can see three people arguing that they did not. Hut 8.5 10:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC) The mistake was in the infobox. The article said in its lead that the subject taught until grade 10, which the "keep" editors saw. D4iNa4 (talk · contribs) said "two sources were enough as provided on main article", which had contained local sources. Just Chilling (talk · contribs) wrote, "No reason to think that with local and hard copy searches sources cannot be found to meet WP:ORG", which means he views local sources as sufficient. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Schools says: All universities, colleges and schools, including high schools, middle schools, primary (elementary) schools, and schools that only provide a support to mainstream education must satisfy either this guideline (WP:ORG) or the general notability guideline, or both. (But see also WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, especially for universities.) This means that passing either criterion is sufficient to establish notability. As Thincat (talk · contribs) noted below: WP:ORG#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations explains that it provides alternative criteria to WP:GNG for demonstrating notability. The purpose is not to provide a "higher hurdle" and the criteria do not supersede GNG. The section WP:NSCHOOL also states this very clearly. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC) We can't read minds. The people who left comments saying the article should be kept because the subject is a high school didn't indicate that they were aware it might not be considered a high school, with the exception of one comment that should be discounted for being wrong. We can't make the inference that these people were aware of the issue from reading the article content, as you suggested above, because the article contradicted itself and people may have paid attention to the infobox rather than the lead. I think you are drawing a false distinction between the GNG and the "primary criteria" part of NORG. The latter merely represents consensus about what constitutes significant or independent coverage of an organisation, so they are in fact the same thing. This is in no way inconsistent with the comment by Thincat you quoted, because that is talking about the alternative criteria rather than the primary criteria. An assertion that local coverage is enough is inconsistent with NORG, the relevant issue is whether certain sources constitute local coverage or not, and the comment you quote didn't address those sources. Hut 8.5 20:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Wrong forum  The use of admin tools was not proposed and none were used.  Unscintillating (talk) 22:22, 20 February 2016 (UTC) This is not the wrong forum. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 20#Zach Collier, "In December 2009, the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archive 15#Updating Scope to handle AFDs closed as Merge generally was in favor of allowing DRV to review 'merge' or 'redirect' decisions. I agree with the position that DRV should review 'merge' and 'redirect' decisions because an AfD close as "merge" or "redirect" should not be immune to community review at DRV if an editor believes the consensus was assessed incorrectly." Cunard (talk) 22:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC) I think Cunard is completely right in this--as I understand our current practice, it can be done either way. Taking it here can sometimes have the advantage of settling the issue rather than possibly leading to an edit war. DGG ( talk ) 01:18, 21 February 2016 (UTC) He may be right about the forum but he is totally mistaken in his interpretation of WP:ORG. Its entire purpose is to provide a higher hurdle than GNG. John from Idegon (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2016 (UTC) WP:ORG#Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations explains that it provides alternative criteria to WP:GNG for demonstrating notability. The purpose is not to provide a "higher hurdle" and the criteria do not supersede GNG. The section WP:NSCHOOL also states this very clearly. Thincat (talk) 10:35, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to Keep, noting strong arguments supporting a merge. There was no consensus to delete, for sure. I respect the closer's call of a rough consensus for a merge, but AfD should not be mandating the complex task of merging non-trivial articles. Until merged, I see no suggestion that it should be pseudo-deleted. Discussions on the details of the merge may reverse the decision, especially with more sourced material being introduced. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:51, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse, but. Yes, there was a rough consensus for merge (to what is now Federal Way Public Schools) and it seems at least the first three "merge" !voters thought to retain some or all of the content. However, the AFD nominator in their nomination[1], later comment[2] and subsequent action in creating a redirect[3], has not been distinguishing between merging and redirecting. The creation of the redirect was, indeed, disrespectful of the AFD discussion and its close.[4] The problem I see is that placing any substantial amount of this content in the target article will make the target unbalanced to the point of looking silly. I don't know what's best here but I think the outcome owes more to point-scoring over the article that any wish to help the encyclopedia. Thincat (talk) 11:30, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to NC the issue of meeting our schools guideline was in debate, but sources were found that meet WP:N and the only argument against that was that they were too local. While WP:ORG does mention local as an issue, WP:N does not. Meeting either the SNG or the GNG is sufficient in general and given that both are disputed and the !vote as close, this looks like NC. Now, it may be we get an editorial decision to merge (on the talk page), but I honestly don't think that's wise given the size of the article. Hobit (talk) 13:03, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. There was some internal confusion throughout the discussion about the nature of the school, but the understanding seemed to emerge that it was not a high school, so arguments based on precedent about high schools would not have carried weight in assessing the outcome. What was left was either "merge" or "no consensus, strongly leaning to merge", according to administrator discretion. I view this as a reasonable and defensible close. Thparkth (talk) 00:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I have rewritten the article. The redirect made here did not merge anything to Federal Way Public Schools, likely because a merge would have been undue weight. It is even more clear with my rewrite and expansion it would be undue weight to merge Federal Way Public Academy to Federal Way Public Schools, so Federal Way Public Academy should remain as a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 01:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC) No need to be here. Deletion discussions ultimately result in either delete or not-delete. Discussions about varying between the different forms of not-delete can take place on an appropriate article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC) This isn't a deletion discussion - this is a meta-discussion. An editor has raised questions about the conduct of the AfD and has asked for it to be reviewed. That's exactly what DRV is for. Thparkth (talk) 13:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I am aware this isn't a deletion discussion; it's a discussion about whether to change the outcome of the deletion discussion. As I said, changes between the various forms of not-delete outcome do not need to come to DRV and are more appropriately raised at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse, the closing admin probably could have been clearer in how they explained it, and NC would have also been acceptable. But this seems a reasonable and fair reading of the arguments made in the discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 23 February 2016 (UTC).
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2016

Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) While it was not my page and I do not have any connection with the organization, I was surprised by the sudden deletion of the article without any discussion. It makes no sense to publish a deleted article under another name, as I later discovered it was, but the first deletion without any in depth discussion was rather dubious. Qualitatis (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC) The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Euro- Mediterranean Human Rights Monitor basically concluded that the article as it then stood did not at all establish notability. I did not participate in that discussion, but I think i would have agreed. Recently the article was recreated under a slightly different name, and tagged for speedy deletion under WP:CSD#G4 as a recreation of previously deleted content. I compared the then-current version to the version that was deleted in the AfD, and found that they were substantiually similar, and that nothing had been done to address the notability issues. Therefore i speedy-deleted it under G4. That is not and should not be a bar to a recreation with better sources that does establish notability, if the independent published reliable sources exist. I would be willing to undelete and move to draft, under the AfC process, with the understanding that this would not be moved to mainspace until an AfC reviewer approved it. @Qualitatis: DES (talk) 16:15, 19 February 2016 (UTC) It is worth reading Talk:Euro-Mediterranean Human Right Monitor which I intentionally did not delete when I deleted the article under WP:CSD#G4. On that page, Qualitatis has explained his or her reasons for wanting (or "demanding") the restoration of the article. The view was expressed that it was only deleted to suppress the organizations POV. I reject that contention -- that POV surely had no effect on my actions, and I doubt that it did on anyone involved in the AfD discussion. Others may judge for themselves. DES (talk) 18:28, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse if as described above then appears to meet the CSD criteria, and the original discussion reached a rough consensus for deletion. If the nominator doesn't like that, then the way to deal with that is to (a) spend time on wikipedia and try and change the relevant policies (though I doubt that will bear fruit quickly if at all) or (b) create a better article meeting the relevant standards. Given the discussion on the talk page, I'd suggest trying to get the interest of a more experienced editor, since there appears to be a fair gap between what the expectation for notability generally is and the nominators belief. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Comment. The original AfD close was correct but the discussion didn't attract much interest and the consensus was half-hearted, as is so often the case for topics where there may be significant under-representation in English-language media. It doesn't sound like there is any reason to overturn the deletion at this point (so read this as an Endorse if you like) but I do think we should be extra-sensitive to the possibility that language bias is a factor here. Thparkth (talk) 05:26, 20 February 2016 (UTC) In what ever language, we still need sources that establish notability. It may be that many Wikipedia editors mare not as good at finding sources in other languages, and that the outcome would have been different for an organization headquartered in, say, Washington DC. But an organization located in Geneva is likely to have sources in major European languages, if it has sources at all, and many editors are conversant with those. It is not as if non-english-language sources were offered but ignored. No sources with more than passing mentions have yet been offered by anyone about this organization. Qualitatis, who started this discussion, has basically claimed that a large number of passing mentions establishes notability. That would be a significant change in policy. DES (talk) 14:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC) Where is the policy formulated that the multiple citation of an organization over a longer time by Reliable Sources does not mean that the organization is notable? Of course it does. If a range of different RS decide to cite a source, they all regard that source notable, otherwise they would ignore it, or cite it with reservation. As WP is primarily based on secundary sources, it should assume an organization notable if regarded as such by the RS. Who are WP editors to dispute the opinion of the RS? --Qualitatis (talk) 11:43, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Qualitatis, the standards for notability are to be found on the notability page, and can be discussed and possibly changed at its talk page. DES (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Well you think it's notable, so we should have an article about it, not mention it in passing in other contexts. Surely the same applies elsewhere? --82.14.37.32 (talk) 18:16, 21 February 2016 (UTC) 'temporarily undeleted the article history for discussion here DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse, but undelete immediately on production of two independent sources. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:53, 21 February 2016 (UTC) There are multiple independent sources, but the problem is that they are, IMO, passing mentions. We need something more than that. Is there a Palestinian newspaper? Hobit (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Comment. I have reverted an edit by Qualitatis restoring the article content, claiming to have improved references. Even though none of the references added provides any significant coverage of the subject of the article, only trivial coverage, and most of them are to the organisation's own web site. Which I see as disruptive and abusing the process. Thomas.W talk 15:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Very dishonest to say that "most of them are to the organisation's own web site". --Qualitatis (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2016 (UTC) No, it's not. But creating multiple new redirects to an article that has been deleted, and is currently at DRV, as you have just done, is disruptive. Thomas.W talk 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) That is not disruptive. Even if the article is deleted, a red link will remain, which will become blue again as soon as the article or a redirect is re-created. --Qualitatis (talk) 13:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion. The article was sourced only to the organisation itself, and none of the links provided by Qualitatis on the talk page (when contesting the deletion) provides more than at best trivial coverage, which per the notability rules doesn't count towards establishing notability. Thomas.W talk 16:10, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse Unless non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources can be found and listed here or in the article. DES (talk) 17:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Restore This is not a marginal organization. I found that in fact most references are to Euromid Observer for Human Rights or Euro-Mid Observer for Human Rights. We have the stub system for yet incomplete articles. If the system can be abused for preventing the creation of an article with clear potential, one should do a stap back and ask how healthy the system is. The Euro-Med Monitor page has never contained a single wrong, untrue or controversial word and is about a long-standing, vital and regularly cited organization, so there is no reason to wait with restoring the page. Also per WP:BURO. --Qualitatis (talk) 12:57, 22 February 2016 (UTC) You don't need to put a word in boldface in front of everything you write; we heard you when you nominated the article. It not only gives the usual impression that you're trying to vote (which is evil), but that you're trying to vote twice (which is both evil and dishonest). —Cryptic 13:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC) I don't think anyone is arguing that it should be deleted for being incomplete, that's just a straw man. It's still most odd that this "vital" organisation you can't produce a single independent reliable source which write about them directly and in detail, which is what the GNG standard is, rather than a lot of frothing and "superlatives". --82.14.37.32 (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Just the view of an isolated clique who blindly and dumbly applies rules according to a narrow interpretation. With vital, I mean that the group is very active on social media, despite its ban from WP. The fact that the group is outlawed by Israel proves that the organisation is credible and notable, as that state is very afraid of groups that reveal the truth (see the hunt on other organisations). The detailed source will certainly come. Just a matter of time. In the mean time, the readers will be deprived of useful info about the organisation. --Qualitatis (talk) 14:01, 23 February 2016 (UTC) There's no "ban" on WP, if there was all of your edits adding the organisation's press releases everywhere on en-WP would have been reverted. The rules about notability apply to everyone and everything, so no one is going to bend the rules for you, no matter how obnoxious you get. And you are becoming increasingly obnoxious, starting by accusing people here of being part of the "hasbara army" (= the "Israeli propaganda machine"), and now telling everyone here that we're "an isolated clicque who blindly and dumbly apply rules". Thomas.W talk 15:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Generally I've found spending time insulting people is not a particularly persuasive tactic. I think you can guarantee that over the years we've had hundreds if not thousands of listing here promising that next week/month/year the <topic> will be able to meet the standards so we are just being shortsighted in not just being as smart as the people claiming that and including it now. In some cases those articles will now be here (hopefully with high quality articles), because the people interested in the topic cared enough about it to go off and find the sources and do the leg work rather than moaning about it (And frankly I doubt anyone here sees those articles making it as anything other than a positive outcome). I suspect the majority however still don't have articles. "Just the view of an isolated clique who blindly and dumbly applies rules according to a narrow interpretation" yet strangely enough for such a horrible project with all these problems we get people here absolutely desperate to include articles on a range of topics which fall short of our guidelines, you'd think if it was such an awful, short-sighted place to be they'd fork the content (the license allows it), setup better standards and show us where we've been going wrong all these years. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse, eminently reasonable deletion given the nature of the sources, which were either not independent of the subject, or so trivial and slight as to be useless. The accusation of bad faith and a conspiracy theory made by the nominator against the editors involved for deleting the article is also very disappointing. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:33, 25 February 2016 (UTC), Note I have a friend who has some relevant background and language skills. His comment: "I did a little bit of searching as well but found nothing independent. However, the board of trustees has some well-known respectable people, in particular the Chairman Richard Falk." So endorse but let's keep an open mind about this and not let this AfD/DRV set too high of a bar for recreation if and when sources do appear. Also, a redirect to Richard A. Falk might be reasonable with a few sentences and sources from here included... Hobit (talk) 11:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC) WP:Notability is not inherited. Having a notable person as chairman doesn't make this organisation notable, and redirecting to Richard Falk should IMHO only be done if his being a chairman of this organisation is a major part of what he's notable for, which it isn't. Thomas.W talk 12:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Agreed on the inherited thing. Disagree on the redirect. We redirect to things all the time if there is something to redirect to that's relevant. Currently his article just has a passing mention to this group. But I don't think changing that to 2 or 3 sentences would be a WP:WEIGHT issue. At that point, it's reasonable to have a redirect rather than a red link. Hobit (talk) 14:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC) Oh, also, my comments on a redirect aren't really relevant for DRV. I've just stated them as a reasonable way forward. I endorse the deletion because the discussion was closed per the consensus. I don't support recreating the article, given it doesn't meet WP:N. I do think a redirect may be the way to go in the future. Hobit (talk) 14:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 February 2016

World Head of Family Sokeship Council – Unsalt and restore from draft. There's good (perhaps unanimous) agreement here that Draft:World Head of Family Sokeship Council is sufficiently improved from the original that the AfD results no longer apply, so I'm going to unsalt the title and restore from the draft version. If anybody wants to take this new version to AfD, they are free to do that, but doing so is not part of the consensus I see here. Then, there's the question of a number of other titles which redirected here. I don't see any real consensus on what to do about those, so let's wait for the dust to settle on any possible AfD that comes out of this. Once that picture is clear, any admin is free to unsalt those titles, or not, as their judgment dictates. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
World Head of Family Sokeship Council (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) New references and rewrite The rewrite is here: Draft:World Head of Family Sokeship Council Discussion 1: Draft talk:World Head of Family Sokeship Council Discussion 2: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Martial arts#World Head of Family Sokeship Council Disclosure: The original editor has given up on editing in frustration -- I'm a paid editor, salvaging the article 009o9 (talk) 22:36, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Apparently the article's title has been salted, so I've been advised to bring the discussion here. 009o9 (talk) 22:59, 17 February 2016 (UTC) There is further guidance (somewhat hard to find) on martial arts article topics here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Martial arts/Notability#Schools and organisations 009o9 (talk) 23:17, 17 February 2016 (UTC) Unsalt and restore per the significant coverage in reliable sources. With new sources like an article about World Head of Family Sokeship Council in the February/March 2016 issue of Black Belt Magazine, it is clear that {{db-repost}} is inapplicable. "THE GATHERING OF EAGLES The World Head of Family Sokeship Council". No. November 2011. Combat Magazine. 31 October 2011. pp. 20–21. Retrieved 9 February 2016. The article notes: One common denominator that many grandmasters have is that they are members of an elite organization, that exists in the USA, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council (WHFSC). The WHFSC (aka the World Council) is a low profile union of some of the most famous martial arts masters in the world. It is the first American grandmaster's council, and is also one of the largest and most prestigious in existence today. There are no membership fees and application is by invitation or membership sponsorship only. The WHFSC now boasts a membership of over 250 grandmasters from all over the world. The main purpose of the WHFSC is to encourage communication between the different systems and to promote the growth of the martial arts. The Council was founded in 1992 by the internationally known and respected grandmaster of San-Jitsu, Frank E. Sanchez, a Jacksonville, Florida based martial artist orgiginally from Guam. Every year, master and grandmaster members meet in Orlando, Florida for the annual WHFSC meeting: the "gathering of the eagles." During this two day event, there is the grandmaster's annual meeting and dozens of training seminars that demonstrate many aspects of the martial arts. The publisher/editor in chief of Combat Magazine is Martial Arts Publications Ltd and Paul Clifton according to page 1 of the document, which also lists columnists and contributors. Burk, Floyd (February 2016). "Frankly Speaking". 54 (2). Black Belt Magazine: 66–69. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help) From https://www.facebook.com/BlackBeltMagazine/photos/a.104691875770.106622.63378970770/10153133035760771/: In the Feb/March 2016 issue of Black Belt, on sale now: San-jitsu founder Frank Sanchez has fought the establishment to spread Guam’s self-defense system and promote martial arts brotherhood. This is the story of the man and his brainchild, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council. "Sokeship Council to Celebrate 10th Anniversary". Black Belt. 41 (8): 116. August 2003. Retrieved 17 February 2016. The article notes: ORLANDO, FL— The World Head of Family Sokeship Council will celebrate its 10th anniversary here August 29–30, 2003 with a seminar symposium and awards banquet. The council is composed of more than 100 martial arts masters from around the world, including Black Belt Hall of Fame members Wally Jay, Stephen K. Hayes and Ron Van Clief, as well as Seiyu Oyata, Ji Han Jae, Ronald Duncan, Emil Farkas, Adriano Emperado and other big names. The organization is the brainchild of san-jitsu founder Frank E. Sanchez, a native of Guam who now resides in Jacksonville, Florida. Tullis, Matt (1 December 2004). "Local wins prestigious martial arts recognition". Star-News. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016. The article notes: John Stover, founder of Stover's Martial Arts Academy on Carolina Beach Road, was recognized as Founder of the Year by the World Head of Family Sokeship Council, an organization that consists solely of ninth and tenth degree black belt grandmasters. ... The World Head of Family Sokeship Council was formed in 1993, making it the first grandmasters council formed in the United States. Its more than 160 members come from all over the world and specialize in every conceivable martial arts style and origin. The council grants membership only by invitation or sponsorship. "Livesay inducted into Martial Arts Hall of Fame". The Oak Ridger. 29 September 2000. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016. The article notes: Jack Livesay of Oak Ridge was recently inducted into the World Head of Family Sokeship Council's International Martial Arts Hall of Fame as Karate Man of the Year. The council is composed solely of 9th and 10th Dan grandmasters and their equivalents. The WHFSC is considered the most prestigious martial arts hall of fame. Carroll, Frank (5 October 1997). "Ceremony Highlights Works Of Art". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016. The article notes: Mike Sayoc and Chris Miller of St. Cloud, plus Kissimmee's Bill Ergle and Dr. Len Wilkerson last month, were among a hand-picked few the World Head of Family Sokeship Council selected for recognition. Grandmasters Jackie Chan, Royce Gracie, Jeff Speakman, Hatsumi and Don The Dragon Wilson are among the Council's ruling hierarchy. "Karate expert, longtime law officer Long dies". Knoxville News Sentinel. 14 October 1998. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016. The article notes: In 1995, the world's largest council of sanctioned heads of martial-arts systems, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council, inducted Mr. [Harold] Long into its Hall of Fame and presented him a Golden Life Achievement Award. Lee, Hansen (24 September 1998). "Instructor Gets Kicks Teaching Martial Arts". Orlando Sentinel. Archived from the original on 17 February 2016. Retrieved 17 February 2016. The article notes: [Jeff] DeSantis' devotion to martial arts has brought him an array of honors and recognitions. In 1996, the World Head of Family Sokeship Council, the world's largest organization of grandmasters and heads of martial arts systems, inducted him into its hall of fame as instructor of the year. Only a few weeks ago, the council repeated the honor, this time picking DeSantis as one of only nine to be named master instructor. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow World Head of Family Sokeship Council to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Cunard (talk) 06:46, 18 February 2016 (UTC) The original article (can be seen in the Draft article history) was horribly referenced (primary only), overtly promotional to the point of disingenuous, and was quite rightly deleted via AfD The title was eventually salted because of constant reposting with no attempt to address the issues. I will add that the article had been declined in AfC process multiple times before copy pasted into main space. So with respect to deletion review - the original deletion was correct. That said this new version is hugely different, and although IMHO some of the issues critically still remain, this is not a question for DRV. I suggest that the Draft article go through AfC. The de-salting can be taken care of at the point where it passes that process. Once passed it would not be deleted via G4 because it is substantially different. I suspect there might be an AfD soon after but that could happen no matter which route is taken. I added a couple of comments on the Draft talk page concerning the article itself.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:07, 18 February 2016 (UTC) We are already in the latter stages of AfC, submitted 25 January, the article sat without comment for 20 days. User:MSGJ recommended bringing this to DRV, stating in the AfC discussion on the talk page, "Ultimately I have no problem in moving this draft over, if others are in agreement." 009o9 (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Restore without prejudice to a new AfD. DRV really isn't the place for this and AfC isn't required. Draft at least has a reasonable claim to meeting WP:N but no objection to someone taking this to AfD if they wish. Hobit (talk) 23:12, 18 February 2016 (UTC) Comment Apparently, User:MSGJ is correct about DRV being the proper venue for discussions of this type, see: Wikipedia:Protected titles/Historical. 009o9 (talk) 03:21, 19 February 2016 (UTC) Restore and allow nomination at AfD. The AfD discussion was not so impressive. I assume more sources have been found. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2016 (UTC) I was the salting admin and I recommended that this go through DRV, given my remarks here. FWIW, I do support restore and send back to AfD, but I wanted to make sure that this go through the proper channels to give it a good chance at survival. This wasn't the worst case of promotional/COI editing that we'd had here, but it was fairly persistent, to the point where the (now blocked) editor had repeatedly created various COI articles (World heads of family sokeship council, San Jitsu, Frank E. Sanchez, San jitsu, World Head of Family Sokeship Council) to the point where salting and blocking became necessary. The edit will need some editing for sourcing, as it's fairly weak overall - a concern that was shared at the martial arts WP talk page, where I asked for help with finding sourcing. Some of the sourcing is problematic as well, in the case of the article backing up details with places like the social media website Goodreads. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC) In light of this new information disclosed by User:Tokyogirl79, I'd like to propose that San Jitsu, San jitsu, Frank E. Sanchez also be unsalted. There is no reason to permanently punish these topics (both of which could be trademarks and might be notable), due to a misunderstanding with a newbie editor WP:DNB. The now blocked original editor has no intention of ever editing the Wikipedia again. To a new editor, the new trend of disallowing stub articles and requiring excessive references in AfC declines is understandably frustrating when they can point to dozens of similar articles published on the Wikipedia. My client (the blocked user) has proposed two other articles which I have declined, neither of which can pass WP:N at this time, specifically United States Isshinryu Karate Association and Phil E. Little, neither of these topics appear to be blocked(?) There is currently no plans for a Frank E. Sanchez, nor San Jitsu articles and my involvement with the client appears to be winding down. In good conscious, we should clean up this mess while we are here. 009o9 (talk) 15:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC) I'd only recommend unsalting them if there are valid articles to place there and/or if they will become redirects to the main article. If this survives AfD in the mainspace, I'd support these being turned into redirects. This article here needs to prove itself first before unsalting the other articles becomes an option. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:42, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Basically, take this in baby steps. The article has a problematic history and the first thing that you should do is make sure that the first article will survive in the mainspace before opening the floodgates. Just be cautious, take baby steps, and try to be strict with sourcing - being too lenient can sometimes backfire. The article will likely have a lot going against it and the best way to ensure that this doesn't get pegged as a continuation of the earlier issues with promotion is to be extremely careful. I know I come across as strict, but that's because it's just that easy for stuff to get deleted on Wikipedia if you're not careful. TBH, the Council sounds like it should pass notability guidelines but it needs very strong sourcing because articles that have been previously deleted at AfD or elsewhere and have a history of problematic, COI editing are usually far, far more difficult to justify on Wikipedia because the main reaction will be "if it's not over the moon notable, just leave it deleted". Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:54, 21 February 2016 (UTC) Like I said, the client has no desire to edit again and it is much more cost efficient to just pay me to keep him out of trouble. I certainly don't want my writing to appear promotional, but that is generally a function of the strictness in AfC these days, most of the decline verbiage is canned, so it is quite apparent that not much time is spent on some articles. Sometimes a lot gets thrown at an article, in the highest visibility, just to get the reviewer to consider WP:N. The Frank E. Sanchez topic might be a logical redirect to the WHFSC article, but the San Jitsu topic is not. My suggestion to unsalt both topics is so that some future editor (or uninvolved reviewer) does not spend a week in DRV, just to approve an AfC in the coming years.009o9 (talk) 12:46, 21 February 2016 (UTC) I'll make you a deal - when this moves to the mainspace I'll unsalt these and create redirects. (I say when, since this looks extremely likely to be approved and I'd actually be disappointed if it doesn't get approved.) If this survives AfD (assuming someone nominates it, which I'm not going to do) then these redirects can always be changed into articles at any point in time in the future. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC) No comment on the unsalting but as 009o9 mentioned that although Frank E. Sanchez could be considered a reasonable redirect to WHFSC, San Jitsu would not.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2016 (UTC) My interest in unsalting is administrative in that we should clean up the entire misunderstanding while we are discussing it. An entirely different Frank E. Sanchez may become notable in the future (there already is a Frank Sanchez article) and San Jitsu might one day be the short title of a film or book. If the WHFSC article survives the process, a search for Frank E. Sanchez will produce a result to the WHFSC article with or without a redirect so I am indifferent about it. Tokyogirl79 suggested that proposed redirects would be needed for her support in the unsalting. I'm just proposing we leave a clean slate for future editors (and reviewers) now that the tendentious newbie editor issue has been resolved. 009o9 (talk) 14:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Well... the problem with that is that these are such specific names that it's very unlikely that there will ever be anything under these titles that doesn't pertain to the Council's Sanchez and San Jitsu and the main (and almost sole) Google hits under either comes up with results that pertain to the Council. If someone is searching these phrases on Wikipedia, odds are high that they will be interested in reading about the Council. If/when someone or something else by these terms does gain enough notability to warrant an article, they can always build the article on those terms or request an unsalting. If/when the article is restored to the mainspace these terms would be best served as redirects since the Council would be the most obvious expectation in a search. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Redirects are fine with me, as long as the next editor can accomplish their task without administrative assistance and/or unwarily writing an entire article that already has a prejudice that they have no knowledge of. If we decide to go that way, I'll add some verbiage to the lede mentioning Sanchez' style is San Jitsu, so the bluelinks are not confusing to the reader.009o9 (talk) 11:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Note to closing admin: If you want to unsalt the above mentioned related titles, feel free to do this when moving the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:10, 23 February 2016 (UTC) Restore, and either fix or AfD The standard for AfC declines is whether the article is likely to survive in mainspace. This is variously interpreted as 51%, 60%, 66.66%, 70%. 80%--but of course this can not be stated as a definite figure, because of the variability in AfD discussions. In the past some people reviewing AfCs have declined acceptable articles in order to get them further improved. This is wrong, in my opinion , and I think the opinion of almost all the people working regularly there. In contrast, it is not necessarily wrong to decline an article which might just pass AfD but would very probably pass with feasible further improvement. Fortunately, no decline at AfC is final, for the article can be resubmitted, and most current reviewers are sensible. If I had reviewed the current draft I would not have accepted it. I would probably have given the reason as both notability and promotionalism: the list of "ambassadors" in the various countries is content which belongs on a web site, not a WP page, too many of the references are mere mentions of someone being a member, and too many of the sources for key points are local newspapers where the material was presumably added from a press release in connection with a local event--and I think some of the refs submitted above fall into the latter category, &I doubt it would pass AfD in its current state. But it is fixable, because the section mentioned can be removed, and the trivial refs removed, and there will probably be enough left. However, pointing to similar articles presently in WP does not mean much: Out of the 6 million articles we have, probably more than 100,000 (which is only 1.7% of the total) are ones accepted in prior years where the standard were lower, and would be deleted if brought to AfD now.-- and a good reason for gradually doing that is to avoid confusing people about our current standards. DGG ( talk ) 23:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)  Done DGG's proposed edits in strike-thru Draft:World Head of Family Sokeship Council -- 009o9 (talk) 04:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 February 2016

Chicago (pool) – Moot - the AFD has resumed and glory be, people are actually discussing sources. Another victory for DRV.... or not..... (other opinions are available)..... er... this is still moot since the AFD is being reopened. Go argue there folks... – Spartaz Humbug! 12:16, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chicago (pool) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Sigh. We're going to end up here anyway, so saving everybody a lot of time. See also User_talk:RoySmith#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FChicago_.28pool.29. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to keep. After Adam9007 (talk · contribs) nominated the article for deletion, Arxiloxos (talk · contribs) provide a link to an entry in a billiards encyclopedia and opposed deletion. SMcCandlish (talk · contribs), Anarchyte (talk · contribs), and SwisterTwister (talk · contribs) voted "keep". No editor besides the nominator supported deletion, and Arxiloxos' source renders Wikipedia:Verifiability#Notability inapplicable. There was a clear consensus to keep on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards (which I have quoted below). Arxiloxos' source includes references to several other reliable sources about "Chicago (pool)" like The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing (which I have quoted below). The Handbook of Rules of Billiards and Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender are also mentioned as sources in the encyclopedia entry but are not available online. RoySmith's "delete" decision is neither unsupported by the consensus in the discussion nor by Wikipedia policy. Cunard (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Discussion with closing admin: Extended content You closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chicago (pool) as delete, writing that the people arguing to keep failed to provide any sources. This is correct, but an AfD commenter in the discussion wrote: The game is real, and Google produces an explanatory entry from a billiard encyclopedia [5]. So I wouldn't favor a total deletion of this content. But the encyclopedia entry suggests that it is may be viewed as a set of variations of rotation, so a selective merge/redirect is a possible alternative. --Arxiloxos (talk) 04:31, 22 January 2016 (UTC) Here is a quote from the source Arxiloxos provided, The New Illustrated Encyclopedia of Billiards authored by Michael Ian Shamos and published in 2002 by Globe Pequot Press: Chicago 1. (game) A form of ROTATION in which the balls are not racked but are placed FROZEN to the rails at various predetermined DIAMONDS in numerical order counterclockwise about the table. The striker must hit the lowest-numbered ball on the table first and receives credit for the numerical value of any balls pocketed on the stroke. The custom in the city of Chicago was for the lowest-scoring player to pay for general refreshments and the next lowest to play for the TABLE TIME. 1890 HRB 88, 1916 RGRG 63. Also called BOSTON POOL, CHICAGO POOL, or MEXICAN ROTATION. 1900 May 61. The term "Rotation" derives from the arrangement of the balls in the game of Chicago and not from the fact that the balls are struck in numerical sequence. Other U.S. cities appearing in names of billiard games are BOSTON and HONOLULU. 2. (game) A synonym for ROTATION. 1979 Sullivan 99. General references: 1890 HRB 88, 1891 MB 334, 1919 Hoyle 633. I think the "keep" editors were supporting retention on the basis of Arxiloxos' source, so I don't think a "delete" close is justifiable. Cunard (talk) 20:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC) It seems to me that falls way short of what's necessary. Please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:02, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, that source in itself is not enough. However, that source includes several references like "1919 Hoyle 633", which refers to this entry (image) in The American Hoyle: Or, Gentleman's Hand-book of Games, Containing All the Games Played in the United States, with Rules, Descriptions, and Technicalities Adapted to the American Method of Playing published in 1921, which discuss Chicago in a page-and-a-half: CHICAGO POOL This game is played with the numbered pool balls from one to fifteen and a white cue bal as in Fifteen ball Pool the object being to play upon and pocket the balls in their numerical order 4S it ti The table is laid out for the game by placing the i ball against the end cushion at the first right hand diamond sight at the foot of the table as seen in the diagram the ball is placed at the center diamond sight on the same cushion the remaining thirteen balls are placed in the order of their numbers at the succeeding diamond sights as shown in the diagram All things being equal it is immaterial which way the numbers run in setting the balls for they may also be set so that the i ball is placed on thj diamond sight which when standing at the head of the table and looking towards the foot or lower end appears as the left hand diamond sight on the end rail with the 3ball placed at the right etc The three sights on the end rail at head of the table are not occupied by any ball In opening the game the order of play is determined by throwing out small numbered balls as in Fifteen ball Poo q and he whose first play it may be strikes the cue ball from any point within the string line The opening stroke must be to strike sie uwc ball If that ball is holed it is placed to the credit of the player and he continues his hand until he fails to score but in continuing he must play each time upon the ball bearing the lowest number on the table After playing upon that ball however should any other be pocketed by the same stroke irrespective of its number it shall be placed to the player's credit so pocketing it If the line of aim at the ball required to be hit is covered by an other bowl the player LAy resort to a bank play or masse etc 10t should he fail to hit the required ball he forfeits three receiving a scratch Should a ball be holed by a foul stroke it is replaced upon the spot it occupied at the opening of the game but should it be the 8 11 111 or 2 ball so holed they being within the string and the cu e ball in hand then the balls specified are to be placed upon the pyramid or red ball spot or should that be occupiv as near to it as is possible as in Fifteen ball Pool The player having the lowest aggregate score is required to pay for general refreshment for all in the game The player having the second lowest score pays for the game The rules of Fifteen ball Pool govern Chicago Pool except where they conflict with the foregoing rules "HRB 88" refers to the 1898 book The Handbook of Rules of Billiards. A Google search for the title doesn't return an online copy of the book. But it returns mentions in sources like the 1903 book The Encyclopædia Britannica: New American supplement. A-ZUY, which indicates that the source is considered reliable. "RGRG 63" refers to the 1925 book Rules Governing the Royal Game of Billiards by Brunswick Balke Collender (Amazon link), which is not available online. Please let me know if that is enough to change your mind. Cunard (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2016 (UTC) Like I said, please feel free to take it to DRV if you feel strongly about it. I've done that for you. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:58, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Cunard (talk) 01:33, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Relist. Close was a WP:Supervote. Any overriding policy requirement to delete should be introduced to the discussion as a !vote. Urge Roy to revert close and !vote instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:56, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn. Arxiloxos' source provides enough appropriate referencing to impel a keep outcome. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 05:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn The closing rationale didn't seem to be summarising or crystallising the discussion in any way. If it was intended as a rebuttal of the arguments presented then it was misplaced. Quite odd really. Thincat (talk) 13:34, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to speedy keep SK#1 no argument for deletion WP:NPASR  This AfD was totally argued on notability grounds, an issue which began with the AfD nomination.  As per WP:N, the absence of sources in an article does not define an absence of notability.  The close is deficient by not citing policy.  Instead the close identifies a non-existent policy that blames our content contributors and AfD volunteers as reasons for deletion.  WP:N requires evidence, and the only delete !vote was a argument from WP:ATA, one that provided no evidence, and further, a notability deletion argument must show not only that the topic is non-notable, but that the topic cannot be retained as a redirect (see WP:INSIGNIFICANCE). A second point is, since the close had nothing to do with the discussion, why aren't administrators sweeping through and deleting the articles without sources?  This is not intended as a rhetorical question.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:40, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Because it would be clearly opposed to WP policy, since it meets no speedy criterion. Even BLPs without sources can only be deleted on that basis via a 7 day exposure to the community at BLPPROD. There is a considerable difference between an admin doing something not permitted presumably hoping nobody notices, to an admin doing something they know may be controversial and immediately bringing it to a discussion board, as was the case here. DGG ( talk ) 20:42, 15 February 2016 (UTC) I wonder if we can we get agreement to move unsourced articles to draftspace.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC) I (respectfully) disagree about this being a supervote. What I saw was all the keep arguments being exceptionally lame. Saying, Can be better sourced if needed when there are zero sources in the article is an argument which shouldn't hold water. Likewise for although there are no references, some could be found. If they could be found, then find them, please. Spartaz extended the debate for a week with the explicit request that the people arguing to keep provide the sourcing they suggested must exist. And all that got us was, this is imaginably improvable and can be kept for such. We live and die by proper sources, or at least we should. I'm not sure I agree that the sources Cunard found and cited above are enough to meet our notability requirements, but props for at least putting in the effort to do the research and finding them. That being said, it's obvious that people here don't agree, so I've backed out my close, and will leave it to somebody else to re-close. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC) WP:N is a guideline that does not require sources.  WP:DEL7 supports the policies of both WP:V and WP:DP, and could be combined with WP:Deletion policy#Incubation.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to keep. Sorry, but this was a supervote. The question of whether a particular source is adequate to establish notability is exactly what AfD is there to answer. If in the process of closing a discussion an administrator finds themselves wanting to tell the AfD participants that their opinions are simply wrong, then they should be taking part in the discussion as a participant rather than as a closer. Thparkth (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Close as moot since RoySmith has now overturned their own closure and reopened the AfD.  Sandstein  10:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 February 2016

Draft:Białynicki-Birula decomposition – Restored. In the future please ask at WP:REFUND instead like the instructions say. —Cryptic 04:35, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Białynicki-Birula decomposition (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) G13 doesn't apply. Taku (talk) 04:21, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Closing subsequent discussion that does not change the outcome noted above.  Sandstein  08:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Nah. The issue is that the page should have not been deleted in the first place, since it was not created through the AfC process. -- Taku (talk) 04:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Did you want to the page back or did you just want to argue about it? —Cryptic 05:09, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Both, I guess. It is important to note we have the consensus that the deletion was a mistake. This was certainly not the first time G13 has been applied in a wrong way. (And this is the correct place for such a discussion definitely not at WP:REFUND.) -- Taku (talk) 22:53, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. If there was a technical mistake with G13-ing, please explain better. Redirect the draft to Morse theory, which is where any such material would be added if anywhere. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:01, 15 February 2016 (UTC) As I said, G13 doesn't apply in this case since the draft was not created through the AfC process. Also, the redirect doesn't make sense since the decomposition isn't a part of Morse theory, if somehow related in spirit. Recently, G13 has been used to delete pages that have nothing to do with AfC, often by mistake like this one. Is it your position that the speedy deletion was perfectly legitimate in accordance with G13? I believe the correct procedure was to send the page to MfD not speedy. -- Taku (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Probably it is best to take this allegation of G13 overenthusiasm to WT:CSD. You could be right, but that is the place to raise it with regard to future G13s, and to amend the wording of WP:CSD#G13. NB. I am not sure that you are right. When you move a draft to draft space and leave it for a year, it is liable to deletion if no one sees its value. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2016 (UTC) I agree that's perhaps the best place for the general discussion and I will not oppose if a new G13 is enacted to be used to delete, well, anything old. But until then this deletion was wrong, procedurally speaking. I understand some editors see a need for deletion. All I'm saying is that the deletion attempt on non-AfC pages should go through MfD and not G13. -- Taku (talk) 23:16, 15 February 2016 (UTC) If you don't want your work subject to deletion, move it back into your userspace. Add a note to the top stating your intentions with it. Unless you are hoping that someone else will find it in your userspace and contribute, to be very safe blank the page during periods of inactivity. Looking at this page as it was in January, if it were MfD-ed, it would easily be deleted with little attention, given the recent popularity of meta:Immediatism and meta:Deletionism in practice there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:18, 16 February 2016 (UTC) That argument sounds a bit backward; obviously the correct solution is not to delete the non-AfC drafts just as we don't delete the articles in the main space due to staleness. That would save everyone's time. Also, I doubt the MfD has resulted in the deletion. I for one would have voted no and it would not be hard for other editors to find reliable sources to establish the notability. -- Taku (talk) 02:54, 16 February 2016 (UTC) DRV is the place where judgements are made about whether or not deletions were in-process. This one was not in process. Nor was it a good WP:IAR exercise of deletion power. Also, this DRV should not have been closed as it was, but should have been allowed to reach a conclusion. Thparkth (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Agreed. Hobit (talk) 14:44, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Victor de Leon III – No further action required – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Victor de Leon III (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Request redirect be created. Protecting admin user:east718 is inactive Prisencolin (talk) 20:45, 13 February 2016 (UTC) I've restored the redirect, this can be closed. — east718 | talk | 23:44, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 February 2016

Lorenzo Iorio – Block evasion. Guy (Help!) 19:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lorenzo Iorio (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) It has been speedy deleted by an administrator who seemed apparently a-priori biased against the subject of the article for reasons non pertaining its content, which were not considered at all. No discussion occurred. The administrator ignored favorable advices by other users who asked to keep the page or, at least, not to speedy delete it. Another administrator removed a previous discussion concerning the re-creation of the page with a positive outcome. It seems to me that such behaviours were too arbitrary. It is on a notable scientist according to several criteria. I am a relative of the subject of the paper. I openly declared it, and the closing administrator arbitrarily blocked my account. 82.49.16.105 (talk) 07:23, 11 February 2016 (UTC) In the deletion review instructions, it notes that you are expected to discuss the issue with the administrator who deleted the page before listing here. Please can you specify why you chose not to observe this. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 11 February 2016 (UTC) I tried to interact with him at the time of the speedy deletion, but it was useless: he ignored the comments of other users favorable to keepng the page (some of which were posted on the Talk page of the article, which you removed. See also the discussion here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Planet_Nine#Lorenzo_Iorio), he did not even discuss at all the numerous links I added to show the notability of Iorio. He used often aggressive, scathing and sardonic and tones. I think it was useless. Thank you. 79.35.72.242 (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2016 (UTC) List at AfD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lorenzo Iorio (2nd nomination) was the correct close, but it's nearly five years old, and it has therefore expired for the purposes of G4 speedy deletions. NB: If restoring the article for the purpose of an AfD discussion, revisions preceding 15th February 2011 should not be restored owing to the copyvio in the now-deleted history.—S Marshall T/C 18:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Amharic Wikipedia – Allow recreation – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:35, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amharic Wikipedia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Topic inherently notable due to solutions to facilitate input of Ethiopic/Ge'ez script; also this Wikipedia edition is larger than some others about which articles have since been created A12n (talk) 01:21, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Allow recreation.--A12n (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2016 (UTC) The afd was almost seven years ago, and there was no deletion involved. If you think you can write an article on this subject that meets the English Wikipedia's current inclusion standards, you don't need DRV to tell you it's ok. (Though neither of the criteria you've put forward above have anything whatsoever to do with those standards; and if you just want to revert the redirect to the almost-seven-years out-of-date article that was there before, you're not doing anyone any favors.) —Cryptic 01:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks. Restoration is ambiguous, but am talking about recreating not reverting. Obviously situation has evolved with this edition. Will tend to this when I have more time. (Beyond this specific issue, I would contend that all Wikipedia editions are inherently notable for articles on any particular edition such as en.wikipedia.org. It is useful to have articles describing the history of establishment, evolution, problems, turning points, and controversies of diverse Wikipedia editions. Notability criteria IMO should be changed to reflect that. Noting here that there don't appear to be general history of WP edition articles on Meta-Wiki, which might be a logical alternative place for such histories. But all that is another discussion.)--A12n (talk) 01:23, 12 February 2016 (UTC) I think what would make the most sense is if you wrote your new version of the article at Draft:Amharic Wikipedia. Once you've got that done, start a discussion (perhaps on Talk:List_of_Wikipedias), and see if people are on-board with the idea of it being a stand-alone article. If you can gather consensus, go for it. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Allow ree-creation. It's reasonable enough that we can do without the steps through Draft space. DGG ( talk ) 04:49, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks. For context, there are already over 100 articles in Category:Wikipedias by language, of which at least 15 cover editions smaller than am.wikipedia.org.--A12n (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2016 (UTC) I, for one, cannot understand why the article was deleted in the first plac. But yes, the article can be easily recreated to conform to current standards. What is wrong with this particular WP version, after all "it is also the third largest Wikipedia in any Semitic language, following the Arabic Wikipedia and the Hebrew Wikipedia"? GastelEtzwane (talk) 09:29, 16 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion but Permit recreation, provided that the WP:GNG is demonstrated to be met. I do not agree that the topic is "inherently notable", and external sources would be needed to demonstrate this. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:13, 14 February 2016 (UTC). One problem with this approach is consistency in how articles in this category are treated. (Not suggesting here mass deletions!) Seems the Amharic Wikipedia article - having been deleted (actually changed to redirect) - may be held to a higher standard than other articles created more recently about smaller editions of Wikipedia. Would it not be better to allow recreation and then see how the new article compares with the range of others?--A12n (talk) 03:51, 16 February 2016 (UTC) To be honest, I feel that a lot of those articles are pretty poor and only survive because we place a lower bar on self references than we would for other websites. But that's other stuff, really. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:47, 16 February 2016 (UTC). We should consider that the pages such as the one under discussion here are a sort of "About Wikipedia" page. Perfectly admissible, after all, this is Wikipedia! GastelEtzwane (talk) 11:58, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 February 2016

List of League of Legends champions – Withdrawn. —Cryptic 20:45, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of League of Legends champions (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Meets WP:LISTN, "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." and is possibly acceptable based on WP:LISTGLOSSARY Prisencolin (talk) 21:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse as a reasonable reading of consensus. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:21, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Comment from nom - WP:DRV#DELREVD says you should first talk to the nominator. You have failed to contact Sandstein. The purpose of WP:DRVPURPOSE is not to re-argue the deletion nomination but to discuss whether the closure of the discussion was appropriate. You do not present any argument that Sandstein's closure was not an appropriate reflection of the consensus that emerged from the AfD. In fact, your opening statement reads like a perfect example of point 5 of what "Deletion Review should not be used" for: to repeat arguments from the AfD. In fact, unless Prisencolin is able to present an argument that is examinable within the context of a DRV (as per WP:DRVPURPOSE), I suggest to speedily close this DRV. Otherwise, then it should be evident to everyone that I strongly endorse Sandstein's closure as a perfect reflection of the overwhelming (in fact, unanimous except for Prisencolin) consensus for deletion (and potentially merging a paragraph into the parent article). ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 23:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion, the decision was very clearly aligned with the consensus at the discussion. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Deletion discussion clearly had a "delete" outcome - no other reading of consensus is possible. Thparkth (talk) 06:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse Consensus is clearly on the side of delete in this case. Mamyles (talk) 15:30, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Withdraw, I guess this isn't the right place for this--Prisencolin (talk) 20:37, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse (edit conflict) No other way to close the deletion discussion. Speedy close as the OP does not advance a argument that the consensus was interpreted incorrectly. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:42, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari – Relisted. Opinions are divided about whether there was a sufficient basis for the non-admin "keep" closure. The logical thing to do is therefore to relist the discussion. –  Sandstein  12:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Closure of WP:AfD/Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari undertaken by non-admin, sst✈, who I believe did not take into account WP:policies in particular WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:INVALIDBIO when closing the AfD, instead relying on comments such as "I believe I have seen others such as DGG note that some articles can be considered notable." and "I've said that articles like this one on spouses of heads of state, have often been considered notable here; I think they almost always have, & it's good to be consistent. (Articles on of spouses of heads of government have usually not been kept on hat reason alone, although I think they ought to be, ) In general I think enough information could be found in local sources". I did request that SSTflyer reconsider their determination however they considered that they acted correctly. I would like an Admin to re-open the AfD to allow a proper debate on the matter to occur. Dan arndt (talk) 05:02, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Comment further to my above remarks I believe that the AfD was closed prematurely without allowing sufficient time to respond to comments provided by other editors. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Probably it would have been better if an admin makes this close, and probably some more discussion would help. But. Dan arndt, we make the rules ourselves, they are not handed down to us, and we can make whatever general or specific exceptions have consensus. I could make a argument for including or for not including spouses of heads of state, but since we generally do include them,it is advisable to be consistent, so people can know what they can expect to find, or expect to write about. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC) DGG I don't disagree but the article should provided suitable references to establish the subject's notability (i.e. public works they have conducted or foundations they have established), it should not just be solely reliant on the fact that they are the spouse of notable person. The article should meet the basic requirements of WP:GNG. The only two references provided merely establish that she is the wife of the President - nothing more. Dan arndt (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Couldn't have been closed any other way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Dan arndt, see advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Also consider that a merge and redirect, which does not require AfD, may be more appropriate. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks for the advice Smokey Joe> As I have been pinged before for re-nominating an AfD, without waiting for a full six month period to pass, I was simply hoping for this AfD to be re-opened so a more detailed and open debate could be had on the matter. I believe that the non-admin closure was premature, as some of the above discussion indicates. Dan arndt (talk) 07:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Oppose a "no consensus" overturn. After a week, the nomination was universally opposed. One gave an excellent rationale. The other gave a reasonable rationale. The nominator failed to engage the opposing views in discussion. This means that the nominator acquiesced per WP:Silence. Also note that the nominator ignored WP:BEFORE. The outcome was clear. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:13, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Comment Smokey Joe If you check the history of the AfD you will see that both editors that opposed the nominations made their submissions at 20:02 and 23:37 on the 7 February 2016 and then the AfD was closed at 04:17 on 8 February which only allowed 8 hours and fifteen minutes to comment. As I live on a different time zone I only became aware of their comments at the same time I became aware of the AfD being closed, which did not mean that I acquiesced only that I wasn't given enough time to comment. I am not requesting that the article be deleted only that a full debate on the issue can occur. In respect to WP:BEFORE if you check the history of the article you will see that I place a notability tag and a PROD notice on 28 February 2016 citing that the article did not supply any references establishing the subject's notability, which was removed by another editor without any change/improvement to the article - which is why I instigated the AfD. I believed I followed proper process but am happy to be corrected. Dan arndt (talk) 07:54, 11 February 2016 (UTC) On the timing of the !votes and the close, very good point, I had not noted that. Given the very lateness of the !votes, I do support a relist so that you can respond. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse, no other closure possible. Relisting is discouraged when there has been participation beyond the nominator and one more. There is no six-month waiting period before renominating, though it would be normal to wait for circumstances to have changed. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse Yes, it is a pity the discussion didn't go any further. Here we had two editors - one who I generally agree with and the other who I rarely agree with at AFD - who are both very familiar with our notability guidelines. It looks as if they implicitly decided that in this case our WP:GNG criteria did not lead to the best result for the encyclopedia. This is not to ignore the notability guidelines but is to follow them by allowing for occasional exceptions. (BTW a merge would be the best result but they are best done editorially and not by AFD fiat). Thincat (talk) 09:20, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to NC though yes, that's the same thing in practice. First of all, there wasn't much there (no offence to the folks I know in that discussion). The general case doesn't really matter, the question is, "does she meet our inclusion guidelines?" I can't imagine she doesn't, but that discussion doesn't really tell us either way. And I can't find anything at all that provides any meaningful independent coverage (not just "they are only covering her because she's his wife" but anything just about _her_ as a person at all). But there are language problems. I'd have closed this as NC and I think that's the best way to close something like this. One valid delete !vote, and 2 keeps that don't really give a policy-based reason for keeping. I'd prefer we _have_ this article, but our current polices and guidelines don't get us there and the 2 IAR-type !votes to keep aren't enough to push this to keep IMO. It's not clear it isn't within discretion, but I'd still say NC is enough of a better close... Hobit (talk) 20:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC) I'm not 100% comfortable that a consensus of two editors is authorising the creation of a biographical article which cites two sources: 1, a political biography of someone else which mentions her in passing, and 2, a red top newspaper article which mentions her in passing. All we've got that's checkable is her name, the fact that she's married to the Prime Minister of Sri Lanka, and a reasonable inference that she's probably female. In my view that's not really sufficient verifiable information for a separate article. Procedurally, the close was correct, but I think that in this instance it would be in the best interests of the encyclopaedia for us to refer it back to AfD for a rather less cursory examination of the sources.—S Marshall T/C 21:50, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to NC or perhaps Relist. The arguments offered in favour of keeping the article were an assertion that the subject belongs to a class of people who are often considered notable and a claim that there might be better sources available out there. Neither of these arguments has any basis in notability guidelines and they contradict WP:NRV, so the closer shouldn't be assigning much weight to them. The nominator did at least base their position on WP:N. Given that there were only three participants and not much of a consensus from that discussion relisting would have been a reasonable option. Hut 8.5 22:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Per S Marshall - reliable sources handle this woman as a one-line mention in articles about her husband, so we should too, and there's nothing in Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari that isn't already in Maithripala Sirisena. The situation calls for a redirect. Whether the afd should be formally overturned, or a new one started, or it should just be redirected editorially is a matter of how much process for the sake of process we're willing to put up with on any given day. —Cryptic 22:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. I note that longstanding language in WP:NOTINHERITED addressing this exact point, which apparently enjoyed consensus support and had been cited in AFDs previously, was recently removed without pertinent discussion. I am restoring it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 23:35, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to NC on the basis of the low participation, although I would have !voted "keep". AfD determines notability; guidelines merely guide. Thparkth (talk) 06:32, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Comment. I !voted endorse above but but some of the issues raised here now make me think it would be OK to test to see whether a redirect would have consensus. I doubt anyone really thinks "Jayanthi Pushpa Kumari" should be a red link so deletion and AFD2 aren't the way forward. Thincat (talk) 11:48, 11 February 2016 (UTC) I agree. Clearly this should not be a redlink. And I strongly suspect we'll end up with an article here sooner rather than later. But at the moment I can't find any RS with anything beyond the very very basics (her name, who she is married to). Hobit (talk) 19:51, 11 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse - DRV is not a second bite at the AfD apple. I see no procedural error or misreading of consensus. If someone wants to start a merge discussion, the article talk page is thataway. Otherwise, wait three to six months, and re-nominate. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:56, 12 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse, but reopen the existing AfD and relist for another week. The close was reasonable given the existing debate (hence the endorse, but). On the other hand, this got zero participation until very soon before it was closed (I'm guessing from people who watch wp:oldafd). So, while we obeyed all the rules, we really didn't achieve the fundamental goal of hashing out community consensus after a debate. I don't see any reason to wait X months to renominate. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 February 2016

Ryan Driller – To be relisted at AfD. –  Sandstein  10:17, 15 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ryan Driller (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) A deletion discussion for this article took place in January 2014 and resulted in "delete". It was later WP:SALTED due to repeated recreation. Ryan Driller has now won the XBIZ Award for Male Performer of the Year, which should satisfy WP:PORNBIO#1 ("Has won a well-known and significant industry award"). The purpose of this DRV is not to contest the previous AfD, it's to request a new one. There is an equal amount of users on both sides of this debate: 3 users believe this passes WP:PORNBIO: me, Sammy1339 ([6]), & Guy1890 ([7]), and 3 users believe it doesn't meet any of WP's notability guidelines: SwisterTwister ([8]), Bearcat ([9]), & Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ([10]). BethNaught ([11]) and Spartaz ([12]) are both aware that there's a debate regarding Ryan Driller's notability. They both suggested this be brought to DRV, but have not given their opinion on Driller's notability yet, so I'd also like to see them weigh in on this debate. I have created a draft for the article. Please move it to article namespace and start a new AfD. Rebecca1990 (talk) 15:12, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Relist. The reason for create-protection no longer applies due to the change in circumstances, so a new AfD is warranted. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Comment. My problem is not with the notability claim that's been presented — it's with the sourcing that's been provided to support it. As I often explain in AFD discussions, no notability claim (not an award win, not an WP:ENT or WP:AUTHOR or WP:ATHLETE pass, not even being elected president of a person's country) is passed just by asserting that it's passed — a notability claim is passed only when you can reliably source that it's been passed. But the sourcing in the new draft about Driller is still parked entirely on primary sources, with no evidence of RS coverage having been shown. I've never once said that the claim itself was an invalid one — it would be enough to get a person into Wikipedia, if it were sourced properly. But it's not, and no claim of notability ever grants its topic an exemption from having to be reliably sourced. Bearcat (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) That's just your opinion, not an actual policy of WP. In fact, there are many porn actors whose articles resulted in "keep" at AfD due to an award win mentioned in their article and sourced only to the website that awarded it. For example, Gianna Michaels and Kurt Lockwood. Recipients of the Female (Female Performer of the Year) and Foreign (Foreign Male Performer of the Year) counterparts of the award Ryan Driller won (Male Performer of the Year) have been kept at AfD as well. I would provide an AfD regarding this exact category if one existed, but it doesn't (see this list of all XBIZ Male Performer of the Year recipients. Not a single one of them has an AfD mentioned in their article's talk page). I assume it's probably because the prestige of this award is such common knowledge among users who browse/edit porn articles that none of them would even think about starting an AfD for a recipient of it. Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:16, 7 February 2016 (UTC) No, it's not just "my opinion" — it is the rules of how Wikipedia's inclusion criteria work. Notability criteria are not passed just by asserting that they're passed, if the sourcing is primary or non-existent — the quality of the sourcing that can be provided to support the claim is what passes or fails the inclusion criterion. That is the way our inclusion and sourcing rules work; I'm not making anything up on my own. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC) I find this objection a bit strange, as Bearcat has made clear he does not have any doubt that the person won this award. The primary source seems reliable for this claim, per WP:PRIMARY. This is the sort of dispute that can be had at AfD. --Sammy1339 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2016 (UTC) The "reliablity" of a source is not solely a factor of the source's accuracy — that enters into the equation, obviously, but it's not the whole story in and of itself. To be considered a reliable source, the source also has to be independent of the claim: it cannot be the topic's own website. If "award win sourced to award's own website, with no third-party media coverage of the award win shown at all" were enough to get a person into Wikipedia in and of itself, then we'd have to keep an article about every band that ever won a high school battle of the bands competition, every writer who ever won their own hometown newspaper's local poetry contest, everybody who ever won an outstanding volunteer award. That's why independent coverage in media is required: it's how we determine that the award in question is notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it. What we have so far is assertions that XBIZ is the top-level award for porn — the media coverage has not been provided to show that that's actually true rather than just a self-invented claim of the type that lots of non-notable awards do make about themselves for PR purposes. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Comparing a porn award to high school battle of the bands competitions, a newspaper's local poetry contest, and an outstanding volunteer award is like comparing apples to oranges. Pornography is a form of media with a widespread audience and the people who appear in it are public figures. Supposed recipients of the examples you gave would not be public figures because of their small audiences, making it absurd to perceive them as notable. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Ah, but here's the rub: do you know how the notability or non-notability of an award is determined, for Wikipedia's purposes? The existence or non-existence of reliable source coverage of that award in independent media. If the award is so uncovered that you have to depend on its own primary sourcing about itself to get its winners over a Wikipedia notability guideline, then by definition its winners have not gotten over the notability guideline — because coverage of the award in independent media is, with no "this subject area gets to make up its own special non-GNG-compliant rules for itself" exceptions for any reason, the one and only thing that can ever make an award notable enough to get its winners into Wikipedia. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2016 (UTC) I'll repeat what I said previously on BethNaught's talk page: "primary sources are good enough to prove someone received an award. As a matter of fact, secondary sources can be untrustworthy. For example, Las Vegas Sun mistakenly reported that Kendall Karson "won multiple awards — 2013 AVN Best New Starlet, 2013 Exotic Dancer Awards Adult Movie Feature Entertainer of the Year, 2013 Sex Awards Porn Star of the Year, Sexiest Adult Star and Porn’s Best Body." The official websites for those awards do not list her as a recipient for any of those categories in that year ([13], [14], [15])." Rebecca1990 (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, secondary sources can be wrong. But primary sources can be wrong too — I can provide numerous examples of organizations which have made as yet uncorrected mistakes about themselves on their own websites. Bearcat (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC) 1. XBIZ's own Twitter account live-tweeted the winners during the ceremony, including Ryan Driller's Male Performer of the Year award, 2. xbiz.com published an article listing all XBIZ winners, which states Ryan Driller won Male Performer of the Year 3. xbizawards.xbiz.com states that Ryan Driller won Male Performer of the Year in 2016 in it's comprehensive listing of all winners throughout the ceremony's history, & 4. XBIZ profiled Ryan Driller in an article regarding his 2016 XBIZ Award wins, including Male Performer of the Year. It is inconceivable for XBIZ to be mistaken about Ryan Driller winning Male Performer of the Year at the 2016 XBIZ Awards. Rebecca1990 (talk) 22:05, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Yeah, and I recall an extremely famous incident just a few weeks ago when the wrong winner got named live on stage by the host, and at least two less publicized incidents last year of somebody accidentally live-tweeting the wrong winner of an award. The issue is still that reliable source coverage of an award is the absolute be-all and end-all and no-way-around-it-all of how that award becomes notable enough to make its winners notable for winning it. Bearcat (talk) 06:48, 13 February 2016 (UTC) Allow recreation. AFD is accepting the new pornbio guidelines re awards. ideally we would see better sourcing but we have to be realistic here. It would be perverse to expect better sourcing at DRV/AFC than AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 19:43, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Keep deleted. A technical pass of an SNG is not a guarantee that a subject merits an individual article. No argument has been made that the subject passes the GNG, The independent coverage in the article, apart from routine industry PR, is flimsy and trivial. There's no independent, reliable sourcing presented that the claimed award meets the PORNBIO standard of being "well-known and significant". There's certainly a solid argument that the awards are well-known enough to be notable, but that's not enough to satisfy PORNBIO. XBIZ is a PR business, and its award nominees are not independently chosen, but "are submitted by clients".[16][17] I've never seen an independent reliable source attesting to the actual significance of the XBIZ awards. Instead, as pointed out in discussions like the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/XBIZ Award and the HuffPost article I cite there, these awards are viewed as fundamentally unimportant. As the Huffington Post journalist reported after the 2013 award ceremony, "the majority of the performers and directors at the event" agreed that the awards were "a total joke".[18]. The article on the XBIZ Awards themselves is almost entirely sourced to XBIZ itself; it's a strong signal that an award is not significant when the outcome is reported mainly by the awardgiver itself. Two AFC reviewers have independently reached the conclusion that this poorly sourced BLP doesn't meet our notability standards, and the draft's proponents aven't provided any reliably sourced evidence that the awards involved meet the significance test under PORNBIO/ANYBIO. Are there any other fields where awards given like an organization like XBIZ are considered significant enough to demonstrate notability? The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2016 (UTC) As a regular participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, I'm not familiar with Bearcat. He doesn't seem to be a regular participant at porn AfD's, so I can attribute his opposition to recreating this article to a lack of knowledge on porn awards. The same cannot be said about you, HW. Your argument is completely disingenuous. As a regular porn AfD participant, you must be aware of this award's prestige. Considering the fact that you not only vote in porn AfD's, but also start many of them yourself, I assume you regularly browse Category:Pornographic film actors subcategories for articles to delete. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't have started an AfD for Ryan Driller upon encountering the article if it's first creation were after the XBIZ Male Performer of the Year award win. This seems like nothing but a leap of faith you're making in an attempt to degrade the value of even more porn awards from WP's notability perspective. Everyone familiar with porn awards should know that Male and Female Performer of the Year are by far the most prestigious awards in all porn award ceremonies. I'm still incredulous at the fact that you actually voted to delete a recipient of AVN's Best New Starlet award, the industry's second most prestigious award for female porn stars right after Female Performer of the Year. Last year, you responded to the Redban (a now blocked disruptive editor who went on an AfD/notability tagging spree of porn biographies to protest the deletion of his favorite porn star's article, for those of you not familiar with him) situation with an analysis of who you believed was and wasn't notable among those he tagged, and even that didn't make any sense. In your opinion, Venus Actress Award recipient Jodie Moore was notable, XRCO Orgasmic Analist recipient Jada Stevens's notability was "arguable", yet, you somehow concluded that Katja Kassin, a recipient of both a Venus Actress Award and XRCO's Orgasmic Analist, was definitely not notable. It seems like I'm rambling here, but my point is basically that you lack the credibility to determine what is and isn't a well-known/significant award under WP:PORNBIO. Rebecca1990 (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Another fact-free, aspersion-laced post from Rebecca1990, who regularly attempts to avoid policy-based and guideline-based matters in favor of disparaging comments about editors who disagree with them. Claiming that I "lack credibility" has exactly nothing to do with a dispute over whether the XBIZ awards' lack of coverage outside their sponsor's own PR weighs on their significance. And if we look at the actual numbers, my accuracy rate in current AFD discussions is 85%,[19], and roughly 90% of my AFD nominations result in deletion.[20] Your accuracy rate, in contrast, is under 30%.[21] That's just awful. It's pretty clear whose opinions/evaluations in this area are closely aligned with consensus. And your guilt-by-association tirade about Redban (in which, btw, you've once again misrepresented my statements) lead to an interesting comparison. 28 of the 88 articles tagged by Redban as dubiously notable have been deleted. That would put his accuracy rate at no worse than 31.8%. (It could be higher, given that many of the articles haven't yet gone through AFD). That's higher than yours. If Redban was properly topic-banned for his indiscriminate pro-deletion tagging, your anti-deletion !voting is even more indiscriminate. Why shouldn't you be topic-banned, if your arguments against Redban's tagging were valid? (And as for guilt-by-association, you edited much more in tandem with the now permabanned harasser Scalhotrod than my handful of posts regarding Redban. Just saying. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by admins since 2006. (talk) 22:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC) It's not my responsibility to have any specialized knowledge about the notability or non-notability of porn awards. It's the article's responsibity to make notability plainly apparent to any reader, regardless of that reader's level of preexisting knowledge about the subject — and reliable source coverage in real media is how that occurs. And incidentally, I'm not nearly as unknowledgable about porn as you seem to think I am, either. Bearcat (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2016 (UTC) We're still missing articles on Leibniz prizewinning scientists, but we're spending volunteer time on a porn performer who calls himself "Ryan Driller", who's won an industry-sponsored award involving parody porn scenes. Brilliant. If I could think of any legitimate way to veto this rubbish then I would. Since I can't, I very reluctantly suppose we've got to allow it. It would be lovely if you lot could write something more worthwhile, you know.—S Marshall T/C 23:03, 7 February 2016 (UTC) restore/relist SNG now met, so worth a discussion. Given the lack of love for porn here, I strongly suggest you find some RSes that at least covered the award. (FYI, I think we should treat porn performers as we would any other performer, but expecting at least _some_ independent RS coverage is reasonable). Hobit (talk) 02:34, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Restore and relist. There's a good faith claim to additional notability here, and this is not the place to argue it. (Nor am I qualified to do so) If the award is generally regarded as implying notability , then the award's web site is a reliable source for it, as for any other uncontested fact. (But if the award really is important, it should be possible to find another source also). DGG ( talk ) 06:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Relist at AFD to see what they make of all this. I don't care how this is achieved. Thincat (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Relist, per DGG's observation. Mackensen (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2016 (UTC) Unsalt, move the draft to mainspace, and allow immediate listing at AfD. The AfD and salting were long enough ago, and there is an additional claim of notability, so re-testing at AfD is reasonable. Personally, I don't see any secondary source material, and would probably !vote to delete. I have no respect for the PORNBIO SNG, it passes many subjects that will never have independent secondary sourcing, including some that are seriously BLP violating. Possibly, these pornstars, like supercentenarians, would generally be well covered in a list or table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:32, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 February 2016

Psychiatric abuse – Endorse. Broad (perhaps unanimous) agreement here that the fundamental policy problems that existed at the time this was deleted still hold true today. – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Psychiatric abuse (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I cannot find anyone claiming to be the administrator who deleted this. No evidence of a vote taken. A "clear majority" is not a consensus. The contents of the deleted article are not adequately reviewed in the deletion review. I would like to see it. I disagree with the conclusion that psychiatric abuse refers to either (1) medical malpractice or (2) political abuse of psychiatry or (3) proprietary pseudoscience. On the last point in particular, the name of a certain legitimate religion appears 34 times in the deletion review, and I would be interested to compare this to how often that same religion appears in the deleted article. 66.239.61.216 (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC) @Prioryman:. If I'm following the logs correctly, the AfD was closed by ChrisO, who has since changed usernames to Prioryman. In any case, I have done a temporary undelete of Psychiatric abuse for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Well unless I'm missing something, the article was deleted, DRV sent it back to AFD, than AFD2 here closed by another admin deleted it. But that was all 8 or so years ago. This seems a bit pointless, there is no barrier to someone writing a new article on the subject if they can do so within the expected standards. --82.14.37.32 (talk) 20:41, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, AFD1, DRV, AFD2 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:03, 6 February 2016 (UTC) I think a new version is the best choice since I see it as unlikely that an article that wad deleted in 2007 would fare any better now and if anything be less likely to survive an AFD.--67.68.21.173 (talk) 23:45, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. The old article looks like it's a coatrack for Scientology-related drama, and I doubt it would survive very long in the current environment. Rather than recreating under this title, I'd suggest that the nominator take User:Casliber's advice from the previous discussions and reframe the article to cover ethical issues in psychiatry, rather than re-using this rather loaded title. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:34, 7 February 2016 (UTC). Endorse we aren't going to restore an article resoundingly deleted eight years ago when it would probably fare much worse today. It is true that the closing admin in the first AfD mentioned a "clear majority", but that wasn't the whole closing statement - the AfD was closed as delete because there was a clear majority in favour of deletion and those people had good arguments. I would echo the suggestion that if the OP does actually want an article on this topic then they try rewriting it completely at a different title, possibly one relating to ethics in psychiatry. Hut 8.5 11:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. One of the key problems here is that the basic concept of this article is irretrievably flawed - it was started back in 2007 by a Scientologist editor as a WP:COATRACK for Scientologist claims about psychiatry (and indeed was sourced to thoroughly unreliable Scientology publications). What the rest of the world thinks of as "psychiatric abuse" is already covered on Wikipedia in Political abuse of psychiatry and its subordinate articles. The term "psychiatric abuse" is however typically used by Scientologists and other fringe anti-psychiatry campaigners to portray the entire psychiatric profession as abusive. If this article was restored it would become (even more of) a collection of anecdotes united by the theme of "events that someone somewhere has called a psychiatric abuse". As this suggests, it would be hopelessly POV right from the start. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration for a discussion of a similarly inherently POV article topic. Prioryman (talk) 13:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse the 2007 AfD. A clear consensus that the article, as written, was a gross No Original Research violation. If the IP registers and requests, allow WP:Userfication, for the purpose of improvement, moving back to mainspace and possible renomination at AfD. It is not clear that the IP intends to improve the article to make it compliant with policy. (wants to compare this to how often that same religion appears in the deleted article?) --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse I see no fault in the deletion process. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 February 2016

Template:Cite_doi/10.7326.2F0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00010 – Banned users do not have standing to raise DRVs. – Stifle (talk) 09:37, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:Cite_doi/10.7326.2F0003-4819-156-5-201203060-00010 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) Why was this kept? It's still orphaned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.170.45.121 (talk • contribs) 22:10, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse closure. The closer found a consensus in the discussion that due to the very large number of Cite_doi templates, individual nomination and deletion was not the preferred approach. I suppose the template could have been deleted anyway (no one argued against it) but the close was reasonable. Thparkth (talk) 01:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Ashley Renee Jones – Restore to draft (Draft:Ashley Renee Jones). The easiest (to defend) thing to do here would be to close this as Endorse, since that wins on the head-count front. Calling it No Consensus would, I think, also be defendable. But, I'm going to do neither of those. Instead, I'm going to give the most weight to the argument made by C.Fred, as the original admin who applied WP:CSD to this, and put it out into draft space. Pretty much everybody agrees that this doesn't belong in main article space in it's current form, and putting it into draft at least goes along with that. It needs to be said, however, that there's no promise that this will ever get back into main space. It's not just a matter of editing which will make it ready, but the subject needs to do things which will attract sufficient attention from reliable secondary sources to meet our notability requirements. That may well never happen. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ashley Renee Jones (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) The deleting New Page Patroller NPP had this to say: the only conflict of interest I see is that you're trying to create an article on behalf of the subject, based on the comments in the images you upload that indicate the images were given to you by the subject. Third, Facebook, Twitter, and other social networks are not reliable sources. Fourth, she would need to have been covered in national-scope publications. A write-up in the News and Observer is not enough to show she's significant or important. Finally, which items(s) from WP:NACTOR do you think she satisfies, and what reliable sources support those claims? —C.Fred (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC) C.Fred Point One: All pages are created on behalf of something of interest. C.Fred Point Two: The photos used are her property so the images uploaded I acquired with her permission. I told her why I wanted them so that it would be clear of my use for them. This is in line with copyrighted material and guidelines. Not to get the owners permission would have been a violation. C.fred Point Three: Reliable Resources. While Facebook and Twitter are not news sources but social media they are still references. Reviews by the regional INDY weekly and Triangle Arts and Entertainment which includes a demographic of over a million people is certainly local notoriety. But to dis-include the News and Observer, North Carolina's largest daily circular. From N&O: Overview of the News & Observer - A company with deep roots in the Triangle, The News & Observer Publishing Co. publishes not only The News & Observer, one of the nation’s best regional newspapers, but also 10 bi-weekly newspapers offering community coverage throughout the Triangle. The company launched nando.net, one of the nation’s first internet service providers, in 1994, and today is home to both newsobserver.com and triangle.com, the region’s leading websites. C.Fred Point Four: Websites like the Independent Movie Database or IMDB.com is a very reliable source of information concerning film and TV contributions of varying notoriety. C.Fred Point Five: WP:NACTOR certainly proves the page should not have been deleted. Significant Roles in multiple Roles, check. Large Fan base? What is the criteria for large? Significant Cult following? Again Significant has a numerical value or a cultural definition? She has a few hundred fans and that's more people than other cults with infamous notoriety. Prolific contributions. How many contributions do you have to be in to be considered Prolific? And let me be clear, this isn't a pissing contest. This is wanting to know the criteria for creating a page. Finally, this person is Notable Enough to be included in the Independent Movie Database or IMDB.com which is a global news credited source of reliable information. And since the NPP circumvented the seven day discussion for challenging an immediate deletion then that shows they are over zealous and read what they want and omit what the guidelines actually say. From A7 it says : If the claim of significance is credible, the A7 tag can not be applied, even if the claim does not meet the notability guidelines. Topics that seemed non-notable to new page patrollers have often been shown to be notable in deletion discussions. So simply because the arts and artists are not important to a new page patroller, doesn't make them A7 immediate Deletion and the Deletion Discussion should have been applied. DanWOrr (talk) 19:05, 5 February 2016 (UTC)DanWOrr, (talk) 5 Feb 2016 G11 would have been a much clearer call for either version of the article, which were both unabashedly and entirely promotional. —Cryptic 19:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I stand by the decision that this individual is not notable by WP:NACTOR standards and IMDb is not considered a reliable source since it consists of user-generated content. I have seen individuals with YouTube channels with a dozen subscribers be listed on IMDb as filmmakers and actors. There is little to no editorial oversight. But G11 criteria also fits as this article was completely promotional. If this deletion review is successful and the article is undeleted, I will nominate it for an WP:AFD which I predict will close with a decision to delete. To be frank, this actress has local notoriety in community theater and has made "casting calls to Disney" which is not the same as having "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions" that Wikipedia notability standards require. Liz Read! Talk! 19:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Comment (for now). This does sound like a deletion made primarily on notability grounds, but notability is decided at AfD, not by speedy deletion. I would say that on the face of it, a reference to a "News and Observer" article about the subject would be enough to exempt it from A7 deletion. Could someone please provide a link to that? I am unable to view the deleted article (not an admin). Thparkth (talk) 20:21, 5 February 2016 (UTC) If it's in there, I can't find it. The version deleted by C.Fred was entirely unsourced; the one later deleted by Liz referenced, in order, Facebook, Facebook, [22], [23], Facebook, Twitter, Facebook, IMDB, [24], [25], [26], Youtube, [27], [28] (sic), [29] again, Facebook, IMDB, [30], Facebook, IMDB, IMDB, IMDB, and IMDB. —Cryptic 21:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Comment from (first) deleting admin. The version I deleted failed to advance a claim of significance or importance. The introduction stated "Ashley Renee Jones (born October 20, 1992) is an American theater actress. She is best known for her local performances in Raleigh, North Carolina and surrounding areas. Granville Little Theater, The Henderson Rec Players, and North Raleigh Arts and Creative Theater." Note particularly the descriptive term "local" and that the three companies are redlinks. The article also included the kiss-of-death phrase "rising local celebrity"; she does have screen credits, but all as extras. Finally, note the image description on File:Jones g.jpg as uploaded by the Commons DanWOrr account: "The actress owns this image and shared it with me." While I disagree with Cryptic's assessment that the tone of the article was overtly promotional, I do agree that this description suggests that the creator of the article is editing on behalf of the subject. —C.Fred (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse A7 deletion, based on the information provided by C.Fred and Cryptic. Nothing that indicates a credible claim of significance. Thparkth (talk) 01:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse the text did not give any indication of significance. It said that the subject is an actress with a variety of roles in minor local theatre productions and extra roles in more prominent films. Descriptors included "local performances", "rising local celebrity", "makes frequent casting calls to Disney", "local fame" and "typical starving artist". The second deleted version did include references, and it is possible to avoid A7 deletion by including references which indicate that the subject may be notable, but virtually all the references were to the likes of Facebook, YouTube, IMDB and production companies. The only exceptions are [31] and [32] and I don't think anyone is going to decide that those confer notability as they barely mention the subject's name. Looks like a perfectly valid A7 to me. While it probably was written to promote the subject I don't think it would be a G11 candidate. Hut 8.5 21:39, 6 February 2016 (UTC) C.Fred can't seem to keep his false statements from a poor decision. She does have film credits as both extras but also one full length film and one tv series. Seems you conveniently forgot to mention those. I was creating a page about a person of notoriety. There are over 90 actors in this middle region of North Carolina and in my opinion their were only two that warranted being preserved, one of those was Jones. She did not ask to me to do it. But I did ask her if it would be ok. Mostly because as I fan of local theater being 50 and the subject 23, I did not want any complications from misinterpreted intentions. The photos are in the public domain but as such I did hunt down who took which ones and they agreed to my use for them. The sound track as well. They were all excited to believe that she would be included since they see her talent as well. The comments made about notoriety and promotional purposes are very ambiguous and as I have recently found in discussing with people about my attempt to make this page that wikipedia is scorned by most as irrelevant and a waste of internet space. I had never asked others for their opinion and was surprised by their collective and independent responses. Reading this gatekeeper debate concerning a page about Jones or any artist really, again citing Amanda Peterson of Can't Buy Me Love. There is nothing of substance about this webservice. With guidelines that say "significant cult following" but has no definition of significant. "Large number of fans" but how many is large? I am abandoning your service completely and joining these other people I recently talked to in their disdain for the information provided. I will however be forwarding to what Fred call an unreliable news source, his comments on behalf of Wikipedia, concerning their lack of journalistic integrity and unworthy news reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DanWOrr (talk • contribs) 22:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Undelete and list at AfD. Challenges A7s should be discussed at AfD, not DRV. A7 is for when there is no point in discussing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:48, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Speedy deletion is for articles that have severe flaws, at least in their current condition. It is certainly possible to rewrite an article to make clearer the significance of the subject if it were deleted under CSD A7. (Likewise, an article deleted under G11 could be rewritten with neutral text, and an article deleted under G12 could be rewritten with free, original text.) Part of my concern with the article was the depth and volume of coverage in reliable sources: I didn't say the N&O wasn't reliable, but what I said was a single write-up in a paper with a local arts section didn't show widespread or lasting coverage. To that end, what is probably best for the health of the article is to undelete to draft space and allow incubation so the article can be developed without the spectre of CSD A7 or an immediate AfD nomination. Once the article has solid sourcing and makes clear the case that the subject is notable, then it can go back to mainspace. —C.Fred (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse deletion, see also c:User talk:DanWOrr#Copyright status: File:Ashley Renee Jones 01.png (all 9 files had to be deleted for CV) & c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Uploads "for Ashley Renee Jones" & Ashley.renee.jones & WP:SPA & WP:SNOW, unfortunately DanWOrr seems for now reluctant to abide by our core project principles. If anyone really keeps claiming notability they should deliver well-sourced facts finally or go via Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Help desk and Draft:Ashley Renee Jones. Really sorry for Ashley if she is watching this, I'm sure you are a great person! --.js[democracy needed] 15:44, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Lucy Hannah – Endorse – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lucy Hannah (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) While I agree with the closer that there was no consensus to delete here, I feel that this article should have been relisted in order to gain broader community consensus. Reviewing the !votes on the page, I don't see a single "keep" vote that refers to an actual Wikipedia policy whose interpretation might justify keeping the article. All of them simply claim that they feel, subjectively, that the subject of the article is notable. Given the massive problems regarding sockpuppetry, off-wiki canvassing, SPA-!voting, and walled gardens in regard to longevity articles (a brief taste of which can found at the relevant Arbcom case), not relisting encourages the historical strategy of off-wiki canvassing and meatpuppetry. If consensus is that interpretations of actual policies lean towards keeping, then I am fine with it, but the "she's old and therefore notable" argument has no basis in policy and has been rejected on multiple occasions by consensus (see the large number of similar articles that have been deleted, redirected, and merged over the last few months). I am therefore seeking to have this reopened so that more outside community members can have a chance to comment. If no one does after a second week of discussion, then I could accept a no consensus closure. Canadian Paul 18:07, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Policy is only one of the factors that an administrator considers when interpreting the consensus of an AfD. If there was a strong consensus that something was notable, even without explicit policy support, that would carry weight - particularly when that feeling of notability was not directly contrary to policy. Precedent is established in AfD discussions, and policy is to some extent driven by AfD outcomes - it isn't a one-way process with policy being determined in isolation and being blindly applied to AfD closes. In this case the no-consensus close was entirely appropriate, reflected the discussion correctly, and in any case was within the reasonable discretion of the closer. Thparkth (talk) 20:50, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn and relist. AFD is not a nose-count, and this close seems to have been that. I see little more than WP:ILIKEIT-style reasoning among the keep recommendations, and policy must be weighed as part of the process here. In this case, it does not appear to have been weighted at all. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 21:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC) With a very few exceptions, AfD discussions are authoritative with regards to deciding notability. Those discussions should be informed by the notability guidelines, but they are not required to blindly reflect them. A well-attended AfD absolutely has the theoretical power to override WP:GNG, WP:BIO etc. In this case, even though there is a precedent that merely living to a great age doesn't confer notability, it was entirely within the remit of the AfD discussion to say "but this particular person is an exception to that precedent - she was the third oldest ever to live in the world, and we think that does make her notable". Of course that wasn't the outcome - there wasn't a consensus for that position. But it is an entirely credible and rules-compliant argument to make, and the closer was correct to give it due weight when determining that no overall consensus existed. Thparkth (talk) 16:05, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse as closer. As the nominator admits, "there was no consensus to delete". A relist would have been futile as it is highly doubtful that any progress would have been made towards further agreement. We don't just continually relist discussions until we arrive at the 'correct' outcome. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC). I think it's sort of assumed you endorse your own close. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 01:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Actually, no its not. Spartaz Humbug! 12:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC) My mistake, then. I guess I just saw the fact that Lankiveil just closed it as "no consensus", then defended that close at their talk, seemed like prima facie evidence that they endorsed their own close. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC) At DRV closers often undo their decisions following feedback or new argument so we never make any assumptions. Also the closer of the DRV will only look at this discussion and if Lankiveil says nothing than no assumption will be made of their opinion. Spartaz Humbug! 15:46, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Thanks, then. Striking my reply to Lankiveil. Hallward's Ghost (Kevin) (My talkpage) 15:49, 6 February 2016 (UTC) This was a debate that lasted more than 168 hours without reaching a clear conclusion, and had lots of conflicting input from editors in good standing. A sysop came along and closed it as "no consensus". I remember the last time we overturned a close in those circumstances! It was... let me see... nope, actually, it's never happened at all. There are good reasons why deletion discussions have an expiry date. And consensus (or the lack thereof) has always trumped policy on Wikipedia. I don't think there's any way to get to an "overturn" or "relist" outcome here. I do have considerable sympathy with nominator's view that longevity-related articles are an oddly separate subculture of Wikipedia where the notability rules are applied in a very different way from the rest of the encyclopaedia. I've always felt that there should be a separate longevity wiki where editors can create and maintain their articles about extremely old people without having to worry about notability, and in a recent discussion I was told that in fact, there is: here. If this was an RfC about whether to apply the notability rules very strictly to gerontology articles, transwiki all our gerontology articles over there and delete them from here, then you'll see me at the front of the queue !voting in favour. But this is a deletion review where we ask whether the deletion policy was correctly followed and the closer correctly assessed the debate, and the answer to both questions is unambiguously "yes", so the only word in bold I can put here is endorse.—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 6 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Note further that "failure to meet the GNG" does not imply deletion if there is a merge target, and that all non-notable supercentenarians bios can be merged to a list or table. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:46, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

Draft:3G Boss – In my individual capacity as an admin, I'm undoing this non-admin closure and reclosing the discussion. –  Sandstein  19:58, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:3G Boss (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) AFD was closed as moot because the page was moved to Draft space, but it needs to be deleted because it is being used as a WP:WEBHOST by one WP:SPA and a couple of IPs, also SPAs, and the AFD showed clear consensus to nuke. Guy (Help!) 00:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Agree. Bad NAC close, not responding to the clear abuse of process by use of SPAs, and the otherwise clear consensus to delete. I guess JzG is feeling inclined to be tentative, currently engaged in enough other silly arguments and having killed Rasputin last year, but he, like any admin, could have set aside the NAC close and re-closed. On the page as I see it. It is a running summary of a reality TV show, no secondary sourcing, a NOT:WEBHOST violation by a single editor who does nothing else, and as such if it were in userspace it would be speediable per WP:CSD#U5. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to delete - the NAC was well-intentioned and understandable, but procedurally flawed. The actual consensus of the discussion was to delete, and the close should have reflected that. Thparkth (talk) 05:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, this should have been closed as delete, and yes, if it's moved back to mainspace or cut-and-pasted there it should be G4'd, but I expect most admins would have undeleted for a move back into draftspace afterward if asked nicely. It seems weird and draconian to forbid this outcome merely because the article author did it himself rather than to continue to argue at the AFD, especially at the prompting of another user. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:3G Boss was the right venue - articles in draftspace and mainspace are deleted by different criteria, "not good enough sources yet" is by itself usually only enough for the latter, and that's all the AFD established. —Cryptic 07:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC) If it was a user with any history other than the obsessive blow by blow writeup of this non-notable programme, I would agree. Guy (Help!) 08:08, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I agree that there would be no issue having this restored to draft space after deletion, so there isn't much need to actually delete it. All the same, the discussion should have been closed as "delete", because that was the outcome, and so that G4 speedy deletion can be used if the article is moved back to main space without substantial improvement. Thparkth (talk) 13:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Sorry, I think bolded voting summaries are distasteful, usually redundant, nuanceless little crutches for lazy deletion-debate closers. To avoid further confusion, my comment should have been read as Overturn afd to delete. Take no immediate action on article. Relist at MFD. I expect it'll be deleted there with little fuss, but I do think it a necessary step. —Cryptic 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I would suggest a transwiki to the Reality TV Wikia.—S Marshall T/C 08:41, 5 February 2016 (UTC) I agree. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 5 February 2016 (UTC) The article author can move it there if he wants, and suggesting he take it there is unobjectionable, but we shouldn't do it for him. We have no reason to think he'll have any interest in working on it there, Wikia isn't us, and we shouldn't go out of our way to line their pockets with our castoffs. —Cryptic 15:00, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 February 2016

Plowback retained earnings – Speedy Close, no action taken. @Iaritmioawp: If reading Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions didn't make my eyes glaze over, I would impose a topic ban on you right now. However good or bad this redirect might be, it is obvious that the community just doesn't agree with you, and the amount of effort-wasting you are causing by continually flogging this dead horse just isn't worth it. Don't push this anymore. Doing so is disruptive and if you continue with this, you will be blocked or banned from editing. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:18, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Plowback retained earnings (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I believe the closing administrator interpreted the consensus incorrectly and I would like to request that his/her closure be reviewed. The way I see it, there was a clear consensus to delete. The arguments in favor of deletion clearly outweighed the ones against it. The redirect was determined to be in violation of our policy on page names. It was recognized as a nonsensical misnomer that has never been used outside Wikipedia and that escapes WP:R3 on nothing but a technicality. It was also noted that the redirect's existence cannot be justified using any of the generally accepted reasons for keeping and maintaining redirects. These arguments were not addressed by those in favor of keeping the redirect; rather, they were simply disregarded in a manner akin to covering one's ears and pretending not to hear what is being said, which is largely consistent with what occurred during the redirect's previous two RfDs. Another problematic thing about the closure, which in my opinion should warrant the discussion's relisting on its own, is that it was performed by an administrator who had also closed the previous discussion of that redirect.[33] This is not the first time this has happened; a similar problem occurred during Plowback retained earnings' previous RfD, which was also initially closed by an involved administrator, though a different one; the closure was taken to DRV and overturned, see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9. User:Deryck Chan clearly shouldn't have effectively repeated User:BDD's suboptimal action which was later on nullified by consensus. Note: The matter was discussed with the closing administrator prior to the opening of this review, see User talk:Deryck Chan#Plowback retained earnings. Note: There were two previous DRVs of two other discussions related to the Plowback retained earnings redirect; they're not directly relevant to the matter currently under discussion, but, should anyone wish to review them, they can be found here and here. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn The closing administrator clearly failed to consider the strength of the arguments used during the discussion; it would seem s/he simply counted the number of "votes" on each side of the argument without considering the merits of the comments that followed them; such is in direct violation of what WP:CONSENSUS would have him/her do. Iaritmioawp (talk) 18:39, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Note: This editor is the nominator and creator of this discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Comment: Here we go again. This is now the 3rd time this redirect has been nominated by the same nominator, and the 3rd that aforementioned nominator didn't like the close result (yes, didn't like; the fact that this is the 3rd DRV for this proves, to me, the lack of the nominator liking the result.) As stated above, the situation regarding the previous two nominations is why BDD basically had to avoid this one completely. In my very honest opinion, this DRV should be speedy closed as "speedy endorse" and the nominator/DRV creator should be WP:TROUT-ed for this disruption. (Also, the nominator seemed to recently take an almost-year long break from editing Wikipedia ... and what was essentially the first thing they did? Yes, nominated this redirect again. This editor seems to now have some sort of WP:SPA mentality with this redirect.) Steel1943 (talk) 18:47, 4 February 2016 (UTC) I must ask that you refrain from making any further personal attacks against me; instead, please try to focus on the matter currently under discussion. Thank you. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC) @Iaritmioawp: No personal attack present in my statement. I recommend trying a different red herring. Steel1943 (talk) 19:07, 4 February 2016 (UTC) I will give you, for the last time mind you, the benefit of the doubt, and patiently explain what is wrong with your comment. In your comment, which doesn't serve to further the discussion it's now a part of in the least, you are accusing me of 1) disrupting Wikipedia; 2) being a single-purpose account; 3) having nominated the closure for review impelled by my dislike of the outcome of the discussion. All of these accusations, a.k.a. personal attacks, are not only misplaced but also blatantly false. Seeking review of closures where we believe the consensus to have been assessed erroneously isn't disruptive; it's what WP:DRV is for. I'm clearly not an SPA, as demonstrated by my 4,185 edits to 3,359 unique pages, 84.3% of which were made to the mainspace.[34] It is true that I have recently resumed my Wikipedia editing after a long hiatus and that I'm not currently making any edits to the mainspace; that is due to the fact that I'm still catching up on all the MoS/policy changes that were made while I was away, and I don't appreciate your suggestion that I came back here just to cause mayhem and destruction, or however else you put it. Do not suggest that again. The reason why I nominated the closure for review has been laid out in my nomination statement; my dislike for the outcome is not that reason. If you wish to make any further comments, make sure they contain no further personal attacks; an apology, however, would be entirely appropriate. Iaritmioawp (talk) 00:34, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Yet another red herring and a blatant misconstruing of my comments. This seems to be a pattern for this editor. I honestly have nothing else to say to the editor unless they choose to somehow misconstrue this comment as well. Steel1943 (talk) 03:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC) It's not exactly the apology I was hoping for, but I suppose it'll do. Speaking of "red herrings," do you actually have anything to say about the closure that we're here to discuss? This is, after all, a deletion review. Iaritmioawp (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) (edit conflict) Strong endorse Spoiler alert: Iaritmioawp always thinks there's "clear consensus to delete" this redirect. See Talk:Plowback retained earnings for links to all four (!) RfDs, and the two previous DRVs. Deryck's close was perfectly valid, because Iaritmioawp can type until their fingers fall off, but it won't change the fact that this is essentially harmless, if not necessary. The differing opinions registered in the discussion speak to that. I'm certain Iaritmioawp won't let this go until the redirect is deleted, so here's some unsolicited advice: if I were the one hell-bent on doing so, I'd continue nominating after several-month intervals, as Iaritmioawp has done, but I wouldn't DRV every time it didn't go my way (cf. WP:OTHERPARENT). Eventually, the body of editors at RfD would change and there could actually be consensus. In the meantime, every time the question gets raised, it looks more and more like WP:IDHT, and definitely the most bizarre case of that I've come across. This is also the second time this editor has ignored the very important provision of WP:INVOLVED that admins who act "purely in an administrative role" are not involved. A few editors overlooking this in a previous DRV doesn't invalidate that—or if it does, then the policy page needs updating. Being able to accept that things haven't gone your way and move on is an essential skill for any Wikipedian. I hope it's one Iaritmioawp picks up here after round 7. --BDD (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2016 (UTC) @BDD: Well, I was about to add to my comment the hypothetical assumption that it seems that this editor keeps on renomimatimg this redirect in the hopes that the body of editors monitoring RFD will change so that the discussion can go in their favor, but you basically beat me to it. Steel1943 (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Well, I guess I had that thought too (see below). Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2016 (UTC) As per WP:INVOLVED, "[i]nvolvement is generally construed very broadly by the community," which is why your WP:INVOLVED closure of the second discussion regarding the Plowback retained earnings redirect was overturned and which is why the closure currently under review should also be overturned. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse close (edit conflict × 4) - here is the history of discussions concerning this redirect: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 10#Plowback retained earnings - no consensus Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 25 - no consensus result endorsed Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 20#Plowback retained earnings - no consensus Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 March 9 - relisted, re-closed as no consensus Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_24#Plowback_retained_earnings - no consensus (challenged in this discussion) That's no consensus five times. As much as I dislike this redirect and have !voted multiple times for its deletion, it's clearly not happening. The nominator and other !delete voters (myself included) have apparently consistently failed to present a compelling argument supporting the redirect's deletion to the extent necessary to sway consensus, and there are no more arguments to give. Furthermore, the nominator has not offered any, they seem simply content to dragging this through as many venues as possible as many times as possible, apparently intent on forcing consensus by attrition (including issuing an ultimatum to the closing administrator). I believe it's time to drop this particular stick. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 18:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Four closures of effectively the same discussion; two closing administrators. If you believe there is nothing wrong with that picture, I guess I have no other choice but to respectfully disagree. Iaritmioawp (talk) 19:05, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Indeed I do believe there's nothing wrong with that picture; I believe this makes me the fourth editor to have told you so, but you refuse to hear it. Admins who act in a purely administrative capacity in a discussion are not INVOLVED; the fact that you object to it after the fact does not make them involved either. This discussion has gone exactly the same way four times, and there has been absolutely nothing presented here to make anyone think that discussing it a fifth time would result in any other outcome. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC) I always love these ones where the nominator bluelinks "consensus" for us, just in case we might have somehow found our way here to deletion review without grasping the concept. This nomination has no chance of success whatsoever. Snow endorse and list at WP:DEEPER.—S Marshall T/C 19:22, 4 February 2016 (UTC) @S Marshall: Wow, the essay that WP:DEEPER goes to ... I never knew such a list actually existed. The more I now know ... and can appreciate about Wikipedia. Steel1943 (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Those are actually relatively mild cases... some things aren't listed there, for various reasons including WP:BEANS. Here's an instructive link. Here's another. Deary deary me.—S Marshall T/C 20:03, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Overturn to delete. Disclaimer: I've never been involved in any of these discussions that I can remember, and for all that I don't think I even know any of the users involved. Contra Steel1943 (talk · contribs), there is nothing disruptive about renominating a redirect for deletion when the previous discussions failed to produce consensus. On average of once a year (give or take) seems a reasonable period, certainly not worth an accusation of disruption which simply poisons the discussion. That doesn't help Wikipedia. Now, main idea. I see no policy-based arguments raised for keeping the redirect. Editors in favor of deletion suggested, and were not rebutted, that the redirect is implausible and nonsensical. These are reasons to delete. Steel1943 acknowledged in the original debate that the redirect was "implausible", but he also said "but that doesn't meant that it's not useful." Forgive me, but the claim is precisely that--that it's not useful. If Steel1943 has explained elsewhere how it is useful then I can't find it, and no closing administrator should have to trawl through archives like that. The argument that the redirect is unambiguous is irrelevant. Any random concatenation of nouns would be. No one in this discussion has explained why this redirect is useful and should be kept, and many have explained why it is implausible and should be deleted. The closing administrator should have given the latter arguments greater weight and deleted the redirect. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC) @Mackensen: Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 December 10#Plowback retained earnings. Steel1943 (talk) 01:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) The rationale for it to be deleted initially was because it was redundant in itself (such as calling a refridgerator a "refridgerating refridgerator"); I did not see that to be a valid reason for deletion, and I still don't. Steel1943 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2016 (UTC) It's certainly not a reason to keep it--it's useless--and with a preponderance of editors advancing the position to delete (with policies and arguments and other cool stuff) it the administrator should have accorded their views greater weight. WP:RFD#DELETE examples 5 and 8 conceivably apply. Just as important, I haven't seen arguments in favor of any of the points listed in WP:RFD#KEEP. It's comical, if Kafkaesque. We're binding ourselves up in knots to save a redirect no one can justify. Mackensen (talk) 02:02, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. This has been done to death. Guy (Help!) 00:16, 5 February 2016 (UTC) This recalls Flood v. Kuhn, in which an early mistake is repeatedly endorsed until it becomes uncorrectable. Small in the grand scheme of things, but this is the sort of outcome that drives men mad. Granted, RfD has always loved perverse outcomes. See for example Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Precedents/Deleted#George Woshingtin, in which a redirect deliberately created by a troll took three RfDs and a VfU to actually delete. I'm amazed it actually happened, and this was back in 2004 when things were looser. Mackensen (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Well within admin discretion for the discussion that I see. Looking deeper.... Ban Iaritmioawp (talk · contribs) from ever discussing this redirect again. If he is right, someone else will make a fresh argument, and it is more likely to lead to a consensus if the discussion is driven by someone with less baggage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse - no other outcome was possible based on that discussion. Probably doesn't need to be discussed again any time soon. Thparkth (talk) 05:35, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse, consensus was reasonable, redirects are cheap. Nominator is advised to drop the WP:STICK. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 February 2016

Retroscripting – Redirect changed. The closure is contested only as regards the redirect target. There's consensus that it should be changed. Per this discussion, I'm changing it to Improvisational theatre#In film and television; this can be changed further if appropriate through the normal editorial process. –  Sandstein  09:27, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Retroscripting (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) The AfD was closed as "redirect to Home Movies (TV series)". However, the title is too generic to redirect to that specific TV series. As a case in point, Poochie (The Simpsons) contains a mention that Poochie's farewell episode was retroscripted to show that Poochie died on the way to his home planet. The reader expects the link "retroscripted" to go to an article about retroactive changes to scripts, but is instead taken to an article about an entirely unrelated TV series. JIP | Talk 19:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse- The close is an accurate evaluation of the consensus at AfD, and there is no indication that the closing administrator made a mistake, or misinterpreted either policy or consensus. This nomination is an argument that should have been made at the AfD, but DRV is not AfD round 2. If you want the redirect to point somewhere else, the better venue is WP:RFD. There is certainly no way of overturning this to keep. Reyk YO! 19:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC) OK, if that's the case, I'll wait for the discussion to be closed, and if the outcome is "endorse", I'll take it up at WP:RFD. JIP | Talk 20:09, 2 February 2016 (UTC) RFD is not a solution unless there is some other article to redirect to. —teb728 t c 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse: The AfD found unanimously that “Retroscripting” is not “notable” in the sense of having received significant coverage in reliable sources. Unless such coverage can now be found, there should be no article on the general subject of retroscripting. (Wikipedia is not a dictionary.) As for the Simpsons example, the redirect link should be removed, possibly with an added explanation if the word is not clear enough by itself. —teb728 t c 20:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC) I am withdrawing my Endorse in light of Thincat’s comment below. In particular, deletion would have been at least as appropriate a closure. But I don’t see recreation as a possibility unless notable coverage can now be found. —teb728 t c 00:56, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Comment: The best solution for me would be to restore the article retroscripting. But if neither DRV or RFD can accomplish this, the appropriate action to take would be to remove the redirect from every single place where the link is used to mean retroactive changes to scripts in general, not the specific TV series (whose name bears no hint about the word "retroscripting"). I still feel that the name is too generic to be about any single specific TV series, but I will abide by the outcome of this discussion, even if it means I will have to remove the redirect from every unsuitable place I can find (which I'm pretty sure I will). JIP | Talk 20:35, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Comment - I had originally suggested Deletion Review, but I concur that Redirects for Discussion is better, since the unexpected problem was not discussed at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Comment I suppose, strictly, there are no grounds for overturning the close but the discussion was so very poor, shockingly poor, that something needs to be done somehow. Anyone reading Home Movies (TV series) would have learned that the technique followed on from Dr. Katz, Professional Therapist (and that article also uses the word). As well, there are articles on other shows using the term.[35] A far better redirect or merge target would have been Improvisational theatre#In film and television, as suggested. Also to delete would have been reasonable leaving Wiktionary to pick up the pieces (which it presently does not). Perhaps instead of closing RoySmith could have provided some editorial guidance hoping that better judgement might prevail in the end. Thincat (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Allow recreationRedirect to better target. I closed this, but I agree with Thincat that the discussion was flawed. One only needs look at Special:WhatLinksHere/Retroscripting to see that the term is used in many places, unrelated to Home Movies (TV series), so the redirect makes no sense. I wish I had noticed that at the time, but to be honest, when the discussion is as unanimous as this one was, I don't spend a lot of time looking for reasons to do something else. That being said, it would have been better to ping me directly before going to DRV; we might well have sorted this out much quicker. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse The only argument given at the help desk was that some pages redirect there. Only 2 articles link there, see [36]- so simply solution is remove those 2 links. No evidence it's notable per WP:GNG. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC) Perhaps I should adjust my statement above. It's an open question whether it makes sense for this to exist as a stand-alone article, but certainly the current redirect to Home Movies (TV series) makes no sense. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC) If we're just debating the redirect, it should be at RFD not here. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Endorse. Good close, consensus was clear. Do not allow re-creation (re-spin out) without it being proposed at Talk:Home Movies (TV series), and agreed to there. The topic is woefully too thin for its own article, it belongs as a mention at Home Movies (TV series). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:11, 3 February 2016 (UTC) Yes, retroscripting is a word used in multiple places. However, reliable secondary sources for it as a topic are very thin. Instead, it is a WP:NEOLOGISM. As such, the first hurdle to get an entry at wikt:Retroscripting. If wikilinking is demanded from other articles unrelated to "Home Movies", then add a section at Ad libitum. If that section requires more space than that article allows, then spin out from there, a new article in parallel to Improvisational theatre. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC) As an editorial decision, change the redirect to point to Improvisational_theatre#In_film_and_television, as a much better redirect target. Do not spin out without the proposal being made and agreed to at Talk:Improvisational theatre. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:22, 3 February 2016 (UTC) That makes sense to me. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC) The redirect is absurd, and should simply be considered an error. The suggested change above by Smokey Joe seems a simple solution. DGG ( talk ) 10:12, 4 February 2016 (UTC) Change redirect to Improvisational_theatre#In_film_and_television per Smokey Joe. Thparkth (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 February 2016

Food Matters – Restore up to 16:10, 13 January 2015 – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Food Matters (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) I listed Food Matters at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 10: Food Matters (history · last edit · rewrite) from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1528734/. Copyright issues were discussed at Talk:Food Matters#Copyvio issues: Unfortunately, this article had masses of copyvio, that came out when I started checking the sources to prepare to improve it, post-AfD. I shan't object to its recreation (with appropriate balancing of the fringe claims), of course, but... this is unusual. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:10, 9 January 2016 (UTC) Copyvio information (copied here from User talk:JzG, diff). North America1000 02:30, 10 January 2016 (UTC) The bulk of the article text was derived from a series of cut & paste edits from IMDB, made by an anonymous IP editor in February 2015. At the time the article was deleted a day ago, the majority of the article's text – a summary of the film's content – was still word-for-word identical. (To add insult to injury, that same section of the article had borne an unresolved, ignored cleanup tag since March 2015.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Matters was closed in November 2013 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Food Matters (2nd nomination) was closed in January 2016. TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs) identified a cut-and-paste edits from IMDb in February 2015, but the article has existed since at least November 2013 (and probably longer). Is there a clean version without copyright violations that can be reverted to? Pinging admins JzG (talk · contribs), TenOfAllTrades (talk · contribs), Sandstein (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), and Jreferee (talk · contribs), who can see the article. Pinging Adam Cuerden (talk · contribs) and duffbeerforme (talk · contribs). Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2016 January 10 no longer shows up on Wikipedia:Copyright problems, so I am taking this to DRV to ask DRV admins to review the article's history to determine whether there is a clean version to revert to. Cunard (talk) 02:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Text from the first revision (22:59, 10 March 2011 by User:Walkabout12) googles readily, but so far as I can tell everything post-dates it. If so, that gets us up to the 16:10, 13 January 2015 revision. The article had been significantly longer before User:MastCell trimmed it just prior to the first afd; I haven't investigated whether any of what he removed was infringing. —Cryptic 03:13, 1 February 2016 (UTC) Thank you for reviewing the deleted revisions and posting your analysis here! Cunard (talk) 03:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.