Autocunnilingus – The most recent G4 speedy deletion is overturned. The previous deletions are uncontested. – Sandstein 06:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Endorse and speedy close, as the page was well discussed, and the nomination makes no substantive points. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse unless nominator provides reasons why they should be restored. Bearcat (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This activity exists in animal. This article was deleted because Wikipedians did not know its existance. They thought autocunnilingus is hyphothetical sex activity. This article had many references. Lava03 (talk) 09:42, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please can we have a proper discussion rather than a pile-on dismissal of this DRV, because it's genuinely arguable that G4 shouldn't apply to discussions that happened 9 years ago ago. Pinging @Yngvadottir: who I know took an interest in this article.—S MarshallT/C 10:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator gives no indication that he even read the last deletion discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not "pile-on dismissing" anything out of hand; I just asked for an actual reason to be provided why undeletion might be warranted beyond a summary "undelete because I said so, the end". It changes things if an actual explanation is given that can be discussed, but the original nomination statement that I was responding to offered nothing but "undelete because I said so". Bearcat (talk) 15:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What? Wait a minute. I wrote an entirely new article, and it looks as if it was speedy deleted because a preceding article at the same title had been deleted after an AfD? You bet your brass buttons I advocate restore; the rationale was entirely inapplicable, as a glance at the history would have shown, and I was not even informed the article was nominated for speedy deletion. Thanks for the ping, S Marshall, and I'm going to ping Drmies, since my creation of the new article at this title arose out of a discussion on their talk page. Yngvadottir (talk) 11:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thanks to Jo-Jo Eumerus for undeleting it for the purposes of this review. And pinging Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, who made the mistaken nomination for speedy deletion as a re-creation. This is what the article looked like immediately before it was deleted as per the outcome of the third AfD. This is the redirect that was deleted on 1 September 2013 following the MfD that is linked there. And this is my new start; note the edit summary clearly stating that I am creating an article with sources. This was not a re-creation of the deleted article, and despite a lengthy history of editing since then, it did not resemble the article that was deleted following the AfD. The speedy deletion nomination and the execution based on that nomination were errors; the evidence of that is now visible. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Restore as clearly two different articles in substance; previous AfD's only apply to a particular version, not the topic generally. MuffledPocketed 15:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, so we need to have a complex outcome here:- (1) I endorse WJBScribe's accurate close of the third AfD in 2007. (2) I endorse Ruslik Zero's accurate close of the RfD on 1 September 2013. (3) I feel we should overturn the G4 deletion in 2016, because G4 was misapplied. The deleted versions were not substantially identical and were in fact almost totally dissimilar in content and sourcing. Therefore (4) the outcome of this DRV should be that revisions from before 22 September 2013 should be re-deleted and the subsequent ones restored.—S MarshallT/C 15:44, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the G4 speedy deletion. The articles were completely different, the recreation cited many more sources which weren't in the deleted version, and the AfD is nearly a decade old to start with. Hut 8.5 16:08, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What Yngvadottir says, and anyone who chimed in with her. Y's version bears no relationship to earlier versions whatsoever. Overturn quickly please. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:59, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G4. Article is sufficiently different from that deleted at AfD in 2007 that G4 should no longer apply; the length of time also argues for reconsideration at a new AfD. Thparkth (talk) 17:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OverturnG4, as the new version was not substantially similar to the one previously deleted per discussion.— Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:45, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and allow recreation, never should have been deleted a notable sexual act similar to autofellatio, clearly passes GNG, and may biases be damned. Valoemtalkcontrib 17:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kumawat – Moot. I'm not 100% sure what's being requested here, but whatever it is, it doesn't seem like DRV needs to be involved. If somebody believes that the redirect is incorrect and should be replaced by something else, WP:BOLD seems like all the process that's required to do that, or perhaps start a conversation at Talk:Kumawat or Talk:M. L. Kumawat to grow some consensus. None of those actions require admin rights. There are 20 deleted revisions which are no longer publicly visible in the history of Kumawat; if you want those restored under the redirect, it sounds like the consensus here (such as it is) is to allow that, so let me know if that's what you want. If I'm missing something here, please ping me on my talk page. – -- RoySmith(talk) 15:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I believe that this version of the page should be restored. This is an article about an ethnic group. It definitely exists; People of India: Rajasthan has a chapter on them. All the rationales given at the AFD are invalid and it was poorly attended. The nominator made no statement at all, one of the only two other participants said they could not "tell what thing it is" despite the first sentence of the article saying "Kumawat is community of the people living mainly in [list of places]", and the other participant suggested that there were "notability questions". Certainly the article has many problems, but if there are policy reasons that it can be said that an ethnic group is non-notable then there is something seriously wrong with our criteria for inclusion. It seems more like a bad dose of US/Euro-centrism to me and an unwillingless to do simple checks like look up Gotra on Wiktionary which would have immediately explained to the participants why the "rambling" list they complained about was actually relevant to the article.
To be clear, I don't care about the current prod of the recently recreated page as a surname page. That aspect can be taken care of by adding a list of notable people called Kumawat to the article (we currently only have one article in that category). SpinningSpark 14:09, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Appears a reasonable request. Did you ask the closer? Support restoration, allow Spinningspark to work on it and then allow any editor to renominate at AfD. I removed the PROD note on the current version, replacing it with a pointer to here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:48, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
* Either that, or delete the current page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:56, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: Sorry, I did not approach the closer, perhaps I should have. I did not because it was a very old AFD and the close was unarguably in line with the discussion. SpinningSpark 08:43, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this at DRV? Seems more like a thing for WP:UND. Anyway, I don't see anything in the history worth restoring. The deleted article begins "Kumawat is community of the people living mainly in Rajasthan,Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Delhi and other part of India.They are simple, spiritual and karma oriented people", and goes on in the same vein. The content seems to be of no use, and no sources are cited. If this topic is notable, the article will have to be rewritten by someone competent from scratch, which I have no objections to. And the recreated surname stub is also unsourced and appears pointless; I've redirected it to M. L. Kumawat, which seems to be the only article we have that could be in scope of a list, disambiguation or redirect. Sandstein 10:03, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
An unsourced page doesn't have to be deleted. It is much easier to expand/improve an existing page than to start from scratch. Yes, there is a lot of language that needs cleaning up, but there is factual information there too. SpinningSpark 15:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
MASwings Flight 3002 – AfD redirect endorsed. It sounds like a reasonable way forward would be to add the new information to the existing MASwings article and/or start a conversation at Talk:MASwings to see if there's consensus to break ths out to its own page. – -- RoySmith(talk) 15:42, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Received coverage in multiple reliable sources [1][2][3][4], also, an investigation into the accident has since been released [5]. I believe that there is enough content to be worthy of an article. - Champion (talk) (contribs) (Formerly TheChampionMan1234) 01:01, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Uphold result. DRV is not a venue to relitigate an AFD discussion just because you happen to personally disagree with the conclusion; it is only for discussing and reviewing situations where there might have been some impropriety, such as a closure that ran explicitly counter to the consensus of the participants. These sources are not wildly convincing that this incident is a notable one — since the relevant transportation safety agency will always come in to investigate every plane crash that happens at all, the existence of an investigative report into the accident is not in and of itself evidence of notability, and the volume of news coverage you've shown is not all that strong. We cannot feasibly keep an article about every individual aviation accident that happened at all (there's no feasible path, for example, for the twin-engine Cessna crash that just killed Jim Prentice two days ago to get a standalone article as a separate topic from our existing biography of Prentice himself) — and the sources being shown here are not making a particularly strong case that Flight 3002 actually crosses the bar that separates the kind of incident that would warrant a real article from the kind that just warrants mention in the article on the airline. Bearcat (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the new information should be added to the section first, and then it would be easier to decide on the split. DGG ( talk ) 05:05, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Family Home Entertainment – Endorse. I'm assuming all the various IPs who commented here are a single person. And, to that person, please understand that this is a collaborative project. Calling your fellow editors stupid and demanding that other people do your research for you are not good ways to work in that kind of project. – -- RoySmith(talk) 23:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was redirected to Artisan Entertainment last month because someone stupidly decided that the company isn't notable, but it is notable because it was a big name for VHS and a lot of its VHS's are collected by buffs. Most of the reliable sources found for the article came from Google Books, mainly the Billboard magazines, so it barely has reliable news sources. But here are more sources I found: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Family_Home_Entertainment#More_references89.11.210.35 (talk) 22:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
*Relist We usually do combine material under the latest title, but when there is extensive information as for entertainment companies, there's good reason to make an separate article. In this case I think the discussion was closed prematurely and should have been relisted, because it seems so contrary to common sense. The only way we have of recognizing what is or is not common sense is to have greater participation in a discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:09, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
DGG, what do you feel was contrary to common sense? The article's sources are particularly numerous, but most of them serve to support film-catalog style information and the rest is mostly unsupported by the cited sources or entirely unsourced (like the acquisitions section). The little information there is (like the brief paragraph history sourced to Veni, Vidi, Video: The Hollywood Empire and the VCR) is much better merged to the latest title, where it can be better placed in context. —0xF8E8 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Noting as the closing administrator that the IP did ask for a review on my talkpage as well yesterday and has been discussing it with a different IP too. I did ping the other participants in the discussion on my talkpage to see what they have to say on the new references provided in the draft. As for relisting, I didn't perform a relist because there seemed to be barely enough input in the AfD and there is nothing that jumps out as improper or against common sense that I can see - the discussion did explicitly argue that there is not extensive information that would justify a separate article. I have no objections against re-discussing the new sources provided, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse No evidence has been presented against the arguments advanced in the deletion discussion: that the company does not meet WP:CORPDEPTH or other relevant guidelines, as most coverage is limited to single-sentence or catalog mentions. There's just not enough well-sourced content to justify an independent article, and the numerous bad sources added to the draft show a deep misunderstanding of reliability and the fact trivial mentions don't help notability. The little properly sourced content is much more appropriately merged to Artisan Entertainment instead of cobbling together an article based on unsourced content and directory-style mentions. —0xF8E8 (talk) 11:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
At least merge more of the contentLooking again at the original material and references, I see that it was in essence just an earlier name, and there is no reason why it cannot be incorporated. I don't think enough was merged. Though I doubt we should list every film a distribution company distributes, we should include the most important, and they were the original distributor of such series as Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1987 TV series). (Looking at the added references, they seem to be meaningless mentions of the name). DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously, all of you, I'm TRYING to PROVE the company's existence as a DIVISION with those dang sources, so it HAS to deserve a separate article! 85.196.227.118 (talk) 22:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse A lot of the content is actually present in the Encyclopaedia (See here and here). My suggestion to 85.196.227.118 would be to selectively add a bit more of the info if required and improve the target article. It doesn't deserve a separate article on its own. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 06:33, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't care! It does SO deserve a separate article! There are LOTS of VHS's and others released by the COMPANY ITSELF up until 2005! If you keep saying that it's "not notable", then just get someone else like Ryanasaurus0077 to do the bloody research!5.151.220.5 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We have certain rules on Wikipedia - we don't create standalone articles on each topic unless absolutely necessary. However, if you still want to create the article, I suggest you to try other venues such as this. --Lemongirl942 (talk) 16:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
TVPaint – closed as wrong venue for the discussion. Article creation process does not require restoration of old copyright violations. – Bearcat (talk) 04:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was deleted in January because of so-called "copyright infringement", which is untrue because TVPaint deserves a Wikipedia article for being a popular raster-based animation software. If someone wants to fix the article to avoid violations, then they need to rewrite the article based on sources, along with http://wiki.tvpaint.com/index.php?title=TVPaint and the other links here which I found, instead of deleting it altogether. 89.11.210.35 (talk) 22:38, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's not how Wikipedia works. Copyright violations have to go, immediately, by whatever means are necessary, and "topic deserves an article" is not a valid counterargument to a copyright issue. A new article can always be created if someone can write and source it properly, but that does not require the restoration or undeletion of the copyvio. Submitting a new version through the AFC process is the correct approach here, although I can tell you right now that nothing in that version is a reliable source that can support notability in a Wikipedia article — a company's own primary source content about itself, press releases, user-generated discussion forums and blogs are not the kind of sourcing it takes to get a topic into Wikipedia. But there's nothing for DRV to discuss here, because nothing about the process requires restoration of the first version. Bearcat (talk) 04:32, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
