Allow recreation per AFCR consensus for this. Page was salted 9 years ago as an probable attack page were made to repost ClueBot 4 times I will review the deletion of Cluebot as I want to redirect to ClueBot NG pinging my operator66.87.64.113 (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mystery to me why this attracted so much vandalism, but I certainly can't see any reason not to create the redirect. If it attracts more vandalism, the redirect could always be protected. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:24, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation per KGirlTrucker81 66.87.64.113 (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If this redirect is created, ClueBot should also redirect. It was redirected after discussion, but that was before the proposed target page was created. Peter James (talk) 22:40, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation and reevaluate if future problems develop. Jclemens (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png – Relist at FFD. It is clear from this discussion that there is no consensus at DRV for whether consensus was correctly interpreted and policy followed at FFD. DRV's procedure leaves two possible outcomes in such a case: default to the earlier close or relist at an appropriate venue. I base my decision on the content of the arguments laid out in this discussion, the extent to which deletion process was followed, and the likelihood that future discussion (taking into account the points raised) could potentially be fruitful. The distinction between direct appeals to NFCC and implicit appeals to NFCC discussed here leads me to believe that further discussion could be helpful. A significant process concern was also raised about how the closer of the previous FFD cited his own earlier close as being "established precedent". – IronGargoyle (talk) 21:13, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was a fair use headshot photograph of the perpetrator of the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting, used to identify him in the section about him in that article.
I think the closer erred in closing this discussion. Opinions were divided about whether the image meets the NFCC, which should have resulted in a "no consensus, default to keep" outcome, given that no one side's arguments seem to offer a particularly more compelling interpretation of the NFCC. The closer's reference to "precedent" is mistaken in that Wikipedia does not apply (binding) precedent, but looks at each case individually; this is even more so where the "precedent" is exactly one closure by the same closer themselves, and took place on a notoriously poorly attended forum such as FfD, where individual discussions can't amount to much in the way of community consensus.
The closer has replied to these concerns in detail on their talk page, which I appreciate. They argue that the "keep" opinions did not (explicitly) address the NFCC, but in my view this should not be necessary. The NFCC are a highly technical and obscure policy, which ordinary editors can't be expected to know by heart. The "keep" opinions make sufficiently clear why the respective editors consider it necessary to include the image and why they do not consider it replaceable with alternatives, such as text, or an equally non-free prison mugshot. Sandstein 10:14, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No consensus, with no prejudice agaisnt relisting if anyone so Chooses, but no automatic relisting. While not explicitly citing the NFCC, those in favor of keep did make policy-based reasons clear enough that they should not have been discounted, in my view. I must agree with the nomination on the issue of "precedent" here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:58, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep Sandstein, there are a number of editors who believe that NFCC questions should default to delete, because copyright. It's unfortunate that they're trying to impair our coverage of current events based on their own particular interpretations. Jclemens (talk) 03:32, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closing administrator. Please see my initial response to Sandstein's query. DESiegel, as I explained on my talk page, only one editor made an attempt to address NFCC, and specifically WP:NFCC#1. However, that was not the nominator's issue with the image, who pointed that out and was accused of bludgeoning the process in doing so. Sandstein stated: "It's normal practice to illustrate biographies of significant public figures" in the context of articles about the incidents and not the perpetrator. This is, to the best of my knowledge, not true. This also not policy, nor does it address policy – NFCC or otherwise. Philosopher and Doctor Papa Jones cited Dennis Brown's keep argument, who was addressed the wrong criterion to begin with, and Sandstein's keep argument, which failed to address any policy to any agree, for his own keep argument. AGreatPhoenixSunsFan's argument boiled down to "just showing a picture of the attacker in question shouldn't be a reason for deleting an image altogether", and again failed to cite policy for this. zzuuzz's "replace" comment and El cid, el campeador's "remove" argument were both misguided, so I discounted those entirely. What I was left with: Fourthords's (nominator) arguments citing policy, George Ho's argument citing policy, and Quackslikeaduck's agreeing with George. I did not see a discussion that would have resulted in "no consensus", let alone "keep". ℯxplicit 13:52, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to quote or address NFCC policy explicitly as long as you are making an argument that is itself encoded in the policy. Sandstein argument that "his appearance (e.g., his age, skin color) provides potentially significant context for the shooting" *is* the NFCC#8 criterion, yet you didn't recognize it as a policy-based argument in your close. Diego (talk) 08:46, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to non-consensus (which defaults to keep) though my own actual view is keep. The NFCC restrictions on article use are very restrictive. In interpreting them, we need to avoid making them yet more restrictive beyond the bounds of a reasonable interpretation. I've always though WP should make some attempt at consistency, but one previous afd discussion is not sufficient for binding precedent in a general interpretation. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Just for reference, I am aware of one other discussion about this type of non-free use at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2015 November 26#File:Chris Mercer.jpg. I also don't think seeing the picture of Hodgkinson in this case improves the reader's understanding of the article content to such a degree that not seeing it would be detrimental to that understanding. If there was something particularly notable about his appearance that was related to this shooting that was covered in reliable sources, then perhaps using the image would be OK. There is, however, nothing in 2017 Congressional baseball shooting#Perpetrator that mentions his appearance at all. I think the arguments against this type of non-free use are much stronger in this case, just as they were much stronger for File:Chris Mercer.jpg and File:Rodger small.png, in that none of the Hodgkinson's actions or beliefs seem to be in any way related to his physical appearance so I don't see how WP:NFCC#8 or even WP:FREER are met. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:16, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse NFCC is absolutely not an obscure policy, it's just one that is not always easy to understand. The closure was correct in light of the arguments: there is no standard practice of including non-free images of non-notable perps for crimes (if you can get a free image, that's different), because that fails NFCC#1. If the perp becomes notable on their own and they're going to be incarcerated for life, making a free replacement likely impossible, then we could take about an image on the standalone article. --MASEM (t) 04:10, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But he's not incarcerated for life... he's dead. Jclemens (talk) 05:45, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I think the close was rather defective and the closing administrator should have participated in the discussion rather than trying to close it. Most of the closing statement talks about an "established precedent" which doesn't seem to have been mentioned up to that point. This would be a reasonable thing to do if this "established precedent" was a policy, guideline or even a major RFC but it's just something the same admin wrote while closing a similar discussion 18 months ago and therefore isn't much of a precedent at all, much less an "established" one. I do think that discussion was leaning towards deletion, if only because there wasn't much effort to rebut the NFCC#8 concerns, but that was largely down to the number of other issues raised (such as NFCC#1 concerns, which were addressed). A relist would help to focus on that issue. Hut 8.5 06:50, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, reasonable outcome of a debate where no strong arguments were made that WP:NFCC#8 was met. —Kusma (t·c) 12:36, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. This is not an area of expertise for me, but my reading of the WP:NFCC says to me that in close cases, we should err on the side of deletion. That page says:
using more narrowly defined criteria than apply under the fair use provisions in United States copyright law
only where all 10 of the following criteria are met
Given that, its seems to me that no consensus (which you could reasonably argue would have been a better close) in copyright cases, really should default to delete, not to keep, as it usually the case. Adittedly, that doesn't appear to be the official policy, and given that, the next best thing would be to err on the side of deletion.
On a different point, i'm a little concerned about the appeal to precedent in the close. Not so much because I think every decision needs to stand on its own, but because the precedent being cited was the closer's own. A change of wording from precedent to something like, as I said in .... would have been more transparent. That's not a reason by itself to overturn the close, but it is something that could have been done better.
Lastly, I'm concerned that nobody appears to have done the research to see if we have permission. Write to whoever we believe to be the copyright holder and ask for permission to use it. One of three things are likely to happen. One, permission will be granted. Two, permission will be denied. Three, copyright will be disavowed. In any of those cases, we'll have an authoritative answer. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:12, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion There's several pertinent issues here, all of which point to a clear cut case to delete and keep deleted. (1) NFCC no consensus does not default to keep; This is in fact codified in the policy, though it may not seem clear at first pass. WP:NFCC says "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" If the people wishing to retain NFCC can not gain consensus the image has a valid use rationale, it must go. That's the default, not keep. I've found references to this being the case dating back at least as far as 2008. It's how we do things with regards to NFCC material. (2) NFCC policy isn't technical and obscure; There are many policies on this project which require experience to understand. Experience required <> technical/obscure. Further, it can hardly be described as "obscure" when the guideline and policy are linked at Wikipedia:Five pillars, in Template:Non-free use rationale which is widely used on the vast majority of non-free images here, and even at the upload wizard. Even if it were somehow "obscure", a policy being obscure doesn't make it less of a policy. (3) FfD being poorly attended does not undermine its conclusions; Saying FfD isn't a valid community consensus tool uses an extremely broad paintbrush that would undermine every single FfD. It is our standing consensus tool for evaluating the presence of images on the project until such time as it is replaced or deleted itself. Its conclusions are consensus bound. While consensus can change, the conclusions there stand until such time as consensus does in fact change, or it is overturned here at DRV. (4) To the merits of the image itself; DRV isn't the place for such discussions, as DRV isn't a second chance FfD. That said, deletion is effectively mandatory here; the perpetrator has no independent-of-incident notability warranting an independent article. The 2017 Congressional baseball shooting article is most emphatically NOT his biography page. His visual appearance is not necessary for a person to understand the section of the article that discusses him, thus failing WP:NFCC #8. Not having an image of him on this incident article does not limit the article in any respect, as his visual depiction is not of importance. IF he had an article about himself only, an image would be warranted in the infobox, and that image could be non-free. But not on the incident article, unless someone can show a reliable source that indicates his visual appearance is somehow important to the crimes he has committed such that we have to have an image to understand that visual appearance. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion In addition to the policy arguments raised above, particularly failing WP:NFCC #8, I suggest that our guidelines are also helpful in sorting out cases such as this where an individual may be discussed in a section of an article but does not merit a full biographical article. WP:NFCI #10 notes the appropriateness of using "Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." (emphasis added) The article versus section distinction is a good one for judging the contextual significance and usefulness of providing a non-free image. Note that a photo of a deceased perpetrator can become contextually significant where the photograph itself has become part of the story. See, e.g., Boston_Marathon_bombing#Release_of_suspect_photos. 24.151.10.165 (talk) 16:55, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I found that discussion to lack much of any direct reference to policy and the close itself should have been a !vote. Given the high visibility of the topic, I think we need a better discussion. And can expect one after this listing at DRV. Hobit (talk) 17:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I know people are concerned about the closure and the need to use the non-free image of the perpetrator. However, as said, we should not display an image to treat the current event article as a page of images. Instead, we should encourage readers to take free content seriously and to realize that Wikipedia is a free-content encyclopedia. Yes, it is an encyclopedia. (There are visual encyclopedias, yet Wikipedia ain't one. Someday, there may be Visual Wikipedia... if copyright laws allow it.) Revisiting NFCC#8 without rehashing old arguments from FFD discussion, the readers are expected to read the article and comprehend the topic. (Well, I didn't explain why else the image should be deleted.) Excluding readers who would read just the lead and then move on (MOS:LEAD), let's focus on those wanting to read the section about the perpetrator himself. Actually, readers who want to learn about just the perpetrator and not more about the event may not be the article's main target. Indeed, the article intends to target those who want learn more about the event, not about the perpetrator. That's it. Those reading the article to learn about the event would already understand the event without this image, which still doesn't increase their own understanding of the event. If the event receives a lot of press coverage, then readers would already know about the event and find the perpetrator image unnecessary. Meanwhile, there are other free multimedia contents, like the videos. Also, there are free images of Scalise and the baseball game itself. No big loss to me. --George Ho (talk) 12:24, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the particular relevance of the image is that it (immediately) illustrates that the perpetrator was a white man - something I think not touched on in the text of the article – and perhaps for good reasons: maybe there are no sources addressing that issue in particular, which in itself might be indicative of how much "white man" is still considered the default state of humanity in the US and elsewhere. Given America's difficult racial history and politics, and the political nature of the crime, the perpetrator's skin color can't help but color - pardon the pun - readers' assessment of events; it should therefore be included in a comprehensive treatment of the event. Sandstein 13:01, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While potentially interesting, unless you can provide reliable sources indicating his racial background is somehow pertinent to this crime, including his image solely for the sake of demonstrating he is white is a non-starter. As is, there's nothing in the article indicating race as being pertinent. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:29, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above post only goes to show that this close was the correct and only one that could've been made. The reader does not need to see any image of Hodgkinson to understand he was white any more than the reader would need to see an image of him to understand he was male. That information can be more than adequately expressed by text alone. As for the stuff about the "white man" being the "default state of humanity", I agree with Hammersoft in that such a thing might be an interesting take on this terrible event, but Wikipedia is not supposed to be about promoting interesting takes on things. The reason for using the image should only be that there was something about it which was specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources; it should not be that we hope that the reader sees the image and then decides to interpret it and the event in a particular way. -- Marchjuly (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no. We use images, generally speaking, where they are useful to illustrate or complement the text. Fair-use images do need to additionally pass the WP:NFCCP, but the image being "specifically the subject of critical commentary in reliable sources" is not as such required. What the policy requires, to the extent relevant here, is "contextual significance" (#8), and it is this significance that I think the FfD discussion and my comment above establish. Even absent any racial or political aspect, "what did the guy look like who did this?" is such a natural impulse of readers to want to know, especially in our media-saturated age, that I think any serious treatment of the issue is just fundamentally incomplete without an image; and it is this editorial consideration that establishes the required significance of the image. Sandstein 16:49, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Such a justification, that we should illustrate where we can due to media saturation in this age, would justify the use of any non-free image in any context on the project. Regardless, such discussion as this is moot; DRV is not a second chance FfD. Discussing the merits of the image in the context where it was is not appropriate for a DRV. The issue at hand is whether the deletion discussion was closed on reasonable grounds and enacted properly. The closer concluded there was consensus to delete. Some might read that FfD and conclude there was no consensus. I dare say nobody would conclude there was consensus to keep. Closed as delete, it was deleted. As established by myself and others above, a no consensus on a non-free image defaults to delete. If it were re-closed as no consensus, the outcome would be the same; the file would be deleted. The FfD was closed on proper grounds, and the image was deleted in accordance with appropriate procedures to that effect. There's nothing to act on here. If you would like to discuss with me why this image fails WP:NFCC #8, I invite you to do so on my talk page. You would of course be welcome to ping anyone else to the discussion that you think is appropriate. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Sandstein: I found twosources discussing Hodgkinson's race, but the sources were two African-American males. If I use those sources, they should belong in the "Reactions" section, not the "Perpetrator" section, which formerly included this image. No other sources emphasized or sensationalized Hodgkinson's race. Therefore, I can't include those per WP:UNDUE; very few sources emphasize his race... well, I found The Root writer's article better written and more eloquent than the other. However, they're not worth including yet. Also, as said before, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and an encyclopedia's intent is giving readers general knowledge. In this case, the article's intent is giving readers general knowledge about the shooting itself. It does not intend to emphasize the guy's ethnicity, and the image does not add anything to effectively help readers understand the event but to distract readers into looking at his ethnicity. I could include the phrase "white male", but that doesn't help make the image more effective either. Meanwhile, any one of you can read Trayvon Martin, George Zimmerman, and other articles related to them. Therefore, their ethnicities are better covered in those related articles, while Hodgkinson's... aren't. --George Ho (talk) 18:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (but subject to a new talk page consensus). Break the FfD decision, and consider using the deleted image or a substitute, such as one of the few I link below.
The close was not terribly unreasonable, but has some weaknesses.
", in general, ". I don't read a consensus in the discussion that this situation is a general situation. The need to include the image of a *white male* is important here, without overstating the point, is important, as people have mentioned.
I think this is not a "general" case, due to being very high profile, with the image of the perpetrator all over the media. The perpetrator may not have his own biography, but he is singularly important in this incident. He has motive, it was political, it was not a random madman shooting of random victims.
In this DRV discussion, and looking back at the FfD, it is hard to know what image is being talked about. I see five images all over the internet, I guess we are talking about number 4? Number 5 is possibly free, but is argued to be excluded from consideration.
No policy provides that no consensus defaults to delete for fair use images. The general rule therefore applies: no consensus defaults to keep. Sandstein 04:52, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. "No consensus" for fair use images defaults to delete or keep? It was my understanding that it was delete. Checking this discussion, I see the question is in clear dispute. "No policy provides"? What does policy say? Has this question ever been the specific subject of discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:58, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The deletion policy, WP:DPAFD, reads in relevant part: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." That is, absent a consensus to delete, the outcome is keep. This applies to all forms of deletion discussions (AfD, FfD, etc.) Sandstein 11:54, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, i.e. restore the image to the article and reopen the discussion. The closing admin rejected the keep arguments for not citing policy explicitly, ignoring that some arguments were direct applications of criteria accepted in the policy; thus the argument that the keep arguments failed to properly argue for the retention based in policy was a faulty one. Also the gist of the Delete rationale is quoting earlier precedent (that including an image requires a dedicated independent article, something that is nowhere required by NFCC; at most, it's a near-automatic criterion to grant inclusion), but such precedent is not encoded anywhere as community consensus (neither a guideline nor a RfC), and being a self-quotation to an argument by the same administrator makes it dubious.
The discussion should be relisted, so that the above NFCC#8 arguments regarding the relevance of his visual depiction and the section where it should be placed (which have no place in this review about the closing argument) can be properly discussed. Diego (talk) 08:53, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. For NFCC discussions deletion is the default in the case of no-consensus, as the NFCCs are a foundation-level policy that cannot be overridden by local consensus. Stifle (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That would make sense if there had been a FfD consensus to keep for reasons that clearly contravened the NFCC. But that is not the case here. Nobody submits that the NFCC do not apply, or should (or can) be overridden. Editors just disagree how to apply them, as is possible in any discussion on how to apply policy. There is no provision in the NFCC or elsewhere that indicates that the default in cases of disagreement is "delete". Sandstein 12:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is. I noted it above. If there is no consensus that a rationale can be provided, the image must be deleted. This is the common practice, and dates back at least as far as 2008. With all respect and no intent to cast aspersions, you are not a regular at WT:NFC, which is the discussion page for the NFCC policy and NFC guideline. You've made just 7 edits there with the last being over 4 years ago. I encourage you to not make definitive statements about the response to a no consensus on an image without spending considerably more time around WT:NFC. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:12, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The NFCC text "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale" does not amount to "no consensus about the validity of a rationale equals delete". It just means that if there is no rationale, or a manifestly invalid one, then that is a strong policy-based reason for the FfD closer to discount "keep" opinions, in the process of assessing the strength of the arguments made. But it does not mean that if there is good-faith disagreement about the merits of a rationale, as here, then the closer should presume the rationale to be invalid.
As a "normal" editor, I frankly don't care what is being said on project talk pages, nor should I have to. What matters to me is the (already overcomplicated) NFCC policy itself as it is written, not reams of talk page threads by random people. What you propose is, in effect, WP:OWNership of the NFCC by the very few people inclined to argue at length about it, which I guess is what gets us discussions such as this one here. Sandstein 17:04, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein, I don't know at what point our discussion became hostile. If in any respect you interpret my words as being hostile, please accept by apologies. I did not mean to indicate ownership of NFCC. I don't own it anymore than a brand new editor making their very first edit here. My intent was solely that I have more experience in that areas than you do, just as you have more experience in other areas than I do, and that making authoritative statements about NFCC without that experience should likely be avoided. That was the only thing I proposed. Consider how you would feel if I were to make authoritative comments regarding Game of Thrones, an area of very significant experience for you and where I have no experience. I hope that makes what I said more clear.
If you would, allow me to show you the logical path of default to delete. Much of if not all of this you are aware of, but perhaps the dots haven't been connected before. Please don't take this as hostile; I'm simply trying to be clear, not speak down to you or anyone else.
When a person uploads a non-free image, they are required to include a non-free rationale for each use of the item. That is codified in WP:NFCC #10c.
If there is no rationale for a non-free image's use, it can be removed from that use or a rationale can be added to explain that use in accordance with other aspects of WP:NFCC.
Historical note: (really, 2a) It used to be the case that if a person contested the use of a non-free image, they could take it to Wikipedia:Non-free content review, where those knowledgeable of NFCC/NFC practice and application could discuss any uses of the non-free image. While this was going on, the image in question was typically tagged with Template:Non-free review. In essence, this review board would decide if a reasonable rationale existed or could be created for the use of a non-free image in any given use. If the image was orphaned as a result of discussion about the rationales, it could be deleted without subsequent discussion at WP:FFD. That board has now been deprecated, and all subsequent requests have been directed to WP:FFD.
If there is disagreement over a non-free image's use, it is now taken to WP:FFD. As WP:NFCCE notes, the burden of proof in providing a valid (emphasis mine) lies with those wishing to use the non-free image in the desired way. I.e., if consensus can not be achieved that a valid rationale can be created for a given use, the burden of proof has not been met by those wishing to use it. Therefore, the rationale can not be created for that use.
Somewhat returning to (2) above, if a rationale is removed as being invalid then the use of the image for where the rationale indicated should also be removed, as such use becomes a failure of 10c as noted above.
If a non-free image is not used in article space on the project, it is referred to as "orphaned". According to NFCC, non-free images must have at least one usage in article space, else face deletion in accordance with WP:NFCC #7. Orphaned non-free files can be tagged with Template:Di-orphaned fair use, and this is often done by a bot such as with this edit.
Now, let's walk this through in this case. User:Fourthords correctly used FFD, since NFCR is now gone, to start a discussion about the validity of the rationale in the one case where this image was used. In two sentences he succinctly and clearly indicated the problems with the rationale; First, it was a boiler plate rationale that indicated the use was for a biographical article (which the article is not) and that it was to be used at the top of the article, which it was not. I.e., the current rationale was invalid. Secondly, he also noted that there was no basis on which to use such an image (i.e., no basis for a valid rationale). This is precisely how we are to use FfD now. He did not suggest the image should be deleted. Rather, he indicated the rationale was invalid and that none could be created. This sets the stage for the subsequent discussion; is there a valid rationale for this use or could one be created? Looking at (3) above, the burden of proof lies with those wishing to use it to prove a valid rationale can be created. Without getting into the details of every statement on the FfD, it's clear that opinions were pretty evenly divided on the presence of the image in general. That's no consensus. That means the intended use for the image on the shooting article fails the burden of proof; no valid rationale can be created. Therefore, the then current (invalid) rationale must be removed, and as (4) notes above, we remove it from where it was located. Previously at NFCR, if an image was orphaned as a result of the discussion it could be immediately deleted at the discretion of the closing administrator, without having to tag as orphaned and wait for seven days. In this particular case, given the image is property of The Associated Press, WP:F7 applies; immediate deletion applies. I note that WP:F7 indicates a commercial image must be the subject of sourced discussion (further elaborated at WP:NFC#UUI #7). This image could have been speedy deleted as was; no sourced commentary on the image. Fourthords did you a favor in taking the image to FfD, giving you an opportunity to prove a valid rationale could be created. He could have just as well tagged it with Template:Db-f7. Anyone reviewing the use of the image would have seen there was no sourced commentary on the image and deleted it.
The short version of all the verbosity above; The image had a rationale as required by WP:NFCC #10c. The validity of that rationale was contested, taking it to FFD to do so. Per WP:NFCCE, the discussion had to conclude with consensus the rationale was or could be made valid. Such consensus was not achieved, therefore no valid rationale existed or could be created. The burden of proof was not met. Without such valid rationale, the image could be deleted at the moment of the closure of the discussion at admin's discretion. If such timing is disputed, then WP:F7 applies as the image in question is a commercial image.
As an aside, I would like to note that the instructions at FFD have never been properly amended to address the closure of WP:NFCR. In essence, NFCR was just dumped into FFD. The instructions should be corrected. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sandstein said that "Opinions were divided about whether the image meets the NFCC". In the discussion however, none of the contributors who wanted to keep the file actually addressed the non-free content criteria policy in their comments. I started the discussion by explaining how nothing reliably-sourced in the article required the file to "significantly increase readers' understanding", and how none of the reliably-cited prose in the article would be more difficult for readers to understand without the file; ergo the file failed non-free content criterion (NFCC) number eight. None of the five comments in support of keeping the file refuted my explanation in the context of the NFCC. Opinions were not divided because the bulleted comments did not address the issue presented.
Some of the comments here on this page are arguing back and forth whether when it comes to NFC, a "no consensus" discussion close should mean deletion or retention. This is moot however, because the discussion—by and large—did not address the instigative NFCC policy non-compliance.
Precedent does influence decisions to close discussions one way or another, but I concur that explicit(talk·contribs·blocks·protections·deletions·page moves·rights·RfA) citing a single, self-closed discussion as precedent is somewhat beyond the pale. However, if there are more similarly-closed discussions on the wiki that have both held up to scrutiny and been recentish, I wouldn't have a problem with citing such precedence in a close.
Whether "the NFCC are a highly technical and obscure policy" or not does not negate their standing as "a Wikipedia policy with legal considerations." I don't know what constitutes an "ordinary editor", but whether the NFCC are known "by heart" or not, the policy was linked to twice in the discussion (though I do offer a mea culpa for not citing it in my initial explanation).
Lastly, Sandstein said, "The 'keep' opinions make sufficiently clear why the respective editors consider it necessary to include the image and why they do not consider it replaceable with alternatives, such as text, or an equally non-free prison mugshot." Though this is "repeat[ing] arguments already made in the deletion discussion", I will reiterate that none of the discussion contributors who wanted to keep the file explained how using the non-free image was "necessary" to understand the content of the article: the article which made no mention of (and certainly didn't rely upon seeing) Mr. Hodgkinson's appearance, clothes, or anything else in the image to understand what was written and reliably-sourced.
I find that explicit correctly interpreted the discussion's consensus regarding the application of the NFCC policy, and I endorse their close. — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:33, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is an excellent analysis though I would like to add just one caveat. WP:NFCC #2 specifically makes the policy more strict when we are considering commercially produced non-free content, such as the image in question. As was discussed in the FfD by a few, a mugshot would be less burdensome to us. While it would not be any less non-free than a commercial image, our burden to satisfy NFCC would be less. Though, even if we did upload a mugshot under a non-free license, it would still not be usable in this case without pertinent, reliably sourced commentary regarding the image itself. If people truly want a second chance FfD, they could try the route of uploading a mugshot, though, I don't recommend it; the arguments against usage would be effectively identical. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:47, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I find it somewhat ironic that the lister comments on wikipedia not having binding precedent, whilst their initial argument in the original discussion was essentially an appeal to precedent. I think claiming NFC to be technical and obscure is a stretch, a huge proportion of the policy page is lent to examples, further documentation etc. Regardless obscure or otherwise in individual points the statement on the policy "where all 10 of the following criteria are met." seems pretty unambiguous, merely arguing that other points of NFC are met amounts to little more than a straw man argument and so rightly given little or no weight in that discussion - perhaps even more so when the issue is highlighted to a participant and rather than correct it gets forcefully rejected. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 22:05, 28 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Hammersoft said more or less what I would have. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:48, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. Getting to a "delete" outcome from that discussion stretches closer's discretion a little farther than I think it really ought to go.—S MarshallT/C 20:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo – Endorse. There is good consensus here that the close was correct. There have been many more sources identified since then, but consensus here is that, while numerous, they don't add in any significant way to the sources which existed at the time of the AfD. I'm going to put things back to (as near as I can tell) the state immediately after the AfD, i.e. I'm going to move Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo back to mainspace (to preserve the history), then revert it to being a redirect to Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport. @Another Believer:, please note that these discussions are not votes. – -- RoySmith(talk) 15:56, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The subject is notable per WP:GNG. There are Wikipedia articles about works of art that have received much, much less coverage. This article was nominated for deletion very soon after its creation, and editors voted to delete the article as a stub. The draft has been expanded, and sourcing clearly shows notability. I anticipate several editors who participated in the AfD discussion will return to reiterate their previously expressed opinions, but I'm hoping some uninvolved editors will cast a vote to overturn the deletion after assessing sourcing. --Another Believer(Talk) 14:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sources to add to the article, not counting others published since April
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - DRV is not a place to re-hash the same arguments already made at AfD. The consensus in the discussion was pretty clear cut, so absent any new information there is no reason to overturn this decision. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Absent any new information? The draft has been expanded, and there are more sources on the talk page, and there has been more coverage since its unveiling. And these are just the English-languages sources. Not to mention, the artist has since created a bust of Gareth Bale, so there are many more recent sources revisiting his earlier work. ---Another Believer(Talk) 15:32, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - It still does not make it notable. Kante4 (talk) 15:41, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What, sources don't make it notable? That's our definition of notable, yes? Hobit (talk) 21:40, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure It's still not notable. Number57 16:24, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure Still not notable. No actual addition of substance since AFD, the majority of the article is verbatim quotes from mostly minor outlets, and the few major outlet quotes are a simple review of social media's reaction to the bust. No real mention since a couple of days after the reveal, indicating the AFD wasn't too soon. --SuperJew (talk) 16:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - good close. GiantSnowman 17:19, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure - uninvolved in original discussion, and can tell you right now that at best this gets a by-line in Cristiano Ronaldo's main article. I have serious misgivings that even then, on the scale of things, this is not a particularly notable feature of CR's career. Koncorde (talk) 17:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Expanding on entry seeing as there are some new comments.
1. There is an awful lot of art in the world, and an awful lot of bad art. Wikipedia is not a repository of bad art.
2. The piece was crafted for Cristiano Ronaldo International Airport and it's notability is associated with that airports renaming and the ceremony. If the statue is referenced, it should be merged with that article (and doesn't need anywhere near the amount of cruft).
3. People talk below about Michael Jackson's statue outside Fulham. This is another example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. It wasn't notable to the club's ground in particular beyond kitsch value, and ended up being forced into a stub of its own which collected dross. Its strangeness of location lent it some degree of notability, which is why I could kinda see how it got argued through. Jackson's statue for HIStory meanwhile should be a stub for the album, but as the artist is notable and it went on a notable world tour of its own, then it has a different set of criteria.
4. The editor contributes a link to other banal art, of which very few have their own article (I don't believe any do) somewhat undoing the argument.
5. Any argument regarding the Gareth Bale sculpt should also take into consideration that it is an advertising ploy by a major betting chain. It is again not notable art, nor notable to Bale, it is perhaps relevant to PaddyPower, or if the artist was to have his own article.
6. Filling an article with lots of words is nice and all, but it's a bad article, and very poor from an encyclopedic point of view. It is a blatant case of WP:RECENTISM as are most arguments in support.
At most this article is a sentence or two at the Airport, and references under Rinaldo's a page by the airport being named in his honour, but we should not be crufting this kind of stuff. Koncorde (talk) 08:53, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Number 57: In the AfD discussion, you said, "Whilst the bust is hilariously bad and has received quite a bit of media coverage, it isn't separately noteworthy to the subject." Here, you say, "It's still not notable." Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
@SuperJew: In the AfD discussion, you said the subject was not notable enough for a standalone article. I suppose you provide some further explanation for your vote above, but I wouldn't call the publications used in the draft minor. In fact, I don't think any of the sources used are inappropriate or non-notable, and they all have Wikipedia articles of their own. How are these minor publications?
Most of these articles are just re-iterations of the same comments, published in the few days after the reveal, and round-ups of social media trying to be funny about the bust. The article doesn't actually have content - it's mostly verbatim quotes from the media. Minor I meant things like Hindustan Times, Daily Beast and tabloids. --SuperJew (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kante4: In the AfD discussion, you said the subject was "not notable enough", and above you said, It still does not make it notable". Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
@GiantSnowman: In the AfD discussion, you simply said, "does not merit a separate article". Above you say just "good close". Can you explain how the subject isn't notable, or is simply saying "not notable" a suitable argument?
IMO, this work of art has received a suitable amount of coverage in reliable sources to justify a standalone article. This draft is much longer than the article that was marked for AfD, and there are quite a few additional sources posted on the draft's talk page. Not to mention, there are more sources to add that have been published since April. I'd appreciate more detailed reasons why this draft is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm not trying to be argumentative here, but I'm frustrated that I'm having to fight an uphill battle to publish an article with this much sourcing when I'm not seeing detailed reasons, based on policy, for its removal. I know I'm probably coming across as a sore loser, and here I was told to "move on", but I have been through the process of saving a deleted article before (which was promoted to Good status), and I do mean well by coming to this venue to request reevaluation. ---Another Believer(Talk) 19:48, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Support Overturn - the varied and extent of the coverage the topic of the article has received passes WP:GNG in my opinion although its overall significance to Cristiano Ronaldo's carrier is another matter. Inter&anthro (talk) 21:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Inter&anthro: could you be more explicit about which side you're arguing? In these discussions, people generally either say, endorse, which means they think the deletion was correct, or overturn, which means they think the deletion was in error. It's not entirely clear reading your comments which of those you're arguing for. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RoySmith I apologize I am unfamiliar with the process, I meant to say that I was supporting the recreation of this article. Inter&anthro (talk) 00:03, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. No worries about being unfamiliar. We're happy to have new people get involved in the project. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:46, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support reinstatement The notability is mainly based on the avalanche of mocking comments in the mainstream media and social media that followed its unveiling. This was an noteworthy phenomenon, and it has made this sculpture notorious, which is a form of notability. We should not be swayed by this being called "bad art". It might be considered part of a movement of kitsch or banal art, which could include:
This is to give some context to Santos's sculpture, which I do not rate as having the quality of Koons' work. This sculpture follows a style that has been established for other football-related sculptures, see here.
Santos's sculpture of Gareth Bale opens the possibility of covering both these sculptures in an article on the sculptor. However, his sculpture of Ronaldo is more notable than its sculptor, and I support the promotion of Draft:Bust of Cristiano Ronaldo to article space. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Moot You don't need to be at DRV to put this back into mainspace. Several new references have been added since the close, including New York Times, BBC, Independent, and Telegraph. That appears to solidly establish the GNG is met for the topic just with the new references! Several arguments made in the AfD were non-policy-based (e.g., NOTNEWS never applied at all), and I am not convinced by the arguments supporting the original AfD close. I'll further note that the original AfD closer is not an administrator, and likely should not have closed the contested AfD in the first place... Jclemens (talk) 07:11, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist or recreate there are enough new sources that it shouldn't be speedied as a recreation. So I'd say just recreate it. But, I'm going to guess that _someone_ will still speedy it. From an editorial viewpoint, I don't think we need this article. From a policy viewpoint, there is no policy preventing it from existing as WP:N appears to be met in spades. I personally would prefer we leave this merged into the biography with a sentence or two. But DRV is about policy, not my preferences. Recreate it and watch the merge discussion on the talk page result in a merger again. Hobit (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - the sources in the article, whilst numerous, basically cover just two days and the remaining sources above provide little information other than rehashing previous comment. Fenix down (talk) 11:59, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion notability, not sourcing, was (and remains) the primary problem here. A dozen, a hundred, or a thousand sources all saying basically the same thing don't change that. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 06:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Lely (Company) – No consensus (defaults to keeping deleted). Digging deeper, there's a few different points discussed here.
Was the article promotional? Pretty good consensus that it was.
Was it so hopelessly promotional that WP:G11 applied? Unclear, but probably within admin's discretion.
Do we apply the same standards to draft space as we do to main space? Again, unclear. There is some feeling that we should allow more leeway in draft space, because the whole point of drafts is to provide a way for editors to collaborate on improving them. Other people feel we need to be just as strict about promotional matierial, no matter where it appears.
Was WP:COI editing a problem? There's no doubt there was COI here, but our policies only (strongly) discourage COI editing. As long as it is disclosed (which it was in this case), there's no absolute ban, and it's not a WP:CSD.
Could there be a future article on this topic? I don't see anybody arguing that this company should never be written about in the encyclopedia. But, if somebody wanted to create a new article, they would need to find the sources to meet WP:N and write it in a less promotional style.
Addendum: this discussion has been brought to my attention, which I was previously unaware of. While I suppose one could wiki-lawyer to death the details of the implementation timing relative to my original close, the concept seems sound. So, I'm modifying my close to strike,defaults to keeping deleted, and instead I'll restore this and list it at XfD (discussion here). -- RoySmith(talk) 14:02, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Page was in Draft, still actively work in progress. I worked according to Wikipedia's guidelines and regulations, and have no intention of breaking them. As explained to admin, I was drafting a page about a notable company which I can further explain. This is an internationally active company which already has Wikipedia pages in other languages. Attempt to reason with the respective admin failed, unfortunately, I have not heard back since. I feel disappointed and slightly offended. I do not see any reason why this company does not deserve a page on English Wikipedia, nor do I understand why any chance to draft such a page should be nipped in the bud. Dvanleerdam (talk) 14:39, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The page was deleted under WP:CSD#G11, which means that it was promoting the subject. I can see why the deleting admin came to this conclusion: despite being only 53 words long it described the company as a "leading" manufacturer and gave a series of impressive statistics about how big the company was. This is considered a serious problem even with drafts, as a promotional draft still acts to promote the company even though it's only a draft. Given your user page (which says you're a contractor who works with this company) I suggest you read our guidelines on conflict of interest. Hut 8.5 18:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have speedied this if it were in mainspace, though I'd have thought it was borderline. In draftspace, it wasn't so promotional that it needed to be tagged within two minutes of creation and deleted within half an hour. —Cryptic 18:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and Restore to draft space. Those statistics, while possibly serving a promotional purpose, are presumably objective facts, and "leading" while a judgement, is the kind of judgement often included in valid company articles (although it should be sourced, as should the stats). Had I seen this tagged for G11 in mainspace, I would have declined the speedy and warned the tagger, and I am surprised atFortuna Imperatrix Mundi for tagging this in draft space, where somewhat more leeway should be given. I am even more suprised at Jimfbleak for doing the dewletion. There does seem to be a COI here, but that is not a reason to delete, speedy or otherwise. G11 is for blatent promotionalism, requiring a total rewrite, which in my view this was not even close to. That said, Dvanleerdam, deletion for promotional content never reflects on the validity of the subject, merely on how it is being described. A more objective version should always handle a proper G11 deletion. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lely (company) war speedied from mainspace in 2011 for the same reason. User:Dvanleerdam, the guideline covering the usual decision process for whether this company will ever be suitable for inclusion is Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), beginning with the statement: "... has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources". Wikipedia is not a directory of all companies, or of all big companies, successful companies, good companies, or any other variation of selection, except for companies that are already the subject of significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources. Before starting an article on any company, be sure to have multiple such sources, each all of (1) contains significant coverage; (2) source is reliable; (3) source, author, published are independent of the company; (4) the coverage is secondary source coverage, meaning it is commentary, comparisons, analysis, etc, and is not just repeating facts. A yet better way to get started is to find coverage of the company in existing articles, and improve content making mention in those articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore to draft While I appreciate the vigor with which some admins go after promotional material, draft space is the one spot where we should have borderline cases (NOINDEX'ed, obviously) in the process of refining promotional copy and making it encyclopedic. Do we actually need to change CSD to say G11 doesn't apply to draft? We seem to be overturning a lot of these. Jclemens (talk) 01:48, 26 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak endorse. G11 applies to drafts just as much as to any namespace. We do not want any part of Wikipedia to contain advertising. Such content can be stored offsite if really needed. While I wouldn't have deleted this text, as it doesn't strike me as blatantly promotional, the deletion was, I think, within the deleting admin's discretion because there are certainly ways in which the text can be read as promotional. Sandstein 07:33, 27 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The character is an IBHOF referee class of 2015. [1] It appears that there is a substantial coverage of the character in G news [2], Google Books [3] as well as other sources online. Please undelete the page, so it can improved if it was 'poorly' written at the start. The admin who deleted the page Joe Decker is not responding. Thank you. Parviziskender (talk) 13:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you just write another article about him, there isn't anything preventing you from doing that as long as your version addresses the reasons why the page was deleted. The deleted article consisted of two sentences of unsourced prose followed by a short list of notable fights he's officiated at. The only source cited which wasn't a user edited wiki was [4] (which was an external link). If we are going to restore this it should be to draft space first so it could be brought up to acceptable standards there. Hut 8.5 18:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restored as closing admin Sorry to be late to the game here, I think there is substantial evidence that the editor here has provided that the subject does meet BASIC, some of which would not have been available at the time of the AFD, and I've restored it, I would appreciate the article being improved. Hut's right that this could have been simply written from scratch, but I understand the desire to see if there's material that could be repurposed. --joe deckertalk 18:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I have also attempted a bit of cleanup.) --joe deckertalk 18:56, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. The article will be improved in the coming weeks with additional info and references as required.Parviziskender (talk) 23:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
John O'Hara (musician) – Restore per WP:SOFTDELETE. As has been pointed out, the AFD was treated like an expired PROD. That there might have been reasons to keep it deleted is not relevant, only whether this article would have been restored if the request had been correctly made at WP:REFUND. Since it's a BLP without sources, I restored it to Draft:John O'Hara (musician) though. – SoWhy 13:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Notoriety since deletion in 2009. Significant new information has come to light. Billboard chart #1 Jethro Tull: The String Quartets: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jethro_Tull_–_The_String_Quartets. Other albums include Thick As A Brick 2. Homo Erraticus, conductor/arranger Quadrophenia Theatre production UK, 2009. Quadrophenia theatre tour. Jethro Tull Orchestral DVD and more. As a composer: Welsh National Opera, U.K.- title, I Had An Angel. Three Choirs International Music Festival 2013, U.K.- title, The Bargee's Wife: http://seenandheard-international.com/2013/08/the-bargees-wife-closes-the-three-choirs-festival-impressively/. Cheltenham International Music Festival 2017, U.K. - title The Gloucester Magnificat. Theatre Music, Bristol Old Vic, U.K. title Trojan Women 2016. More…The article need updating once reinstated. LucyLou2002 (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, while normally a charting album is a pretty good case at DRV, this isn't actually a John O'Hara album. It's an Ian Anderson album on which is heard a string quartet conducted by John O'Hara. The important thing is: is there in-depth biographical coverage in multiple independent reliable sources on this person from which we could write a BLP article? As far as I can tell, there isn't. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:58, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The afd's eight years old and was closed as a soft delete besides, so there's no problem if someone wants to make an article here (given proper sourcing, per Starblind, of course). At a minimum, a redirect to Jethro Tull seems like it would be worthwhile. —Cryptic 21:14, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore. We weren't using the term soft deleteat the time of the AfD, but that's essentially what this was, as Cryptic points out. That process says, the article can be restored for any reason on request, and we have a request here, so we should restore it. Starblind is correct that it still needs proper sourcing, but that question should be decided at AfD, and after restoration, anybody is free to bring it there. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:32, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I'm a little concerned that the nom is a WP:SPA (contributions) but since the request is perfectly reasonable, I can't find it in me to make much of a fuss over that. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and maybe put in draft for a bit until appropriate additional sources are added. This is a BLP, after all. Jclemens (talk) 02:07, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
UrbanClap – No interest in undeleting or unsalting the affected pages. Nominator is advised to work in Draft:UrbanClap until such time as a notable, non-promotional article is produced. – Jclemens (talk) 05:44, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Promo Language Bulle Shah (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Comment It was the first time I had written on this title while being aware it's previous deletion records. The matter was with the language, my article was labeled as no different from the previous ones. But I have never seen how previous ones were because they were actually deleted. I wrote the article after having a good read around the other articles of the similar kind. I was ready to improvise but it was speedy deletion so I was left with no choice. The company passes WP:GNG as there are plenty of sources. And I believeBulle Shah (talk) 16:20, 16 June 2017 (UTC) just having a bad article written on a notable subject does not disqualify it from having a Wikipedia page.[reply]
Question and Comment This was present in slightly different form as a Draft and as an article, and it was speedy deleted from both. The speedy deletion from mainspace was unquestionably valid, because whether or not it meets the more subjective G11, it certainly meets G4, Regardless of whether G11 was valid, the speedy G11, the speedy deletion from mainspace should have been for G4, recreation of deleted article, because it does not meet the prior objections. We do not usually use G4 in Draft space, because the point of draft space is to get the article improved. I am not sure that it meets G11--the purpose behind writing the article was surely promotional, but the draft article was basically descriptive. There is no point moving it out of Draft, for it will surely be deleted in mainspace at AfD in either version even if it passes speedy. More to the point, however, is the question of whether you are in violation of the our Terms of Use, particularly with respect to paid contributions without disclosure. I ask because all your previously created articles have been either deleted as promotional/non notable, , except for Dreamcatcher (2016), which seems to have a confused history, with deletion tags having been removed, but which I have just nominated for G11 DGG ( talk ) 18:12, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reply What on earth makes you think I created Dreamcatcher(2016)? I requested a delete on it. And even asked some admin to help me with it. As I found the quint article to be written by the author herself.Bulle Shah (talk) 19:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll endorse the G11 in articlespace. The article had twice as many words describing the company's startup funding as for what it actually does, and half again as many about its competitors. Making the article neutral would have left it on the order of two and a half sentences long and, contra the claims above, the page got more promotional during the ten hours between being tagged and being deleted. The version deleted at AFD is worded differently, but makes all the same assertions almost point-for-point, and was better referenced besides; so - as DGG says - a G4 would have been completely justified too. —Cryptic 18:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Reply So is it too much to ask for when I want to improve on my end and let this article be created in accordance with guidelines?Bulle Shah (talk) 19:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also deleted today was a different version at UrbanClap Technologies, by the same user; which I've just salted to match the protection here. —Cryptic 18:53, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There was a version of it deleted at Urbanclap, too, in February, apparently without knowledge of the AFD. This one had the largest amount of usable text (though also the largest percentage of the article detailing its funding history). Seems they really want an article here. —Cryptic 05:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic let's not rely too much on what Seems to you. Bulle Shah (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What on earth keeps a notable topic away from having a Wikipedia article? when it clearly passes WP:GNG.Bulle Shah (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The previous version, or at least its last revision, was perhaps not blatantly promotional, but at best it needed significant work. I would not oppose restoring it as a draft, but perhaps it might be better in this case to start over, again in Draft. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:02, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I requested an Admin to discuss on moving it to draft but I was ignored. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Athaenara I was trying to edit it to make it neutral but it was deleted like in a couple of hours and it left no room for me to edit the same. On the top of it, it was salted by the admin who paid no heed to my request for help. Nobody was in a mood to help but to excercise their powers. Bulle Shah (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would at last like to request admins to move it to Draft Space and unsalt it so that I could improve it and get reviewed by an editor.Bulle Shah (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
leave deleted Anyone interested in creating an article on this subject should start fresh from WP:RS so as to remove any possible taint of promotionalism left over from prior versions and with careful attention to not writing in a promotional tone from now on. If sources are abundant a clean slate would be best. Was there a reply on the question of possible WP:Paid? I don't recall seeing an answer.Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not Paid sir, nobody has paid me for any contribution here. I hope that answers your question. And I have beein saying the same. To start a fresh by having it unsalted. Thank you. Bulle Shah (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think Draft:UrbanClap is salted. That would be the place to attempt to compose an article that remedies the past problems. Once submitted to the AfC people, progress could perhaps be shown. I would start with a simple declarative statement without wordage like "offering" and "provides" and "constitutes". I would use fresh sources, if any, that treat subject in depth. Believe me, I know how hard that can be. Sometimes, the sourcing just is not adequate and the subject does not meet notability requirements. But that is a problem that needs to be remedied before the article can be.Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @Dlohcierekim this was the most helpful comment so far. Bulle Shah (talk) 17:21, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please conclude been 7 days. Regards. cosnis 14:21, 23 June 2017 (UTC) my previous nickname was bulle shah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coxnix (talk • contribs) 10:22, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This was a U20 footballer deleted as NN. Since the deletion Arkorful has played (rather unsuccessfully) for Hadjuk Split in the 2014/15 season and currently plays for SK Babīte.[5][6] That would seem to be enough to get him past WP:NFOOTY. I have contacted the deleting admin but he is not very active and it is unclear to me that he would have the authority to overtun such an AFD in any case. SpinningSpark 09:44, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Be WP:BOLD. The AfD was four years ago. If things have changed since then, you don't need a DRV to recreate the article, as long as the new article addresses the issues from the AfD. And, of course, somebody could still bring it back to AfD. But, no need to discuss it for a week here. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:57, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not interested in writing a football article myself, and if I wanted to be bold, I would just undelete it unilaterally. There is also the small matter of who should get the credit for creating the page in the page history. SpinningSpark 14:28, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to restoring the old article to draft space, and once there, see no problem with moving it back to mainspace after improvements to demonstrate WP:N. -- RoySmith(talk) 11:26, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article was very short and what was there would need substantial updates if undeleted. I don't see much point in restoring it unless someone is prepared to make those updates. Instead I suggest we either wait for someone to write a a new article or to restore it to draft space pending an update. Hut 8.5 06:46, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Permit Recreation if there are new developments that would push this past the GNG. I'd be happy to restore to draft space for someone to try and salvage something, but as noted by User:Hut 8.5 there isn't really that much there to restore and you'd probably be better off recreating from scratch. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:18, 15 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Restore to Draft per RoySmith Jclemens (talk) 02:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Big Fish Theory – While DRV often focuses on issues of process, it also sometimes takes a dim view of process for process sake when the outcome is not in serious dispute. The article in question is substantially improved from any deleted version, and there is consensus here to that effect. The outcome of this DRV is no consensus for earlier process, WP:REFUND of deleted revisions, maintain the article status quo, and WP:TROUTing for any nonconstructive editor (particularly appropriate given the article title) at editorial discretion. – IronGargoyle (talk) 14:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
With roughly equal numbers of editors favoring redirect and delete, and with no strong policy-based arguments made that favor deletion over a redirect, while some such arguments were made in favor of redirect, it is hard to read this as a consensus to delete, and deletion requires a consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, after all. In short there was no agreement to delete this, and so no agreement to delete the history. Besides, if this does become notable shortly, as one editor suggested, an undelete and history merge would be in order, so why set ourselves up for that extra work. Besides, the previous deletion review was inappropriately closed early. It doesn't matter who brought a review, or what that editor's motives were, when uninvolved editors i good standing have found enough merit in the case to favor overturning the close. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:12, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even matter. This recreation is more substantial by far than anything in the deleted history. —Cryptic 00:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: This review still looks pointless to me because the article has been recreated with what look like substantial improvements. Unless the request is to revert the article to a redirect, and why should we do that? Sandstein 04:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect and restore the history per reasons given at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 June 12#Big Fish Theory. That the article has been recreated does not mean the AfD close was correct and it does not bring back the article history. The purpose of this review is to address the incorrect close and restore the status quo ante before the recreation. No one is proposing to revert the current article to a redirect. On a side note: Like DESiegel writes, closing the previous DRV was the wrong decision. Jax 0677 had every right to request the review. Saying the nominator cannot request a review of a delete-close implies that a nominator has to stick by their proposal even if they are later convinced that consensus is different. That's the opposite of how consensus should work and RoySmith should know better. If in the course of the AFD people convince me, that I was wrong to nominate the article for deletion, I can change my opinion and argue for keeping. And if the AFD is then closed as delete even though consensus was to keep, I have the same rights as any other editor to request a review. That Jax 0677 was blocked for a different reason later does not change that at all. Regards SoWhy 06:31, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At this point, i would suggest a formal note that the original close has been overturned, and a history merge, and a small trout for the early close of the previous DRV. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:30, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Redirect to what? No one actually says, which is a good reason to have deleted. "Redirect" !votes require checking that the topic is covered at the target. I think the title is ambiguous with Big-fish–little-pond effect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Albums non-notable on their own are redirected to either the artist's article or their discography article, per WP:NALBUM; that should be common knowledge for any admin patrolling AFD, since it's basically a specific version of WP:ATD-R. Also, if the reviewing admin had been unsure whether a suitable redirect target exists, he should have relisted the debate instead to allow for clarification instead of closing it as "delete". Saying "delete because redirect target was not explicitly mentioned" ignores the consensus at the AFD which was to redirect. Plus, at the time the AFD was closed, the album was explicitly mentioned in this artist's article, so the redirect target was pretty clear. Regards SoWhy 14:48, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SoWhy, the complexity of that answer while failing to answer the simple question speaks to my point. I suppose it means Overturn (relist for clarification of "redirect" !votes). The dearth at Vince_Staples#Discography implies that the redirect target should be Vince_Staples_discography. At that article, I see, matching the deleted article lede, that this album is three days short of its scheduled release. So isn't this all a waste of time, just wait one week and the ground will have changed. It this a short term promotion-antipromotion battle? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it does, SmokeyJoe. That two viable redirect targets might have existed does not change the fact that the consensus was to redirect. As I said above, if the reviewing admin is unsure where to redirect to, he should relist the discussion to achieve clarification, not just ignore the consensus and delete the article. As for the rest of your comment, it's not a "short term promotion-antipromotion battle", it's just the process we have to determine whether an admin acted correctly when closing a XFD discussion. That new information makes the prior discussion moot does not mean the prior decision was right. The point of this DRV is to restore the history to the current article, not to restore the article to a redirect, but that requires overturning the wrong delete-close. Regards SoWhy 06:26, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SoWhy, I think we are in 99% agreement. The discussion was unclear on the redirect target, and could use more clarity on that point. I proffer that the lack of clarity on the redirect target may have caused the closer to shy away from finding the consensus to redirect. This DRV, like all DRVs, serves to provide ongoing education to all closers, to encourage correct decision making, and to ensure best outcomes, including on questions of a clean available page history. Only as a tangential aside, do I wonder whether the original AfD listing, and then the DRVs, are partially motivated by concerns of promotion for an album to be released in three days, and while noting WP:FUTUREALBUM, wonder whether User:Jax 0677 should let future albums less than 6 weeks away slide? I note that his 17-AfD-nominations statistic are fair, and that he might consider not using AfD for "merge and redirect" needs, as a comment but not as criticsm. Excuse my idle comments, but in three days, a WP:REFUND request for the history would be an obvious approve, and I agree that the history should never have been deleted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)No it doesn't. Any sufficiently-motivated administrator can do a history-only undelete at any time, subject only to their own good judgment and the lack of copyvio or defamation in the history. Says so right in WP:DRVPURPOSE, and it said so in Wikipedia:Undeletion policy before it was destructively merged. The only purpose of this DRV and the first DRV is process for process's sake, just like the original AFD was. That latter is why I personally am not sufficiently motivated, and (unless I've been badly misreading his statements) why Sandstein isn't either. You or DESiegel could've just done this, and nobody would've complained. Except maybe Jax 0677, who seems to have manufactured this situation solely so that he'd have something to complain about. —Cryptic 07:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Perform history merge and keep current article - The original discussion was at Wikipedia:Deletion_review#12_June_2017. The issue at the time of the deletion review, is that the history was deleted without consensus to do so, but there was consensus, that AT THE TIME, that the article should not be anything more than a redirect. As a matter of practice, the history of this article before the deletion should be merged into the current article. The first discussion was closed prematurely, before one week of discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:46, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect, merging the article history to the current article. The consensus of the AFD seems to lean towards redirecting with history intact over outright deletion. Also, I believe a WP:TROUT is due to Sandstein and RoySmith. It is clearly reasonable for someone to nominate an article for deletion and then decide it is better as a redirect, and the accusations in the previous DRV that Jax 0677 was trolling were inappropriate. Calathan (talk) 18:36, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If he'd changed his mind, that would be one thing, but that's not what happened. He said himself, both at the previous DRV and Sandstein's talk page, that deletion was never his intention. —Cryptic 07:20, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if that is the case, calling someone a troll because they didn't use the right process is not acceptable. Admins should be trying to be helpful, and Sandstein and RoySmith have been anything but helpful in these discussions. Calathan (talk) 15:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I used WP:AFD because there is no forum named "Articles for Discussion", and the PROD was reverted. Merge and redirect are potential results of an AFD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:ATD. Don't use WP:AfD so quickly. Later arguing for a history undelete means you admit the PROD was a mistake? I think it might help to read Wikipedia:Pseudo-deletion by redirection. "Merge and Redirect" should be proposed on article talk pages. If you need help, there is Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. If the standalone article at the current title it not OK, and there is resistance to redirection, then take it to AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody doesn't understand our processes because they're new here, I'm more than willing to be helpful. But, we're talking about somebody who's been here for nine years, has 96,000 edits, extensive participation in AfD over the years, and a history of multiple blocks for disruptive editing. I'm not buying they they didn't understand the process. As I said, Looks like a duck to me. -- RoySmith(talk) 19:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You point to thousands and thousands of mostly constructive edits and suggest that is evidence of trolling. Sorry, but that position is absurd. I think you are just ignoring Hanlon's razor, and its Wikipedia equivalent of WP:AGF. Even Jax 0677's most recent blocks seems to be him thinking he was doing something constructive (he looks to have been trying to move redirects to better titles, but just doing a bad job of it). Calathan (talk) 02:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Calathan: I don't mean to derail this thread, but I was just on the Big Fish Theory article and saw this deletion review. Just letting you know: Moving redirects to less disambiguated namespaces was not the reason Jax was blocked; moving redirects as a way of creating new redirects for other albums was what he was blocked for. Ss112 17:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seriously? It's already notable. It already has 3 ratings from publications that can be added to the article. --Jennica✿ / talk 07:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is now notable. It is now released and has 5 reviews. Myxomatosis57 (talk) 07:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The album is notable enough for an article Bwoii 15:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Jennica, Myxomatosis57, Bwoii, and Cubbie15fan, this is not a discussion about whether the current article should be kept or deleted. The discussion here is about whether the history of the previous article should be restored. This would not change the current article, other than that you could go into the article history and see the edits from before it was deleted. It makes no sense to vote "keep" in this discussion, as nothing is being proposed for deletion here, and any new sources are also irrelevant to this discussion. Calathan (talk) 20:13, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
CalathanTL;DR & FWIW the amount of time that has been spent by users going back and forth for over a week over whether or not to keep info from previously deleted article exemplifies why users like myself have become apathetic about WP. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I have no particular opinion on the current article, but if we do end up keeping the current article, of course we'll restore the history of the previous version. The only reason we would want to hide previous history is in cases of patently unacceptable content such as copyvio, hate speech, libel, etc. And in those cases, we would delete just the offending revisions. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Robert Kiyosaki – Huh? I don't get what's going on here. The AfD nomination was absurd. The close makes perfect sense; there's no way this was going to end up with any other result. And, asking that an admin re-close this because that somehow makes the result more binding is just pointless wiki-beaurocracy. Speedy closing this to avoid wasting more time on this. – -- RoySmith(talk) 23:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Discussion was only open for two hours, before non-admin-closure as "Speedy Keep". Due to the fact that the article page history [7] involves multiple admins redirecting the page, it should've been allowed to either run its course for the full time for a WP:AfD, or be closed by another admin to firmly establish the outcome. Sagecandor (talk) 21:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - I don't know why we are here. The AFD nominator (also DRV nominator) never advanced a reason to delete the article. The nomination statement started off with "Article subject is a person who appears to be notable" and ends the nomination with "Notable biography". This is an example of WP:Speedy keep#1. Four people put in their opinions and none of them thought the article should be deleted. AFD is not a venue for cleanup. ~ GB fan 22:27, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Aaron Bastani and Novara Media – Relist both. Without passing judgement on the sources themselves, there's good consensus that the sources presented here should be evaluated. So, I'm going to undelete both of these and list them at AfD. – -- RoySmith(talk) 23:26, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are one of the few media commentators that correctly predicted the results of the election. They are a vital voice for left wing politics which is otherwise ignored by much of mainstream media.
I genuinely believe this article's taken down for political reasons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talk • contribs) 14:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aaron on Sky News [8][9]
Jeremy Corbyn Interview [10]
John McDonell Interview [11]
Alex Salmond Interview [12]
Paul Mason Interview [13]
Caroline Lucas Interview [14]Patrickbettington (talk) 14:16, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Aaron Bastani: As I noted on my talk page, being on the news multiple times on its own is not enough to have an article - people need to actually talk about someone. I also do not know this individual at all nor what political viewpoints they might have. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 15:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You need to find sources that talk about these people, not just sources where they are doing something (interviewing someone). See WP:PRIMARY. Endorse deletion for now. Happy to shift if you find good, independent, third-party secondary sources. If you have doubts, come to my talk page. I'm very much an inclusionist (I like to see us cover as much as we can within our rules) so I'd be happy to see the articles exist if the sources exist (I'm also fairly liberal, so no bias against these folks seems likely, but I'm American and don't really know a huge amount about English politics.). Hobit (talk) 16:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Please see additional References below, from another 7 major UK news outlets, all discussing Bastani and Novari Media to different extents.
Aaron Bastani has over 33k Twitter followers [1]
Novara Media has over 28k [2]
Guardian Article from last September listing both Novara Media and Aaron Bastani as part of New left movement [3]
At what point does it change from being on the news a few times, to people talking about them? He is a political commentator running and representing a media outlet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Patrickbettington (talk • contribs) 16:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
send back to AfD. The sources above aren't great, but the OpenDemocracy interview is pretty good coverage (I've never agreed that interviews were somehow not useful). The other sources largely don't provide much discussion about the topics. I suspect we'll end up with one article with the other merged in. But yeah, I think the discussions didn't really touch on the sources (likely because they were unaware of them), so it's worth trying again. Hobit (talk) 20:47, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist at AfD per Hobit since the AfDs did not discuss these sources. Cunard (talk) 06:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While most of the sources that have been listed here are either utterly insubstantial or taboid horseshit, I think that some of the sources relating to Novara Media are enough to establish notability, and that the organisation has clearly become more high-profile and thus more widely-discussed since the 2015 AfD, and my !vote is to allow recreation or failing that relistNovara Media. On the other hand, none of the sources listed here come remotely close to establishing the notability of Bastani himself. If the Novara article is recreated then his name ought to redirect there, but I would strongly oppose recreating that article, and would endorse, as the nominator at AfD, the closer's decision with regard to Aaron Bastani. I would also like to recommend that User:Patrickbettington takes the time to familiarise himself with Wikipedia's fundamental principles, and especially to remember to assume good faith, i.e. to refrain from the very tiring insistence that Wikipedia editors are motivated by political grudges rather than an interest in building and maintaining an encyclopaedia. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arms & - Apologies. The timing of Aaron Bastani page coming down was unfortunate, 3 days after an election in which he was extremely vocal, I was aware of the principles, but thought they may have been circumnavigated. I've been sufficiently convinced by a number of users that it was not political. What would be the next step in order to "relist" Novara Media? Patience?Patrickbettington (talk) 21:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are further references required, or is the a consensus on Notability and move to relist ? Patrickbettington (talk) 12:05, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
2032 Summer Olympics – No reason to wait - unsalted - once created drop me a line if you want a histiory undelete. – SpartazHumbug! 07:07, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
In the very near future, these will be the first Summer Olympics to have no official host city. By now, there should be at least SOME information so that the 2032 Summer Olympics will actually have an article. For anyone who thinks this article should stay deleted, please reveal exactly what you support waiting until before re-creating the article. Georgia guy (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion the discussion was clearly calling for deletion. I personally think there are probably enough sources and information to justify an article, but that's not where the discussion went and the reasons for deletion were, well, reasonable. Hobit (talk) 16:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm an idiot and missed that this AfD is two years old. My own searching made me think this was a reasonable topic for an article, but not clearly enough to override that discussion. So yeah, I'll strike that. Hobit (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt I don't think the OP here actually wanted a review of the closure of a two year old deletion discussion. However the major argument for deletion was WP:TOOSOON and people noted that the 2028 games hasn't been awarded to a city yet. That games is due to be awarded in September of this year, at which point this will be the next games that hasn't been awarded yet and anybody looking to host the Summer Olympics will be bidding for this one. This change in circumstances has made the 2015 deletion discussion less relevant. Hut 8.5 18:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt per Hut 8.5. Jclemens (talk) 19:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The article was submitted after thoroughly going through and following all the guidelines specified by Wikipedia. I strongly believe that Wikipedia encourages people to make valuable and informative contributions and that is exactly the reason why I attempted to create this article of a company which has been in operation for more than 16 years. Kindly have a review and guide me on the steps I should follow in this regard. Imorningstar85 (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you mean Draft:ITC Infotech (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore), which you worked on and which was deleted in the last week, rather than the mainspace article that was deleted a year and a half ago? No, we don't encourage people to make pages like that. Wikipedia is not your free billboard. Endorse. —Cryptic 11:21, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
More info on my talk page. Can't see the screen well enough to format the links. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Related how? I haven't had any coffee yet, but the only connection I see is that they're both IT consultancies in India. Those are... not exactly uncommon. —Cryptic 12:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, sorry, I should have mentioned that it's linked from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ITC Infotech as an example of being created by the same original author (although, now that I look closer at the article histories, I'm not sure that's correct). -- RoySmith(talk) 12:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, blatant advertising that would require a fundamental rewrite to even begin to meet our criteria. Not that I'd object to an article about the company written in a neutral fashion, but this isn't it. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:24, 15 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Sure it was: it was deleted immediately after the discussion was closed, then deleted again after it was recreated two days later. What action are you asking for? —Cryptic 05:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, looks like a fairly straightforward case of the article being recreated after being deleted at AFD, and then (quite properly) deleted via G4. The article texts were identical, right down to grammatical errors. Lankiveil(speak to me) 06:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Sorry new to this, hadn't realised page had already been deleted twice. Was asking for it to be deleted again because I had seen the discussion about deleting it, see that it has now been done. Thanks NZ Footballs Conscience(talk) 06:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Big Fish Theory – Troll. Speedy closing this per User:Sandstein. I note that the nominator has been blocked three times over several years for disruptive editing. We're not going to waste any more time on this. Any established editor in good standing who believes the AfD was closed incorrectly is free to open another DRV discussion, but this one isn't happening. – -- RoySmith(talk) 23:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
removing the page was agreed upon, deleting the article history was not agreed upon Jax 0677 (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some specific action that you're proposing? -- RoySmith(talk) 20:03, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Reinstate redirect with article history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:12, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Simply put, as a reply to your DRV request: yes, actually, it was agreed upon. That's what deletion is; it both removes the article and deletes the article history. See WP:DELETION for more details. SkyWarrior 20:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Actually, @Gongshow:, @Another Believer: and I all agreed to redirect instead of delete. This implies no consensus to remove the potentially useful article history. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:27, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect. With roughly equal numbers of editors favoring redirect and delete, and with no strong policy-based arguments made that favor deletion over a redirect, while some such arguments were made in favor of redirect, it is hard to read this as a consensus to delete, and deletion requires a consensus. No consensus defaults to keep, after all. In short there was no agreement to delete this, (SkyWarrior's comment to the contrary notwithstanding, and so no agreement to delete the history. Besides, if this does become notable shortly, as one editor suggested, an undelete and history merge would be in order, so why set ourselves up for that extra work. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:26, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unsympathetic to the nominator here. If you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it for deletion. Forcing people to argue against a position you don't hold is disruptive.On the merits, this has already been recreated as a redirect, and that deletion discussion doesn't make it a G4. The deleted history looks unlikely to be useful, and the two non-redirect recreations since the AFD don't exactly fill me with confidence that a history undeletion wouldn't be exploited to recreate the article. —Cryptic 01:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Cryptic:, I took the article to AFD because there is no such thing as "Articles for discussion", the {{PROD}} was removed, and two of the potential results of AFD are "Merge" and "Redirect with History". Unless it is agreed to delete the article history, that history should be kept. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I agree with Jax 0677 and Cryptic. ReykYO! 06:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why are we even here? The album has apparently been released, and a seemingly reasonable article appears at that target. Can we put the past article history back underneath the current article? I don't see why not: no reason NOT to came up in the AfD. So assuming this article is on the same album, and no objectionable (e.g., copyvio, defamation, etc. as opposed to simply non-notable) material was present, then can someone just undelete the past history and us all move on? Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - @Jclemens:, the article was created after this discussion was started. I agree that the article can remain in tact as it currently stands, and a WP:HISTMERGE should take place. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:39, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect and restore the history per Jclemens. The AfD was incorrectly closed as delete with both delete !votes failing to take into account WP:ATD-R (one was only a WP:VAGUEWAVE to a non-applicable essay) while a majority correctly favored redirection; even the nominator was in favor of a redirect. I cannot see a policy-based reason to delete this article and none was mentioned at the AFD. Overturning the deletion also restores the history, so two problems solved at once. Regards SoWhy 11:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect per SoWhy. I see a consensus that the article shouldn't exist, but not a consensus to delete the history and the alternative of redirecting was raised and effectively argued for. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closer's comment: Requesting deletion and then contesting the requested outcome is frivolous, and responding to such requests is a waste of time. Sandstein 22:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also the requester is now apparently blocked for disruption, so maybe this was all trolling? Sandstein 22:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Kekistan – Request to recreate as protected redirects granted. Closed early because this seems uncontroversial and consensus is unanimous. – Sandstein 07:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This is also for Republic of Kekistan, and specifically to overturn the decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 12 to prevent redirects. Both Kekistan and Republic of Kekistan were full hoax articles, which were rightly deleted. You'd have to see the deleted content to appreciate how hoaxy they were - in short they were dressed up as proper countries. The Deletion Review was closed with a (small) consensus against the creation of redirects, and recreation of the full articles ended up with both titles being salted. I've received applications to remove the protection (here and here) in order to create redirects. One of the other deleting admins passed it on to me (here). I've basically passed it on to the closer of the DRV (here) who recommended DRV as the appropriate venue. This seems like a formality and the bar shouldn't be too high to create these redirects. I move to overturn the previous DRV decision which prevented redirects. -- zzuuzz(talk) 07:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support- This sounds reasonable, but the new redirects would need to be protected for the same reasons the originals were salted. ReykYO! 08:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, and definitely protect them to stop the inevitable vandalism. — InsertCleverPhraseHere 10:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support, sounds reasonable to me although I emphasise that the redirects would absolutely need to be protected to stop them becoming targets for vandalism once more. Lankiveil(speak to me) 10:45, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Support and protect per the above. It's a reasonable target, but without protection, we will have problems. Hobit (talk) 13:11, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support with protection. The two titles seem like an absolutely plausible search target, so I don't see any reason not to have a redirect. I don't think this even needs to go the full 7 days. The WordsmithTalk to me 13:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
We need to review whether G11 is really appropriate. This article was actually kept at AfD 8 years ago. However, it was speedy deleted anyway several times later. The users who deleted the page since the AfD were NawlinWiki, Jimfbleak (twice), Vanamonde93, and Dlohcierekim. The page was also previously salted by There'sNoTime. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment.It was also deleted four times prior to the AfD. For the record, by User:Rockpocket (3 June 2007), User:Khukri (12 July 2007), User:Kylu (6 February 2009), and User:Accounting4Taste (16 February 2009). Although, admittedly, all of those admins are now retired (or, in one case, taking a five-year long wikibreak). Incidentally, NawlinWiki presumably realised that it survived an AfD, as he overtuned his own speedy two minutes later (e/s= 'speedy not appropriate'). Mind you, it's times like this I wish I could see the history- things like 'bad faith CSD nom', for example! But on the whole, the best place to resolve this is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FIITJEE 2. Without pre-empting any results, is certainly the case that what was considered many years ago and survived an AfD nom is in no way guaranteed to be so or to do so now :) however, I accept that in order to be taken back there, it would have to be restored procedurally. — O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 16:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Can't see the article, but looking at the Wayback machine, it didn't look like a G11 candidate to me. Given it has made it through AfD before, it needs to go to AfD. So overturn speedy and list at AfD as desired. The sources in the article that I saw were weak enough there may be a WP:N argument. Hobit (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, maybe list at AfD. The deleted text is simply not promotional - it's borderline A7, but one of the references lists it as the largest of its type in the country[15] so along with everything else it's probably not a speedy. The db-spam tag was added with this parameter: "reason=This article is about a recent tuition centre in India, which is not notable enough to have an article on an encyclopaedia. Specifically, the reasons for its non-notability are: Limited interest to the public, Lack of independent sources (non-routine coverage)", which is not a G11 reason. It's also worth pointing out that all of the recent deletions and undeletions are the result of tagging by the same one editor. That alone should be enough to list it at AfD. -- zzuuzz(talk) 17:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
comment from most recent deleter AGREE w/ restore. Not sure how back that should go. I should have more closely looked at the history. I make note that Specialpage(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·page moves·block user·block log) had previously tagged for CSD and had it declined more than once. If someone had appealed on my talk page, I'd have restored. Dlohcierekim (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the version from 8 June 2017, at 06:24 (ET). It is somewhat promotional, but I would not have accepted (would have declined) a G11 on this text. Overturn to normal editing. Do not automatically list at AfD, if it is to be listed, there should be an actual nominator to make a proper case for deletion, and to do WP:BEFORE searches on it first. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:34, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the log files, this looks like a mess. Is it possible that we're dealing with a paid deletion tagger, someone acting in bad faith to delete the competition's coverage? Jclemens (talk) 08:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn with a small {{trout}} for those admins deleting the page when it had already survived AfD and thus was not eligible for speedy deletion. Even if it had been, G11 did not apply since multiple revisions contained neutral text. I believe the deletion policy allows Dlohcierekim as the last one to delete the article to reverse their decision without this having to go the whole 7 days. Regards SoWhy 11:54, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've pushed the restore button twice to no avail. Not awake yet. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:25, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Simon Stagg – Overturn / Moot. Essentially unanimous consensus here that the original delete close should not stand. But moot since the title has already been redirected (although not to the target suggested in the original AfD) and the history has already been restored, so there's nothing left to do here. If somebody thinks there's a better redirect target, that's something that can be hashed out in talkspace without need for further DRV involvement. – -- RoySmith(talk) 20:12, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dennis Brown provided a novel analysis, in which he discounted every single !vote and agreed with the nominator that the article should be deleted. While his detailed rationale and cordial response to my raising the topic are commendable, the fact remains that the numerical !vote was 5 vs. the nominator to not delete the article. Dennis Brown erred in counting the 2 merges and redirect as opinions favoring deletion, based on his own reading of how future editing might look. Multiple sources and another merge target had been raised in the discussion, and while it pains me to call it that, the close amounts to an inappropriate supervote, and as such either a relist or a no consensus outcome would have been preferable. Discussion with closing admin Dennis Brown concludes hereJclemens (talk) 00:17, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Affirm my close This is less controversial than it seems. The target for merging was just a single name "list of" without any significant additional information. The name had already been added to the list, so there was no more material that could be merged; it was by all definitions, complete. By asking for a merge or redirect, the three editors (plus the one nominator) are in effect saying the article should not exist as a stand alone article. The two keep votes were completely void of any policy basis. There were 4 people saying the article should not exist as it stands, and two people using invalid rationales for keeping it. Not one policy based "keep" vote was cast. No matter which particular words are used to express it, since there was nothing left to be merged before deleting, the only logical interpretation was that the consensus of policy based responses was to make the article go away, ie: delete. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... except that one editor had already proposed expanding the identified target/character list from mere mentions to summaries. Should someone decide to do that in the future, they now have zero access to the previous revisions of the article to do so. Jclemens (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One person of 6 participants casually mentioned that it was merely possible to expand the target. He wasn't volunteering. In fact, he flatly said "but I think it's sufficiently covered at List of The Flash characters" so the information was already WP:PRESERVED. He was still saying Simon Stagg should go away. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been - when I said that, I was only meaning a specific portion of the article - the section on the character's television appearance. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And much like your opening statement, saying they have zero access is hyperbole. I've never refused a userfy request, which I have yet to receive on this article. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:52, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My sincere apologies if you thought I was saying that you, or any other admin, or REFUND, wouldn't provide access to the deleted content on request. But until that happens, yes, non-admins have zero access to the content. I can't see it, you can, and that is why WP:ATD-M and WP:ATD-R are so important, because by your closure as delete you have removed all that content from user-accessible sight, and I daresay most admins are too busy to work on random fictional elements topics like this one. As a curationist, I certainly don't have time to go around requesting access to random deleted fictional elements just to see if there's anything worth merging, and that's why DRV'ing this likely-not-very-important content is important for the overall health of the encyclopedia. Jclemens (talk) 05:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I do not see a clear consensus to delete here, and that is what is needed for deletion to happen. Also, there appears to ahve been a serious lack of WP:BEFORE searching on the nominator's part. When he wrote "As for Google, that also doesn't mean a thing he was correct that numbers of google hits don't make a topic notable, but overlooked that google is a good place to find sources, and if the sources exist, even if not yet in the article, deletion is improper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 01:29, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Overturn to Redirect - As Dennis said, the policy-based !votes clearly do not favor keeping the article. I read consensus as redirect, though. Although some said merge, the proposed merge target is nothing but a list of names that already includes the subject in question. So it's already "merged" to the extent it can be with that list's format, and the merges should just be considered redirects. As long as the name is listed there, a redirect seems meh, even if there's no other information. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 02:18, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to redirect while the Keep comments were not based on policy and were properly discounted, I don't agree with discounting the redirect/merge comments. While the target article is currently just a list of names that does not mean that we can't expand it to include other information, and redirection leaves open the possibility of merging relevant material if desired. The redirect as it stands would still give useful information about the subject (he's a DC character). Redirection is also more in keeping with the rough consensus of the discussion, as nobody except the nominator supported deletion and the nominator didn't express any sort of opposition to redirection or merging. Hut 8.5 10:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no argument for deletion or wrong forum The AfD nomination hasn't made an argument for deletion, since GNG is only a sub-standard of a guideline to decide if a topic is to be standalone or covered elsewhere in the encyclopedia. There is no dispute that this topic remains on Wikipedia after the deletion, nor were there WP:DEL-REASONs in the closing that justified the removal of the work product in the edit history. The remaining issues are content issues, which as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT such discussion belongs on the talk page of the article, or if necessary at RfC. Note that the AfD nomination stipulates that single-sentence reliable content is available. Unscintillating (talk) 17:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
in practice, we do decide some difficult or disputed questions involving possible merge or redirect at AfD, since they are some of the possible results. This has gradually developed in response to the earlier practice of destroying articles by merges, followed by gradual destruction of content, and hoping not to be noticed. AfD is actually the only visible content process we have except for RfCs. and the only one with a chance of involving the general community. Erratoc as AfD may be, it's fairer than most of the alternatives. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As long as the edit history is preserved, there is never a loss of content. This is why our policy establishes a bright line between discussions that can end up with the use of administrator tools, and those decisions that can be closed by non-admins. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Policies including WP:Deletion policy are widely accepted standards that all editors should normally follow. I have often recorded in your deletion nominations that your nomination failed to follow WP:BEFORE. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When AfD ends up with a merge or redirect result (meaning redirect without deletion of the edit history), these are not deletion results, and as content results coming from an AfD, the result is not binding. We see that individual closers may choose to take on a subsequent content dispute as a personal choice. We also have closers who won't touch a subsequent "overturn" of a unanimous AfD by a single editor, because administrators have other things to do than get bound into a content dispute just because they closed an AfD. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for the idea that participants at AfD, which you call the "general community", are superior editors for content decisions across the encyclopedia; I think it would be more accurate to say that participants at AfD are specialists in the use of admin tools for deletion. The idea that a non-binding result from AfD is "fairer" than alternatives should lead to asking why non-policy use of AfD continues without addressing the foundational issues. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The current discussion is an example of what can happen when non-deletion discussions are allowed to proceed at a forum that allows the use of administrator tools. IMO, the best way to have handled this nomination was to speedy close it WP:NPASR before anyone had posted. Unscintillating (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The contributions made in the discussion were not helpful, and the closing admin didn't have that much to work with. I agree that the two "Keep" opinions were not grounded in policy and were rightly disregarded, but that still leaves a bunch of calls for a Merge. While the identified target isn't a great article with much content in it, the information can and should be retained somehow for integration. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn honestly I'd probably have supported a NC reading or a merge (probably redirect in reality). But there is no delete outcome possible from that discussion IMO. Hobit (talk) 13:17, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No reasonable administrator could have concluded that this discussion's consensus was delete. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The closing admin does not get a supervote that ignores and overrides discussion participants. —Lowellian (reply) 20:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Closing rationale reads like a super-!vote. I cannot read a clear consensus whether to just redirect or also merge, but there clearly was no consensus to delete this without so much as a redirect. Also, saying "delete is the only option" implies that the closer thinks a lack of consensus to keep results in delete when it's the other way around. Regards SoWhy 12:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't a defensible close; the reasons given for it were editorial, not administrative. (For what it's worth, I agree with them.) Had you written them as a comment in the discussion and the next admin to come along had closed as delete, that would still have been sketchy but might have stood. Overturn to a redirect w/history; feel free to bring that to RFD. —Cryptic 12:56, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I've requested the article history be restored for new participants. Valoemtalkcontrib 11:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Priyanka Agrawal – Speedy close per WP:DRVPURPOSE. @Shyamkrishnan2k:, we appreciate all contributions to the encyclopedia, but please read WP:BIO to learn about what we require for biographical articles. Also, it appears from your comment to King of Hearts that you have some relationship to the subject. You should also read WP:COI to learn about our conflict of interest policies. Thanks for being helping to write the encyclopedia, but I would suggest that you find other topics to write about – -- RoySmith(talk) 15:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The actress is not a one film wonder as described, she has 1 movie, 1 short, 2 commercials and multiple music videos to her credit. There is ample news generated and I can tab articles, she is also signing new movies so think this should be undeleted. Shyamkrishnan2k (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Consensus was a unanimous delete, so there's nothing to be faulted about the close. Has anything changed since January that would make this person notable now when she wasn't then? ReykYO! 07:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Covfefe – The rough consensus is that it was within the closer's discretion to interpret the discussion as he did, partly because the discussion was overwhelmed with WP:ILIKEIT and WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. Cyberpower should've explained his closure in further detail, which he had done by expanding the closing statement as soon as this DRV was started. Later comments in this DRV pointed out that, with a "Covfefe Act" in the legislative pipeline, Covfefe is still very much a current event, so this DRV is closed as endorse with caveat that the original closure was upheld but future re-expansion into standalone article is not forbidden. – Deryck C. 12:47, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
There were far more votes for Keep than Merge. Consensus was wildly misinterpreted. Mishigas (talk) 05:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
Also, "covfefe" garners more than 22 million hits on google, conferring notability.Mishigas (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
I count over 100 votes for keep/covfefe. Admin did not even provide a rationale for closing. I think this was a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The topic has obvious notability, and many commentators in the discussion believed the result was "piling on for keep." Please read the discussion, and you will see a groundswell of support for this remarkable article. Mishigas (talk) 05:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC) --rationale struck out by user:SkyWarrior on 19:16, 10 June 2017 because of WP:SOCK -- this commented added by 96.41.32.39 (talk) 00:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin comments: I'll admit it was silly of me to forget to include a rationale for such a heating open debate, so I will add it here. Before I do, I will point out that the starter of this DELREV discussion is a blocked user for childish behavior on Trump related articles, seemingly, and was likely started because he didn't like my close. In any event I am impartial as to whether or not this should be an article or not. In any event I gauged all of the !votes. The deletes made solid arguments, but so did the keeps. It became apparent to me as I was following this discussion that this incident is clearly notable enough to be mentioned on Wikipedia. It was also apparent that many users feel it not notable enough to have it's own article for it. So as a middle ground to the keep and delete, I was leaning towards merging the article into a different Trump related article. Many users based on their !votes saw the same course of action as the only acceptable. I will also add that many keepers and deleters offered merging as a second choice. When I gauged the discussion before I closed, I was certain that Wikipedia needs to mention Covfefe somewhere, but not as its own article, based on arguments, so rather outright delete or keep, I felt the best course of action was to merge into a different article, considering there was an ongoing merge discussion happening simultaneously which seems to have been headed towards a merge result. Even if I closed this as no consensus, the merge discussion would have likely closed as merge IMO. I have no objections to my actions being overturned. I outright expected to get a lot of covfefe over the close. Hope this helps.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 12:45, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not the user who put this article up for deletion review is or is not banned is not relevant, and to bring that up makes for an Ad Hominem fallacy. Thank you for finally providing a closing argument. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. I think there was a solid enough consensus to keep. ReykYO! 07:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus (which should default to keep). There were valid arguments on all sides. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 07:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)keep now that there is the proposed COVFEFE Act which has received coverage in WP:RS. This is a new development, and does not reflect on the judgement of the closing admin. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:44, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: On his talk page, in response to my question asking for his rationale, the closing administrator stated There was pretty much even divide between the keepers and deleters. Both sides made good arguments for either. Then there were those that suggested merging. Some keepers and deleters also suggested merging as a second option. He then went on to say why he thought that merge was the best option. To me, that sounds like he went too far and should have closed the discussion as no consensus. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:40, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close. Per WP:NOTVOTE, !votes are not votes. Many of the keep !votes are poorly grounded, either being clear "votes" only, misrepresentation of policy or clearly ideologically motivated. (See: Keep important, groundbreaking article. Will be useful to historians that want to trace the emergence of the second dark ages and Trump's reign of terror. Crucial historical document. This is not the place to pay partisan politics and cover up for Daddy, Trumpkins.; Keep this is about as consequential as this presidency has been thus far.; Keep Article possesses world-historical importance. Symbolic of the astonishingly rapid decline in moral and intellectual standards and the decay of human civilization itself since Trump's violent seizure of power.) While many of the !votes assert notability, none demonstrate it. Considering the arguments provided in the discussion, merge is not an unreasonable closure. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 07:51, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is incorrect. There are keep votes over at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe that did establish notability as per WP:GNG. Indeed, one opponent of keeping the article conceded that NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue.. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I do not see anywhere in WP:N additional criteria that go above and beyond WP:GNG. The way I am reading the policy, if WP:GNG is achieved, WP:N is achieved. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 19:48, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rather it is I who am sorry; I am not responsible for the comprehension skills of others. - Ryk72'c.s.n.s.' 03:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "Keep: Make Wikipedia great again" and other WP:ILIKEIT rationales were typical of the "keep" !votes; very few had any policy-based arguments. — Rwxrwxrwx (talk) 07:56, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus (and therefore keep). Very many of the Keep votes were WP:ILIKEIT, but equally very many of the Delete votes were WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Many of the Delete voters were appalled that a respectable online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia should give coverage to ephemeral trivia such as a Trump's mistweet; but many mainstream newspaper articles have been devoted to "Covfefe", which makes it notable, and it's just snobbishness on our part to pretend that it is not a notable topic worthy of a separate article here on the English Wikipedia. BabelStone (talk) 08:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. There was substantial disagreement on the deletion discussion and nothing to definitively override the WP:GNG presumption of notability given by its massive media coverage. People have correctly noted that Trump and related memes get media attention of a quality and quantity different from other presidents, but this isn't something Wikipedia should subjectively compensate for. Attempting to do so reeks of original research. —Guanaco 08:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:Ryk72. Closing admin quite correctly looked at strength of argument rather than an up and down head count. One suggestion that I would have for them though is to provide a bit more of a rationale when closing tricky discussions like this one, rather than just using the default minimal text. It won't stop some people dragging the discussion through every possible drama board, but it at least shows that there was a thought process applied in deciding what to do. Lankiveil(speak to me) 09:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse: A deletion discussion is not a vote. The closing admin, cyberpower678, I am sure has taken the relative weight of arguments presented to arrive at the close to merge the article. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 10:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTVOTE. The closing admin correctly found that a merge was the best alternative per normal Wikipedia policy. — Bill W. (Talk) (Contrib) (User:Wtwilson3) — 10:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Between the delete and merge !votes the arguments against keeping the article were much stronger. For the record, I favored (and still do) deletion. But I concede that the merge close was reasonable given the general split (delete v merge) among those who presented very solid arguments against retention as a stand alone article. -Ad Orientem (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
what exactly were these "very solid arguments"? I see nothing more than Wp:IDONTLIKEIT, ad nauseam, despite the 22 million hits.
Striking my endorsement. See my comment somewhere (way) down below. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Closing admin's "explanation" lacks basic logical coherence:" It became apparent to me as I was following this discussion that this incident is clearly notable." So you decided to delete? By your own lights the arguments for notability convinced you. People citing not a vote doesnt imply that the side with far fewer votes should win despite also having worse arguments. One of the most farcical excercises in democracy since Trump was "elected" with 3 million fewer votes than Clinton. Your fascism has no place here.2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 (talk) 14:48, 10 June 2017 (UTC)— 2600:1017:B418:682D:2472:7FDE:E564:52E4 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Endorse close per Ryk72's rationale. —DoRD (talk) 15:47, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a reasonable compromise close. It is apparent that there is in fact no consensus on the application of WP:NOTNEWS. A "merge" allows the closer not to come down on one side, which, given the roughly even split in the vote, is fine by me. I'm sure this will be hashed out again in other deletion discussions. Srnec (talk) 16:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Most users supporting keeping the article were politically motivated and didn't make strong arguments. --XenonNSMB (talk, contribs) 18:23, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. The discussion was closed with a single sentence, and did not quote any relevant Wikipedia policy. Even people who supported closing at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Covfefe conceded that the article met WP:GNG, e.g. NYT is a great source to establish help GNG, and there are probably hundreds of sources around the world now that do that. This article passes GNG, very, very easily. That's not the issue.. A lot of people opposed to keeping the article brought up WP:NOTNEWS, but that was wrong, as pointed out by another user: there is a pretty sizable WP:NOTNEWS misapplication going on here. None of the 4 points under notnews have been met here, particularly the "routine news" of #2. This is not "routine news", this is a flurry of national an international discussion of the event [...] "WP:Notnews" is a misnomer and should be retitled "NotRoutineNews". To address WP:LASTING, new articles are still using the word “Covfefe”, e.g. This USA Today article from today has “Covfefe” in its title. Samboy (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Mishigas, the initiator of this discussion, has been confirmed a sockpuppet of Kingshowman. SkyWarrior 19:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think the merge into the Trump social networking article reflects a reasonable level of treatment for the long haul, even though I believe this tweet will ultimately prove to be a forgettable social media flap. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Ryk72's. If we only counted votes, we could have a bot close discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:34, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. As somebody who participated in the original AfD I am perfectly happy that the decision to merge reflects the outcome of the discussion and that the grounds on which this review was originally requested are merely the bogus ramblings of a blocked user. What stops me suggesting a speedy close to this review is that other people have suggested overturning the deletion, some of them presenting more respectable arguments than those at the top. My view remains that we should cover this in a manner that is not undue. Anybody who types "covfefe" into the search box should be taken to coverage of this kerfuffle (rather than redirected to coverage or anything else that might be confusing and unhelpful to them) but that there is no encyclopaedic subject here, distinct from Trump's use of social media in general, which can justify an article of its own. I believe that this is in line with policy and is the outcome that serves our readers the best, neither hiding the kerfuffle from them nor pretending that it is more than it is. Lets stop before somebody dubs this "covfefegate" and the English language dies of shame. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and re-open It would seem a strong consensus failed to be reached. I'd rule in favor of re-opening this discussion through another AFD nomination (and to avoid any abrupt closures to its discussion, as seems to have been the problem in with this one). I myself ultimately lean in favor of a merge, however I feel the means by which the discussion was concluded were improper. SecretName101 (talk) 21:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If AfD was articles for discussion (it isn't, see WP:PEREN) it would be a slam-dunk to endorse the close: no matter how stupid or transitory the coverage, there has been a plethora of it. Merging was probably the most Solomonic thing to do in this situation, but per GNG, Keep is a policy-based outcome, and per WP:DEL "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so. Therefore, if there is no rough consensus, the page is kept and is again subject to normal editing, merging, or redirecting as appropriate." So, with all due respect for the closer stepping into a political morass like everything Trump-related is, Overturn to Keep and start a merge discussion outside the AfD process. Jclemens (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merging was probably the most Solomonic thing to do in this situation, but per GNG, Keep is a policy-based outcome -- ??? I'm having trouble understanding what you're arguing, but it seems like you're saying merge is not a valid outcome at AfD, or not "policy-based"? — Rhododendritestalk \\ 21:32, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. There was no way the AfD was ever going to end in deletion, and any editor in good standing should have gone in knowing that in the first place: Inconsequential and silly as the original tweet may have been, the only alternatives were separate article or merge into another, and therefore AfD was never a proper venue in the first place. Of the two outcomes (keep, merge) I really don't have a strong opinion, but the policy-based outcome would have been to keep the article and start a merge decision on the talk page. Jclemens (talk) 23:44, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair there was a merge discussion taking place at the same time. I only briefly glanced at it, but it seemed to be heading towards a merge outcome.—CYBERPOWER(Message) 23:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, I had missed that. Striking my !vote on that basis. Jclemens (talk) 00:39, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Many of the keep votes were clearly a case of WP:ILIKEIT, and while many of the delete ones could be considered WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I don't see why this deserves its own article and couldn't just be a larger section on the Donald Trump on social media page. --Snowstormer(T | C) 21:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per User:DanielRigal and User:Lankiveil. The only error was the failure to provide a rationale in the original close, and that has now been resolved. There's even an argument to speedy close this per WP:DENY given the source of this DRV. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, for what it's worth (and acknowledging that I declined the block appeal of the account that created this DRV, before knowing they were a sock), I don't think there's any harm in letting this discussion run its course naturally. Once all the forms have been observed, hopefully those who don't agree with whatever the outcome was can at least accept the decision that is made without grousing about the procedures being subverted. Lankiveil(speak to me) 07:58, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Do not try to speedy close. The status of the original nominator for this reveiw is irrelevant. This is not a snow close, it is clear there there is a significant and legitimate dispute here. Any attempt to speedy clsoe because the nominator is alleged to be a sock would be promptly and properly reverted. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 10:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. By and large, the delete/merge arguments were of WP:IDONTLIKEIT nature, or else the policy arguments they raised were convincingly rebutted during the AfD. Quite a few 'delete' !voters said that this was a WP:NOTNEWS case. However, as was pointed out more than once during the AfD, the covfefe episode are anything but routine. Others arguing for delete/merge said that the coverage will disappear in a few days or has disappeared already. I pointed out twice (on June 5 [16] and on June 7 [17], in response to these arguments, that substantial coverage was continuing. In fact, while this DRV is ongoing, there are numerous new examples of substantial coverage, just from the last 24 hours Sarah Huckabee Sanders' 3-year-old just tweeted a bunch of covfefe, More 'Covfefe'?: Trump Spox Lights Up Internet with Strange Emoji'ed Tweet, 'Tonight Show' Thank You Notes: James Comey, Covfefe, Covfefe 2.0? Sarah Huckabee Sanders' emoji tweet grips the internet, and many more. There were many passionate IDONTLIKEIT delete arguments saying that it was just a stupid typo unworthy of an encyclopedia article. But we are supposed to base our decisions about keeping/deleting/merging an article based on whether there is substantial sustained coverage by independent reliable sources. That's definitely the case here, and it is clear that the covfefe thing is not going to go away. Nsk92 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse there's a WP:TROUT due for not putting the closing admin comments on the AfD page, but the consensus was judged correctly. Power~enwiki (talk) 23:36, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Covfefe despite the constant negative press, I notice that there has been some stuff that didn't get noted earlier, like the Trevor Noahparody film trailer, and the jacksfilmshalf-hour analysis. It seems to be one of those things that every comic wanted to get in on. Compy book (talk) 02:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close as merge. For now, it is just too new. We do not know if the coverage will continue. While it is extremely likely, as Trump has basically invented a new word, we can't see the future per WP:CRYSTAL. With a merge, the history of the page will be kept, and once long-term notability has been established, the article can be branched out again. Gatemansgc (talk) 05:00, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. The one thing that was clear in the AfD was that there was no consensus to do anything. If you tally the raw opinions as if they were votes, there was obviously no consensus at all. If you attempt to extract the policy-based arguments, the main arguments for delete were 1) WP:NOTNEWS and 2) "Just not encyclopedic", or 3) "clearly not notable". 1) Notnews falls to the ground, none of its points are met. its second point comes closest, but this is not just "routine" coverage by any reasonable standard. Look at the number, solidity, and variety of sources to be found, and already found. "Enduring coverage" can't really be judged this soon, but it has already endured longer than the deleters predicted when the AfD was opened. "Not encyclopedic" is no more than IDON'TLIKEIT when no particular reasons for it are given in turn. As for notability, they only objective way we have to judge that is coverage. No one can honestly deny that this has more coverage than most notable topics ever do. On the Keep side, the strongest argument is "Meets the GNG" which it obviously does. However, the GNG itself says that not everything that meets it is suitable for an article, and there was no consensus on whether this should be one of the exceptions. Most of the other keep arguments are no more than ILIKEIT, or refutations of the delete arguments. There was certainly not a consensus for Merge or redirect, although each had significant support. "No consensus" was really the only accurate close, in my view. A mild WP:TROUT to the closer for not including the reason in the close -- on one like this, that just isn't optional. And the AfD should be edited to insert the close reason now given here, for the record. But since it has been given here, that doesn't really change things much. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 08:45, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, couple things. While I don't agree with the close, its not madness or idiocy, because, while it wasn't brought up either at the close or the closer's remarks here, there is WP:NOTNEWS, a policy. It says "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events... most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion...breaking news should not be emphasized". But it also says "[N]ews coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics... including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate". And then it specifies "routine news reporting on things like announcements, sports, or celebrities" are what we want to avoid (which doesn't apply here.) If you squint pretty hard, I guess you can apply WP:NOTNEWS. But if you squint that hard, we certainly can't have articles like 2017 Manchester Arena bombing either -- let's wait on that also, there's no hurry. So I would like to ask the closer to nominate that article for deletion also, as a mark of good faith and to show his consistent application of policy. And if he won't, I'd like to know why not, and would tend to possibly consider an overturn as maybe appropriate.
The other thing is, it looks like the article merged to (Donald Trump on social media) is going to get large. If this article is merged into that, then probably Trump orb will be too, and there is much else to add to that article... already (a few months into the administration). So eventually we are going to have to break out articles from that, to keep the article size reasonable. So then this article will have to be recreated anyway. So it seems like wasted effort to go through all that, but whatever. Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse reasonable reading of an AfD that was as much of a trainwreck as Trump's tweet (and presidency). Ribbet32 (talk) 17:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There is no way that every person would be happy with the result. On the one hand AfD is a notvote, that means 100 keeps and 1 delete does not necessarily mean we keep the article. That said, numerically speaking a Keep result is not a viable result by any reading of the AfD. As is no-consensus, there is a strong consensus not to keep the article. Let me demonstrate why it would fly directly in the face of around 100 reasoned delete votes and just as many reasoned redirect and merge votes. Redirection and delete are tantamount to merge in this case. There is almost no difference between these options. A complete deletion of the article would do nothing to remove the merged material from the other article, but, would prevent the redirect that currently occupies the article's space. A redirection does nothing to prevent the merge of material, but, does prevent an absolute deletion. A merge does nothing to prevent redirection or deletion of the article. By contrast a keep or no consensus (therefore keep) of the article opposes every non-keep !votes which is argumentationally (in a 1 to 1 scenario, it's actually about 1.8 to 1 against keep) equal if not better (I think better, but then, I'm biased in favour of the current close) than the requested overturn to keep. I say this because you may immediately discount every "Covfefe" vote as non-serious and also stupid comments like; Keep: Make Wikipedia great again[18]. I'll also remind (some of the) other commentors here that the "GNG" presumption is not itself necessarily (amended; 00:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)) a valid reason not to delete. That only works if there is no resonable argument to delete. Presumed notability is negated by demonstrated non-notability. GNG in an argument is like this; Person A; It meets GNG so I presume it's notable. Person B; I disagree, it's a passing issue that will attract little or no attention in a week's time. Furthermore it's a pure news item with little to no encyclopaedic value. So the president made a typo or didn't finish his thought, are we going to create articles every time he does that. If so we're just going to be littering the encyclopaedia with valueless content because the President literally makes typos every day of the week. It's classic NOTNEWS routine reporting with no consequence beyond millions of people have a laugh. It has no lasting effects and it isn't affecting anything in any way at all. Person A; Yes, but, I assume it's notable. Can you see the quality of the GNG argument? no? it's because it's not a strong argument. I'll just add here that a rough Ctrl+F suggests to me that about a quarter to half of the keep votes hang onto GNG to demonstrate notability. Another quarter depend on versions of GEOSCOPE and DIVERSE to push the notability argument as well; To quote GEOSCOPE and my Merge !vote at the AfD Coverage of an event nationally or internationally may make notability more likely, but such coverage should not be the sole basis for creating an article. Please take note of the many; has sources therefore notable, has many sources therefore notable, has covfefe sources therefore notable, has strong covfefe in sources and even covfefe covfefe sources therefore notable, and sources indicate notability !votes, of which there are at least a dozen more like them, that do not clear the NOTNEWS and GEOSCOPE guidelines at all. I simply do not agree that the Keep argument is as strong as the Delete, Merge and Redirect arguments. I will admit, however, that there are questionable !votes in the non-Keep circle such as complaints about "Please God Delete", "for the sake of [our] reputation", "kill it, kill it with fire" and the such. They just look to me to be much rarer. I skimmed through at least thirty delete !votes, only a few were like this and they were more common in the early stage of the discussion (May 31, May 31 and June 2 in the case of the above examples) as compared to the later discussion. If there is an overturn, it should be to Delete outright, not, to No Consensus. There is a consensus, it's that the article isn't notable. Now, you can either delete it because it's not notable or merge or redirect it to an article that is more notable, but, to keep it is right now a very poor decision. If this comes up again in six months, then maybe it will demonstrate lasting notability, but, right now, there is little to speak of beyond the President made a typo, everybody lost their shit over it, and the world is moving on. I would have even kept the article (that was my preference in my !vote), it was funny at the time that I found out about Covfefe, but, it's only been four days since then (I found out the day that I !voted) and I've already moved on. I'm going to say it again, I fully endorse the close. Mr rnddude (talk) 20:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the above vidw badly misunderstands the [[[WP:GNG]]. Mr rnddude writes Presumed notability is negated by demonstrated non-notability.. But passing the GNG does not confer presumed notability, it is the objective test, in effect the very definiation of notability. What is says is that passing the GNG, (and therefore being notable), means that the topic is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. It goes on to say that "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not.... But no such argument has been made, except for the invocation of WP:NOTNEWS. Your also say "GNG" presumption is not itself a valid reason not to delete.. This is exactly backwards. Passing the GNG is an excellent reason not to delete, but it can, in some cases, be overridden by other reasons. I don't see any such reasons here. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:46, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel. You're right, actually, that GNG presumes to be suitable for a "stand-alone article" not notability. That would be my mistake and I had never realized it. Thank you for pulling me up on that. That said, I disagree with your assessment that the only argument against GNG was "NOTNEWS". My own comment covered; WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING/WP:PERSISTENCE, WP:GEOSCOPE, and WP:CRYSTALBALL. Second, Presumed notability is negated by demonstrated non-notability. Well, not to put too fine a point on it, but, if you can demonstrate something meets GNG but isn't notable then yes, GNG fails to demonstrate notability on that occassion. This really just leaves me with one thing. Your also say "GNG" presumption is not itself a valid reason not to delete.. This is exactly backwards. Passing the GNG is an excellent reason not to delete, but it can, in some cases, be overridden by other reasons. Mmm ... no not necessarily. If it's overriden by other reasons then, by your own admission, it's no longer a valid reason not to delete. I should have said, "is not necessarily" a valid reason in itself not to delete. That's the one thing I'll fix in the above comment because I had intended to say it. GNG can sometimes, even often, be enough for an AfD discussion. I'll put my point a different way that might convey what I wanted to say with that. Giving a "meets GNG" !vote and saying, well it meets GNG therefore don't delete, isn't a convincing argument in itself for keeping it, but, only for saying it's presumably suitable for inclusion (or to me previously; presumably notable). Even saying here's why it meets GNG doesn't do anything to demonstrate that it should be included on the encyclopaedia (or to me previously; notable enough for the encyclopaedia). I've been calling it "presumed notability", that's wrong, I should be saying "presumed suitability for the encyclopaedia". However, when I say that GNG isn't valid here I mean that it's presumed suitability doesn't actually demonstrate why we should keep it. Like you said, other guidelines/policies can override GNG. In the case of this article, we all know it meets GNG, and there's a variety of reasons (that different people put up) that said things like; I know it meets GNG, but, it's not suitable for the encyclopaedia because WP:X therefore delete/merge/redirect. To respond to, for example, NOTNEWS with GNG is pointless. It becomes a circular argument. Refer to my example back and forth above. Mr rnddude (talk) 00:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
{U|Mr rnddude}}, I think we are closer, but there is a significant gap. You wrote: here's why it meets GNG doesn't do anything to demonstrate that it should be included on the encyclopaedia. I would put it differently. Meeting the GNG does do something to demonstrate that an articel should be included, but it doesn't always do everything. Or to put it better, Once it is clear that the GNG has been satisfied, the article should be included unless there is some specific reason why it shouldn't be. Or to put it yet another way, ocne the GNG is satisfied, the burden of proof that the article doesn't belong now falls on those arguing for deletion. Until it is, the burden is on those arguing for inclusion. S for the specific argument, you mentioned WP:EVENT, WP:LASTING/WP:PERSISTENCE, and WP:GEOSCOPE. How does any of these really differ, in substance, from notnews here? WP:EVENT says Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources This meme has surely been covered by a very wide variety of sources from all over the world. The impact was clearly widespread, and the coverage was not routine (which WP:EVENT mentions lower down). Whether the impact will be truly lasting we don't know, but we don't need to, as point 2 of EVENT's options does not require or even mention lasting impact. Scope and depth of coverage have clearly been attained. LASTING is merely a paragraph of EVENT, od if EVENT is satisfied, it is irrelevant. So is GEOSCOPE, and in any case it is so clearly satisfied, it represents an argument to keep. As for CRYSTAL, it does not apply. We don't need a crystal ball to demonstrate wide coverage. CRYSTAL is for things like unrealsed films, adn projects that are planned but not completed, perhaps not even started, where we don't even know that the event will take place, or if it does, that it will ever pass the GNG. Here the event has already occurred, and has been massively covered. In short, i still don't see policy-based reason to delete beyond NOTNEWS. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 03:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
DESiegel, I don't think you've read my comment at AfD. I think this specifically because of your crystalball comment. GEOSCOPE is not a reason to keep alone. I used it only to dismantle the "has sources, keep" arguments of which there were dozens. I know GEOSCOPE has been attained, I said as much at the AfD. The coverage is possibly no longer routine. As I noted today when I did a google search on Covfefe and found that "Sarah Huckabee has Covfefe moment" the quality of coverage for this has been FOX news level and below, but, then there's also Comey Covfefe which is getting covered as far away as by the Guardian. At this rate, but, still months from now it may actually meet Lasting. I might revisit it in six months. There's a ten year test thing written somewhere, but, I can't remember which policy or guideline it's in. I use a far smaller six months test and in six months I do not see this being of any consequence any more than I did five days ago at AfD. By the end of the month, I don't think this will be news anymore. I said as much at AfD and pointed out I was crystalballing it based on personal experience. Quite a different use of CB than you suggested above. You're also wrong when you say; LASTING is merely a paragraph of EVENT, od if EVENT is satisfied, it is irrelevant per point 1 of EVENTS; Events are probably notable if they have enduring historical significance and meet the general notability guideline, or if they have a significant lasting effect. In order for Events to be met, so too does lasting. It's written once explicitly and once implicitly. Enduring historical significanceis a lasting effect. Really, to meet point 1 of events it needs to either be LASTING and GNG or LASTING and LASTING. It's not, nor do I think it will be, a lasting event with lasting effects. For that matter, you skipped point 4 of events; Routine kinds of news events ... political news, "shock" news ... are usually not notable unless something further gives them additional enduring significance. This is both political news and "shock" news and the enduring significance of it is, literally, memes, a licence plate and drinks at some bars. Now, if we had a WP:MEMES guideline that hadn't failed I'd look to it, but, we don't so ... moving on. It's a tight line between routine and extraordinary coverage. If this weren't the President of the U.S. I'd call it extraordinary, but, it is and if he so much as farts at the wrong moment it will be global news for at least a week. In that sense, this is routine coverage of the POTUS for me. I presented both arguments to keep and delete the article at AfD, by the end of it I had been swayed to merge the article into a more relevant one as I didn't think Covfefe was suitable for the encyclopaedia. That stance hasn't changed, though you've educated me on parts of the GNG policy so thanks. I never though of GNG as a should include, just a could include. Maybe I'm wrong on that. Oh and you missed a curly bracket with the ping. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Wasn't the term supposed to be "Keep" if we didn't want a page to be deleted? Either way, I want this page to be kept — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.208.181.44 (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your !vote of Endorse is saying you agree with the closing admin's actions, which in this case means to merge the contents of the page with Donald Trump on social media. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 21:49, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Defer to local merge/split discussions. Thinking about this, the main thing that is wrong is that AfD is supposed to decide the big things -- is admin intervention needed to hide the history of an article or to enforce some restriction on how it is handled? AfD was originally Keep or Delete; the "Merge" outcome only emphasizes that material can be kept somewhere else. I can accept allowing the AfD vote, suitably interpreted, to reset the "default condition" for what happens if a merge or split discussion doesn't come to a consensus. However, when push comes to shove, decisions to merge or split depend on how much material editors can dig up, which tends to increase over time. Trying to condense a merged section (and we did lose some fun stuff in this merge, like the fake RC tweet that was noted in the press, and which sheds important historical background by showing that Twitter was free enough to allow a fake comment, but not free enough to keep it long), trying to keep a merged article from overly distracting from the big picture of a broader-topic article, these are troublesome. This is why such decisions should be left to merge discussions or the contested merge procedure, attended, one hopes, by people who have actually put their hands on the text and tried to work with it. The scandal of this vote, the reason for the deletion review, is that when you put something on AfD you get a lot of low-effort votes from people on both sides who aren't really interested in editing. Once you reduce the stakes and make it a merge discussion on a local talk page, the crowd kind of thins out. And it's important to remember that while the low-effort votes may say "merge this because it's really unimportant!", the article editors may well say "split this because this unimportant crap is taking up too much of our article!" For this reason, I'm content to weakly endorse the current close, provided that people are willing to accept that a consensus of the people on Talk:Donald Trump on social media should be sufficient to split this back off again if that's what they want, whether that's in a day or a year. There should be no AFD and no DRV required to decide to split an article later on! We have an entirely different set of procedures for contested merges, and one thing clear out of this close is that no material needed to be totally deleted out of public view. I would hope that if User:Cyberpower678 would agree that the AfD close does not prohibit future splits by local consensus, we might close this and leave it to those editors later on to sort out. Wnt (talk) 23:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn as Keep not Merge. Among the hundred not-votes to Keep/Covfefe the page, it was explained the issue was wp:LASTING, and in fact on the day closed, major wp:RS sources noted "covfefe cocktails" were served in U.S. taverns, sports bars or nightclubs (for overnight tweeters) re Comey hearing (see: NBC News, 7 June 2017, "Bars Host Comey Hearing Watch Parties With ‘Covfefe’ Cocktails"). A similar pop-culture spinoff happened with "FEMA trailers" when jewelry was marketed with tiny silver, FEMA-trailer earing pendants, as proof of separate Notability with capital "N". Meanwhile, a not-vote Keep explained how merge would put much wp:UNDUE weight text into Trump-social-media page, as with writing "covfefe coffee" of whipped cream and cinnamon. So the logical consensus should have closed as: "Keep" the separate page to hold weighty long-term, pop-culture topic. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus - I think it's fair to say that there wasn't a clear consensus one way or the other, in terms of this. Yes, there were jokes between the keep and delete !votes, but my initial impression was that the AfD itself was deadlocked. Mistbreeze (talk) 05:38, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTAVOTE. A non-involved administrator made a good faith close based on their reading of consensus which is not a simple majority headcount. No abuse or incompetence is present, it's a fair close. That's all that matters at DRV.--v/r - TP 13:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Two issues here (as with most DRVs). #1 Where was the discussion going and #2 was that outcome reasonable given our policies? From a headcount viewpoint, merge or NC were both reasonable. From a policy viewpoint, I've gone back and forth a lot. Our policies are poor here. Does there exist an amount of coverage that something this silly should have an article on Wikipedia? For a BLP1E, the answer is "yes". Enough sustained coverage gets us there. IMO we have enough coverage that we'd keep a BLP at this point. I'm counting 45 articles in Google News that use the word in the last 24 hours. That includes coverage in French, Arabic and a few Asian languages. That said, this isn't a BLP (though I'd think the standards for a BLP would be higher, not lower). So weak endorse as a reasonable reading of policy and the discussion, though I think NC would have been a better close. Hobit (talk) 13:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Fair close following policy. PackMecEng (talk) 16:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Deletion discussions can come with the outcomes of delete or not-delete. Varying the outcome to a different variety of not-delete does not need to come here, but can be taken up at the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The comments in a deletion discussion are not votes. The decision has to be made based on our policies and that was clearly the case here. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 17:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If the decision is made to keep the article deleted, I would recommend against salting as there is now an actual piece of federal legislation ([19]) being considered and if it is passed there will likely be an article about it so a redirect will probably be needed. (Also, some of the discussion about Covfefe could be transferred to the history section of that article if it's written). 136.159.160.5 (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree - per WP:LASTING, this would qualify under lasting impact.Sebwite (talk) 01:40, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus, which defaults to keeping the article pending further discussion: I was neutral and did not participate in the original AFD, but looking over it, it is clear that the AFD closure was improper, with the closing admin using his closure to make a unilateral merge decision without any consensus to do so. Furthermore, new events such as the proposed COVFEFE Act have expanded the impact of and further increased the notability of the subject, changing the context of any deletion discussion so that if the article were to be deleted or merged, a new AFD discussion would be necessary. —Lowellian (reply) 20:47, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Numerous rationales were given for keeping the article. I read them up until the day of the closing. Yes, there were plenty of people who felt this should be deleted. There really was no consensus, and this should have been relisted if not kept. There are numerous guidelines on Wikipedia that allow for inclusion of a subject one way or another, and this seems to fit many of them that were all mentioned in the seemingly endless comments. Sebwite (talk) 01:38, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Well within the closer's discretion. --BDD (talk) 02:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per WP:NOTAVOTE. The Keep numbers may have been swelled with baseless "ILIKEITS" from single-purpose accounts apparently solicited on the internet. "Merge" was the appropriate close, to preserve info about the odd incident in an article about the person's media use. This is more encyclopedic than having a separate article about each such twitterstorm. Edison (talk) 03:51, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The delete numbers were conversely swelled with baseless IDONTLIKEITS. There was no consensus, and it should have been closed as such, not as merge. —Lowellian (reply) 04:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to no consensus. While I did not participate in the original AfD discussion, I followed it closely, and based on my observations I cannot conclude that anything resembling a consensus was truly reached. ~longestaugust (talk) 04:10, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and restore page. (Personal attack removed) and it seemed to be no consensus at the time. However, let me also point out the "Covfefe Act" and just neverending usage of this word to confirm it is now in our lexicon, for better or worse. —МандичкаYO 😜 04:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you fucking serious? Cyberpower doesn't touch political articles at all and couldn't give a flying fuck. Get out of here with your personal attack against him or substantiate it before I drag your ass to WP:AE. Cyberpower is the admin least likely to have political motivations and one of the most fair admins we have. I won't stand for this baseless attack against him.--v/r - TP 12:24, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you TParis, I've been trying to work out how to respond to that myself. Wikimandia, you seriously undermine your argument when you chuck in stupid shit like aspersions about editor motivations. Don't bother trying to substantiate it, a cursory glance at Cyberpower's comment (the first one on this page) would tell you in no uncertain terms that you done fucked up. Mr rnddude (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It just makes me so upset. Throw political movation comments at me all day long, I wear my politics on my sleeve. But Cyberpower is the last person who deserve that. And I know he won't stand up for himself. He'd come by and apologize for giving off that impression. Which he shouldn't have to, because he didn't.--v/r - TP 12:37, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boohoo. This was a poor close as you can see from the many comments here. His/her insult on the editor who created this DR was unnecessary. If that person hadn't created the DR, someone else would have. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record, I'm not politically motivated here, I'm sorry if I seem that way. I have no opinion as to whether this should be an article or not. Considering the new Covfefe Act, a merge seems less appropriate now, but I'm not going to make the call on that. When I closed it, there was an ongoing merge discussion heading towards a merge close. Even had I closed as no consensus, this discussion would have resulted in the same end result, a merge, at the time.—CYBERPOWER(Chat) 13:12, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I want to just drop it (and will do so here), but, Wikimandia, when someone tells you to go read something, they mean read the whole thing. Since you're obviously not exerting the effort to do so, I'm going to unilaterally strike your personal attack until such time as you are able to substantiate the claim. Cyberpower, you shouldn't apologize. There are more than fifty people here that have commented and not one of them has suggested that you have been politically motivated. There's a reason for this trend. It is a completely vacuous reading of your participation. My apologies for the sharpness of my comments, but, like TP, my gears are grinding hard. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endorse - the close reflected the clueful !votes. There were many useless !votes on both sides, but I didn't see much valid argument as to why this typo is of enduring interest to the extent it deserves a WP article. Jytdog (talk) 06:36, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything is of enduring interest when it meets GNG; it doesn't matter if it's a typo... talk about a useless argument. —МандичкаYO 😜 12:57, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I initially !voted delete, but was persuaded by the discussion that merge is the best choice. The closer weighed the arguments correctly. Jonathunder (talk) 14:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Propose procedural/IAR close as I believe this discussion is now moot. With legislation using this term as its title now introduced in Congress, I now believe there is sufficient coverage and reason to justify the (re)creation of a stand alone article on this subject. Further I believe that if the article were sent to AfD now, bearing in mind the developments in Congress, that it would almost certainly survive. So yeah, I suggest we shut this discussion down and restore the article based on the recent developments. If someone still thinks it shouldn't exist as a stand alone then it should be sent back to AfD for another discussion that can take into consideration the most recent news and additional RS coverage. -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still endorse the close for the AfD, but, I agree with AO here. The AfD and the close are no longer relevant. The close given the situation as was, was, in my opinion, a reasonable reading of the discussion. However, the close given the situation as is, is no longer reasonable. Mr rnddude (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For clarification, I also agree that the close at the time was both reasonable and correct. But given recent developments this discussion really doesn't serve any purpose at this point. (FTR my position at the AfD was strong delete.) -Ad Orientem (talk) 15:34, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per TParis: it was a clueful reading of the AfD by an uninvolved admin that weighed the arguments and came out with a reasonable close. The introduction of a cleverly named bill in Congress that the linked article above even admits is unlikely to ever become law doesn't change that. Should it actually become law, that might change the circumstances, but at most the clever congressman could get a mention in the main article. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:03, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Covfefe is not an encyclopaedic subject in itself. Nobody can even say what it is. Things called "covfefe" might achieve notability in the future but that is not the same thing and it has yet to happen. The act stands a (rather slim) chance of doing so and I will be personally disappointed if we don't see some cheap Chinese coffee grinders re-badged with the slogan "Don't fall asleep tweeting. Covfefe. Make coffee great again!" I also look forward to a slew of truly awful death metal bands with names like "Covfefe Defe" with earplugs at the ready. Will any such tat become notable? Sadly, probably not, but if it does then there is no ban on the (non)word "covfefe" in article titles. It just has to be a genuine, notable subject first. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:31, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, because a bill with a funny name that has zero chance of becoming a law introduced by a back bencher to make a point within the same month as an event is not by any stretch of the imagination lasting. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:22, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Let's decompose this. WP:N requires significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Trump created the word. A congressmember used it to name a proposed law (ignoring for a moment your "back bencer" namecalling, which is completely inappropriate) and several WP:RS reported on it (not every bill that is proposed gets coverage by WP:RS). The proposed bill came almost 2 weeks after the initial creation of the word by Trump (where the hell did the month cutoff requirement come from anyway?). This chain of events definitely meets Wikipedia's notability requirement, and the proposed bill could also meet notability requirements even if it does not become law (for example, if there are mass covfefe demonstrations in favor of the bill). Note that the Affordable Care Act has had an article four months before it became law. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
While you're at it, you should probably also look at the part of WP:N that requires it pass WP:NOT. NOTNEWS being applicable here. This is not AfD 2.0: the close was correct and none of the information that has come to light since provides a policy based reason for recreation. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A classic misapplication of WP:NOTNEWS. Covfefe is not routine news reporting. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to keep. I think people who think this would only be worthy an article for being an error by a POTUS or alike are misguided. This matters, is notable and of relevance mainly due to the societal phenomenon: by how it was picked up around the world, how it was memeified, etc etc. Furthermore the news coverage around the world was intense. Also no consensus should result in keep. --Fixuture (talk) 20:42, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Snow Overturn None of the votes to delete cited any relevant policies. We have thousands of articles on popular cultural phenomena with less notability than this. Those voting delete appear to have little to no familiarity with the popular culture of the United States of America, and appear to be confusing the fact that this is not a notable political event per se, with the fact that it is not a notable popular cultural event. This is far more notable than the contestants of Apprentice Season 3. Indeed, it may be one of the most notable popular cultural phenomena of its time. I am concerned that many Wikipedia contributors appear to be living under a rock. I also object to the closing administrator's Super-vote, which essentially negated the entire discussion, and refuted the canard that Wikipedia is based on Consensus, rather than the whims of the privileged administrator class, when there was clearly no consensus for merger on any reasonable interpretation of the discussion. Merger should be handled with the relevant article talk page anyway, not an AfD. The closing admin has even now admitted that his close was an error. Those who favor overturn have failed to provide any justification for their opinion besides their love for Trump, an pious wish to shield him from criticism, even of his spelling. That has no place here. 192.76.177.124 (talk) 21:19, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a snow situation at all (either way), but what you said did get me to checking... Category:Internet memes has 714 pages, plus 14 subcategories... over 1,000 articles in all. One of those 14 subcategories, Category:Political Internet memes, has 28 non-redirect pages... not sure why we would single this out to be not one of those 1,000 (or 28) pages... but I guess that's more an argument for the AfD then here, was made there maybe and discounted, so... Herostratus (talk) 21:35, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn We must have adequate covfefe of this notable meme. According to Knowyourmeme.com, "“Covfefe” (pronounced “cuv-fey-fey”[14]) is a misspelling of the word “coverage” mistakenly tweeted by President Donald Trump in late May 2017. The tweet was left up for more than six hours before being deleted, leading to a slew of puns, jokes, and confusion, resulting in #covfefe becoming the #1 trending hashtag in the world and prompting coverage from multiple news outlets." It is sad that we are being beaten in coverage by Knowyourmeme. Google shows 20 million hits. We must preserve this for future generations, per the Covfefe act.Covfefe Crusader (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
[reply]
Endorse per Power~enwiki. It is indeed silly to not include a rationale while closing, but it is not a serious reason to overturn the deletion. Ceosad (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse We have no reason to think the closer did anything other than consider the weight of the arguments and arrive at a sensible decision. He correctly saw that the !votes were mainly about the GNG guideline and that they were trumped by numerous "however..." guidelines such as NOTNEWS etc. Plain and simple. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per Anna Frodesiak. Also, may I add that many of these overturn !votes appear to be rehashing why the article is notable/should be kept, which is not the point of DRV? SkyWarrior 22:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was a reasonable outcome of the discussion and I can't find any fault with the closing. AniMate 00:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse This was an accurate reading of the AfD. While the votes were scattered, many of the keep votes provided justirfication that was either weak or not based on policy. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I endorse the AFD as at the time it was just a Trump-isim. However with the additional changes, I do think the underlying facts of the case have changed (especially in light of the proposed congressional action) and believe it would be best if the page were restored from deletion, sent to AfC/Drafts to be worked on to pass muster, and then restored to mainspace if the legislation passes. TLDR: AFD was correctly run, but there might be hope for the title. Hasteur (talk) 13:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse: The closer did not violate protocol and unlike what the initial argument stated, the quantity of votes do not count, so much as the quality. "Covfefe" may become notable enough to warrant its own article in the future, but I do not see that now. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 21:45, 14 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseMergeclosure -- GNG is not a license to print money. It only means that such an article is acceptable, not that it needs to exist. We have many notable topics that exist as parts of other articles. If someone wants to revive the article at some later date, they can file a new AfD some 3 months or more later to "undelete", and see if this is even still a blip, instead of a news event. -- 65.94.169.56 (talk) 05:54, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
EndorseNotavote; closure well within admin's discretion. Lectonar (talk) 08:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to Keep - While normally typos are far from notable (and I've made quite a few typos just on Wikipedia), this one has gotten substantial news coverage and the aforementioned COVFEFE Act named after it; there is more enough coverage in reliable sources to support inclusion, and quite many of the AfD votes on both sides were WP:ILIKEIT/WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I do agree with F2Milk's comment in the AfD that this is just the media playing partisan politics and painting Trump in a bad light as usual, but this is an important event in Trump's presidency thus far, so I believe it does deserve an article. If it's found later on to be nothing more than a news report and thus breaking WP:NOTNEWS, then by all means make a second AfD and try again then, but as it stands I believe it should be kept. 65HCA7 11:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The article was not deleted, so I'm not really sure this even belongs here. If the COVFEFE Act article is deemed worthy to remain with us, redirecting there might be a better option, but this decision was sound in all respects. -R. fiend (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorde – The term is appropriately covered in the target article. Merging was a widely-supported outcome given comments from AfD participants on both sides of the notability debate. — JFGtalk 09:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Was going to correct my tyop, but "Endorde" is delightfully covfefesque… — JFGtalk 09:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A little ironic that your use of "covfefesque" adds to the argument to keep the article. Per 192.76.177.124, this is now pop culture, and belongs as an article on Wikipedia. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see you saw what I did here… — JFGtalk 21:28, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to confuse the closing admin? because you are confusing me. Your !vote is to endorse the AfD outcome of a merge, yet your statement makes a strong case why the article should be kept. 96.41.32.39 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't; typos happen-- you're just being persnickety at this point. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 23:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, typos happen, but writing "covfefesque" was deliberate. Can I ask why am I getting under your skin? 96.41.32.39 (talk) 23:27, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTDICTIONARY is not applicable since the article does not define the word (as it does not have a definition). The article introduces how the word came into existence and the reaction to it. That is very different from a dictionary. I'd still like to know why I got under DARTHBOTTO's skin to entice him to personally attack me. She should know better. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 03:53, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying that you're antagonizing JFG here and now is not a personal attack. DARTHBOTTOtalk•cont 04:05, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Antagonizing??? (yes, accusing me of that is a personal attack, and you should be admonished for it). I was just asking for a clarification given the conflicting messages. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why is nobody discusing my other tyop? — JFGtalk 06:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a serious note, to address IP96's puzzlement, the deletion review must answer "did the closer's decision accurately reflect the balance of the AfD discussion?", to which I clearly answer "Yes. Endorse." Introducing new arguments for or against keeping the article is out of scope for this process. — JFGtalk 06:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is perfectly acceptable to write that the admin properly closed the AfD, but circumstances since then have changed, requiring an overturning of the decision to close as a merge. 96.41.32.39 (talk) 06:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I discovered that, since deletion, "Good Articles" was re-created this year. Therefore, two weeks ago, I contacted another admin who deleted the latter two, but I've yet to receive a response. Also, the admin who deleted the first two redirects to WP:Good articles eleven years ago is currently inactive since 2008. Therefore, I would like to have the deletion of these above redirects reviewed. I thought about enforcing WP:G4 to have that re-created page deleted. However, years passed, so I thought consensus can change to have the redirects undeleted. --George Ho (talk) 14:32, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not clear, George Ho. Do you want these redirects undeleted? If so why? Or if not, exactly what do you want done about them? DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Undeleted if necessary. George Ho (talk) 21:05, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, for consistency, if one re-created page should be kept, then "undelete" them all; if the re-created page should be deleted, then "endorse" deletion. We can't have one kept and the rest deleted. Sorry for not explaining more clearly, DESiegel. I don't mind undeletion if no one else objects. --George Ho (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see, George Ho. Consistency is a virtue, although not an overriding one, in my view. A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. But since you brought these here, what is your view? Do you think they should all be deleted, or all undeleted? What purpose should they serve, if any? DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:09, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Redirects are cheap. If anyone can type "good article" or "good articles", he or she can be redirected to "Wikipedia:Good articles". Some people don't have to type in "Wikipedia:", so "good article" is easier to type. The redirects can have their potential use, even when WP:R#DELETE normally discourages cross-namespace redirects. In other words, despite what WP:R#DELETE says, let's use "common sense", make exceptions, and undelete them all. George Ho (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
New RfD The old RfD was clear, that mainspace redirects to projectspace are not appropriate. However, consensus may well have changed between now and then, so I agree that a G4, while technically permissible, is inferior to a new discussion. Jclemens (talk) 01:05, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletionWikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects seems to cover this quite clearly. On the other hand, as Jclemens points out, the last AfDs on these were years ago and consensus can change, so there's no harm in another RfD. But I honestly don't see how that would end in any different result from the previous ones. This seems like a rather basic policy. -- RoySmith(talk) 12:12, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion, Wikipedia:Cross-namespace redirects seems fairly open and shut here. If we want to see if consensus on these sorts of redirects has changed, it would be better to look into whether WP:CNR still has consensus rather than picking at individual examples. Lankiveil(speak to me) 04:50, 12 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Endorse, feel free to list at RfD per RoySmith. Consensus can change, but I doubt it has. But given the time since the last discussion, it's not unreasonable to check to see if it has. Hobit (talk) 13:33, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to a new RfD. WP:CNR has broad consensus but it is not an open and shut case as recent discussions have looked not just at age but at factors such as how useful they are to very new users, how likely they are to be confused with an article, and what the nature of the target is. If anyone feels these redirects should be created (its not clear to me whether the nominator here does or not) then a new RfD would be the place to explain why. If the arguments are clearly presented then the outcome of the discussion is not a foregone conclusion. A muddled mess with no clear reason why they are beneficial despite being CNRs to project space will just waste everyone's time. Thryduulf (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How about the above suggestion, Jclemens, RoySmith, Lankiveil, and Hobit? Would that work better than leaving the redirect as retargeted to the project page? --George Ho (talk) 17:07, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly addresses the cross-namespace issue. But, I'm vaguely of the opinion that we should be covering real-world topics in mainspace, not things internal to wikipedia. WP:Navel-gazing kind of supports that feeling, but it's only an essay. So, I'm having trouble forming a strong opinion on this one way or the other. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:08, 17 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse without prejudice to a new RfD. I'm mostly responding to Good articles, which I was pinged about after deleting it in February 2014. Except for really egregious stuff, I wouldn't object to a "retrial" for anything deleted that long ago. --BDD (talk) 17:15, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
This article is about a Grammy Award winning producer. There are over 20 articles that should link to this deleted article but instead link to the wrong Mike Mangini who coincidentally was born in the same year and is also in the music industry.
Can someone please temp undelete this so we can see if G11 actually applied? This appears to be another JzG deletion. Jclemens (talk) 04:11, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. This stinks, frankly: the article did have a promotional tone, it was written by someone who's been banned for undisclosed paid editing and it was edited by one of the subject's children (who showed up a day after it was created). Hut 8.5 04:51, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... and then it was cleaned up by a well-respected editor in good standing, Beyond My Ken. Overturn G11 as I see nothing sufficient to trigger G11, let alone something that could not have been removed through regular editing. I'm afraid JzG's militant stance against paid editing has prompted multiple improper deletions, of which this is one. Jclemens (talk) 01:15, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
overturn, optional reslist We do not at the moment have a firm policy about whether articles originally created by undisclosed paid editing should be deleted, regardless of what subsequent work by good faith editors has since gone into them. I can see very strong arguments for each view. The argument from deletion is to award rewarding the editors, but equally it discourages people who may not have realized their origin from improving articles . I am quite clear that it is not good policy to improve the articles: they should rather be immediately removed. But once they have been improved, it is a different matter. I think what to do at that point depends both on the importance of the article and the extent of improvement; Certainly we should want to do everything practical to discourage the undeclared paid editors, because their work leads to the destruction of a NPOV encyclopedia ; but it is not wise to destroy the encyclopedia in the process. However, in this case, the improvements, though certainly very good improvements, had not yet entirely removed the promotional nature of the article. My experience is that it is quite difficult to do that without either stubbifying or rewriting most of the sections. For example "Identifying a need to develop and nurture young artists, " and the repetition of the phrase " a multi-Platinum award-winning", and some unnecessary adjectives. But I say overturn in the end for two reasons: the deleting admin should have contacted BMK as a courtesy to an established editor, to give him a chance to improve further. Second, by the standards of articles on this subject, I'm not sure whether this really does count in its present form as entirely promotional , as further improvements were feasible, leaving the actual basic facts. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Overturn, with no prejudice against the deleting admin. The article is promotional, although not enough to meet G11 in my mind. I would really like a way to deal with undisclosed paid editing that did not result in articles like this surviving, but as a community we haven't come to a consensus on that yet, hence this speedy was not valid. Lankiveil(speak to me) 08:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Overturn The standard for G5, to protect an AfD nomination created by a banned or block-evading editor, is that ONE GOOD EDIT prevents the G5. The issue of undisclosed paid editing is related. The case here is one with multiple good edits in the article. It is policy (see WP:Editing policy) to improve articles with problems. Unscintillating (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn G11 does not apply just because the article is a result of paid editing, it also needs to read like an advertisement. If the deleting admin feels paid editing alone should be sufficient for speedy deletion, they should propose a change to G11, not just apply it anyway. Regards SoWhy 12:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, painfully. I'm torn between two things I feel very strongly about. One is that paid promotional editing is anathema to the basic concept of wikipedia. Even if the article is subsequently cleaned up by a good wiki-citizen, as User:Jclemens describes, the damage is still done because of selection bias. We know that the encyclopedia is incomplete. Of the pool of acceptable subjects for which we don't yet have an article, if some subjects are willing to pay money to get into the encyclopedia, then we end up with a set of articles biased towards those who are willing, able, and knowledgeable enough, to pay to play. That's bad, and that's why I think paid promotional articles should be deleted, even if subsequently improved by other editors to the point where WP:G11 no longer applies.
On the other hand, what I think should happen is not policy.
On the third hand, policy here is as much a codification of what we do in practice as it is law handed down from on high, so maybe if we got more serious (effective, etc) about policing violations of our WP:COI and WP:PAID, post-cleanup deletions would indeed become policy, and that would be a good day.
The second thing I feel strongly about is that admins need to be very conservative about how they apply WP:CSD, and that was not done here, so I must sadly opine to overturn the deletion. If you want to change policy, building consensus at WP:AFD is a good tool. Pushing the limits of WP:CSD is not. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:07, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Template:blank – Moot and/or No Consensus. The discussion here is a mix of evaluating process and evaluating the template itself. I don't see a clear consensus here about what to do, but since there's already a new discussion underway at Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace#Page_blanking_messages, it would make sense to just continue the discussion there. Neither of the plausible outcomes require admin rights to implement, so consensus-building in talk space is sufficient. – -- RoySmith(talk) 13:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
It is obvious to me why this template, separate from {{uw-delete1}}, has continued to exist until now. This reason doesn't appear to have been understood. I have used this template frequently, because the wording of {{uw-delete1}} is not suitable for the scenario whereby a user has blanked a page completely (or otherwise made it such that it would be deleted as {{db-nocontent}} if there were no meaningful page history). In this scenario, the problem is not that the user deleted content without explaining why, but that they left behind a page with no content whatsoever. And indeed, the user may have explained why. The user who blanked the page is likely to be a newbie who mistakenly believes blanking a page is the way to go about getting it deleted. As such, we need a message like this in order to educate such users of the correct approach. — Smjg (talk) 21:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't to say that this message template should remain under the old (lack of) naming convention. Indeed, I would be in favour of reinstating this or a similar message as {{uw-blank1}} (replacing the existing redirect to {{uw-delete1}}), and writing a new message for {{uw-blank2}} along the same lines. — Smjg (talk) 21:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with Smjg about the merits of the issue. However, since this was implemented with a redirect rather than a deletion, wouldn't a simple template talk page discussion be sufficient? If the consensus agrees with Smjg, the redir can be undone with normal editing, including a move to a better name if wanted. I don't see any procedural errors in the TfD discussion which would justify DRV overturning that discussion. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:45, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had I been asked on my talk page, I would have basically said what DESiegel said above. If you want to change these back from redirects to warning templates, then you should feel free to do so. Just make sure any new version substitutes cleanly. Thanks! Plastikspork―Œ(talk) 22:13, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making them redirects in the first place, Plastikspork. That makes understanding the issue much plainer, and makes backing out the change that much easier, once an actual rationale for maintaining them as separate templates was brought up. Jclemens (talk) 04:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was my understanding that, once action has been taken as a result of an AfD, TfD or whatever, one can't just go in and reverse this action. Are you saying that this isn't the case, or is this basically an authorisation to go ahead and restore it?
Anyhow, I'll start a discussion on WT:UTM on the best plan for this template. — Smjg (talk) 22:07, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Smjg, When the action is "Delete" this is somewhat true, although a recreation that cures the problem does not always need formal permission. (For example a bio deleted because of insufficient sources to establish notability, later recreated with several additional good sources is not a violation.) But where the result was "redirect", that is technically an ordinary editing action that anyone can undo, although it is better if there is some new consensus -- that is why I suggested talk page discussionfirst. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Change the redirects back to templates without prejudice against a TfD renomination because Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 28#Template:Blank had very little discussion and the closing admin wrote above, "If you want to change these back from redirects to warning templates, then you should feel free to do so." Cunard (talk) 05:14, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Guarantee Security Life Insurance Company – G11 speedy deletion overturned. Closed early because of unanimous consensus. An AfD nomination remains possible if anybody wants to do this. – Sandstein 09:50, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not spam; the company's main claim to notability arises from the Coopers & Lybrandaudit failure and the Senatorial investigation into the company's collapse, which left the company unable to fully meet its obligations to its policyholders. You can view a few snippets of the report here. Compy book (talk) 15:35, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restore although some parts of the article were spammy (particularly the second paragraph which reproduced sales brochures), this was balanced by negative material such as the company's collapse and the fact that "returns after the first year dropped dramatically". As the company went bust in 1991 there is no promotional motive in creating this article and we can be more lenient than we would otherwise be. Hut 8.5 17:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion, Restore and do not automatically list at AfD. I am surprised at the deleting admin, this doesn't look remotely close to being so "blatantly" promotional that a "fundamental rewrite" would be required. Even had this been a currently active company, this was not within the G11 speedy delete range in my view. It needs more sources and from them, more details, but in this case I will be astounded if those sources can't be found. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:25, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn WP:G11. I did some searching, and didn't find any good sources. There's enough to pass WP:V for sure, but they're mostly routine coverage and I doubt they would pass WP:N. That being said, I don't see any way WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) applies. Based on my searching, I would argue to delete at AfD, but I could easily see this being kept, so WP:CSD clearly doesn't apply here. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On a procedural note, it doesn't look like the nom made any attempt to discuss this with the deleting admin. It's really a good idea to do that (and part of the instructions for listing something at DRV). -- RoySmith(talk) 23:01, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting admin has resigned his adminship and retired from Wikipedia. Compy book (talk) 23:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, really? Bummer. clpo13(talk) 23:55, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Any perceived promotionalism - and I don't think this would have been a valid G11 even had the last revision been the only one - could have been solved by reverting to the version before this gutting of the article in 2012. —Cryptic 23:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well i must say, that "gutting" does seem to have removed mostly unsourced content, some of it rather POV, although I wouldn't be surprised if it could be supported by sources. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The sources were removed in the same edit. Inline referencing was almost unheard-of when the article was written, and it had never been updated. —Cryptic 08:20, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Allow listing at AfD. Someone wants a discussion, let them have it, it should be a right for any contest of G11 and many other speedies. The article should have been considered speedy-proof as a previously contested PROD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, G11 was an odd choice given that the company is apparently no longer in operation and the article discussed their poor investment returns and other financial woes; not typical subjects for marketing copy. Lankiveil(speak to me) 03:35, 8 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
SNOW overturn Not only did G11 not apply at all, no other speedy deletion criteria did. JzG essentially wheel warred when he used the tools in an inappropriate manner and without (that I can see...) discussion to undo what JohnCD had dutifully done by restoring a contested PROD a short time prior to the out-of-process speedy deletion. No other editor had tagged the article for speedy deletion, which makes the against-policy G11 that much more outrageous. There's no excuse for that conduct. Refer to AfD as desired, no prejudice against it. Jclemens (talk) 06:09, 8 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Template:Dated – RELISTED - there is enough debate (and I'm the one that closed it) that I'll reopen and relist the discussion. – Primefac (talk) 15:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I used this, and it worked. If the creator of {{refimprove}} said they wanted it deleted, would it be deleted? Of course not. No need to fix something that's not broken; the use of Lua was kinda cool when the Scribunto extension was new, but now, it's used EVERYWHERE for purposes that are better handled by a combination of Lua and ParserFunctions (example: {{rfd}} dumps #invoke: code on pages when it's substed - even though the only thing the module is needed for is to display an error message on non-redirects). KMF (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist to allow more discussion of these technical matters by template experts. This review request is technically invalid because it does not attempt to show why the TfD was wrongly closed, but the TfD had very little input and could use a second round of discussion. Sandstein 08:04, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as nominator of the TfD. This nomination makes so sense. {{subst:dated|rfd}} would never have worked in the first place, as the {{rfd}} template was dated in a different way. And, contrary to what the nominator said. Module:RfD is not used just to show an error on non-redirects, it also (importantly) allows transclusions of template redirects nominated for discussion to continue to work. {{refimprove}} is irrelevant here, because it has more than one significant contributor, which makes it inelligible for G7. Pppery 11:50, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Closer comments - The example given in the nomination is a bit off - the creator didn't want it deleted, they said they were fine if it was deleted, because there was something better that could be used. Also, it's not like the template was just going "poof" and disappearing; it was being replaced by a method that doesn't involve a third template.
In my mind "this is more efficient way of doing things" beats "I don't like Lua / I like this template," which is (so far) what I've been hearing in opposition to the close (note that the user in that discussion realized they could just subst the template and have it work fine). I'm not necessarily opposed to reopening the discussion, but really only if there's a technical argument for keeping the template.
The whole "anti-invocation" thing isn't really valid here, either, since the module being used to replace {{dated}} doesn't show #invoke when subst'ed. Primefac (talk) 12:00, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And was already existing before my TfD Pppery 12:09, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The presence or absence of a technical argument here is largely irrelevant. The question is, were there any procedural errors which justify canceling the close and restarting discussion. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong venue Relist. DRV is good for enforcing administrative process. This is a technical question, regarding the nuances of template technology. Templates live on the edge between software and content, and this issue seems firmly on the software end of the spectrum. Deciding what to do here should be left to people who are experts at that. I do software for a living, but wikimedia templates are such a specialized field, I can't even begin to evaluate the pros and cons. -- RoySmith(talk) 18:40, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
But this is not a technical decision, rather a matter of administrative process. Was the failure to notify users of the template such that it possibly decreased participation at the TfD, so that a relisting is justified? I think it was. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:23, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
One of the problems with DRV is the discussion here tend to be a mix of evaluating process and evaluating content. Sometimes that not fatal, because the people who hang out here are able to do both (even if teasing apart the arguments is not always easy). In this case, the content part of the discussion started out talking about Lua, Scribunto, ParserFunctions, and other wiki-techno-gibberish. Most people here are not capable of evaluating the merits of those things. But, to answer the question you asked further down, where is the right venue, I don't have a really good answer. Relisting it at TfD is probably the best thing. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to the complete lack of notification that the template was under discussion to be deleted. The tfd tag was added as noinclude, so it wouldn't have been seen by users of the template - forgiveable, perhaps, because it would've broken those uses - but I also see absolutely no indication in the nominator's contribs that he made any effort whatsoever to notify anyone who actually used the template, or indeed anyone other than people who happened to have watchlisted Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2017 May 13. On the merits, this template was harmless, and forcing people to either type its output manually or to rely on a second edit by AnomieBOT for every single addition of a maintenance template is wasteful; I'd have been using it continuously for years had I known it existed. —Cryptic 18:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist due to the lack of notification, as per Cryptic. Also, the discussion involved a mere three editors. I know that is not uncommon at TfD, but I can't regard such a consensus as very strong, even though they were three experienced editors. DES(talk) 04:06, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relist and notify at WT:WikiProject Template and WP:VPPR. More input is needed, even though I started to use {{subst:<anything>}} to automatically date the tagging. It can be undeleted in case that Module:Unsubst a bot automatically dating tags would go horribly wrong. George Ho (talk) 05:32, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
– I previewed using {{subst:archive me}}; that does not automatically date the template. George Ho (talk) 18:27, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong Venue--TfD attracts much less attention from the editing community and all the 3 editors are old-bies.Winged Blades Godric 10:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment if this is the "wrong venue" then what would the right venue be to discuss a procedural error at TfD? If the was a procedural error (and failure to notify does seem like such an error to me) isn't DRV exatly the place to have it corrected? My point about the small number of people in the discussion was a side issie, it merely says that there were not so many editors joining the discussion that any failure to notify was obviously harmless, or that the consensus was so strong that it should not be disturbed. Neither of those are accurate. DES(talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:17, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
