Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 2017 Deletion review archives April 2017 >

31 March 2017[edit]

30 March 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nader Nadernejad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Significant sources have appeared since article deletion. Windernet48 (talk) 21:20, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Don't keep us in suspense. Let us know what the sources are. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since the nom clearly has no intention of presenting any real sources, I urge this be speedy closed and the nom indef blocked as an obvious sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Considering the extremely high degree of sockpuppetry and other bad behaviour that infested the original discussion, I also don't believe a simple assertion that new sources have come available — on a Google search, for example, I am finding nothing that didn't already exist at the time of the original discussion. If Windernet really believes they have genuinely solid new sourcing that would support a true WP:GNG pass, they're more than welcome to create a draft version in draftspace or user sandbox space so that we can actually see what's on the menu here — but they can do that without needing DRV to restore the old article, and given what the past creators thought was acceptable sourcing (user-submitted "citizen news" platforms and his hometown local newspaper?) I'm not unsalting the page in advance of knowing whether the "significant new sources" are really any better. Bearcat (talk) 23:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I've also now gone back to review the followup recreation that necessitated the salting of the redlink. The content and most of the sourcing remained identical to the original deleted version — and of the sources that were new at that time, four of the five were blogs (three on WordPress and one on a corporate platform), and the fifth was a self-published press release issued by Nadernejad himself to a press release distribution platform. Which meant that exactly none of those new "sources" were reliable ones that contributed anything toward properly demonstrating his notability. And that, Windernet, is exactly why you're not getting the benefit of the doubt on the quality of your new sources until we see them: this article has a long history of trying to rest on bad sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention your extensive editing history which has earned you the trust and respect of your fellow editors. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Significant sources? Let's see them please. Stifle (talk) 10:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse/keep deleted No evidence advanced that there is a reason to overturn. Probably worth a speedy close given that A) there is no evidence and B) this is clearly a sock of some sort. Hobit (talk) 15:59, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion review isn't for bringing new evidence to light, if the situation had really changed then creating a new article in spite of the AFD wouldn't be controversial. (No, please don't do that.) KaisaL (talk) 03:19, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, given the amount of hijinx around this topic in the past, I think a higher bar than usual is appropriate. I'd be willing to consider new evidence, but it would have to be impressive for me to suggest that we unsalt the article title. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:24, 1 April 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse- it is no use just asserting that there are sources out there somewhere, you've got to show what they are. Considering the history of socking and other bad behaviour surrounding this article, this should not be re-created without really convincing evidence. Reyk YO! 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 March 2017[edit]

  • Timeline of Monsanto – Restored without prejudice to AFD at editorial discretion, except for the userspace redirects, which I don't really see the point. – T. Canens (talk) 08:26, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
At Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter, the closing admin wrote:

G11 speedy deletions overturned. The articles can be nominated at AfD by anyone inclined to do so. I am only restoring the articles mentioned in the review request because only they were the subject of substantial discussion here.

I am listing in this new DRV the pages not mentioned in the 18 March 2017 DRV nomination.

These timeline pages were not listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter:

  1. Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  2. Timeline of GitHub (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  3. Timeline of Airbnb (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  4. Timeline of online advertising (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

These redirects to the timeline pages should be restored if the timeline pages are restored:

  1. User:Simfish/Timeline of LinkedIn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  2. Twitter timeline (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  3. History of Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  4. Instant Personalization (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  5. Facebook timeline (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  6. User:Simfish/Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Why? User pages redirecting to spam articles written for money> Really? Guy (Help!) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

These talk pages of the timeline pages should be restored if the timeline pages are restored:

  1. Talk:Timeline of GitHub (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  2. Talk:Timeline of Monsanto (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
  3. Talk:Timeline of online advertising (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Pinging deleting admins: JzG (talk · contribs) and Premeditated Chaos (talk · contribs).

Pinging Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter participants: Kingsindian (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), Ethanbas (talk · contribs), Graeme Bartlett (talk · contribs), Stifle (talk · contribs), Northamerica1000 (talk · contribs), and Jclemens (talk · contribs).

I recommend restoring the pages since Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 March 18#Timeline of Twitter has shown that the speedy deletions are controversial.

Cunard (talk) 05:23, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Overturn all Look, the default action for a contested speedy should be 'send to AfD', and Sandstein's closure is unfortunately, and I believe unduly, narrow. Jclemens (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to sending to AfD, I only deleted one of these anyway I think. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:48, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore with liberty to list at AFD individually. Stifle (talk) 12:59, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore some may be usable for merging, some not. DGG ( talk ) 16:04, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted, blatant spam, violation of Terms of Use, and frankly this determination to give the spammers what they paid for is mystifying to me. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've yet to hear a full-fledged argument for why people think that. The other articles by-and-large looked fine and spam free. Is there actual spam in these articles? If so, can you point at it? Hobit (talk) 01:18, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reserving my judgement on this until I see some sort of explanation of the claim that these were the work of undisclosed paid contributors. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I find it understandable that an admin could think this obvious enough to delete. But once they knew it was controversial, why force a deletion review instead of just taking it to afd? DGG ( talk ) 05:53, 31 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore all. Once a CSD has been objected to in good faith (excluding copyright issues) then the page in question is not eligble for speedy deletion, regardless of the content of a page, who authored it and why. Thryduulf (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore all per above. I'm not seeing why this is spam, and if it is, it isn't clear enough for a CSD to be dealing with it. Hobit (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 March 2017[edit]

27 March 2017[edit]

26 March 2017[edit]

25 March 2017[edit]

24 March 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of Amazon.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The content of these articles has been identified as selected contrary toWP:WEIGHT. Per the guidelines to deletion(Wikipedia:ROUGH CONSENSUS), pages violating core content policies like WP:NPOV should be deleted regardless of local consensus. Additionally, as indicated by this response, the closing adminstrator was favouring one of the "keep" vote comments, instead of impartially determining the outcome; the closing admin seems to have been WP:INVOLVED. Burning Pillar (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from original nominator I was quite surprised that this wasn't relisted, as this is what typically happens when an AfD discussion that has no consensus has not been relisted before. I must say that I don't feel the closing administrator was involved - although the closure does give the impression of a super-vote. Exemplo347 (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

There's a few different threads here. I'll to try to address them one by one.

  • Was the AfD close correct at the time? I don't see any consensus on that, but it's hard to discern between I think the close was procedurally incorrect and The close didn't go the way I wanted.
  • Should the AfD close still hold? There's a reasonable feeling here (I'm going to stop short of calling it a real consensus) that the current article is substantially improved from the version that was deleted. And, thus, the decision at the AfD should no longer apply, regardless of whether it was correct at the time. There's even some support for that idea from the AfD closer, Sandstein.
  • Was this the right forum for this discussion? Probably not, but this is where we ended up, so let's not stand too much on process here. Closing this as wrong forum would be pointless wonkery.
  • People should read WP:BLUDGEON and take it to heart. Make your points, then move on and let others make theirs.
  • So, what does closing this DRV as No Consensus mean? It means:
    • The current article stays.
    • There's no blame placed on the AfD close.
    • If you still think it should be merged, take it up on the article talk pages.
    • If you still think the article should be deleted, open a new AfD. But, given the amount of discussion that's already happened, it seems unlikely that a new AfD started immediately would be useful, so I'm declaring a two-month moratorium (per WP:RENOM#Renominating_for_deletion, except that I'm making it mandatory).

Thank you all for contributing to this discussion -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Not My Presidents Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Listing for the page creator, who believes that the discussion and consensus were premature, but refuses to open a discussion to overturn it. TheDracologist (talk) 01:11, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I personally Endorse the original consensus, per the discussion. TheDracologist (talk) 01:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep article: I'm tired of trying to explain my actions on so many different pages, but I will just reiterate here that I strongly disagree with the merge vote and strongly vote to keep this article, which is very close to being nominated for Good article status. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:30, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDracologist: Do you care to explain why you'd like to merge a near-complete article with 100+ reliable sources into an (arguably already too) long article, Protests against Donald Trump? User:Megalibrarygirl and I will be nominating this article for Good status very soon, so we're in this odd state of limbo re: merge vs. Good article. ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:35, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the reasons laid out in the AfD by users far better at articulating themselves than me still stand. Also, @Another Believer:, do you care to explain why you were trying to ignore/undermine the result of an AfD with no attempt to create a discussion to overturn the current consensus? TheDracologist (talk) 01:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, can we please keep the chastising to a minimum? Everyone has been acting in good faith throughout this article's history. Can we focus on the future of this article? ---Another Believer (Talk) 01:52, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for getting defensive. For some reason, I read your comment to me as accusatory. TheDracologist (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, then my apologies as well, as that was not my intent. I genuinely want to know why someone would want to merge this article. I see this as a quality article about a notable event that is accurate, neutral, well-written, and reliably sourced by more than enough secondary coverage. Let's keep the article (hell, let's even promote it to Good article status!), and move on to improving the encyclopedia in other ways. ---Another Believer (Talk) 02:00, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think the event is not likely to have enough lasting impact to be notable enough for its own article and is therefore better off as a subsection of a broader article. TheDracologist (talk) 02:08, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – This article was vastly expanded and is well-sourced, and the target article is already long; merging them would make no sense at this point. Sure, the AfD discussion yielded a Merge outcome but opinions were split (for example, I !voted Delete quickly after nomination, but some editors such as Jdcomix switched from Strong Merge to Keep in a matter of hours) and today's article would probably get a Snow Keep. Regarding process, if some people think the AfD outcome must be enforced first, I reply WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO. Final note: the AfD was closed as Merge with an absolutely correct reasoning by Sandstein at the time, therefore DRV should not seek to Overturn the outcome, just acknowledge that the article has evolved so much that the prior decision cannot apply to its current state. — JFG talk 02:42, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge result. There's really no other way that AfD could have ended. Reyk YO! 11:50, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oyi. This likely belongs on the article talk page or an RfC, not an AfD. Overturn to NC because AfD is the wrong place to discuss merging an article that clearly meets our inclusion guidelines and frankly the merge !votes really are mostly expressing an editorial opinion rather than anything else. There were limited references to NOTNEWS and EVENT, but no real discussion how this topic related. That said, there wasn't consensus to keep either. Hobit (talk) 14:02, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Geez, in how many different spaces do we need to have this discussion? No one seems to know the right venue for this debate... (I'm not directing my comment at Hobit, just generally frustrated by the many different places this debate has spread.) ---Another Believer (Talk) 18:53, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge discussions usually belong on the talk page of the articles in question. AfD sometimes results in a merge outcome, but generally that is because the topic in question doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines on its own. Most of the arguments at AfD for merging were editorial judgements, not inclusion arguments. Now if this were a clear merge outcome, the venue issue could be looked past. But I'd argue that finding a consensus to merge requires a fair bit of effort as it stands. Hobit (talk) 01:58, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the merge We can and do discuss at AfD and Deletion Review closes that involve a proposed merge. Insisting they take place elsewhere in more complicated ways is against the basic principle that WP IS NOT A BUREAUCRACY. The article is an obvious violation of NOT NEWS, and NPOV, and the merge is the only possibility in conformity with our principles. In practice, people usually use NPOV as an argument to remove material that expresses a view they disapprove of; but the basic idea as that we treat material we approve of exactly the same way, not by emphasising it to show how widely we wish the views to be known. It doesn't matter if 95% of WPedians feel the same way -- the only viable rule for an encyclopedia is still NOT ADVOCACY, whether direct advocacy or advocacy by emphasis. The current US presidency offers a unique and uniquely attractive opportunity for violating this, and we need to guard against it. DGG ( talk ) 20:45, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see how the article violates Wikipedia:NOTADVOCACY or WP:NPOV. It describes events by offering specific locations, the number of attendees, organizing groups and individuals, and activities that took place... ---Another Believer (Talk) 22:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse merge close Wikipedia deletion discussions are not a vote. Clearly the most appropriate and policy-based decision was to merge. AusLondonder (talk) 09:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hurdle for events is very often "lasting significance". I see little evaluation of sources according to this bar, which suggests to me they either don't exist or that the crux of the delete/merge arguments went unexplored. Demonstrated lasting significance (e.g. continued coverage weeks later) would've put more of a burden on those arguing to merge to justify it. So I guess I'd ask Another Believer if such sources exist, and if they do, I would be inclined to Relist given the discussion was closed before this key subject was addressed (with mostly short !votes numerically split and no relistings). If the sources don't yet exist, or if it's again closed as merge or endorsed here, I hope AB will revisit it next year, as it's almost certain to recur at least three more times (and thus the lasting significance argument becomes more straightforward). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 11:18, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close  There is no deletion to review here, and the merge out of AfD was a non-binding result, so moving forward does not require review of the close.  Editors are empowered under our fundamental principles to improve the encyclopedia.  This particular nomination is a WP:POINT nomination where the nomination is made for the purpose of requesting an endorse of an uncontested result.  Nor is this a proper forum for any new discussion of whether this article should be merged.  A look at the talk page raises questions of WP:Forum shopping, since an RfC was closed to open this DRV.  Such content discussions, as per WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT, belong on the talk page of an appropriate article, and RfC is explicitly mentioned as one of the ways to resolve disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I moved the discussion here because I was told that RfC was not the appropriate venue and directed to DRV. TheDracologist (talk) 16:57, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Incompetence is not a defense, since WP:CIR.  Do you have a rationale for not withdrawing now that you know what WP:Deletion policy says?  Because not withdrawing makes it look like your motive for not withdrawing is WP:Forum shopping.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Unscintillating: I have not withdrawn because this is the appropriate venue for discussing the results of an AfD or the closest thing Wikipedia has to it. I closed the RfC because RfC is not the appropriate venue. Also, to be frank, I'm sick and tired of being sent around in circles by editors telling me I'm listing this discussion in the wrong place and need to move it. TheDracologist (talk) 17:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your response says that "editors" are sending you in "circles", but all I see is one editor, diff, who used the words "I suspect" to (incorrectly) tell you that Sandstein would be "perturbed"; and the words "I believe", without a reference, to convince you to use a deletion forum for a content discussion.

            As for your claim that "this is the appropriate venue", you've not cited a reference, and not refuted the statement in WP:Deletion policy#CONTENT.  A reading of WP:DRVPURPOSE both shows no basis for your claim and three points that explicitly invalidate the claim, those being:

Deletion Review should not be used:

2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination;

3. to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;

8. to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).

Unscintillating (talk) 03:25, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm not sure if the editors are going to decide if this is the right venue for the discussion or not, however I would like to point out that the content of the article, which I did contribute to, show that this is a notable event and should not be merged. It was a coordinated event that took place in many major (and smaller) US cities. It was covered internationally. It involved a huge number of people. Of special interest, is what happened in Portland, which I helped expand in the article. If you all decide to take this discussion back to the talk page, I'll be happy to expand on my points there; or here, if that's the decision. Just please ping me, otherwise I may not know the discussion is continuing. Thanks! Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:55, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Correct reading of the discussion. The close should be binding (the article becomes and stays a redirect) subject to an overturn here, or a proper, formal proposal at Talk:Protests against Donald Trump for some other outcome. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be an overturn to redirect, not an endorse.  All editors are authorized to improve the encyclopedia, and AfD outcomes do not bind administrators into subsequent content disputes.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:43, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What's with the underscores in the title here? I don't think that's right but don't want to break anything by changing it. Smartyllama (talk) 16:23, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the underscores in the title. Cunard (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They were a result of my inexperience as an editor. Thanks for fixing it. TheDracologist (talk) 17:33, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on prior well-thought through arguments. The "endorse" remarks here do not seem to adhere to any policy I can think of and are entirely unsupported. The article is sufficiently different that a new AfD needs to be run. Just think about it — had the article been merged immediately then recreated like this later there would be no way that result could force us to merge again. Carl Fredriktalk 16:58, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article is substantially different and is now able to stand on its own, easily. Clearly passes WP:GNG at this point, and if someone thinks otherwise, we need another AfD as this is completely different from what we had before. Significant coverage worldwide, numerous sources in article. This should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a part of the chain of sidebars relative to Protests against Donald Trump, which necessarily begat the Timeline of protests against Donald Trump. There is simply too much content to fit into those articles. We need sidebar articles like this to allow for expansion to suit the content being generated. This is a politically related article. There are partisans who want this content to go away and are constricting the available space to restrict coverage. I've been fighting this tide since the election. I suspect the original merge decision got a lot of delete and merge votes from those kind of partisans. Fortunately, the weight of this content, the thinning of the partisans and sanity of more editors getting involved is making it more difficult for a small number of partisans to sway the "vote." (Don't give me the lecture that this isn't a vote, you know it is all numbers). This particular subject was one of the MORE notable organized protests. Users, partcularly Another Believer, have built this article up. They deserve our thanks. Its a lot of effort made only necessary by the merge decision. That's a good thing, I don't have anything against good articles, but we shouldn't place the bar so high as to eliminate these sidebar articles in the future. We potentially have 4 years of this stuff ahead. We need a practical solution to prevent this diversion of effort. Trackinfo (talk) 06:40, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for your kind words, User:Trackinfo. And yes, I also think there are some votes being cast based on political ideology, but I am trying to assume good faith and not make any accusations, and simply focus on the content itself. ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:34, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Trackinfo: You should consider retracting your accusations of WP:BADFAITH. I argued for deletion but I could certainly not be perceived as a fan of Donald Trump by any stretch of the imagination. Per WP:AOBF "Avoid accusing other editors of bad faith without clear evidence in the form of diffs along with the deformed, resultant edit. Making such claims often serves no purpose and could be seen as inflammatory and hence aggravate a dispute". You absurd claims that anyone who takes a different view on content and perhaps values WP:NOTNEWS for example must be a "partisan" seeking to "constrict" and "restrict" content are offensive. The tide of lengthy, predictable and unencyclopedic articles about every minute detail of American politics is something that should be resisted. I urge you to strike your unhelpful and false claims. AusLondonder (talk) 08:30, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I did not name any specific editor as acting in bad faith. It is apparent that there are some editors, and IPs who are drawn (or are led) to these discussions trying to quelch opposition to their WP:POV. Disinformation. We are not supposed to be pushing a POV here. We report what is reported. My point is, in small numbers, early in a controversy, POV pushing advocates can numerically overwhelm a discussion and push it in the wrong direction. We are fighting a wind here. Trackinfo (talk) 18:05, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your comments were in general directed at those who advocated deleting or merging this article and you accused them of acting in bad faith. "We report what is reported" - not true. Not everything this is news-worthy is encyclopedia-worthy. AusLondonder (talk) 23:32, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is just to note that as the closer, I don't have a strong opinion either way about what to do here. There are valid arguments both for implementing the original "merge" decision and for considering it superseded by improvements to the article, such that a new AfD would be needed.  Sandstein  08:09, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe you as the closer can expand on why you did not become involved in the content evolution after the AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:52, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore because this is not a "sufficiently identical" copy of the old version.

    Here is the version of the article when the AfD was closed 28 February 2017. Here is the current version of the article. I copied and pasted both versions of the article into a word counter tool. The older version had around 641 words. The current version has around 2635 words. This is an over fourfold increase of the article's size. The number of references increased from 52 to 107. It is clear that the article has substantially changed since the AfD nomination. A merge of this lengthy article to Protests against Donald Trump either would be undue weight or result in the loss of encyclopedic content. This was not a problem with the short version of the article when the AfD was closed.

    Therefore, {{db-repost}} does not apply because the current version is not a "sufficiently identical" copy of the old version. I do not think a formal proposal is required to reverse the merge close because editors typically are not required to gain prior consensus to recreate with additional material an article previously deleted at AfD.

    Cunard (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse original close, however now Keep because this is a vastly different article from the one that existed when the close was made. If the result had been Delete, this would not now be a suitable candidate for a G4 deletion, and so the same should apply to a Merge close. The article needs a new AfD if it is to be merged again. Black Kite (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 March 2017[edit]

22 March 2017[edit]

21 March 2017[edit]

  • Benjamin E. Park – Administratively close as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. Not to mention that you're not going to get anywhere calling people clueless. Looking over the AfD, I see several of our most experienced editors; people with 10 years, 10's of thousands of edits, and extensive history evaluating articles. You'll be hard-pressed to find a more clueful collection of editors than those who participated in the AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Benjamin E. Park (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(I've spoken to the closing admin here; thanks.) - Wikipedia is alleged to have no clear policy for notability. This is not the case, the guidelines are clear its simply that !voters are clueless with regard to them a fair percentage of the time. In the foregoing discussion the closing administrator only thought one person !voted for keep, which is untrue. Furthermore, the closing admin him-/herself is upposed to research the matter at hand as well as a !votes vis a vis the guidelines in order to come to his/her determination. (One voter in this blp's case cited wp:NOTYET, yet this guideline solely refers top actors who haven't been written about in reliable secondary sources, for example, and other !votes gave as justification for their conclusion statements that are patently untrue, as the discussion makes clear.) Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You need to find a better argument than "the voters are clueless". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 06:34, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clear consensus at the AfD that they weren't notable enough. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse clear consensus at the AfD. This is not a forum for continuing to argue the merits of the article. Lepricavark (talk) 13:54, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Files tagged with keep local – Restored – FASTILY 00:48, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Ambox warning yellow.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Crystal Clear app ktip.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Disambig.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Disambig gray.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Flag of France.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Heckert GNU white.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Red pog.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Soccerball mask.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Stop hand.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
File:Symbol c class.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Overturn - If an editor has tagged a file with {{keep local}} or {{keep local high-risk}}, the deletion of such a file is not uncontroversial maintenance (i.e. outside the scope of G6), therefore these deletions were out of process. I've discussed these deletions with the deleting administrator. They offered to restore them if someone "was willing to commit, indefinitely, to maintaining such local copies", but disagreed that the deletions were inappropriate. I suggested that the proper place to seek the deletion of such files is files for deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:28, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm not the best with images, but it looks to me like these have all been restored. Is that enough? Hobit (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: Yes, the files have been restored, and that is what was being sought. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 02:08, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 March 2017[edit]

19 March 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ILY from 38,000 FT (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Also see Catatan Akhir Sekolah, 2016 Dahsyatnya Awards, The Voice Kids Indonesia, Emak Ingin Naik Haji. These are all improper applications of CSD by Sphilbrick, because CSD is meant for unambiguous cases. At least two admins Anachronist and Sphilbrick have already informed Sphilbrick that the created of banned user and the application of G5 was improper, but they refused to undelete and asked me to take it to DRV. CSD is not meant as a tool to bypass consensus; it would be fine to list these articles at AfD if so desired. Levan Kemoklidze talk 08:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused by the above. Levan Kemoklidze is an account which has only existed for 2 weeks. While we certainly welcome new people to the project, it seems unusual that a new editor would have such a nuanced understanding of our WP:CSD rules. I'm also not seeing anything in their editing history or their talk page which looks like the conversation described above. Could you explain this apparent discrepancy? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
endose absent a response from the op to RoySmith's question. Spartaz Humbug! 06:33, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked the pages and they're all valid deletions. All of the pages were created by socks of –Joanna Gunadi and all after she was blocked for sockpuppetry. This is almost certainly another of her socks trying to get around the block. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've blocked them, looking at their request and their edits, they seem to be a very obvious sock. I've opened an SPI here and I've recommended that they do a sweep for any other stray socks that may be about the place. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to close this out but I realized that I deleted one of these links myself and as such probably shouldn't close it out. Spartaz, you willing to close this one? All of the deletions are valid and the account that made the post is quacking quite loudly to the point I just went ahead and blocked them as a sockpuppet. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:37, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 March 2017[edit]

  • Timeline of Twitter – G11 speedy deletions overturned. The articles can be nominated at AfD by anyone inclined to do so. I am only restoring the articles mentioned in the review request because only they were the subject of substantial discussion here. –  Sandstein  13:26, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Timeline of Twitter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Also see Timeline of Facebook, Timeline of Instagram, Timeline of Pinterest, Timeline of Snapchat, Timeline of LinkedIn. These are all improper applications of CSD by JzG, because CSD is meant for unambiguous cases. At least two admins Anachronist and DGG have already informed JzG that the material is not unambiguously promotion and the application of G11 was improper, but they refused to undelete and asked me to take it to DRV. CSD is not meant as a tool to bypass consensus; it would be fine to list these articles at AfD if so desired. See also the recently closed CSD here for Givewell, which was also CSD'ed by JzG. There is already a section on WP:COIN which deals with many similar articles. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 12:42, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • These articles were created in return for payments that were not, as far as I can tell, properly disclosed on Wikipedia, and they were stuffed with links promoting sites associated with the person who paid for them. WHOIS and SEO tag checks have shown this (see WP:COIN for more). The articles themselves read to me as obvious promotion, the principal source other than Vipul's SEO was press releases form the companies. They read as pure PR and were part of a major paid editing and promotion ring. That meets the definition of G11 for me. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Gonna need either a restoration (in draft space if desired) or some other way to see the articles. Also evidence of undisclosed paid editing would be useful. Hobit (talk) 18:11, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Restoration in draft space would be good, but in the meantime, here's the archive.org page. The part about undisclosed paid editing is, at the very least, badly misleading. Vipul's userpage has links which list all payments made, in gory detail. See this, for instance. The other accusations are out of place here; if JzG wants, they can pursue the matter at ANI or ArbCom; in the meantime, they should stop repeating these allegations. JzG is free to think whatever they want, but they do not have the right to flout rules and bypass consensus by citing WP:BURO.

I repeat: the page has to be unambiguously promotional for the CSD to be applicable. Failing this, AfD is the right venue. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 19:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • List at AfD. Probably this material should be deleted, though some of it may be useful. it is the self-admitted product of a ring of undeclared paid editors, but opinions vary on whether it was a a operation to add inappropriate material, or an altruistic project, or some combination. We don't have to decide that here, and this is not the place for me to give my opinion on either question. I do not think such a decision , or the question of whether wee should keep an article from that group, should be up to any one admin. Even were we certain that it was intended commercially, it is not such obvious promotion of anything specific that it falls within G11. To delete an article at Speedy even if it is absolutely certain to need deletion but it does not fall within any of the provided criteria may in some circumstances be a valid use of IAR, but it never a valid use to delete when one knows or ought to know that there is likely to be opposition. It is certainly not a good idea for an admin to insist on this deletion after they do know there is opposition from good-faith established editors. I know JzG does not like to deal with appeals from his decision, and to avoid conflicts he has previously given me a general OK to overturn them if I think necessary--I have used it a very few times. (He and I have very similar views on what ought to be deleted, as can be seen from the many messages of support he has posted on my user talk to assist me in dealing with complains. I consider him a valued ally in dealing with the flood of spam. ) When I informed him I did not agree with these, he insisted on keeping them deleted. I have the ability as does any other admin to restore nonetheless, and bring the matter to an suitable discussion board, such as this. I'm very conservative about such things so it's here for discussion in a different way. (I am going to use the ability to temp restore so non admins can see this. I almost always do at Deletion Review when I think it helpful and the article isn't a copyvio or major BLP problem) DGG ( talk ) 01:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
KingsIndian, is this a formal appeal for all the ones listed--should I undelete their histories also, or is this representative one sufficient?) DGG ( talk ) 01:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: It is meant as a formal appeal for all the ones listed. However, they are all available from archive.org, if anyone wants to see their state before deletion. So I don't really care one way or another. Perhaps temporarily undeleting one more: Timeline of Facebook should be sufficient for purposes of discussion. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD I imagine I'll be !voting to delete, but this should be at AfD as it doesn't look promotional at all to me. Just seems like a WP:NOT issue. Hobit (talk) 12:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Except for the manner of its creation, just what is wrong with it? Press releases from a company are good sources for straightforward facts about its history, tho some of the more interpretative material needs 3rd party sourcing. Some of the paragraphs need to be shortened, because a timeline should read like a line, but that's not all that difficult. Similarly for Timeline of Facebook and the other articles. DGG ( talk ) 19:44, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It was created by the evil paid editing ring I'm a part of, of course. That makes people suspicious, and together with the SEO accusations, Guy went ahead and deleted a subset of the technology timelines (about 10 articles). DGG, if you look at my user page, you'll see that I've written a lot of presidential timelines. I wasn't paid to write them, and it couldn't have been SEO optimization or advocacy or whatever, because they have very few references in them. I wrote them because I'm interested in politics, and I got the idea for writing the timelines by knowing of all the timelines that the evil Vipul ring has written, and because I saw that the Obama, Ford and Kennedy timelines already existed, so there was a precedent for it. Maybe the timelines weren't written maliciously? Hmm... Oh well. Ethanbas (talk) 20:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ethanbas, as one of the paid editing ring, you should step very carefully here. There is a strong body of opinion that paid editing actually is evil, and what you and the rest of Vipul's paid editing SEO enterprise are doing is a serious problem. The fact that you do not realise or accept this, is obvious. That doesn't change anything: it's still a problem. Guy (Help!) 08:45, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sigh. Seeing that Riceissa now has an indef, and that Vipul's project is suspended, I'll stop defending them any longer. Ethanbas (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Being packed with SEO spam links, basically. Guy (Help!) 08:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What link target(s) is/are the issue here? Who are they advertising for? Hobit (talk) 11:20, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
JzG, there are only links to the companies it acquires and to ones it has significant partnerships with, and the affiliations of major investors. I don't regard them as spam--I regard them as necessary content and links. The typical spam links in a company article are links to companies it has sold something to or had some minor affiliation with, e.g. "Among our customers are the following 20 leading companies: " or the prior companies of minor executives.--that's not spam in the sense of inflating importance. As another type of spam, some of the articles from this source link to one and only one organization that has evaluated them--they may not be there in the current version in all cases,because I have been removing them. DGG ( talk ) 17:17, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discuss at AFD for all, since it is controversial. The topics are actually suitable for Wikipedia, it is the content (in references) that is not. So if anyone is prepared to change all the references, this would avoid SEO benefit. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to AFD. Not obviously advertising or promotional. And list them all separately because I can see the Twitter one being more notable than, say, Pinterest. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of Amazon.com. Cunard (talk) 07:02, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the articles and initiate AfD discussions if desired to obtain a broader community consensus. North America1000 07:19, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and make it absolutely clear that G11 does not care about the purpose of or payment for promotional articles, and that it is NOT to be used as a weapon to fight paid editing battles. In a nutshell G11 is not G5, which is the ONLY CSD criterion which functions based on the status of the editor who created the article. Jclemens (talk) 06:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a reason by itself for speedy, but it can assist as an indication for identifying promotional articles--as over 90% of such articles are in fact promotional in content. . I ageee if it is not clearly G11 without it, it needs AfD. I would also favor introducing such a speedy criterion, except for that 10% or so of false positives, such as this one. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 March 2017[edit]

16 March 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jean-Philippe de Lespinay (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Speedy deletion of Jean-Philippe de Lespinay page The 11 of March I wrote to Amortias in this page : You must not delete the "Jean-Philippe de Lespinay" article without looking at why it was deleted at the time and what additions are made in the new article of march 2017 for it to be accepted. The artificial intelligence technology presented in this article was considered as advertising and lacking notoriety. However, Jean-Philippe de Lespinay has just received an American award for his "AI achievement" in February 2017 : Winner of the Special Award for AI Achievement is Jean-Philippe de Lespinay of Tree Logic ( http://www.tree-logic.com ). Tree Logic presents a computer technology, “La Maieutique”, which will drive world data processing into a new aera : the aera of computer becoming “human”, communicative, intelligent and knowledge-hungry. Plus these key abilities we have been waiting from him since its inception : helpful, never forgetting a new knowledge, and user friendly. You must realize Mr. de Lespinay's notoriety was already evident in 2011 regarding the large number of intelligent concepts, links, newspaper articles and the list of his clients. I am one of his clients in a large French IT company (Sigma Informatique) and several services use his generator T.Rex exploiting AI reasoning. This article, which presents a great inventor and a great invention, should never have been deleted. It was suppressed after a real war of edition, brutally and without real valid argument. You must now ask yourself why and by whom. I explain what happened: the invention of JP de Lespinay aims to make programming languages, and thus IT specialists, useless, and to eliminate traditional computing (a new computer without keyboard, without mouse and without screen). The article was therefore deleted by WP computer scientists who used your encyclopedia to kill the competition and prevent the public from discovering a new technology. I ask you not to be an accomplice of this deceit and to take account of 2017 awards.ai prize that certifies that JP de Lespinay deserves to be in Wikipedia.

The reply of amortias is that this page must be deleted because there is no noticeable change in the text, apart from awards.ai prize. This is not the answer to my remarks, it is a simple technical argument. In my opinion, the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay page does not have to be deleted because it contains all the elements necessary to appear in an encyclopedia like Wikipedia: it speaks about a company that exists, about a real man who invented a new technology (Reasoning AI) used in companies, which has clients (including myself), which is mentioned in hundreds of press articles in France, whose notoriety is indisputable, with links that show the importance of his inventor and his company in the history of technology.

Therefore, I ask you not to delete the page Jean-Philippe de Lespinay that I wrote --JFPrincay (talk) 10:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)@JFPrincay

  • Endorse I restored the article temporarily to clarify the matter: the nature of the article and the previous afd discussion make the rightness of deletion quite obvious.I urge a speedy close. DGG ( talk ) 05:59, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
temporarily restored article history for discussion DGG ( talk ) 05:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you DGG. But can you please justify the speedy deletion of an encyclopedic article by arguments that I can understand ? Why my own arguments "a company that exists, about a real man who invented a new technology (Reasoning AI) used in companies, which has clients (including myself), which is mentioned in hundreds of press articles in France, whose notoriety is indisputable, with links that show the importance of his inventor and his company in the history of technology" still justify the speedy deletion ?--JFPrincay (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)@JFPrincay[reply]
  • Overturn and list at AFD. The article, despite being horrid, does not qualify for G4. The AFD took place in 2011. The article includes a subsequently arising claim of significance, an award received in 2017. That claim would be sufficient to defeat an A7 speedy. The articles are therefore not substantially identical; this version should therefore be subject to a community decision on whether to stub it or TNT-delete it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:06, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    "The article is horrid": this article was originally written taking into account all the remarks of WP in 2011. Is the language that is horrid? If I know what is horrid maybe I could revisit the text and make it pleasant. That said thank you, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, for agreeing to leave a chance to this biography and this technology (reasoning artificial intelligence) to exist in WP..--JFPrincay (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2017 (UTC)@JFPrincay[reply]
  • Endorse CSD and salt. I'm usually pretty strict about applying WP:CSD, but in this case, I think User:Amortias called it right. WP:G4 applies to sufficiently identical copies [...] that are not substantially identical to the deleted version. Which immediately leads to questions about how to define sufficiently and substantially. Certainly, looking at the diffs between the version deleted at AfD and the most recent deletion, it's clear that this is not word-for-word identical. But, once you start searching the new and old text for key phrases:
  • he qualified as a sales engineer
  • At Arcane he made a discovery: there exists a method allowing
  • In the following years, Jean-Philippe de Lespinay gradually
  • In 1991, he invented the "Flow Logic"
  • Jean-Philippe de Lespinay authored several articles
it quickly becomes apparent that this is just a cursory reshuffling of the original text. To me, that passes the sufficiently identical test. G4 also excludes, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies. The argument here is that in February 2017, he won the American artificial intelligence awards.ai in the category "AI achievement". There's no reference for that, but searching found Awards.AI, which looks like some junky SEO site. They describe themselves as:
Founded in 2015, Awards.AI is part of the Informed.AI Media Group which runs a number of community websites supporting the area of Artificial Intelligence
The site offers a form to claim your trophy, and to download badges which you can add to your own site to point back to them. Sorry, that doesn't fly. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Some additional quotes from the Awards.AI website:
  • We have had such an amazing response from people during the public nominations and voting, so much so, many categories have been very closely contested.
  • Each winner will be receiving an official winner’s trophy from Awards.AI very soon, but today we wanted to list the winners so everyone knows who has won. We look forward to seeing pictures and tweets from the winners when they receive their trophy in the coming weeks.
This is not the kind of stuff on which notable awards are built. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak overturn and list at AfD- though I wouldn't object if this was endorsed and salted. I am really not a fan of people re-creating articles without addressing the issues that led to deletion in the first place, but with enough purely cosmetic changes to attempt to immunize against G4. But in this case the inclusion of this person winning a (dubious, marginal) award probably makes it substantially non-identical enough. So I recommend listing at AfD but with the understanding that a delete result there will equal delete and salt. Reyk YO! 13:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the page - What an unanimity to refuse to keep an article which, in itself, falls within an encyclopedia! I did not change the text for its acceptance but to modernize it. It is not, in my opinion, in the role of WP to challenge the awards.ai prize ("dubious, marginal"), which is an AI specialists award attributed to a Frenchman having actually worked in the field of AI. This price only demonstrates that his work is recognized by specialists. The strangest thing in your remarks is the refusal to reply to my essential questions, which I present here for the third time:
"can you please justify the speedy deletion of an encyclopedic article by arguments that I can understand ? Why my own arguments "a company that exists, about a real man who invented a new technology (Reasoning AI) used in companies, which has clients (including myself), which is mentioned in hundreds of press articles in France, whose notoriety is indisputable, with links that show the importance of his inventor and his company in the history of technology" still justify the speedy deletion ?" --JFPrincay (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)@JFPrincay[reply]
  • The button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion" - Please, where is this button ? The people who want to defend this article can not do it because this button is not found. Should they talk here?--JFPrincay (talk) 14:37, 20 March 2017 (UTC)@princay[reply]
  • Endorse - the recreated article is practically identical to the deleted version. I'm not sure if it's escaped other editors' attention that the deleted article was created by a user with a history of using sockpuppets to promote this inventor? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:19, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Ivanvector, I want to point out that these sockpuppets were wrong. Each interlocutor defending the Jean-Philippe de Lespinay page was different and ip addresses were all different. It's easy to verify. On the other hand, all the opponents of the page Jean-Philippe de Lespinay were computer scientists, therefore opponents of his technology.--JFPrincay (talk) 18:17, 21 March 2017 (UTC)@jfprincay[reply]
  • Endorse speedy. Recreation does not address reasons why article was deleted at AFD. --NeilN talk to me 20:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • EJIDA Studios – Wrong forum. This forum is not for requesting the deletion of articles, see WP:AFD for that. In any case, the article has been speedily deleted. –  Sandstein  08:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
EJIDA Studios (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not Notable enough Superpilot123456 (talk) 04:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

15 March 2017[edit]

14 March 2017[edit]

There's a lot going on in this discussion. I'll try to cover most of the major points, in no particular order.

  • WP:CSD is for uncontroversial cases. There's more than enough discussion here, with people weighing in on both sides, that it's clear this was not uncontroversial. Hence, the overturn. Of course, it's not always clear at the time whether there will be controversy or not. In this case, the original WP:CSD decision was probably not unreasonable.
  • Some of the factors that went into the original CSD decision were WP:BLPDELETE, and the WP:OTRS involvement. There's no clear consensus here as to how much weight those things should carry. Some people feel that in WP:BLP cases, we should give strong weight to the subject's request to not have an article about them. Other people feel that as long as WP:CSD is met, their request should not be a factor. Some people feel it should only be a factor when trying to resolve a close call.
  • WP:G4 probably didn't apply by strict reading, but there's also some feeling that WP:IAR and/or admin's discretion could have also justified WP:CSD. No consensus on that point. There is, however, a pretty good feeling that a better closing statement, with a more detailed justification, would have been useful, even if it wouldn't have changed the ultimate outcome.
  • WP:BLPDELETE talks about gaining a new consensus to restore a previously deleted article, but gives no advice about where to gain that consensus. Two reasonable places would be bringing the issue here to WP:DRV, or starting a new draft and using the draft's talk page.
  • Several people argued that there were sufficient sources in the new version of the article that it would probably pass WP:GNG. No real consensus on that point.
  • As in most of these cases, it's hard to tease apart the discussion about the process from the discussion about the merits of the article itself. And, the answer is always the same; WP:AfD is a better forum to discuss the merits of the article. So, I'm going to list the draft at AfD.
Note: the automated script actually listed it at MfD, not AfD -- RoySmith (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to all the people who contributed their time to this discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC) – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Michael Cole (public relations) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was nommed for speedy, which I (as the author) objected to on its talk page, on the basis that G4 explicitly excludes articles that "are not substantially identical to the [previously] deleted version". User:Tagishsimon removed the speedy template, noting that Cole is "copper bottom notable". It has now been speedied as G4, and the deleting admin has refused to restore it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:24, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) The page was speedy deleted as G4 by Fram. An earlier version of the article was deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations) in November 2014. The article deleted by Fram was a fresh creation, substantially different from the 2014 version. G4 states that "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and speedy deletion was not appropriate. In addition, it is abundantly clear from the substantial coverage of Cole in the many sources present that he meets WP:GNG and the article should be restored. --RexxS (talk) 15:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • As I in vain made clear to both editors, this deletion was done under WP:BLPDELETE. An article that ha sbeen courtesy deleted at the request of the BLP subject should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so. "After the deletion, any administrator may choose to protect it against re-creation. Even if the page is not protected against re-creation, it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation." I don't blame anyone for recreating the page anyway, as they probably weren't aware of this clause, nor do I blame anyone for complaining about my G4 deletion, which at first sight doesn't apply (but which I used since no numbered speedy reason for BLPDELETE recreations exists, and G6 seemed even less informative). But I don't get why they still complain about the deletion after it has been pointed out to them that the article should not have been recreated in the first place, per BLP policy (which trumps all other policies in this regard). The editors are free to seek consensus that an article on Cole may be created, as explained in the policy: but overturning this deletion because the subject meets the GNG shows a particular misunderstanding of our policies and the priorities amongst them. Fram (talk) 16:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This argument might make sense if there were any venue available to seek a consensus to recreate an article. There isn't. This part of the BLP policy plainly does not match practice, since it is common for articles that have been deleted (often as WP:TOOSOON) to be re-created some time later. A deletion at the request of the BLP subject is the weakest reason for deletion (see Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion #Non-criteria no.17), and certainly has no special standing requiring that the article should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so any more than any other article.
    • More importantly, BLPDELETE is not a speedy deletion criterion, as the the deleting admin admits. Speedy deletion is for pages "with no practical chance of surviving discussion" (WP:CSD) – and that's policy. It is quite clear that the article that Fram deleted was not a "re-post" (alias for db-G4) of the 2014 article, and that Cole is notable as attested by substantial coverage in nine sources. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and the article is neutrally written and on a clearly notable subject, so our fundamental policies of notability and neutral point of view are met. If Fram wants to argue that there is sufficient other policy to override those policies, then they should take it to AfD. It is a misuse of the trust placed in an admin to apply speedy deletion in cases where an article is not an obvious breach of our content policies. --RexxS (talk) 17:12, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:BLPDELETE. Following a request from the article subject through OTRS, the article was deleted pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations). It should therefore not have been recreated without consensus. As a technical point, I think it is correct that the CSD cited in the deletion summary (G4) did not apply, but nevertheless the article should remain deleted until such time as a consensus can be shown for its recreation. The whole point of WP:BLPDELETE is to prevent recreation without consensus. WJBscribe (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse while the text and the specific references may be different this time around, the basic substance is generally of a low-profile individual who is unlikely to generate substantial complaint of bias or censorship if he didn't have an article here. Find a more substantial article to edit, and improve that. Unless this Michael Cole suddenly somehow becomes sustained front-page news for several months, the status quo should remain. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:44, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The logged reason of G4 was not applicable. To establish consensus for the full reinstatement of the page, it will help to have the new draft visible. This might sensibly be done by putting the page into draft space, say, while a discussion takes place. Andrew D. (talk) 18:15, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can I just clarify the custom and practice here? Do we always delete people's biographies if they request it via OTRS? Or is there some kind of threshold where people are so significant that we keep the article about them irrespective of their wishes, and if so, what is it? In fact, can anyone cite an example of an article where the subject has requested deletion and Wikipedia's refused?—S Marshall T/C 18:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @S Marshall: The other person featured in the Daily Mail article, Graham McCann. Endorse. I also did not see indubitable notability in Pigsonthewing's article on Michael Cole. Unlike with McCann, I believe Cole is only borderline notable, and that we should therefore continue to honour his wish, as per BLPDELETE and the former AfD (at which the creator of the earlier article advocated deletion). Yngvadottir (talk) 18:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Even if an individual with the nine sources I gave above is "borderline-notable", that would in itself disqualify it from speedy deletion, which is reserved for pages "with no practical chance of surviving discussion" (WP:CSD). There are no policy grounds to endorse a speedy deletion on the claim of "borderline notability". --RexxS (talk) 18:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft: I support a draft version, otherwise we can't discuss. - Years ago, I wrote (in German) an article about a scientist who then wanted it deleted, and he was told (not by me) that as long as it all was based on solid sources (and it was), his wish didn't matter. More recently, project opera stuggled with a conductor who wanted to shape "his" article according to his wishes, which was also declined. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you to Yngvadottir for that response which has thoroughly clarified this for me. There is no way this person qualifies as a WP:LPI. Absolutely not. Therefore what we do as Wikipedians is to have a discussion about a draft. What's happened here is a sysop has summarily deleted the draft and thereby preventing the discussion from happening. The right thing to do is to restore the draft to an unindexed space, so it won't show up on google searches but it'll allow good faith editors the chance to make their case. At that discussion I will !vote "delete", but in the circumstances it's right that the discussion should take place. Restore to enable this outcome.—S Marshall T/C 18:47, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Michael Cole is a household name in the UK, from his long years as a royal correspondent. He is clearly notable. The article freshly deleted was well referenced, and the references demonstrated a GNG pass. Could we now restore the recently deleted article and stop playing silly bugger procedural games. Relying on an AfD which appears to have been swayed by the subject's more than ironic reluctance to be the subject of an article, and at which only three or four people chipped in, is plain daft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tagishsimon (talk • contribs) 20:11, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore or draft: This this person clearly meets WP’s standards for notability. There is no question that WP:BLP requires us to “get it right,” and to some extent a person has a certain right to privacy, where they have been a public person who made public statements, WP:GNG applies. The OTRS he sent that was copied at the previous AfD is undated, and I am unclear if it was sent in response to the first-created article or this newer version; I would like that issue clarified, if Fram or an OTRS person could verify that info. Montanabw(talk) 20:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore According to Fram, An article that ha sbeen courtesy deleted at the request of the BLP subject should not be recreated until there is a consensus to do so. It's going to be hard to get such consensus if we cannot see the article in question, but there is a strong indication from several users above that the subject is not an LPI and should not be able to have his article deleted by his own request. Lepricavark (talk) 00:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not really "according to Fram", that's a direct quote from the BLP policy WP:BLPDELETE. WP:LPI, on the other hand, is an essay. Fram (talk) 07:37, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't realize it was a quote because it wasn't in quotation marks. At any rate, I acknowledge the distinction between a policy and an essay, and the policy certainly holds sway. Still, I don't know if we can really establish consensus without being able to review the article. Lepricavark (talk) 14:21, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to reply "what do you mean, it clearly was in quotation marks!", but checking it again, I see that you quoted my rephrasing of the policy (so that phrase was indeed "according to Fram" and not a quote), and I misspoke in my reply here. having said that, I don't see how it is any different from what the actual quote immediately following it says "it should not be re-created unless a consensus is demonstrated in support of re-creation." so the point remains the same. Fram (talk) 14:31, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Indeed, you did quote the policy immediately after the paraphrase. My mistake, I should have seen that. Lepricavark (talk) 13:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A notable person, outspoken, not a private individual. However, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Cole (public relations) people chose to honour the subject's request. An invalid G4. WP:BLPDELETE is a very loose bit of policy at odds with the opening line at WP:CSD "The criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion". The BLP policy is inadequate on this point, BLPDELETE lacks objective criteria. It should be moved to WP:CSD and written objectively. The appeal for privacy is kind of odd, there should be a mechanism for challenging the old AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • When policies disagree (which they often do), I always tend to give BLP the priority. I choose G4 as it was the most closely related speedy reason, perhaps I should just have stated "IAR speedy deletion per WP:BLPDELETE" without indicating any CSD criterion, but at least G4 indicated that it was an article previously deleted after an AfD, so gave people some indication of why it was deleted. As for challenging old AfDs, that's what DRV can be used for, no? "Deletion Review may be used: if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page;" which is more or less what is claimed here (either that or they challenge the original AfD outcome). A DRV about the original AfD, with the request to be allowed to create a new page (or undelete the old one) would be perfectly acceptable and wuold follow the letter and spirit of the policy. A recreation of the page without such a discussion "because the subject is notable" (which they were at the time of the AfD, no new notability has happened since then) on the other hand goes directly against the conclusion of the previous AfD and against the policy. Fram (talk) 13:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying you did bad, but that WP:CSD needs updating. BLPDELETE enjoys consensus, but it could be more objective, and connected to CSD. So BLPDELETEd means no user may unilaterally recreate? Sounds like something that should be written. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:26, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • It could indeed do with some clarification, and like I said, I don't blame anyone who has written the article anyway, as people can hardly be expected to know every in and out of these policies, certainly for cases like this which are luckily rare. Perhaps in the future it would be better if people who deleted articles at the BLP request (and with consensus, like here) automatically protected the page, to prevent these situations. Fram (talk) 13:45, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • [ec] There's an obvious disparity between your "...I always tend to give BLP the priority" and your earlier assertion on my talk page, that "the BLP policy trumps speedy deletion reasons". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see the disparity? Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Motion_regarding_BLP_deletions: "That Wikipedia, through the founding principle of "Ignore All Rules", has traditionally given administrators wide discretion to enforce policies and principles using their own best judgment; and That administrators have been instructed to aggressively enforce the policy on biographies of living people.". BLP is a core principle and policy, CSD is a policy t maintain other policies like BLP (and copyvio, ...). As the BLP policy trumps speedy deletion reasons, I tend to give BLP the priority. Fram (talk) 13:59, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn not a G4 and a discussion needs to be held as it doesn't meet any speedy criteria. Agree that it could have been protected, but it wasn't and you can't go back and delete it without a basis in WP:CSD for doing so. Futher, it's not at all clear that a solid article on this subject can't exist. So we should discuss. Hobit (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the article was deleted at AfD because the subject asked for it to be deleted and we decided to honour that request. There was nothing in the recreated article which would justify reopening that discussion - although the text was different it conveyed essentially the same information and didn't cite any sources published since 2014. The only new information in the article was that the subject once gave a lecture and wrote a column for a local newspaper, and those would have made no difference whatsoever. There are mechanisms for challenging the results of BLP deletions, recreating the page without improvement just isn't one of them. While it doesn't technically fall under G4 I do nevertheless think that the deletion was common sense. Hut 8.5 21:50, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article did not merely "covey essentially the same information" and the date of the material cited is immaterial. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The date of the material cited is relevant because it means he hasn't become any more important since the AfD. If there was substantial source coverage generated since then you could argue that he is now more important than when the decision was made and that therefore the decision should be revisited. There isn't. Although the text and description of the subject has changed the changes are in details of the subject's life rather than anything major. For instance the old article said that he worked as a BBC journalist for a long time and noted one of his assignments. The new version noted that he worked as a BBC journalist, gave his dates of service and noted a different assignment. Yes, the information is different, but it's still the same journalistic career. Hut 8.5 07:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Poppycock. New information, pre-dating the previous AfD, has come to light, giving greater evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Really? I'm not seeing it personally. Hut 8.5 21:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Comparing the 2014 version that was deleted with the re-created version from today, we can see that the seven earlier sources were mainly concerned with the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, and Tiny Rowland's battle with Mohamed Al-Fayed, wherein Cole is not the main focus. The new version contains three of the earlier sources (Cole's homepage, Boggan's report on Cole leaving Harrods, and Pankhurst's report on the Diana inquest), but introduces six new sources relating to Cole's time at the BBC, as a reporter during the Yom Kippur war, his lecture to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, and his appearance on Have I Got News for You. Most of them are substantial pieces of coverage where Cole is the prime subject (or one of three principals in the Yom Kippur war case). I am really having great difficulty in understanding how you can possibly consider that those six new sources do not dramatically enhance Cole's notability compared to the previous version. --RexxS (talk) 12:17, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • The "Yom Kippur" source[1] is definitely not about him, he is mentioned once as "a "he was also there". Then there are two primary sources about a speech he gave, a database mention in TV.com which may or may not be about him or about another Michael Cole, which leaves us with 2, not 6, sources whch can be said to be "substantial coverage". One is from a newspaper where he writes a column, so not independent coverage either (and is not about him, but about the problems at the BBC). This leaves you with one new article, [2] which deals with the same subject as an article already in the deleted version, him stepping down as spokesperson of Harrods. So no, these "six new sources" actually do nothing at all to "dramatically enhance Cole's notability". Fram (talk) 13:04, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • The "Yom Kippur" article attests to Cole's work as a reporter. That enhances his notability. The first source about the lecture he gave to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a report about the event, definitely not a primary source. In the second source about the event, Cole is given first billing before Vernon Bogdanor and Bill Cash, a certain indication of notability that was not present in the early version. The website charting his appearance on Have I got News for You also links him to his appearance on It Shouldn't Happen to A... Royal Reporter. I suppose you'll be telling us next that it was some other Michael Cole who also happened to be a royal reporter? That's yet another fresh source indicating his notability. Then we have the other two sources: the first an entire newspaper article about Cole's experiences during his years at the BBC; the second the BBC's article about Cole's career as he retired from the post of Director of Public Affairs that he had held for 10 years at Harrods. Those really do constitute considerable coverage about Cole and were not present in the former version. It is abundantly clear, no matter how much you want to minimise it, that a substantial number of new sources have been introduced into the article, including two which would guarantee a pass at WP:GNG in virtually any other article. This proves my contention that the G4 criterion "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" applies here. The latest version of the article was never a candidate for deletion as a G4 speedy, and however BLPDELETE may be interpreted, it is not licence for an admin to delete the new article without discussion. This deletion review has no option based in policy and common sense but to overturn the G4 CSD. --RexxS (talk) 15:05, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • (outdent)You have an extremely low bar for "enhances his notability", one which is not in line with WP:N at all. "The first source about the lecture he gave to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association is a report about the event, definitely not a primary source." The definition is "Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved." The source involved is [3], i.e. the Parliament website reporting on a speech delivered to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association UK Branch, a grouping of Parliamentarians which is listed as one of the three "offices" at the Parliament website. This is a primary source, and definitely not an independent source, so gives zero notability. "In the second source about the event, Cole is given first billing before Vernon Bogdanor and Bill Cash, a certain indication of notability that was not present in the early version." There are two speakers, and they are given in order of appearance, not in order of notability. You are really grasping at straws here. That source is a reprint of the press release, the flyer linked in it[4], so again not an independent source and not giving any notability
    • You are particularly uncritical when you use TV.com. "The website charting his appearance on Have I got News for You also links him to his appearance on It Shouldn't Happen to A... Royal Reporter. I suppose you'll be telling us next that it was some other Michael Cole who also happened to be a royal reporter? That's yet another fresh source indicating his notability." You "forgot" to mention that that source connects him to three roles: [5] Have I got news for you, It shouldn't happen to (which you use as evidence that it must be the same person), and ... The One: Making a Music Star, an American reality show from 2006 which indeed features Michael Cole. Our royal reporter masqueraded as a 22-year-old from North Carolina though. This site not only doesn't give any notability, but is an unreliable site which shouldn't be used (similar to IMDb), and which is clearly not to be trusted in this specific case. Please be a lot more careful when analyzing sources.
    • Finally, you are still basing all of your claims on the mistaken idea that I deleted this because of a lack of notability. I didn't, as has been explained to you many times now. Whether the article should be permitted to be created now or not may be based on issues of notability and subject wishes, but the deletion was based on the combination of the previous deletion and WP:BLPDELETE. Fram (talk) 15:43, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think analysing the depth of coverage in the available sources is the right way to go with situations like this. The major reason the article was deleted is because the subject asked for it. We're allowed to grant those requests as long as the subject isn't a public figure, even if they are notable, and many editors will support deletion in those circumstances if the subject's importance falls below some threshold which is higher than notability. Source coverage doesn't have that much to do with this judgement. For example an MP would definitely be considered a public figure, even if nobody has heard of them and they don't get that much press coverage.
        Looking at the actual achievements of this person's life described in the recreated article there is very little change from the AfDed version. He had a long career as a journalist for the BBC and covered some high profile events. The sources may go into different levels of detail and cover different aspects of that career, but the general idea is the same. What would substantially change the situation here is if the recreation included some new, more important career achievement, but it didn't.
        Finally, I should emphasise that the reason the subject wanted the article deleted is that there were serious factual inaccuracies in the available sourcing, including ostensibly reliable sources. That concern is very well founded within the spirit if not the letter of the BLP policy, and could lead to substantial real world repercussions for the subject or for Wikipedia. Anyone trying to recreate the article needs to address it very carefully. Hut 8.5 20:29, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because there is no actual notability. Of course a PR agent will sometimes get their name in the papers when their client does. As for the views of the subject, the accepted rule in Deletion Policy is that we only take them into account if the decision in no--consensus, where it is at the discretion of the closing admin to have them result in deleting the article instead of the otherwise default keep; we normally do not consider them otherwise. In this case, where there is no real reason given beyond personal preference, I would see no reason to honor the request even were it a no-consensus. Looking at the various versions, I see nothing that might possibly be libel, though I do see in earlier version some material that should have been, and was removed as trivial. But he simply isn't notable and there shouldn't be an article even if he wanted one. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Quibble: I am able to find reliable sources where the subject, as an ex-BBC correspondent, is making public comments on matters of public interest. Definitely "borderline notable" at least, and not "simply isn't notable". NB. There are a number of public "Michael Cole"s, including multiple journalists. I endorse because the decision was properly make at AfD, and there is no strong case to change it. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:33, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • The claim that "there is no actual notability" is utter bullshit, as the citations listed above show. There are multiple grounds for passing GNG. This is, for example, a journalist who was first a BBC war correspondent and then a BBC royal correspondent, commentating on a royal wedding from inside Westminster Abbey; a panellist on a BBC satirical show; and someone who gave, by invitation, a significant lecture in the Palace of Westminster. But the contested speedy deletion was not made on the grounds of notability, and that can be determined subsequent to the article's proper reinstatement. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:41, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • [FBDB] And here we have a semi-notable author, widely recognised as an expert on Pink Floyd (though Record Collector were crestfallen his 2010 work didn't reach the dizzy heights of Revolution in the Head) and who has been described as one of the most influential Twitter users in Birmingham, including being a key player in constructing the council's website) ... I think he meets WP:GNG and we should create an article on him, particularly citing the reliable source that called his work "frustratingly inconsistent". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Don't forget to quote the same reviewer, Record Collector's Marco Rossi: "Mabbett's unquestioned Floyd expertise… makes for a largely engaging read. Commendably, his passion for the band doesn’t blind him to their less distinguished moments, and his assessment of the makeweight atrocities which blight A Momentary Lapse Of Reason, for example, is spot-on. Or their Michael Heatle: "…of five talking heads [on the Whatever Happened To Pink Floyd? DVD]... Andy Mabbett [is] the most knowledgeable". Oh, and get your facts straight. The work described as "frustratingly inconsistent" was not mine, but that of my publisher; the book's layout. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(umm, see that "FBDB" ... of course I wouldn't take a source out of context and use it to defame somebody, it would be disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point! Chill out.... Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:19, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: If you want to start writing Andy's biography, I'll help out. I have a good photo of Andy when he was younger. --RexxS (talk) 13:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK folks, would you all please self-revert the above as a personal attack? Thanks. Hobit (talk) 15:27, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:BLPDELETE, however the deleting admin should have made this clear in the log entry rather than going with the inapplicable CSD G4. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:34, 15 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn. Clearly notable per sources. We should not confuse significance with notability per Wikipedia standards. Further, per DGG, the subject's personal preference is not reason to delete.(Littleolive oil (talk) 04:32, 16 March 2017 (UTC))[reply]
  • Overturn' per Littleolive_oil. She's right, we don't delete an individual's article just because they ask, especially when they're notable. К Ф Ƽ Ħ 13:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The cited language from BLPDELETE must be read in its proper context, following the key language Summary deletion is appropriate when the page contains unsourced negative material or is written non-neutrally, and when this cannot readily be rewritten or restored to an earlier version of an acceptable standard. This is not such a case. In any event, the article clearly failed to meet the G4 criteria, or any other speedy deletion criteria. BLPDELETE, on its own terms, does not authorize speedy deletion without a showing that the article at issue continues material which even arguably fails BLP standards. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 15:14, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you are misinterpreting the policy here. The "key language" is about the initial deletion: in such a case like this (subject request), no speedy should be used but a full AfD discussion. This has happened and ended in deletion. So that step has already been taken, and we are now no longer at the start of that policy section, but at the final line: after such a deletion, such an article (subject request) should not be recreated without prior consensus. The question is whether a page created (unknowingly) in direct contradiction to the BLP policy can be (should be) immediately deleted again or not. If it may not be deleted in such a case, then the last line of BLPdelete should be removed as it has become meaningless. But in my reading (and that of at least some other editors here), that line does allow or encourage the speedy deletion of the article. TLDR: the "proper context" is not "summary deletion of poor article", but keeping an article deleted after AfD on subject request deleted as prescribed by the end of the policy section. Fram (talk) 15:35, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: I have moved the article to draft space - Draft:Michael Cole (public relations) - which which allow more informed discussion on the content. My own view is that it should be sent back to AfD for discussion there. Speedy deletion is only appropriate for uncontroversial deletions, which this is clearly not. The correct forum to decide whether this article should exist is AfD. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Obviously notable going by the sources provided. There's no reason under the sun why WP shouldn't have an article about this individual. It seems the only reason why the subject requested deletion was because the article was riddled with errors which he couldn't be bothered to point out. Otherwise, an outspoken individual for whom a request for 'privacy' should not be entertained. There should be a brief article with correct and reliably sourced facts. 103.6.159.91 (talk) 15:15, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: There are now more people saying "overturn" in this discussion than participated - let alone said "delete" - in the original article's AfD. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a hard case, because "sufficiently/substantially identical" could be interpreted in many ways. You could make the argument that G4 does apply because it was previously deleted at AFD after a consensus formed that notability was borderline and thus WP:BLPDELETEREQUEST was applicable. While the new creation did add more sources and new content, you could argue that it still fails to address the cause of deletion (i.e. it failed to address why BLPDELETEREQUEST should not apply), and so isn't substantially different. Given the additional sources in the draft, the low number of !voters in the first AFD, and the many voices calling for the article to be kept here, it seems endorsing the deletion but restoring and sending it to AFD with a nomination statement noting the BLPDELETEREQUEST situation would be best. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 14:41, 18 March 2017 (UTC) (clarified position on the original G4 deletion.00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no reasonable way in which "sufficiently/substantially identical" can apply. The article under discussion has the same subject as the one previously deleted, but has none of the original content, and was written without reference to the earlier article's content. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes the article is rewritten, but the content covered is almost entirely the same as the deleted version. The only new content not covered in the previous version is Cole being sent by the BBC to cover the Yom Kippur War and Cole giving a lecture to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's UK Lunchtime Lecture Series. The former isn't anything out of the ordinary for a journalist, and the source literally only name drops Cole. The latter is a dime a dozen speech that all kinds of people deliver at similar events, and is only sourced to primary sources that don't indicate why that speech should stand out from any other. If kept, some of the material from the previous version, which help support notability, should be re-added.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 20:03, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll look forward to you telling a war correspondent to their face that their work "isn't anything out of the ordinary for a journalist", but you contradict yourself by saying "the content covered is almost entirely the same", and then listing some of the several differences. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • A journalist doing journalist things is admirable, but not automatic grounds for notability. The source for that is literally an article that just says he was there, and the talks for the lecture are all primary sources that don't explain why it should stand out among the hundreds, if not thousands of similar lectures that happen every day. Neither the new content or the new sources indicate why the subject is notable. In fact, I think the previous draft does a better job of that. The G4 deletion was correct based on the outcome of the AFD, but given how additional discussion at this DRV is going, recreation should be allowed (and a subsequent AFD if necessary). ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 21:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Well, since no-one claimed that "A journalist doing journalist things is automatic grounds for notability", your comment appears to be a straw man. I'm amazed to learn that there are "hundreds, if not thousands of lectures every day" hosted by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association in the Palace of Westminster; perhaps someone ought to write a Wikipedia article about that phenomenon. Oh, and you're still only discussing some of the new information. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • You're the one claiming that adding such content should be enough to invalidate a G4 deletion. Adding content to an article that a journalist engaged in journalism, when the subject is already identified as a journalist, is not a substantial difference that would make a G4 deletion invalid. People also give similar lectures to a large number of respectable institutions: universities, museums, government bodies, NGOs, longstanding university clubs, academic conferences etc. With only primary sources which say that such a talk took place, it doesn't explain why this talk should stand out. As for other new information, there's only writing a column for a local paper, which also doesn't establish notability. Cole's testimony at the inquest was mentioned indirectly (and the same source used), and so was considered in the previous version deleted after AFD. The initial G4 deletion was valid, but preventing recreation when that deletion proves controversial isn't valid under CSD. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 15:14, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                • "You're the one claiming that adding such content should be enough to invalidate a G4 deletion" - Please provide a quote or diff for where you think I do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Just look through this thread. You're arguing that the G4 was invalid because the inclusion of this new information meant it wasn't substantially the same. Having new content (text or sources) is the primary reason for declining or overturning a G4. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 00:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                    • That's very vague. What exactly do you mean by "this new information"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
                      • "Poppycock. New information, pre-dating the previous AfD, has come to light, giving greater evidence of notability. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC) " Presumably the "new information" Patar knight is talking about is the "new information" you claimed had given "greater evidence of notability". So, what exactly did you mean by "new information"? Fram (talk) 15:04, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep, clearly notable, well sourced and not a violation of any rule at WP:BLP. Deleting BLPs at the request of the subject is a very bad idea, for numerous reasons. —Locke Cole • t • c 17:59, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep – agree with Locke Cole's views, above. Oculi (talk) 19:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and Keep, now that I could see it, per Locke Cole who supports what I said earlier when I requested for a draft. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:43, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion per Fram's explanation. We cannot fault admins for enforcing the BLP, and Fram is absolutely right. G4 was probably the best choice, given this gap in policy. Endorse recreation as well, as this discussion serves well enough as the required discussion per the policy. A proper process needs to be created for this situation. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 17:10, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn restore to draft and have a proper AFD discussion. The BLPDELETE is a poor piece of policy working against the purpose of Wikipedia, and it needs rewriting. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 00:06, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 March 2017[edit]

  • Nigerian prince – "Keep" closure endorsed. Editors note that "no consensus" might also have been possible or perhaps preferable, but that the result is the same, so it makes no difference. Either way a renomination remains possible. –  Sandstein  08:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nigerian prince (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Nigerian princes (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Nigerian princess (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From what I see, there was no consensus to "keep all" in the related RFD discussion (Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Nigerian prince). Either re-close to "no consensus" or relist. Steel1943 (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • There is no functional difference between a keep and no-consensus outcome as neither results in the redirect being deleted. It's unclear therefore what re-closing would achieve. If there is a desire to retarget, this can be worked out via WP:BB or the talk pages. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Endorse I might've called it no consensus, especially when asked post-close, but I agree with Stifle that there's no functional difference here. Sure, if the titles are nominated again in the future, someone could start with "There was no consensus on these last time", but the results of the first discussion will be the same, and equally accessible for future discussants. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) By the way, I initially assumed Steel1943 didn't attempt to discuss this with the closer, given the absence of discussion on Champion's talk page. There is discussion, though, at User talk:Steel1943#Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 March 6#Nigerian prince. --BDD (talk) 15:31, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse numerically this was split, but it does seem to me that the Keep side had the stronger arguments. The main retarget argument was basically "someone looking for the scam isn't going to type in Nigerian Prince", which was rather effectively rebutted by Sro23 doing just that. The argument invoking WP:PRIMARYTOPIC by using search results wasn't really rebutted either. Hut 8.5 18:42, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I recommended at the end of this, I think we should move Nigerian prince (disambiguation) → Nigerian prince. So perhaps WP:RM is the right venue for an appeal. This one did "raise my eyebrows" in several ways. At the end of the first round, the vote was running at 8–2 and I would generally think that 80% was sufficient to determine a consensus to retarget to Nigerian traditional rulers, but Champion did not, so they relisted. However at the end of the second round, the consensus was less clear at 8–7 so relisting at that point was fair. By the time this closed, the !vote was 8–8, so I'm puzzled as to how consensus for the scam was found. The optics don't look right to me; seems Champion didn't like the apparent result when it was 8–2 so relisted rather than close. Then, though I'm not sure on the consensus for relisting editors closing a discussion that they had relisted (see the essay Wikipedia:Relisting can be abusive – which I wasn't expecting to find, but just did), at 8–8 Champion found a consensus. Looks like a supervote. Combine this with the idea that a group of western white guys might be letting their biases and prejudices determine the primary topic for an article about people of color in Africa to be the negative connotation rather than the positive one, and I'm a bit uncomfortable with this. wbm1058 (talk) 19:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not necessary to accuse people of racism. Our disambiguation policies favour usages which are most common amongst our readers. As those are by definition English speaking people with an internet connection that is inevitably going to make certain types of title more popular. We can't really close the discussion with your option as you were the only one who supported it. Hut 8.5 22:17, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I stopped short of making any personal accusations; I'm just pointing out how this may look to outsiders. A lot of fuss here over 3 redirects that combined get barely more than 10 views per day. wbm1058 (talk) 01:20, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The reason this close has been deemed acceptable above is because no consensus would default to the same outcome. That aside, if the closer is giving more weight to one side because they find that argument stronger, they should state so in their close. I sympathize with the nominator. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 19:00, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse without prejudice to renomination. Difference between the outcomes is functionally zip. Some possible solutions (e.g. moving the page) weren't discussed until the very end, so the case could be made at a new RfD for that option. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:15, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There is a difference between a keep and no-consensus outcome: an article or redirect can be almost immediately renominated after a no-consensus; it is very strong preferred to wait a good while after a keep, because immediate renomination can be seen as abusive. DGG ( talk ) 12:31, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus basically per wbm1058. Consensus was very strongly in favour of retargeting prior to Champion's first relist, causing one to wonder why Champion relisted it. He did not provide a rationale, so we have to assume he didn't agree with the consensus, and that makes his relist basically an implied keep !vote. That he later closed the discussion as "keep" suggests a supervote. Had Champion not relisted this likely would have closed as "retarget", but later discussion reveals a different result, so I think the only reasonable outcome is no consensus, though I wouldn't object to a re-close. The functional difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is that "keep" is a result we agree on, while "no consensus" is an indication that there is neither agreement nor result: it's a discussion that failed. It's not just semantics, but even so semantics are important in these things. As for wbm1058's separate move proposal it should be just that: separate. (NOTE: I !voted "keep" in the discussion.) Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 15:13, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 March 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kekistan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since someone requested redirect at AFC/R, should we recreate as redirect? It's an hoax target especially if recreated and it needs protection after the recreation. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 15:30, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose recreation. Proposal at AFC is to create a redirect from "Kekistan" to "Pepe the Frog", but there is no relevant sourced and encyclopedic content there. When people were trying to create this article, they didn't have anything beyond juvenile vandalism to say about it either. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:47, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that @Patar knight: has created the redirect. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 16:11, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Didn't realize this was at DRV. The proposed page had a source, and my understanding was that the Youtuber Sargon of Akkad, used as a source at the target, is an established figure in the internet crowd that deals in the Pepe meme. I protected the redirect, for fear of vandalism, but unless the target articles loses the passage, I don't see the harm in keeping the redirect. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 18:34, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Opposed to redirect. The target section uses as its only sources Know your meme, and a YouTube video. Neither of those are reliable sources. The whole section should be deleted, and the redirect as well. Since this seems a popular vandalism/hoax target, suggest we salt Kekistan as well. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:40, 20 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Are You Watching This?! (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Greetings! This page got deleted because the notability was questioned. While it is far from a household name, the technology is being used by more than 10M people, is licensed by major companies like Comcast, CBS Sports, and Turner Sports, and has been the singular focus of reports by notable outlets ranging from NPR to ESPN to ABC News. I'm far from a Wikipedia expert, but it does seem to meet the third-party notability bar? There was also an update by an administrator this week that agreed it was notable--sadly, I'm no longer seeing that in the logs. Mphil14 (talk) 02:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I think this request can be closed without action. The article was deleted through the WP:PROD process and then restored by Coffee after the deletion was contested. The article remains undeleted and can be worked on normally (or nominated for WP:AFD).  Sandstein  07:38, 12 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Amna Nasir Jamal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Note: the following text was found at the end of the previous DRV section, without a proper header. I've fixed up the formatting, and suggest we reset the 7-day clock to expire on March 19th to allow for sufficient discussion -- RoySmith (talk) 13:36, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How I add contest link. I am still working on the write up Amna Nasir Jamal' to find sources.Let me tell IWEC was founded in 2007 by the Barcelona Chamber of Commerce in partnership with the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry Ladies Organization (FICCI-FLO), the Manhattan Chamber of Commerce and The Cape Chamber of Commerce. I found many of her journalistic material on google. Allow me a time to fix. When I started over a year back I could not continue edit due to my domestic issues. After a year when restarted it got deleted John Pack Lambert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zainkazmi1 (talk • contribs) 17:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment  This looks like something for AfC.  Unscintillating (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, no obvious problem with the AFD which was unanimous. No problem with this going to AfC if there are secondary sources covering this person. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:54, 15 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 March 2017[edit]

  • Zeshan Qureshi – No action. The requesting editor has been advised that they can recreate the article if adequate new sources exist. –  Sandstein  07:35, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zeshan Qureshi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Dr Qureshi has now increased in notability, is a published author, won many awards. Page is ready to be completely edited with improved standard of information and references. LydiaShackshaft (talk) 13:08, 11 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The Latin Testament Project (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Unfortunately, the editor who deleted the original posted, JohnCD, is now deceased

Substantial new sources which we did not have the opportunity to present during the initial review. See below.

Third Party References to The Latin Testament Project and John Cunyus

General Information www.Searchlight-Press.com www.JohnCunyus.com

Scholarly Interaction with Latin Testament Project 1. The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Roczniki Humanistyczne 2013 | 61 | 5: Neofilologia | 7-27 English Equivalents of dicere in Prose Translations of Jerome’s Psalters Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-dafedf7b-e22c-4bda-81e0-13ac5677a9bd

2. The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Adeptus 2016 | 7 | 84-101 The soul in the mediaeval Psalter Lis Kinga http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-101150b3-9461-4778-b43a-21f4e3c66419

3. The Central European Journal of Social Sciences and Humanities Roczniki Humanistyczne 2013 | 61 | 5: Neofilologia | 27-45 Principles of Equivalent Selection in English Prose Translations of Jerome’s Psalters: A Study Based on exaudire and videre Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik , Jerzy Wójcik http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.desklight-258b203d-3635-4357-aa2b-9287c55e6445

4. Linguistics Beyond And Within 1 (2015), 152-168 "Is there a method in this… madness? On variance between two manuscript copies of a Middle English Psalter" Kinga Lis John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland http://lingbaw.com/2015/Kinga-Lis.pdf

5. "Young Minds. Old Questions in Linguistics" Proceedings of the Fourth Central European Conference in Linguistics for Postgraduate Students Edited by Anna Bondaruk; Anna Bloch-Rozmej; Wojciech Malec; Ewelina Mokrosz; Sławomir Zdziebko http://cecils.webclass.co/proceedings/CECILS4.pdf

6. Language Change: Faces and Facets Magdalena Charzyńska-Wójcik http://www.academia.edu/27645492/Language_Change_Faces_and_Facets

Reviews by American Academics 1. Review by Dr. Rob Plummer, Professor of New Testament Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary http://www.robplummer.com/2013/03/a-latin-english-verse-by-verse-translation/

2. "Does God Have Faith?" By Joe McIntyre Hope, Faith, Prayer https://www.hopefaithprayer.com/faith/does-god-have-faith-mcintyre/

3. AN AMATEUR'S HISTORY OF MODERN PHILOSOPHY "The Offering" Tuesday, August 6, 2013 http://awaisaftab.blogspot.com/2013/08/the-offering.html

4. WWW.THESES.XLIBX.INFO FREE ELECTRONIC LIBRARY - Theses, dissertations, documentation http://www.theses.xlibx.info/t1-other1/1315275-1-the-song-solomon-john-cunyus-translator-scripture-from-the-latin.php

Articles in US and European Newspapers 1. "Cunyus shares latest translation at Rotary" Monday, March 6, 2017 6:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/cunyus-shares-latest-translation-at-rotary/article_59a37dda-02bf-11e7-9225-2bbf752a7310.html

2. "A way with words" Wednesday, December 7, 2016 4:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/a-way-with-words/article_603866a8-bca4-11e6-b103-97239118122f.html

3. "Rotarian, First Christian pastor talks world religions, Islam" Friday, January 8, 2016 3:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/rotarian-first-christian-pastor-talks-world-religions-islam/article_94f9147a-b62c-11e5-bead-2f348f422075.html

4. "Henderson pastor explains the importance of Bible translation" Friday, May 22, 2015 5:00 pm http://www.hendersondailynews.com/news/henderson-pastor-explains-the-importance-of-bible-translation/article_2dd42a8c-00a1-11e5-8c64-170c1db458ae.html

5. "Jesus botade sjuka med cannabis" NYHETER 07 jan 2003 Aftonbladet, http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article10333332.ab

6. "Antike Hippies" Von Urs Willmann Zeit Online Seine medizinischen Wunder vollbrachte Jesus mit köstlichen Drogen http://www.zeit.de/2003/03/geniessen_1301

Online Bible Listings 1. Wikidot http://bibles.wikidot.com/cunyus

2. WorldCat https://www.worldcat.org/search?q=John+Cunyus&dblist=638&fq=dt%3Abks+%3E+ap%3A%22cunyus%2C+john%22&qt=facet_ap%3A2013 Jgc searchlight (talk) 15:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jgc searchlight (talk) 15:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Jgc searchlight: you refer to yourself in the plural, i.e., sources which we did not have the opportunity to present. This suggests that you are representing more than just yourself. Could you please describe who we is, and what, if any, connection you have to the topic of this article? Also, please disclose any WP:Conflict of interest you might have. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 11 March 2017 (UTC

The 'we' is Searchlight Press's editorial team. We are proud of our major project and glad to see it being cited in European journals, as well as being held in a growing number of academic libraries. Jgc searchlight (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Just read the COI policy, now duly noted. Let me rephrase my request to a 'Request for an independent article, with apologies where needed for this one. Jgc searchlight (talk) 17:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting that an article be written by a independent editor sounds like a good plan. The best place to make your request would probably be Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Social_sciences/Religion, but please be aware that requesting an article is not a guarantee that one will be written. And, be sure to mention your connection to the project when you make your request. Thank you for your understanding. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 March 2017[edit]

9 March 2017[edit]

  • GiveWell – Overturn G11, list at AfD. Opinion is split pretty much down the middle about whether the article was so hopelessly promotional that it needed to be deleted, or if it is possible, via reverting to some earlier version, major editing, and/or WP:TNT, to write a usable article on this subject. I could make a reasonable case for calling this No Consensus and letting the WP:CSD stand, but I think there's enough here to make it clear that the deletion was not uncontroversial (which is a requirement for CSD) so AfD is the right forum to make the decision. – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
GiveWell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This articles was speedy deleted (following G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion). The article was speedied by JzG (User talk:JzG) despite the fact that the article is quite high profile and extensively linked by other articles on WP, for the reason that substantial CoI editing occured on the article and some language of the article reads as puffery. JzG does not dispute that there should be an article on the topic, but I think he believes that we would be better off starting from scratch. Other commenters on his talk page think that it would be best to work with the problematic version of the article because much of the content is worth salvaging. I think WP is better off with the flawed version of the article than none at all, especially if we have a notice that the article is slanted. We should at least have a discussion about undeletion and that sooner rather than later. See the Google cached version of the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I think the CSD was wrong, because the article is not purely promotional, in fact it is not mostly puffery. — Charles Stewart (talk) 21:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So handy to have the google cached version! That article had become a bloated, terrible mess (really a webhost for the organization) and TNT was needed. If it were restored and moved to draft space I would be willing to revise it back to something like a WP article and move it to mainspace again. Jytdog (talk) 23:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Absolutely correct to delete the page — this type of page is exactly why G11 exists. That does not mean that the page cannot be recreated from other sources and with other content. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The G11 criterion says "This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional" This does not hold for this article — Charles Stewart (talk) 05:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 00:36, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In order to delete for puffery, wouldn't someone need to assert that all earlier versions of an article have this feature? That would be hard to believe, so doesn't it make much more sense to simply revert to a prior, non-puff version? (This is an honest question; I don't know the wikipedia law. I just was really surprised to find that the article had been deleted.) Otherwise, people could kill good articles they don't like by adding puffery to them, a la false-flag operations. This is all true even if someone thinks the article should be re-written from scratch. Re-writing the article is a lot easier if you can at least see the page history. Jess (talk) 23:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G11 did not apply because the page was not exclusively promotional. G11 also states "If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion." Note also that WP:TNT is neither a policy nor guideline. The actual policy is WP:IMPERFECT, "Even poor articles, if they can be improved, are welcome." Andrew D. (talk) 08:42, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore per Andrew Davidson. The article could certainly use work to make it more neutral, but it's not exclusively promotional. The topic is notable, and the article is far from unsalvageable; there's no need for TNT. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Restore the article. While it contained promotional content, the article also contained a well-referenced section on Givewell’s use of Astroturfing, thus the article certainly contains some non-promotional content and references. In such a case, G11 should not apply. The subject is notable. WP:STUBIFYing it down to a brief overview would not have been difficult. The article should be restored, then stubified and or taken to afd.Dialectric (talk) 15:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is no doubt that the entire tone and tenor of the article is promotional and well deserves to stay deleted. However, that is not the sole reason why I calling for this version of the article to be excised permanently. It is no secret that Givewell have been astroturfing for a decade and this is only the latest evidence that their blatant astroturfing continues. Although the page history is not visible to me, if I examine linked articles like Against Malaria Foundation and Schistosomiasis Control Initiative I notice a continuous pattern of systematic harassment of the dissenter formerly of their altruism group User:Lrieber who was reverted by group member User:Riceissa over diff with the edit summary please discuss on the talk page before removing large parts of the page. Despite attempting to discuss on the article talk page diff there was no discussion by 'Issarice' or 'Vipul' and their secretive paid / conflicted edits continued unabated. Something identical happened on Against Malaria Foundation. It is thereby clear that single volunteer unpaid editors with concerns about altruism linked promotional content (including myself) are generally getting pushed off by organised paid advocacy groups / 'cultists' to produce such blatantly NPOV and promotional paid articles. The content of the article is not the only criteria for retention if such strong-arm methods were used to achieve that content. Inlinetext (talk) 16:17, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Givewell had a single astroturfing incident a decade ago on a web forum; it has not "been astroturfing for a decade". It doesn't make any sense to say that only "paid advocacy groups" or "cultists" would protect extensive content on pages relevant to their interest or would miss talk page notices (make sure to tag editors so that they get a notification). Please assume good faith. K.Bog 18:11, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Looking at the article itself, nearly all the refs are to the goodwell site itself. We need independent sourcing. We do not need paid editors creating article while not disclosing on the articles talk page the fact that they were paid. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Characterizing the refs as ' nearly all... to the goodwell site'[sic] is misleading when there are more than 10 independent refs including the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, CBS, and books published by Oxford University Press and Random House. The excess links to givewell sources can be removed without losing what is clearly significant independent coverage.Dialectric (talk) 18:04, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I count 80 refs to GiveWell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:29, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A point of order wrt to the votes of Inlinetext and Doc James: Delete is not an appropriate vote for DRV. If you feel that the article should remain deleted, but that it is not a G11 CSD, then the appropriate vote would be List — Charles Stewart (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore I'd be perfectly willing to revise the article to be concise and neutral as soon as it is restored. It would not take much work. I'm worried that working in draft space would allow it to either languish in obscurity or lose too much from a non-collaborative edit process. (And before anyone asks, no, I'm not a "paid advocate" or something of the sort.) K.Bog 18:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm happy to provide any prior version to any editor in good standing who wants to try to write a non-spam version, but this was blatant advertorial and we should really not be bending over backwards to accommodate spammers. Guy (Help!) 19:13, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Agree with JzG's original determination and Jytdog's analysis here. The cached version looks like a brochure for the org with ridiculous sections like "funding gaps for top charities (along with comparison with actual money moved)". Could this be more promotional? "the article is quite high profile and extensively linked by other articles" are reasons to be especially strict with it, not less so. - Bri (talk) 20:05, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per Doc James. Nocturnalnow (talk) 23:21, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe the G11 reasoning was in error. Although some portions of the article did read as promotional, there was nonetheless a significant amount of NPOV content. Yes, it could do with some editing, but deleting the article is a step too far. A larger point to consider here is what I think the reasoning was for the deletion: JzG noticed (1) that the article had a number of edits from Vipul's group, which is currently under review at WP:ANI, and (2) that the article read as promotional in some sections. While this does warrant a closer look at the article, I don't believe it warrants an AfD nomination, let alone a speedy deletion. We have a clear list of all of Vipul's editors' usernames; it would be relatively easy to go into the article and remove unhelpful edits that came from his group. (For the record, I've donated to GiveWell in the past, which may constitute a COI, so I'm marking this as a comment only, even though I believe the appropriate action is to overturn.) — Eric Herboso 23:41, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Doc James, but for a limited time allow to restore to a draft with the SEO refs removed. If in, say, a few weeks we don't get independent, non-promotional refs, then delete the draft, too. El_C 00:00, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to AfD. CSDs are only appropriate if every single revision of the article fits the definition of the criteria (otherwise anyone could load up a stub with spam and get it deleted by stealth). I picked a random diff of the (now deleted) article from 2011 after a couple of experienced editors had been working on it. The first reasonable source I picked on was "New York Times : Founder of a Nonprofit Is Punished by Its Board for Engaging in an Internet Ruse" A well-respected source giving a negative account of an organisation is more or less the polar opposite of "blatant advertising". Additionally I notice the last revision of the article before deletion did not have a {{db-spam}} tag - in general, it is always better to tag and get another admin to delete to avoid any inadvertent self-bias (except for G3 / G10 / G12 where immediate deletion is paramount). If you want to get rid of this article, do it the proper way and send it off for a full deletion debate, which will settle the matter once and for all. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 00:07, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Here I have compiled nineteen third party sources of reputable media coverage of Givewell which were not in the original article.

[6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] K.Bog 00:46, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The least-effort solution to construct an NPOV article about the topic might be to just start over with what is found in that list of sources. —BarrelProof (talk) 20:06, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and immediately stubbify. Based on the descriptions of the article above it is not an unambiguous case, so G11 should not apply. VQuakr (talk) 04:50, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I've restored the article so that non-admins can examine the content and decide directly whether the G11 was valid. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:21, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
    • Additional Comment, per a request on my talk page I've also restored the article talk page. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Proposal: We move the current article to draftspace and restore the version there, create a stub for GiveWell in the mainspace and then those of us to believe that the draft version can be repaired work on it there. If and once the repair work is done to a degree that there is a consensus that the draft is better than the stub, we move it back. In the meantime we have a note at the top of the stub saying that there is a draft version of the article that is being worked upon. — Charles Stewart (talk) 14:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If anyone believes that the GiveWell entry should be deleted rather than improved or flagged, nomination followed by discussion by the wider community of Wikipedia editors is preferable (IMO) to the entry simply vanishing.--Davidcpearce (talk) 18:30, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The tone of the article was overly favorable and it was overly dependent on non-independent sourcing. But the article was also clearly salvageable, and should not have been subject to speedy deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 20:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I used to work at another internet community that was rampantly spammed and astroturfed by GiveWell employees many years back and I think the deletion of this article has merit. I do also agree with the proposal above that stubbifying and allowing people who feel some article should exist is a decent compromise. Jessamyn (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Speedy deletion seems clearly inappropriate. Restore the article, let editors improve it, and if there is still disatisfaction with the results nominate for deletion. Pablo Stafforini (talk) 05:16, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, stubify report potential problem editors to ANI I share the concerns raised by Inlinetext, that being said the group is still notable and deleting the article doesn't directly address the problems with other editors that should be surfaced and investigated. - Scarpy (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse The criterion for speedy deletion via G11 is whether or not the page can be improved by normal editing. If there;s just the matter of removing a little advertising, thats one thing,but if it take extensive rewriting, then it should be deleted. There is no acceptable earlier version. The versions before Vipul's editing are almost entirely negative, and the subsequent versions more in the nature of promotionalism. Neither form a suitable basis for an article. This is one of the clear cases where it is necessary to start over. The principal question is whether the deletion should gave been by G11or AfD, and personally I might have chosen afd, but JzF was not wrong to use G11. DGG ( talk ) 07:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, very happy to adopt DGG's rationale. Stifle (talk) 09:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. WP:TNT. The deleted article massively over-relied on non-independent sourcing. If someone wants to start again, let them understand that sources from goodwell, and sources including the word "blog", are unacceptable to use to build content. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Time to close this DRV? — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:02, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We usually try to give it seven clear days.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This boils down to how narrowly you interpret G11. There are two value judgments needed: "Exclusively" promotional, and "fundamentally" rewritten. I'm prepared to accept that in Guy's opinion it really was exclusively promotional and easier to start from scratch. I raise an eyebrow to see that Guy didn't choose to restore for a full discussion on polite request, and I would have preferred it if he had done that.—S Marshall T/C 19:28, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - A substantial article, which existed over eight years, that was not exclusively promotional as is required for WP:CSD#G11. WP:TNT is not a criteria for speedy deletion. Reverting to a past version may be due (e.g. this version definitely can't be called exclusively promotional). No prejudice against sending the article to articles for deletion. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 20:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn WP:Criteria for speedy deletion states, "Speedy deletion is intended to reduce the time spent on deletion discussions for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion." with a wiki-link to WP:Snowball clause.  WP:Snowball clause states, "The snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start."  The next sentence in WP:CSD states, "Administrators should take care not to speedy delete pages or media except in the most obvious cases."  The deleting admin states, "I couldn't tell easily how far back the problem went."  So delete to avoid work of analysis?  This was an out of process deletion.
    The talk page of the article is the forum to continue this discussion, especially the reasons for the two templates on the article which were added without talk page explanation.  I checked the edit history of the creator of the article, and I see nothing that indicates a COI.  Deletion discussions are for worthless articles that don't belong on Wikipedia, not for articles for which clean up is requested.  Unscintillating (talk) 14:52, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and stubify It does need to start over, but there are lots of useful sources and text in the history. Deleting it isn't the best way forward. Or if it is, it needs to go through AfD. There is enough there that's useful that it's a clear speedy case. Might also ban COI editors from the page. Hobit (talk) 16:48, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I proposed moving the current page to Draft and creating a new stub. That might be more practical, since it allows the draft to be refactored. — Charles Stewart (talk) 09:24, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore and send to afd - it's pretty bad and should probably be stubbified at least (maybe even TNTed) but it's hard to say that something is "obvious" when it's clearly controversial, even among experienced editors. It looks like there may be consensus to delete at afd. If so that'll have the added effect of carrying more weight if it's recreated. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 07:43, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The point of DRV is not to discuss the merits of the article but whether the deletion was correct. There is sufficient evidence here that this article did not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, so the deletion cannot stand. Especially since it's clear from this discussion that stub-ifying was possible and should have been done per WP:ATD. Whether the article should exist at all is a matter for discussion at AfD, not here. Regards SoWhy 10:30, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think less than 10% of the deleted article is of any value for rewriting. 90% will waylay a rewriter. I think that meets the wording of G11. Even the references, 90% are not to be reused. I recommend stripping the few useful references, excludes all givewell and blogs, and applying WP:TNT. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both the wording and the intent of the policy - as well as WP:ATD - are clear: If there is salvageable material, speedy deletion is not the correct way to go. Whether to apply WP:TNT (an essay) is a question for a deletion discussion, not DRV and not speedy deletion. Regards SoWhy 14:21, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and stubify. It looks like there was enough non-spammy material to make a decently sized stub, so it should be overturned and turned into a stub (or sent to AFD). Keeping the page history allows other editors to potentially rescue useful content and/or sources.---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 19:18, 16 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Kraftly (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm very confident that this page should not get deleted from Wiki, if editors feel that it looks like an advertising or promotional content then it can be modified and without any discussion, it was deleted. Tried to contact editors but it seems they are not interested in replying or not ready for any discussion. I request to include this page back to the wiki and allow me to do edits and make it helpful information for this community. All the sources mentioned on the page is from independent and reliable sources and not paid PR. Raghavhere (talk) 07:42, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide the top three (no more) reliable sources that you would cite if the article were undeleted. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Kindly check the reliable sources for Kraftly from here, here and here.Raghavhere (talk) 08:01, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for replying. I have assessed the sources provided and they appear to me to be regurgitation of press releases of the company, rather than substantial editorial. This isn't going to pass WP:RS. I therefore suggest the article should remain deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This article was discussed here and than deleted based on consensus.
User:Raghavhere also needs to disclose their connection to the topic in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:58, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion based on the AFD, where consensus was unanimous. I wouldn't be opposed to an article on the topic if it were rewritten from scratch not to look like an advertisement. Also agree with the comments above wanting to know if the author of the article has a connection with this company. Lankiveil (speak to me) 08:17, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 March 2017[edit]

7 March 2017[edit]

  • Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport – Restore and send to AfD. I could probably close this as no consensus to overturn, but factoring in User:SwisterTwister's AfC acceptance as a tacit opinion that it would probably survive AfC, (and, I'll admit, my generally hard-line view of marginal WP:CSD calls), I'm going to toss this onto the WP:AfD heap. If it ends up getting deleted there, at least we'll have a cleaner community consensus on the issue, and the only cost will be another week of discussion. There's clearly no consensus here on the validity of the AfD close itself; people made valid points on both sides of that argument. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Godfathers of MMA: The Birth of An American Sport (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The new page was accepted through Articles for Creation by uninvolved editor User:SwisterTwister. The new page had been updated with lot of new references. Still it was speedy deleted without looking at the page only because content was same. Content had no problem in deletion but references were requested and references are added and accepted by AFC. Check my user talk page for acceptance note. I request wiki community to review and undelete now more references are available and presented in new entry that was deleted. Mietusr (talk) 07:57, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • restore and send to AfD. The version deleted at AfD had three sections with 21 references, the version speedily deleted had four sections with 36 references. I'm not sure that the added content is enough to demonstrate the significant coverage the AfD determined was lacking, but this is something that needs examining in a discussion as it was not a substantially identical repost and not eligible for G4 speedy deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 12:36, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The speedied version was word-for-word identical (except for a search-and-replace of the book title and renaming the fourth section) to this earlier version of the article deleted at AFD. The final version of the AFD deleted article appears to have fewer references only because they were named and combined, instead of simply repeated. You don't get around an AFD result by reverting everyone else's changes to your article and then reposting it. —Cryptic 13:30, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No sir, I added new references in 2017. Content was not problem notability was the problem. I felt notability had increased and I did not go around other people I called uninvolved editor to review and publish and that was accepted. [25] Are you able to review the new references I added? All of them are not "uncombined" references. There are new ones. It will be fair that every one examines the article again, not just administrators. I vote for undeleting the article. --Mietusr (talk) 16:22, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and send to AfD per Thryduulf. I can't see the content, but the description above makes it absolutely clear that G4 was not appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 05:09, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Jclemens: temp undeleted for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note from deleting admin: I won't voice a yes or no in this review but I do want to point out that the newly deleted article was almost identical to the original. Yes, there were more references but they still don't prove that this self-published book is notable, which was the main issue raised in the original AfD. In addition, almost all of the reliable citations in the original article are repeated in the new article. The problem, as discussed in the original AfD, is these reliable references aren't specifically about the book itself, as seen in this Pittsburgh Post Gazette article which only mentions the book in passing a single time yet is cited 5 times in the article which was deleted. Add in that many of the other new references are not to reliable sources, that the article is nearly identical in copy to the one from the AfD, and that the article's title was changed in a possible attempt to keep people from knowing it was the same article as from the AfD, and the reason I speedy deleted it should be obvious.--SouthernNights (talk) 21:27, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Cryptic's analysis. So far as I can tell, to the extent that new sources/references were added to the deleted text, they predominantly dealt with the subject of the book, not the book itself, and therefore had no bearing on the book's notability. The only nontrivial exception seems to be a brief and cursory review in a local "lifestyle" magazine of marginal notability itself. I'm also troubled by the fact that the most tenable claim of notability, that the book was the basis for a potentially notable film, is referenced to sources which simply say nothing of the kind. Gcache of the just-deleted version can be seen here.[26] I do see room to create a redirect to Bill Viola Jr without restoring the text at issue here. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 21:45, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 March 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eiko Shimamiya (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

See User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus#Eiko Shimamiya for the full story, but in a nutshell, I feel that the original AfD did not take into account Japanese sources such as this and this (note that Barks.jp is conisdered a reliable source for Japanese music information). In addition, it appears that it was not considered that she probably passes some of the criteria listed at WP:NMUSIC, particularly criteria #5 and #10. In case the consensus is not to overturn the AfD consensus, I would suggest a merge to I've Sound, the musical group she used too belong to.

Additional sources I have found include this, this, this, this, and [27], among others. Sources were surprisingly hard to find, but I was able to find sources with some digging. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:39, 6 March 2017 (UTC) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:27, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not want to oppose review, but I do want to make one small correction: As I explained in some detail in the admin user talk page linked above and even mentioned in the original AfD nom, WP:NMUSIC was explicitly taken into consideration. It could only appear to be otherwise by a failure to read thoroughly. Thank you. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • She ranks in Oricon for multiple solo albums [28] as well as singles [29] so she meets WP:MUSICBIO #2: "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart." And not barely like some supposed artists. Her highest ranking is #12 for single [30] , and #27 for album [31], that isn't a collaboration on an anime soundtrack or I've Sound success. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The editors who took part in the AFD clearly did not apply WP:MUSICBIO to Shimamiya, because if they had, they would have easily seen that at the very least she satisfies criteria 5 (she has two albums on NBCUniversal Entertainment Japan) and 10 (she has performed music for various notable anime such as Higurashi When They Cry), not to mention criteria 6 because she was at one time a member of I've Sound.--十八 20:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, with no prejudice against anyone nominating the article for AFD again if they still think it should be deleted. The AFD close correctly interpreted the consensus, but the consensus was based in part on her failing WP:NMUSIC when the sources presented here show that she instead passes WP:NMUSIC. I think there is a good chance the article would be kept if it was taken to AFD again with these sources pointed out. Calathan (talk) 06:39, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore. I do not understand how this could possibly fail WP:MUSICBIO. AfD is failing if articles like this are being unanimously deleted. —Xezbeth (talk) 10:55, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If AfD is failing, any other editor is perfectly free to schlep on by and lend their voice towards fixing it. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:09, 11 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Maria Jose De Toro Saiz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non-admin closed as no-consensus when after two renominations it did not get any comments. Should have been closed as a delete as there was no objections per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closure #2. DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 6 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Thomas Oberhofer (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Non-admin closed as no-consensus when after two renominations it did not get any comments. Should have been closed as a delete as there was no objections per Wikipedia:Non-admin closure#Appropriate closure #2. DJSasso (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm intrigued. You're a sysop; you have standing to unilaterally overturn Becky Sales' close. Why haven't you? Are you unsure of what you say?—S Marshall T/C 17:46, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the one who nominated it. It would be a conflict for me to delete my own nomination. If the closer was another admin I would have just asked them to reconsider, but being that it was a non-admin this seemed the only place I could go to get it done without having to renominate it. -DJSasso (talk) 18:25, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, yes I see. I tend to think another sysop will come along and just overturn it without the need for a full discussion.—S Marshall T/C 19:53, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 March 2017[edit]

  • DaBryan Blanton – Restore. No fault with the original AfD close, there's simply information found here that wasn't presented in the original discussion. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DaBryan Blanton (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deleted in 2012 for not meeting WP:NTRACK, but point (7) of that very notability guideline says "has at any time held a world or continental record (including world junior records, world youth bests and masters age-group world records) ratified or noted by the appropriate official body". Blanton held the World Youth Best over 200 metres until Usain Bolt eclipsed his mark in 2003 [32]. I don't know if this point (7) in the guidelines is new (just checked, point (7) existed back in May 2012, not sure why that wasn't picked up by anybody, including myself), but it clearly establishes notability per WP:NTRACK now, so I ask to restore the article. bender235 (talk) 16:18, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore - agree that we missed that dusing the afd. --Whpq (talk) 18:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow restore. New information that the 5-year-old AfD didn't consider. This a slam dunk if ever I saw one.—S Marshall T/C 21:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy restore, common sense. Stifle (talk) 09:47, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Menemen-İzmir bus – No consensus to overturn the decision, which is therefore endorsed by default. The nominator is reminded to follow the full procedure before listing any future DRVs. – Stifle (talk) 09:32, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Menemen-İzmir bus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Insufficient discussion: @Czar: Most local sources (news, local people etc.) I found about this route mentions violence of private minibuses. Izmir is not a capital city, however, it has a very dense urban transport network in its city center(Turkey's capital, Ankara, has a very sparse bus network not mentioned enough, İstanbul, the largest city of Turkey, has a denser one). It should be begun by some route and I chose the most notable one to begin with. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 09:41, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - Firstly, Erkinalp9035, I don't see anywhere where you've spoken to the deleting admin, which is what you're supposed to do before coming to DRV, and secondly, the deletion was spot on correct. Fails WP:GNG. Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:02, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Overturn and keep or userfy - [33], along the other sources, mention about violence and rule-ignoring behavior of these private minibuses. Erkinalp9035 (talk) 09:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Kurykh: as a courtesy Class455 (talk|stand clear of the doors!) 17:04, 5 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Endorse There was clear consensus in the AfD to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 12 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:PD-ARGov (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This was deleted back in 2011 as "housekeeping" but is a valid licensing template that needs to exist in order to ensure that files that happen to be uploaded directly to enwiki have the correct licensing tag. It should be similar to the Commons version. --Majora (talk) 22:51, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page has only ever been a redirect to {{Di-no license}}. I don't remember the original reason for deletion, and I don't have a problem with you re-creating it as a license tag. -FASTILY 23:59, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Fastily: Thanks for taking a look. I ported over the Commons version since it was never the same anyways. This can be closed. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 March 2017[edit]

  • Gailen David – Endorse. This is a little frustrating to close because it's not entirely clear what's being asked for here. It's clear that there's consensus here to endorse the original AfD. What's not clear is what to do with Draft:Gailen David. I think what was being asked for was for this draft be moved to mainspace (even though the proposer didn't know the right jargon to ask for that clearly). The people who contributed to this review didn't address the draft directly, but reading between the lines, I'll say that there's also no consensus to move that to mainspace. Beyond that, if somebody thinks the draft is so bad that it should be deleted, I'll leave it to them to bring the draft to AfD where it can be discussed properly. – -- RoySmith (talk) 22:52, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gailen David (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I have a COI declared on my userpage and in every edit summary. I believe I have created a reasonably NPOV article on this subject. Draft:Gailen David

I request that the article at least be relisted for AfD because the subject no longer qualifies under WP:BLP1E as he is not a WP:LOWPROFILE. (Actually, never qualified per several interviews and television appearances which included CNN, NPR, ABC, NBC, and now television show that is in national syndicaton.)

Note: I am not quite sure this is the right thing to request. However, the deleting Admin requested I go through DRV. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 10:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Could Spartaz please go over the reason for deletion again? I have no skin in this game, but I'll be darned if I can understand what was written to a certitude. Thanx. Tapered (talk) 01:46, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What I have created is a new article. I have no idea what the content of the original article is. I only offer my article for relisting on AfD before acceptance as a further peer-review. —አቤል ዳዊት?(Janweh64) (talk) 03:49, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted for being self promotional and the available sources overly dwelled on negative matters that would not be balanced. I requested a drv as we appear to have another promotional article - well paid for anyway. Spartaz Humbug! 09:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Appropriate deletion. NOTNEWS, and promotional. DGG ( talk ) 09:52, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, appropriate call for the AFD discussion, and looking at the article itself the arguments made in the AFD discussion were reasonable. As the closing admin points out, there is no prejudice against an article on the same topic being created, so long as it doesn't read like an advertisement. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:13, 11 March 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 March 2017[edit]

  • Wayne Dupree – Limited discussion, but nobody supports the review request, so deletion endorsed by default. –  Sandstein  10:51, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wayne Dupree (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This request for review is being made, without prejudice, on behalf of an inexperienced editor, Cllgbksr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who wishes to appeal against the deletion of the article on several grounds. It's probably best to simply give: (1) a link to his comments to Bishonen the deleting admin, on her talk page, requesting reconsideration; and (2) a link to the article (now temporarily undeleted by 'Shonen) just prior to deletion. RexxS (talk) 17:13, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting a review of deletion of the Wayne Dupree article based on following reasons:

(1) After the page was nominated for deletion, multiple articles were added, most notable the article [34]. The author, Frances Rice: "is a lawyer and retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel who was awarded the Legion of Merit. She was designated as one of “America's Top 100 Black Business and Professional Women” by the editorial board of Dollars and Sense magazine. Currently, she is chairman of the National Black Republican Association, as well as a screenwriter and producer of documentaries with Block Starz Music Television LLC, a company she co-founded."

(2) The Newsmax article names Dupree in the same group as Dr. Ben Carson, Clarence Thomas, Karl Malone, Alveda King niece of Martin Luther King Jr to name a few...

(3) The author Frances Rice further wrote: "The people who made Newsmax’s 50 Most Influential African-American Republicans list this year went beyond just being recognized personalities. They actively promote the Republican Party’s rich civil rights legacy and agenda for delivering prosperity, security, and freedom for every neighborhood in America, thereby, enhancing the party’s image."

(4) Dupree receives coverage in his ranking paragraph (small bio).

(5) While recently searching social media on Dupree, was surprised to stumble on the nominating AfD editor, who basically said never intended for Dupree to go to deletion, and a consensus had been made before the Newsmax article was posted. [35]

I'm asking that this article be considered again and that it is suitable for WP. Cllgbksr (talk) 19:27, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment This seems to be just rehashing the arguments in the AFD. I was watching the discussion to the end, but none of the sources added provided any substantial coverage so there was no reason to comment further after my initial !vote. SmartSE (talk) 14:12, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Please note, none of the above claims to notability reference any of Wikipedia's guidelines, especially the fact that all of Dupree's mentions in reliable sources are brief and secondary to the content of the sources, as per significant coverage. The Newsmax mention is the most significant, but it still doesn't meet the criteria for journalists at Wikipedia. Note that I 'voted' for "Redirect," but now change that to WP:TOOSOON. Tapered (talk) 00:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation Ran a keyword search on WP using "liberal radio host" and found [36]. Thinly sourced. First reference is a "404 no record found". [37]. Why does that article pass muster but Dupree's doesn't?Cllgbksr (talk) 15:06, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • You really ought to have a look at the essay WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, particularly Plenty of articles exist that probably should not. Equally, a lot of articles do not exist that probably should. Therefore, just pointing out that an article on a similar subject exists does not prove that the article in question should also exist; it is quite possible that the other article should also be deleted but nobody has noticed it. If I had to take a guess, I'd say that Goldman came to notice as a broadcaster over 10 years ago, and has some claim to notability as a lawyer as well. He's just been around longer. I agree it's thin stuff, even with 10+ years of potential coverage, but the question of whether Norman Goldman would survive an AfD debate is simply off-topic for this DRV. HTH --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In support of review Per WP:BASIC "if depth-of-coverage is not substantial, then multiple less-than-substantial independent sources may be needed to prove notability". It re-states that coverage "must be more than trivial and must be reliable". to wit: The Newsmax article gives Dupree coverage in his ranking slot bio [38] + Breitbart article [39](Dupree headlines article, more than trivial mention) + Dupree's appearances on CNN, MSNBC and FOXN [40], [41], [42],[43], all "multiple less than substantial sources", all combined per WP:BASIC, establish Duprees notability. Cllgbksr (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation There is a significant in quotes misquote/misrepresentation of WP:BASIC in the above. The actual quote is, "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." "Less than substantial" is interpolated into the text.@Cllgbksr: @RexxS: **Tapered (talk) 05:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correction @Tapered: @RexxS: I should have copy/pasted it in instead of typing it in. My mistake. When considering "In support of review", please apply the standard from WP:BASIC "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability." to articles/multiple cable network appearances mentioned. Cllgbksr (talk) 16:45, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation @Cllgbksr: Aspirin logic: two aspirin are good, twenty aspirin must be great = Trouble. Analogously, multiple insignificant/trivial mentions ≠ significance. In none of the articles is Dupree close to main subject of the article. He needs qualitatively different coverage. When and if that happens, his article will belong. Until then, WP:TOOSOON IMO. Tapered (talk) 23:36, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation@Tapered: @RexxS: Not getting the aspirin analogy. Even looked for that analogy in WP... Couldn't find it. Going to redirect to policy WP:Basic "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability.". The Newsmax and Breitbart articles are more than trivial mentions and apply. Cllgbksr (talk) 01:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Analogous was the wrong word, needed to read "Conversely." Here goes Just because 2 of something is good, doesn't mean 20 of something is. 20 can be dangerous—as per aspirin. "Conversely," if 1 of something is insignificant, 20 of something will (likely) not be significant. I just went through all the references. The most significant mentions were a paragaph in the NYTimes and in CNN. Everything else is insignificant. Two slightly significant mentions don't = "multiple" in this context. He'd need a bunch more. I hope you can see that. WP:TOOSOON. Tapered (talk) 02:01, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:N and especially the GNG have a number of ambiguities and confusions. For example, the current wording of the sentence in bold above is inherently contradictory to the basic meaning of the GNG. The basis for the GNG, is that the outside world thinks the subject notable, as shown by outside sources that have considered the subject worthy of encyclopedic coverage, and therefore the subject belongs in an encyclopedia. That any number of sources have not considered the subject worthy of encyclopedic coverage but just of mentions, does not show that the outside world considers the subject notable. The proper use of that provision is to say that to some extent multiple sources can make up for technical deficiencies in meeting the requirement, thus giving the rule a certain amount of flexibility; I think this is similar to Tapered's explanation above. (my own personal view is that the GNG is fatally contradictory in several ways: internally, in its relation to the SNGs and other factors which we use to decide; in compatibility with common sense; in accomplishing balance; and in suitability for an encyclopedia that it should be thrown out and started over, just as we would do with any equally confused article. This view unfortunately does not have general support. So the best I can do is work within its limits and aim at some approximation with reality.) DGG ( talk ) 10:25, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathise with David's views, but have a slightly different take on them. I believe that the coverage of a subject in any given source lies on a spectrum from "barest mention" to "full article devoted to them", with many sources falling somewhere between the two. However, I also believe that if we are going to accept that several articles in which the coverage is middling add up to one which has full coverage, we also have to have a "cut-off" point, below which these sources don't count at all. In other words, even a thousand tweets that simply mention a name don't count towards fulfilling GNG, while four or five articles that have a few paragraphs about the subject are roughly as indicative of notability as a single article about her/him/it. I accept that where the cut-off point is placed will have to be subjective, but I think having one is the only way to make sense of our current policy in the light of the explosion of social media. --RexxS (talk) 11:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
we do not fundamentally disagree--it's a question of degree and interpretation; there can be more than one reasonable opinion, and the only way to decide is by consensus at the discussion of the individual article. DGG ( talk ) 03:48, 8 March 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 following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:AMD Radeon RX 5xxM (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Please delete this page per WP:CRYSTAL. Thanks.   #FF9600  talk 18:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

2 March 2017[edit]

  • Jon Ossoff – There is no consensus here to either overturn the AfD to NC or to relist it -- but regardless of the arguments about the AfD closure, the result seems pretty uncontroversial: the article stays as is, especially in light of post-AfD sustained coverage in mainstream media. NPASR but do take in the new sourcing first – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 15:47, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jon Ossoff (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
This was closed by NuclearWarfare as:

"The result was Keep. Recall that WP:NPOL is only a guideline; it has been well-demonstrated in this discussion (and consensus has been reached) that this individual meets the general notability guidelines.)"[44].

However of the twelve !votes eight called for deletion or redirection and protection of the page with most explicitly citing the subject failing NPOL. Of the four who said the subject met GNG one was the SPA author [45] and two were accounts which had not edited in the past year [46] [47]. Even discounting this there is no way, I can see, to read the consensus at this AfD as discounting NPOL resulting in Keep nor for the subject independently meeting GNG, which was explicitly rejected in several of the !votes and in extensive discussion with those claiming he passed GNG.

I asked NW about this yesterday [48] however he has not edited since closing the AfD and does not seem to be very active [49] Jbh Talk 13:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • In case it is not clear, my opinion is that the consensus, as it stood at the time of closing, was to redirect to the campaign article and full protect it. That outcome, or reopening the AfD is what I think would be appropriate outcomes here. Jbh Talk 15:24, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The only way to close this as delete would be to vote-count, which is not what you're supposed to do. The keep close makes perfect sense if you observe that most of the deletes came before Modern_seneca introduced a number of good sources; full-length articles in mainstream media which are substantially about Ossoff. If I were closing this, I might have opted to relist it with the comment that new sources had been introduced and I wanted to give people a chance to evaluate those sources better. But, the existing close is perfectly fine. What does concern me is that Modern_seneca, the primary author of the article, is an obvious WP:SPA (contribution history), and presumably somebody associated with the candidate, and thus there's obvious WP:COI issues. Not to mention the spammy tone of the article. But, the bottom line is sources, we seem to have more than enough WP:RS to pass muster, and NuclearWarfare did a good job of reading and evaluating the discussion rather than just counting noses . Full disclosure: my political leanings are to support Ossoff's party. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Hobit's comment below, I've struck my endorsement. All the stuff about WP:COI, WP:CANVASS, and WP:SPAs, while valid, is besides the point. All that really matters is the sourcing, and as Hobit points out, the best course of action is to relist to allow for a better evaluation of those sources. I'd urge that the existing discussion be re-opened, rather than starting a new one, and that the remit to the discussants be explicit that evaluating the sources is the key task. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I agree with Hobit that it is strange that after not having closed an AfD in over three years (as far as I can tell, December 2013), the closer chose this particular discussion to get back into AfD closing. I'd be interested to hear from @NuclearWarfare: why this AfD? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've gone back to endorsing the original close. The NY Times has front-page coverage of Ossoff this morning. If there was any doubt about the sourcing, this should settle the matter. I suppose one could still make an argument about whether the close, at the time, was correct, but I don't see any possible way this could fail at AfD now, so sending it back there for another week of discussion would be silly. Yes, I know, just being a candidate for office doesn't automatically make you notable, but candidates for house seats in Georgia don't usually make the front page of the NY Times either. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:33, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And, some additional coverage I see over the past few days in major national media:
-- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Vote count, while not dispositive is however indicative of the views of the participants in the AfD. There was considerable discussion by Bearcat about the added sources, as well as five of the eight redirect/delete !votes being made after Modern seneca's comments/additions. Discounting !votes because they did not bludgeon the AfD !votes, particularly when the issues are already being addressed by a well known editor and admin seems odd. I, as one of the two three !votes before Modern Senica certainly did not change my mind - I would have noted it in the discussion, (as I modified my !vote to "no objection to redirect if full protected" after Modern Seneca's additions) if I had and AGF requires that we assume that the others would have as well. Jbh Talk 14:47, 2 March 2017 (UTC) Last edited: 14:55, 2 March 2017 (UTC) [reply]
While there is an arguement to be made that he passes GNG even if the coverage is merely typical campaign coverage, there was clearly no consensus that that was the case. If NW felt the sources presented by MS were sufficient to Keep per GNG then they should !voted based on that not super-vote via closing. The delete/redirect !votes were based on good faith interpretations of Wikipedia's content guidelines and can not be discounted by the closer simply because they disagree with those interpretations. Jbh Talk 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also likely that it is someone not connected with the campaign but excited about the candidate. This is getting a lot of attention within liberal circles. As such, it might be a good idea to welcome the editor, provide some guidance of WP policies, and encourage him to take part in a wider range of pages. Casprings (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse-Note: Voted Keep in the discussion He is getting national attention and will continue to so. This is the first competitive election after a strange and historic Presidential election. He has already received an extremely large amount of money and support. When we look back in 10 years, the election and the major candidates will likely have historical importance. It will be seen as the first time the results of the 2016 Presidential election were tested. Beyond those arguments, he (and not just the campaign) is getting national coverage and that coverage clearly meets WP:N. All of that said, if the decision is to overturn and delete, could we move it to Draft:Jon Ossoff instead? I would likely bring this back up if he won the April 18th primary and may like to edit and further prep the article. Casprings (talk) 15:31, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to express a formal opinion one way or the other in this DRV, because I was an active participant in the original discussion. I'm perfectly willing to abide by a properly formulated and unequivocally clear consensus that differs from my own personal opinions — but what I'm not seeing in this discussion is any basis for arguing that a keep consensus actually exists here. However, I do want to raise a few points in response to RoySmith above.
    Firstly, of the four keep votes in the discussion, two are from editors who had been dormant for a year or more before coming back specifically to vote keep in this discussion. I've been around Wikipedia long enough to know that's usually indicative of a conflict of interest and/or off-wiki canvassing — if former Wikipedians who have been largely absent from the project for that long come back just for an AFD that they had no organic reason to even know about in the first place because they weren't here, that suggests manipulation rather than honest consensus. Besides the article creator himself, we have only one other keep vote here that came from an active contributor — and since the creator himself is also an SPA with a potential conflict of interest, that means there's only one keep vote in the entire discussion that actually earns the benefit of the doubt on whether or not it's tainted by COI or canvassing concerns.
    Secondly, while it's true that there are sources present in the article, what we don't have is the depth or volume of coverage it takes to make an as yet unelected candidate for office notable because candidate per se. Media coverage of all elections always exists, and therefore no candidate for anything would ever fail GNG if "some coverage of the campaign exists" were all it took — rather, it's a longstanding principle of AFD that such coverage falls under WP:ROUTINE, and a candidate does not clear the GNG bar on the basis of campaign coverage alone. It's not enough to just show that "the campaign got coverage", because all campaigns always get coverage — for a candidate to clear the GNG bar despite not satisfying NPOL yet, what needs to be shown is that either (a) he was already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason besides the candidacy alone, or (b) the coverage has exploded to a volume wildly out of proportion to what would be expected to exist, such as what happened to Christine O'Donnell in 2010. But neither of those conditions is being met here: the coverage is not showing that he would have passed any notability criterion before becoming a candidate, and there's only a fraction as much coverage being shown here as there is in O'Donnell's article (which has 166 footnotes in it.) The volume of coverage shown here would be expected to exist in any election for any office; it is not showing that he's more notable than the norm for a not-yet-elected candidate for political office.
    There's a longstanding consensus that a politician does not get into Wikipedia just for being a candidate for office in and of itself — campaign coverage of all elections always exists, so every candidate for any office at all would always clear GNG if campaign coverage alone were enough, and NPOL would be entirely disemboweled. But NPOL is intentionally designed to prevent Wikipedia from turning into nothing more than a hosting platform for aspiring officeholders' campaign brochures — which is precisely why the routine and expected level of campaign coverage is not enough in and of itself to make a candidate's article keepable if there's no other evidence of notability besides the campaign coverage itself. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It isn't routine for a congressional candidate to raise this much money in such a short amount of time, for the opposition to have a $1 million ad buy this early in a safe district, or for this level of national coverage. These should indicate that this is not a "normal" environment and we should use subjective judgment to allow the article to remain.Casprings (talk) 16:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The amount of money a candidate happens to raise has no bearing on notability at all — it is entirely possible for an underfunded candidate to win the election, and for a much more well-funded candidate to lose. Special elections always generate media coverage, and the first one after a presidential election, which is happening because of a vacancy caused by the cabinet selection of an incumbent officeholder, always sees a funding bump from the opposing party's base to maximize their chances of taking a seat away from the governing party — elections in these circumstances pretty much always turn into an unofficial proxy for recontesting the presidential election. This is no different from the first special election in 2009 after an Obama cabinet pick created a Congressional vacancy, or the first one in 2001 after a Bush cabinet pick did the same — it speaks to the notability of the election itself, not the separate standalone notability of every individual candidate within it. Bearcat (talk) 17:21, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Along with Bearcat, I am not going to take a formal position on the DRV as an active participant in the AfD, but I did not and do not understand the closer's reasoning for the close, especially this comment "and consensus has been reached." While there were some keep votes suggesting that the subject's name had been mentioned in national articles, my sense of the discussion was that most participants believed the subject should be redirected into the appropriate election article, with allowance for recreation if the subject won his election or the subject, and not the race, receives coverage outside of the norm. Each AfD needs to be evaluated on its own merits, but in general, the AfDs regarding political candidates usually end up as a delete or a redirect, and that campaigns are treated as WP:ONEEVENT. --Enos733 (talk) 17:33, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a crazy-hard case. We've got COI issues, sources added after some of the discussion, and GNG vs SNG. The COI issues weigh in favor of deletion. The sources, of course, help with the keep argument. The GNG vs SNG leans heavily toward the keep side because the SNG in this case, makes it _really_ plain that meeting the GNG is enough, so there really isn't a conflict. The discussion of the sources in counting toward the GNG is really limited. Relist to get a better sense of what people feel about the sources meeting the GNG. The relist should include something of the form "it's agreed he doesn't meet WP:NPOL 1 or 2, but does he meet the GNG (NPOL 3)?" On that basis we can reach close. I feel that the AfD closer substituted their own opinion about the sources in place of the lack of consensus found in this discussion. NC is also tempting, but my sense is that a properly directed discussion will likely reach consensus on the sources meeting the GNG or not. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I've looked a bit more closely and I'm going to change to overturn to delete on the basis of SPA/COI issues in the AfD.
      • Modern_seneca is a pure SPA who has only contributed on the topic of Jon Ossoff.
      • Jkfp2004 has only one contribution since 2015 other than contributing to this AfD.
      • Nuujinn has only a handful of contributions since 2015, all on the topic of Jon Ossoff.
      • Casprings has contributed more broadly, but as far as I can tell, solely on the topic of American politics.
Also, this is the only AfD the closer has closed since at least 2013 if I'm reading that history correctly. This whole thing seems very problematic to me. That is everyone !voting to keep and the closer who seem either to be a SPA or otherwise getting involved in a way that they haven't for more than a year. @RoySmith: could you take another look at this AfD with that context in mind and see if that changes your thoughts on the right outcome here? Hobit (talk) 14:19, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should probably be a overturn to redirect and protect or some such, but the basic theme is that I think this AfD had enough problems on the keep side that the only proper reading of the discussion is to remove the article. Hobit (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: These argument seem ad hominem to me. THe fact remains that multiple WP:RS of national scope and outside of the local media market are commenting on many aspects of the race. This ranges from the amount of money raised, the opposition becoming involved at a National level very early, etc, etc, etc. Some sources below:

I understand the desire of other editors to view this as simply another person running in another special election. That said, much like the Scott Brown race in 2008, sometimes things have greater WP:N and the people involved in them have greater WP:N because of what that event represents to people. It isn't up to editors to decide what is WP:N. It is up to them to objectively review the coverage in WP:RS and make a judgment based on the circumstances. It shouldn't be a cookie cutter. @Hobit:, you are correct that I have contributed a lot to American Politics. That is where my interests are. However, should my logic and argument be discounted because of that? Should the others? The sources and coverage are the sources and coverage, despite who is pointing that out.Casprings (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The place to make arguements about sources, notability, keep/delete is at the AfD if it is re-opened. The purpose of this review is to determine if consensus was properly judged by the closer. Jbh Talk 18:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If the rationale to overturn this is that keep arguments were from SPI/COI accounts, it is worth noting that: 1. The evidence and arguments are still valid. 2. There isn't good rationale to overturn this based on where the keep votes come from. Moreover, new sources are also important to this discussion. WP:N changes. Even if it wasn't WP:N at the closure of the delection discussion, continued national coverage shows it may be now. What is the logic for ignoring gathering evidence that this meets WP:N?Casprings (talk) 01:07, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Scott Brown, for the record, was not deemed to have any special notability because of the 2010 special senate election in Massachusetts per se; he was an actual officeholder in the state legislature before running in the special election, so he already had an article on that basis anyway. If he had not, and the election campaign itself was the first that anybody had ever actually heard of him, then no, he would not have gotten a Wikipedia article prior to winning the election. The reason he already had an article before winning the election, in other words, is because he had already passed WP:NPOL as a holder of a notable office — he did not get an article for the fact of being a candidate in and of itself. Bearcat (talk) 17:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think that the discussion shows a Keep consensus. The argument for deletion is a bit more subtle than asserting that an unelected candidate for office can't be notable through the GNG. It's that the coverage the candidate has received is routine for someone in that position, and we don't consider that people in that position are typically notable. It is a well established function of SNGs to interpret the standard of the GNG for that topic area. Also note that most of the people who didn't want to keep the article wanted to redirect it rather than delete it, indicating that they thought the subject was best covered in the context of the election rather than as a standalone article. Even if some subject does meet our notability guidelines that doesn't necessarily mean we have to have a standalone article on them. Given that I don't think it's fair to discount the Delete/Redirect arguments.
    If the discussion had to be closed in that state I'd go with No Consensus, but as pointed out above there are reasons to think the discussion wasn't satisfactory - not enough evaluation of the sources and the fact that several of the participants may have been canvassed. Therefore I'll suggest a relist. Hut 8.5 20:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Jbh For the moment, this subject meets WP:N, as I see it. However, if he's not elected to Congress, I suggest that you watch the article, keep track of his notoriety, and then make a redirect to to the article for the Congressional district, if notoriety fades. Tapered (talk) 06:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tapered: please read WP:NOTTEMPORARY. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Tapered: We are not discussing the subject's notability here but rather whether the closer of the AfD properly rest the existing consensus of the AfD discussion. My assertion is, regardless of whatever the conclusion about the subject's notability may end up being, that there was no consensus at the AfD to Keep the article nor was there any consensus, as claimed by the closer, that the subject passes GNG and that NPOL, POLOUTCOMES, ROUTINE and BLP1E should be ignored. Jbh Talk 16:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith and Jbhunley: Please review WP:DRVPURPOSE, #3, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." Continued national coverage such as New Yorker:CAN THIS DEMOCRAT WIN THE GEORGIA SIXTH? again points to the growing argument that he is WP:N. New and relevant information is absolutely relevant to this discussion.Casprings (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of an election race is expected to keep going until election day, because that's the very nature of the beast. So that happening does not constitute "significant new information" that would change the notability equation here; it still does not bolster a WP:GNG claim in advance of his winning the election. What would need to be shown to satisfy DRVPURPOSE #3 is new evidence that either (a) he already had more preexisting notability before the candidacy than the original version of the article had shown, or (b) the coverage suddenly exploded to Christine O'Donnell proportions, such that the number of sources that could be cited was much closer to the 166 footnotes that are present in O'Donnell's article than to the just 19 that are present here. The fact that the coverage of the election campaign simply kept chugging along at exactly the normal and routine volume and pace it's supposed to appear at, does not confer improved notability on a candidate who's simply generating the volume and pace of election coverage that would be routinely expected to exist for all candidates in all elections. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Coverage of house candidates from Georgia don't normally appear on the front page of the NY Times. Again, at what point is the new information significant and relevant? NY Times: A Democrat in Conservative Georgia Rides Opposition to Trump
As I've pointed out before, there are only two ways in which a candidate for office gets a Wikipedia article without having to win the election first: either (a) you can show improved WP:RS evidence that he was already notable enough for an article for some other reason (e.g. already having held another notable office, or passing our notability standards in another field of activity entirely) before becoming a candidate, or (b) the coverage of his candidacy explodes to Christine O'Donnell proportions. Neither of those has been shown here, and we do not have to revisit this or reevaluate the case for includability every time one more new source comes along. Again, our core notability test is will people still need this information ten years from now, not who happens to be newsy today — if he wins the election, he'll obviously pass the ten-year test, but if he loses it people in 2027 are not still going to be looking for information about him. As I've said before, if campaign coverage were all it took to get an as yet unelected candidate for office over GNG in and of itself, then we would always have to keep an article about everybody who ever ran in but lost any election at all — because media coverage of all elections always exists, and the volume of coverage being shown here is simply not out of proportion to what would be expected to exist. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Discussion was catastrophically overrun by COI editors and people who just wouldn't shut up and let others have their say, to the extent that it was basically un-closable as it stood. Needs input from new people.—S Marshall T/C 16:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-classify to "Closed, no Concensus" From the 'realpolitik' faction of Wikipedia. I agree with User:Jbhunley that there was no concensus in the discussion. He does have dedicated reliable sources coverage. Let the article alone for awhile. If he wins the election, it's a no-brainer. If he doesn't, watch the article and the media to see if he attracts any more significant coverage. If not, create a new AfD based on WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Tapered (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd have gone for no consensus myself, but keep is functionally the same for all material purposes. Meh. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's fair to categorize all but one of the keep !voters as SPAs. Doesn't that affect things? Hobit (talk) 14:14, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, with the same argument as Stifle. ``
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 March 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
2013 Berlin helicopter crash (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Subsequent developments have shown that the event described in the article was not as insignificant as one might have thought at the time of the deletion discussion. Notably, the investigation into the crash resulted in massive criticism of the flight procedures of the German federal police, and also official criticism of an EU directive that exempts police aircraft from regulations and control mechanisms imposed by civilian aviation authorities. Moreover, it was reported in February 2017 (i.e. four years after the crash) that NATO and Switzerland started a joint research project about new technologies for low-visibility flights, and that this campaign of trials was initially triggered by the Berlin police helicopter crash of 2013.

I think there is sufficient subsequent media coverage and related development to show that the complaints about the article raised in the deletion discussion can be remedied: There was extended news coverage 1.5 years after the event when the investigation report was published, and although only mentioned in passing, the February 2017 news report about the NATO trials reveals that the Berlin crash triggered a multinational development of new technology. Unfortunately I have only found sources in German but please read the following translated quotes from reliable sources:

  • Der Tagesspiegel (Nov. 2014): "Significant flaws and lack of communication caused the helicopter disaster one and a half years ago. ... The procedure chosen for the snow landing did follow the routines specified by the federal police but the investigating authority regards it as 'not comprehensible and inappropriate. ... In conclusion, the BFU criticised that according to an EU regulation, the operation of police helicopters is not supervised by aviation authorities and therefore not bound to aviation laws. Already in 2006, they had recommended to the ministry of transport to create legal regulations for the operation of police helicopters that 'fulfill the special requirements of police tasks and can guarantee a level of security that is comparable to the one for the operation of civilian helicopters.'" [50]
  • Rundfunk Berlin-Brandenburg (Nov. 2014) "Meanwhile, the federal police have mended these shortcomings by introducing special training units for landings in snow and setting up new rules." [51]
  • Berliner Morgenpost/Deutsche Presse-Agentur (November 2014) "Expert battle about fatal helicopter crash: An expert survey blames the federal police for the helicopter collision at the Olympic stadium. The latter party, however, rejects this as biased."
  • Donaukurier (Feb. 2017): "New developments for helicopter flights under low-visibility conditions are being tested. The campaign whose participants include the US Air Force, the Swiss Army and the German Aerospace Center is called Nato DVE-M Flight Trials. ... Strong swirls of sand or snow by rotor blades or thick fog may pose a threat. Even accidents tend to happen, like the one in March 2013 during a large-scale exercise at the Berlin Olympiastadion, which actually sparked the trials campaign." [52]

De728631 (talk) 17:40, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moot You don't need DRV to re-create a deleted article when the reason for deletion has been mooted by subsequent RS coverage: get the text from REFUND, update it, and put it back in mainspace. I'd do it for you if I could. Jclemens (talk) 03:43, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy to userfy this if you wanted to update it with those links and then move it back to mainspace. Hut 8.5 07:37, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you both for the feedback. As an admin I could easily have restored this myself but to prevent a new round of deletion discussions I thought I'd better present the new facts beforehand. De728631 (talk) 08:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_March&oldid=767792001"