Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2017 Deletion review archives February 2018 >

31 January 2018[edit]

30 January 2018[edit]

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

I believe that the closer interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The closer closed the discussion as no consensus but I think it should be closed as keep.Casprings (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Moot- how would that change anything? Reyk YO! 08:04, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ironically it was the influx of Keep !votes from his political supporters that made any consensus impossible. No consensus is the same net result as keep anyway. Ilyina Olya Yakovna (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 January 2018[edit]

28 January 2018[edit]

27 January 2018[edit]

26 January 2018[edit]

Note: the XFDcloser automation doesn't handle relisting discusisons the same day they were originally created. I think I've manually fixed up all the templates, etc, but it's possible I missed something. Please ping me if you see any problems. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Samina Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I nominated four articles and three of them were closed within hours by a non-admin. I believe it should not have been speedily closed instead remained open for discussion and it should not have been closed by a non-admin who was involved in similar articles. By speedily closing, User Jwslubbock could not comment in time at one XfD and he/she did so after its closure (which should not be done after archival of discussion). I request that all three AfDs should be reopened for discussion to achieve consensus. Other two AFDs are located at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mufti Said Janan and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muhammad Sheeraz  M A A Z   T A L K  18:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 January 2018[edit]

24 January 2018[edit]

  • Los Angeles in popular culture – DRV is for evaluating if the closer read the discussion correctly. There were no deletes apart for the nomination, and there was a relist for good measure. There was no error. Speedy closing this. – SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Los Angeles in popular culture (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

My main concern here is that the "No sourcing" part of my nomination was never addressed. At no point was it proven that this is a notable topic. While there are five keeps, they're all WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:ILIKEIT. The only reasons given were "Keep and expand, this is a notable topic". No effort to prove notability was ever given, nor any evidence that sources on this topic exist. I feel this should be renominated to gather a real consensus and proof of notability, and not just "keeps" given for totally invalid reasons. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:11, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Prove notability"? For the town that literally _includes_ Hollywood?
Now offhand, I'm not sure what ought to be in this article. That's for people on the West coast and with more of an eye to media than me to think about.
But seriously, LA, city and star in its own stories of Chinatown, LA Confidential and even Blade Runner is so non-notable that it ought to be deleted? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:05, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Notability of the subject "in popular culture". Anything can be an "in popular culture" by just making a laundry list of "This work had X in it". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 18:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 January 2018[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Harriet Wistrich, Julie Bindel and Emma Humphreys, Old Bailey, 7 July 1995.jpeg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)
First off, I have not brought this up with the administrators in question because more than one is involved, and I don't want to make either's talk page a centralized location for discussion. Please don't procedurally close this discussion due to this.

On 3 December 2017 at 17:34 (UTC), Whpq (talk · contribs) listed for discussion the file in question saying, "Non-free image with no significant sourced commentary to satisfy WP:NFCC#8." On 28 December 2017 at 10:12 (UTC), Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) relisted the discussion. On 5 January 2018 at 07:05 (UTC), Killiondude (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) relisted the discussion, but did not close the entry from 28 December, where discussion continued. On 13 January 2018 at 06:58 (UTC), Killiondude closed that fork of the discussion as "no consensus" without having seen the seven further comments on the 28 December listing. On 23 January 2018 at 00:37 (UTC), SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) closed the more-comprehensive 28 December listing on the basis that it had been relisted (incompletely) and closed already.

Yes, I am involved in this discussion, and yes, I have an expectation for how it should be closed IAW policies, but I'm not asking for a review because the discussions were closed against those expectations. I'm listing it because its closures were (probably, accidentally) improper. (a) Killiondude relisted the discussion incorrectly, causing them to then close the discussion in which the interested parties were not participating. (b) SlimVirgin closed the more-active discussion, pointing to the incorrect and unrealized now-closed discussion as cause. I hope none of the parties mentioned here take offense, and that my intentions here are not to slap anyone's hand, but to just fix a malformed sequence of events. Thanks — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. "No consensus" is the right result whether the closer considered just one of the discussions or both of them. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist because of procedural irregularities which materially affected the result. Stifle (talk) 10:43, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fourthords, Killiondude did close the discussion as "relisted", but then it got reverted, causing two discussions to occur. George Ho (talk) 12:45, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I had not realized that! My apologies for not delving deeper; the situation looked clear-cut on its face. This doesn't change the irregularity itself about which I'm concerned, but it begs to ask why SlimVirgin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) restored the discussion when it'd already been relisted elsewhere. — fourthords | =Λ= | 16:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The outcome of both discussions was the same. Here is what Fourthords calls the more comprehensive discussion: the outcome is no consensus. Fourthords was the only person who wanted to delete it apart from the nominator, who nominated it then disappeared. Continuing to discuss is not a good use of anyone's time: it's a very low-quality image of historical importance (WP:NFCI), relisted twice and now this. SarahSV (talk) 06:13, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'm not sure if it's appropriate to comment since I relisted and then closed one version of the discussion as "no consensus". However, I agree with what NY Brad and Sarah said. Killiondude (talk) 08:12, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. The procedural irregularities affected the outcome of the AFD. Szzuk (talk) 19:59, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, which AFD? Killiondude (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Your question is also the answer. Szzuk (talk) 08:31, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You mean FFD, right? George Ho (talk) 11:20, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    No, confusion :) Szzuk (talk) 12:27, 26 January 2018 (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.
Government shitdown (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Government Shitdown (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

redirect deleted without a discussion, while Shitdown, 2013 government shitdown and 2018 government shitdown are being discussed at WP:RFD. Jax 0677 (talk) 14:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note: Links to those RfDs: Shitdown, 201x government shitdown -- RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn both not just "attack" pages (if that - and rules are different for redirects) - both a reasonably common typo for "shutdown" and an occasional satirical usage. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:16, 23 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse for now, without prejudice to re-creation if the related RfDs close as Keep. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for now, pending the result of the related RfD. If the RfD is closed as delete, then this should remain deleted. If it closes as keep, however, then I have no prejudice against recreation (though I wouldn't personally like it). SkyWarrior 19:49, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this simply isn't a thing, nor is it a plausible search term. Additionally, if you check the examples listed above, you'd see that they're all strong heading towards a delete close. There's no reason to think this one would go any differently. Someone just cut to the chase with this one. Sergecross73 msg me 21:22, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per WP:APPLYCOMMONSENSE. Stifle (talk) 10:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just watch the above cited RfC's, and do whatever they do. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Update: endorse -- RoySmith (talk) 12:53, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. G10 is not appliable, but R3 certainly is. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:25, 29 January 2018 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse- per the obvious consensus emerging at the related RfD. Reyk YO! 08:08, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 January 2018[edit]

21 January 2018[edit]

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

Closer declared that "unestablished editors get little weight" to discount keep rationales RAN (talk) 22:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can't see the article (not in Google cache from what I can tell). But the discussion was leaning keep if anything and I'm seeing enough sources on-line with a news and book search to believe that claims of notability are reasonable. It did look like there were a number of !voters who were likely canvassed in some way (folks who haven't contributed much in the last few years showing up) which is what I'm assuming the closer was referring to. Now if the article was overly promotional (which some !voters indicated) maybe WP:NUKE applied? But on the whole, looks like a NC outcome was more in line with the discussion and facts on the ground. Hobit (talk) 07:41, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reading the article, too much of it was built upon unreliable sources. And the sources aren't great. But there is enough that claims of meeting WP:N are reasonable (a mix of the interview and slightly more than passing mentions in well-known sources like People and Popular Mechanics). Given the discussion was split, I just don't see how delete is reached. Just to have a formal bold !vote: overturn to NC. Hobit (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- nomination misrepresents the closer's statement by selective quotation. A more accurate reading would have been "non policy based keep votes, from unestablished editors, get little weight" and that's perfectly reasonable. Reyk YO! 14:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. That said, there do appear to be sources and those sources appear to be decent--as claimed by the keep !voters. [1] and [2] are Popular Mechanics and a local article use him as an expert, as does People (though quite briefly) [3] [4] is an interview. He gets citiations such as [5]. It's not a strong case. But I think it's strong enough that the keep !votes saying there are reliable sources can't be discounted as being just wrong. Hobit (talk) 17:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse given the rather disgusting, gross misrepresentation of the closing admins statement. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout RAN for the mis-quote in their nomination. Their selective editing of the quote significantly changes the meaning.
That being said, looking over the references in the deleted article (which I've restored for review), I'm inclined to endorse the deletion, but based on the AfD discussion, either delete or NC seem defensible.
I did a spot-check of a few references that looked promising (People Magazine, The Atlantic, and Popular Mechanics). None of those convinced me he meets WP:GNG. Those three sources do indeed mention his name, but they're not much more than mentions, buried deep in articles that are fundamentally about other things. One of the problems with evaluating this article is there's so many references, it's hard to sift through them all. If somebody wants to pick out two or three other sources for additional review, I'd be willing to look at them, but I'm not going to dig through all 34. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse it would inevitably be closed delete if relisted. The arguments for keeping at the afd include " I imagine everybody here would agree that any author with a self-published book would be automatically notable " DGG ( talk ) 21:54, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, that specific comment was not under a "Keep" argument. That comment was left unsigned in response to your "Delete" comment, and with a winky "just joking" face next to it.Dustinlull (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's clearer than that even, the comment italicizes and bolds the word "elf", it's a joke about a typo made. Despite endorsing the deletion here, I'd think if someone can show a genuine elf published there book, the book if nothing else would likely be notable. I think we're quite safe that no amount of elves are about to become publisher to aid those wanting a bio in wikipedia --81.108.53.238 (talk) 20:14, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DGG: Confirming that I was attempting to lighten the tone of the AfD by making light of your typo. I changed my username since, see edit log for my rename. Poorlyglot (talk) 03:19, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
my misreading. I apologize. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, @DGG:. Poorlyglot (talk) 15:33, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Am I permitted to comment here or, as the article's original author, is that not permitted? RobP (talk) 12:46, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • You may comment, sure, but you are asked to comment on the processes of the deletion discussion itself (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenny Biddle), and to not re-argue any of the lines of argument in that deletion discussion. If there is something important that went unsaid in the deletion discussion, so it now. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:12, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • May I respond to this comment above by doing as was asked?... "One of the problems with evaluating this article is there's so many references, it's hard to sift through them all. If somebody wants to pick out two or three other sources for additional review, I'd be willing to look at them, but I'm not going to dig through all 34." 192.91.171.36 (talk) 14:53, 23 January 2018 (UTC) Oops. Was not signed in. RobP (talk) 14:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, please do. In theory, deletion review is supposed to be (as SmokeyJoe mentioned) a review of the process, not the article content. And, asking for sources to review is more about content than process. But we're here to build a better encyclopedia not stand on process, so sometimes we break our own rules :-) In any case, please first take a look at WP:GNG and (perhaps more importantly) WP:RS to understand what we consider good sources. If you pick 2 or 3 sources (other than the three I mentioned above), I'll be happy to look at them and give my opinion. I don't promise I'll agree with them, and I don't promise that even if I do agree, my opinion will sway anybody else, but I will take a look. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:32, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • OK. Will do, give me until tonight. At work and can't do this now, but will do so later! RobP (talk) 17:02, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • These discussions run for a week, so you've got a few days. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- On the surface there were 11 keep votes and 8 delete votes. However, 6 of the votes are from possible SPA and of those 5 voted keep and 1 voted delete. Taking that into account, you now have 6 keep votes and 7 delete votes. Furthermore, the closer explained that the keep arguments did not make policy arguments. The reason why we don't just go off of vote totals is so that SPAs can't change the outcome of a discussion.--Rusf10 (talk) 22:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's disheartening to be accused of being a SPA. My Keep vote was not because I have some sort of agenda to promote. This whole deletion discussion from the beginning could have benefited from some WP:GF. RopP did make a policy argument, referring to WP:BIO and pointing out that the guidelines for notability mention "worthy of notice"[1] or "note"[2] – that is, "remarkable"[2] or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded[1]." I did agree with his position and also thought there were some good sources cited in the article. If you disagree, then, hey, that's fine. And I've definitely been wrong before. But I'm certainly no SPA.Dustinlull (talk) 00:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dustinlull:- Why did you assume that when I mentioned SPA votes that I was referring to you? There are other editors who voted that basically have edited nothing else or haven't edited for months or years and show up at this AfD out of nowhere. It's very suspicious. But when I wrote my comment above, I hadn't even consider you to be a SPA, you seem to have been around for a while and edit multiple topics.--Rusf10 (talk) 03:08, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Rusf10: Please name and ping the voting accounts you consider "possible SPA". Until you do this, it's totally reasonable and not at all "suspicious" for anybody who voted to assume that you were pointing at them. Poorlyglot (talk) 15:29, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rusf10:, I agree with @Poorlyglot:. Everyone here is a volunteer spending their free time for the greater project. If you believe there are people on here with agendas that run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, then I do think you should call them out by name and ping them, so they can defend themselves. Especially if you are suggesting their votes shouldn't count.Dustinlull (talk) 22:56, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Poorlyglot and Dustinlull: There a tool that helps you figure out this stuff here. [6] But I can call out each one of them. You have two WP:SLEEPER accounts, that is accounts that have been inactive for a long time and then suddenly show up at this discussion. Those are User:Walkirianubes & User:ScienceExplains. Then you have User:KoKoCorvid who has barely contributed to anything, but has been around a few years, so not sure what to make of that. I accidentally counted Poorlyglot as an SPA since I was not aware of the name change, but a closer look at User:104.163.153.162 (who voted delete) reveals that is probably not an SPA, so it balances it out my mistake. So you basically have three SPAs that voted keep.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:27, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • That I have been inactive for a long time doesn't mean I don't keep an eye on my watch list. As you can see I'm a part of WP:SKEP and if you look into Nomination of Kenny Biddle for deletion you can see the announcement of the discussion of deletion. A low edit count or recent low activity doesn't state I'm an SPA. I can tell you that discussions like this are why I have a recent low activity. Accusing people of this and that have driven me out of editing and have made me scared of actually commenting on things that might be classified as even slightly controversial. I was even weary of commenting on the deletion discussion, but I did because it seamed as the people voting for deletion were focusing on one or two citations and counting everything else as meaningless. As saw it as my putting my grain of salt and doing something for wiki as I haven't done much recently. Now low and behold this is being done again, my comment is being treated as meaningless just because of my low activity. Lovely. Walkiria Nubes (talk) 12:33, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been watching a lot of debates on WP over the past 12 months, and have chipped in on a few. I see editors who don’t make argument and simply attack any editor who disagrees with them. Frankly I am over it. I called out RobP for bad manners below and I certainly cannot let this one go through to the keeper. Bad manners is bad manners, accusing editors of being or holding a SPA without good evidence is downright disgraceful and most likely added to RobP's obvious and well founded frustrations.
Rusf10, You start your argument by counting votes, accusing 6 voters of being possible SPA’s and conclude by saying vote totals do not count. Everyone here understands that vote totals do not count. Furthermore you have insulted every keep voter here by either calling them a SPA, and by default accusing the other editors of using a SPA. More than being an insult is is a very serious allegation that requires good evidence to back it up. "they haven’t edited in a while" or "they have very few edits" just does not cut it. Sneaking around looking at an editor’s background and using it in order to win an argument is underhanded and, in my opinion, disgraceful behaviour. Assume good faith and Please do not bite the newcomers. Your argument certainly doses not support your vote. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Boneso:I'm just calling things the way I see them, if you or anyone else disagrees they are free to state their opinion. And you are misrepresenting what I said when you say "Furthermore you have insulted every keep voter here by either calling them a SPA and by default accusing the other editors of using a SPA". I never said that all keep votes were made by SPAs, just enough to make a difference. I originally said (wrongly) there were six. It's actually four, the other I left out is user:Joolzzt who responds below. You're free to come to your own conclusions but when someone doesn't edit for 8 months are all of a sudden appears at a deletion discussion, it just doesn't look good. I am not assuming bad faith nor am saying that anyone one of them have a conflict of interest, just merely pointing out that the vote should be placed into context. And nobody is sneaking around because the great thing about wikipedia is everything you or anyone else edits is out in the open.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:22, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: Why not point out the weakness then make the article better instead of quick deletion? I was asked to look at the article, and it was weak. Bringing more eyes to the discussion was important here. But the Bold, Revert, Discuss process was well in swing and I hoped it would generate some improvement. Indeed new references appeared (also weak) but improvement was needed. It appears that some reviewers gave up on this process early, and even now I see comments that "it would be closed delete if relisted." WP does not always use WP:GNG for final decisions (just look at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Notability for example.) Obvious problems of spam and other issues absent, it appears that time could save the work of these editors instead of deleting it. We should leave open the possibility of improvement and avoid questions about good faith, especially when several editors are attempting to do the right thing. Kyle(talk) 00:48, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn
First, I want to point out that saying the Keep voters did not make policy arguments is blatently wrong. A simple scanning of the votes shows that statement to be untrue. In fact, most all of them did.
Second, it seems to me that at least some of the Delete votes were made based on incorrect information which those editors posted - perhaps influencing others - to vote likewise. A perfect example is the Delete by Chris Troutman in which he said "The Scientifical Americans book only gives the subject credit for photos they used; he's not mentioned in the book." Immediately below that vote I pointed out that the article in fact included the statement (with citation): "Biddle's impact on some members of the paranormal research community was described by Sharon Hill in her 2017 book, Scientifical Americans: The Culture of Amateur Paranormal Researchers, for which Biddle provided the photography. In the book, Hill says: "Jason and Bobby [Jason Korbus and Bobby Nelson] consider Randi to have been a critical influence on their change in thinking as well as Michael Shermer, Ben Radford, and Kenny Biddle (another ghost-hunter-turned skeptical-advocate)..." After several back and forths there I FINALLY got an admission that his claim of no mention was wrong, but then Troutman moved the goal-posts, justifying the vote anyway. Other Delete voters when challenged to back-up their statements did not reply.
Third, the references I believed from the beginning proved notability have been dismissed out of hand and that strikes me as odd. Hill and Radford (Wiki notable people who are experts in their fields) have written in books and articles, and said on podcasts that they consider Biddle an expert, a person to go-to when a photo or something related to paranormal investigation is required. Also People Magazine, The Atlantic and Popular Mechanics asked Biddle's opinion. That is why they are important. They were not passing mentions. Biddle did not write to them; they asked HIM. And a TV news show in Florida asked him for his input. He lives in Philladelphia, so why would a TV station reach out to him across the country unless they thought of him as a expert in this topic? Radford's most recent book (released this month) mentions Biddle 5 times. On page 121 Radford is talking about ghost hunting gadgets, and recomments blogs and articles by Biddle to explain these tools. On page 131, Radford calls Biddle "a researcher" and goes on for several paragraphs talking about Biddle's research in a CNN April 2016 piece on a photo taken of a ghost at Estes Park. Radford uses Biddle's research and even quotes Biddle. On page 160 Radford again talks about the research Biddle did on the Frank's Box and other ghost boxes. On page 246, Radford says "Intrepid readers can find many more of my analyses as well as those of other investigators such as Captain Disillusion, Kenny Biddle, and others, online, in Skeptical Inquirer magazine, and elsewhere." Amazingly this book was dismissed as a notable reference by an editor voting to Delete because he didn't like the book's publisher!
Fourth, In the AfD discussion I pointed out the fact that Biddle fitted notability because he was UNUSUAL - and I detailed why. Being unusual is one of the notability criteria specified by WP for a Bio. I won't detail it again as you can go back and read it, but that point was not addressed AT ALL in the discussion - or in the closing admin's comments.
And finally, other editors have been sadly accused in this discussion (indirectly as it may be) of being SPAs. That is known as poisoning the well - and it is an underhanded technique used to dismiss valid arguments. This claim was nonspecific, so everyone who voted Keep has now been accused of being an SPA. I find this offensive in the highest degree. Just before the AfD, because I was resisting the efforts of what I felt were misguided and sloppy edits by an individual, I was slapped with an unfounded COI. Totally fabricated claims about what I had previously done and said regarding this article were made. And when I replied to the COI asking for proof or a retraction, my comments were never answered. The same editor went on making edits I disagreed with without discussion, and was hoping, I believe, that the COI would let them do whatever they wanted without resistance. I see the unsupported SPA charges made here as similar. So... I want to notify all the pertinent editors that this has happened. Not sure this is the entire list, but here goes: @JGehlbach: @Kyle: @Elmidae: @Joolzzt: @Boneso: @KoKoCorvid:. RobP (talk) 12:10, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you have assumed, unfairly, that I am an SPA. It is clear from my account that I haven't edited WP in some time, but I've become a carer and I don't have much time to edit nowadays, but, I can assure you that I still read Wikipedia and I point out errors to other editors for them to fix. I'm hoping to get back to editing at some point, and I'm currently gathering data for a page on the historian and writer Dr Leah Leneman. I'm a big fan and I'm concerned that Google shows that she is now 73, even though she died from breast cancer on Boxing Day 1999. In the past I have helped expose sock puppet accounts. I can assure you I'm neither one of those nor an SPA. This has always been my only account Joolzzt (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the closure accurately reflected the discussion and our principles. Disappointing to see the selective quotation in the original listing which completely changes the meaning. Stifle (talk) 10:50, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The enthusiastic skeptic community understandably wants to re-litigate the close. They make a series of incomplete arguments from claiming the subject is unusual to claiming that the subject is well-known in the field, many of which sound suspiciously close to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:INHERITED. (The "unusual" point is an unfortunate consequence of someone quoting Encarta's entry about the word "notable" circa 2011 at the top of WP:BIO.) I and other delete !voters made points about GNG, SIGCOV, and ANYBIO. The close reflected the lack of policy in the keep argument, especially coming from less-experienced editors. Rp2006 has claimed that I was dishonest and persuasive in my scurrilous lies about what a particular book said about the subject. I think Rp2006 makes my case for me. In the future, I'll be sure to give authors permission to use my photos and, after insisting they mention me in a single sentence of said book, I'll be notable, too. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment
Chris, I do not know why you are exaggerating what I said. Where did I say you were dishonest and lied? Apologies if I did, but I do not believe so. If so, please copy the offending text here. My perception was that you made an error because you rushed through reading the article and missed something important. You said that the ref did not mention Biddle beyond photo attribution, and this was used as a reason to dismiss the reference. But when I pointed out that this was wrong, you were reticent to admit it. When you did, after a few back-and-forths with me on the point, you fell back on changing the nature of the argument. I think the record bears that out. RobP (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are a some issues that I would like to address in relation to conduct of the AfD discussion. It will be a lengthy piece and will take some time to put together. To be clear and up front, I took part in the discussion and voted Keep. I was disappointed, but the decision is the decision and I will not re-visit it. I am posting now to raise points about the process and the conduct of the discussion. I will summarise what I have to say here now, and provide examples later.

  • Some of the points raised by participants were not addressed by other participants with opposing views, or the closer; and,
  • Clarification on some points was requested and not provided; and,
  • The argument at times degenerated into a slanging match, which I see happening here also; and,
  • logical fallacies such as arguments from authority, poisoning the well and moving the goal posts were used; and,
  • I was particularly disappointed by the way inexperienced or new editors were treated. I am hoping that those comments were poorly worded and not intended to demean them or discourage them from participating in these discussions in future. 8==8 Boneso (talk)
  • Relist The closing admin only has what is put before them to make a decision. In this case they did not have much to work with at all. However some points raised were not fully explored and another not mentioned. While the closing admin’s comments could be interpreted as being demeaning or disparaging towards new editors we must assume good faith and see it as their way of identifying editors who did not fully address the policy and rules of Wikipedia. We all want to improve Wikipedia and should not bite the newcomers. It is worth reading WP:GF from time to time, just to remind us to be tolerant of others. We should also remember that the seniority of an editor should not affect the validity of their argument.
I am disappointed by the behaviour of some editors involved in the discussion. What I have written below is a summary of my observations and is not intended to offend anyone, or to re-hash any arguments. The reason for my vote in this case is at the bottom.
RobP raised good points that deserved discussion. Those points were lost because he appeared to treat a difference of opinion as a personal attack and resorted to snide remarks and veiled insults when responding. I did not note any personal attacks directed at RobP. I understand that writing an article with over 30 citations does take a lot of time and effort and it can be extremely difficult to face deletion in those circumstances, however it is not an excuse for bad manners. WP:GF.
Reversions made by Elektricity were unhelpful and some editors may have missed the text that was removed - whether or not that may have changed their position or vote is not known. COI allegations muddy the waters should not be made without good evidence. I am not sure that any evidence was provided in this case.
My vote to re-list is base on the following points that require discussion.
1. Two points raised stand out as not being addressed.
(a) What is group promotion? Without knowing, it is difficult to discuss and understand its relevance. There are new editors involved and it is helpful to give them a clear understanding of what is said.
(b) Popular Mechanics Atlantic 10 News Tampa Live Science People/Celebrity Conventionally were mentioned to support notability, but only Biddle’s mention in Popular Mechanics was discussed, the rest were ignored. I am left wondering whether or not those other publications support notability or not.
2. A point that was not explored was WP:BASIC, in particular - ‘’’If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability.’’’ Over 30 citations would indicate multiple sources, whether or not enough of them are independent should be discussed, as well as what constitutes “multiple” Elmidae made mention of it without referring to it.
8==8 Boneso (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, but not when they include things like his Facebook page. Move to Draft and go and talk to Susan. Guy (Help!) 19:10, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: From WP:PRIMARYCARE: "An article about a person: The person's autobiography, own website (Which in the 21st century is sometimes just FaceBook. -Rp2006), or a page about the person on an employer's or publisher's website, is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary‡ source for information about what the person says about himself or herself. Such primary sources can normally be used for non-controversial facts about the person and for clearly attributed controversial statements." I do believe Biddle's FB page was used minimally, in that exact context, just to provide basic supplimentary information I could not find elsewhere. RobP (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Might be an idea to drop the condescension and check [7] vs. [8]. Guy (Help!) 23:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting... but experience does not always mean being correct. And inexperience does not always mean being wrong. (Hey- that is the crux of this entire re-look at the AfD!) So what in my comment above about FaceBook was incorrect in the context of being told that using Biddle's Facebook page was wrong? And I didn't see it as condescending either. Not writing ONLY to Guy obviously. Because everything is public, even if Guy knows FB is acceptable in certain situations, maybe not everyone who could possibly ever read his comment knows that. So this was a clarification as to the actual rule for the benefit of anyone interested - just to correct the (IMHO) mistaken inference that could come out of reading Guy's FB slam. RobP (talk) 00:21, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, are you saying "I am more experienced than you so therefore I'm right"? I think that RobP is trying to get his head around this situation. He is asking questions not only to have editors explain their position, but also to learn from the process so he can create better pages and avoid their deletion in the future. We can all learn from experienced editors, but arguments from authority are not helpful, and cause other editors to become frustrated. And RobP clearly frustrated with some of the responses he has received so far. 8==8 Boneso (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am saying that I am dramatically more experienced than you, so don't make condescending comments about process to me. Also I am an active skeptic and have published articles on the JREF Swift blog, just so you know. And I am also an admin so could see the deleted history even if it had not been temporarily restored. I reviewed the article with its sources. Not only was the close a correct reading of the debate (i.e.: sod off, this is not he place to re-litigate an AfD you lost), but it is also correct, per the actual sources cited. Fixating on one that I happened to mention, misses the point. Restore to draft and add substantially better sourcing, and you're good. Carry on with this bullshit, and you're likely to end up in trouble, because most of us admins have seen this hundreds of ties before. Even if we like the idea of an article on a thing, you're not going to win us over like this. Guy (Help!) 00:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have mostly been frustrated by the tendency of editors to be dismissive and not to respond to direct questions about their statements, which often entailed me pointing out when erroneous statements (not about differences of opinion) related to the article's substance or references were made. I often don't get answered at all, and then that incorrect information tends to get repeated by others voting Delete or Endorse. BTW, I am referring to three places connected with this article where this dismissive attitude has happened: the original AfD, this Deletion review, and the harassing COI charge stemming from this article. RobP (talk) 06:08, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, correct reading of the debate. If people want it moved to draft space pending (significantly) better sourcing then that's another matter. Guy (Help!) 19:08, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a good close. Once you get past all the low quality sources used to pad out the article, only three remain. The much discussed Popular Mechanics article contains one sentence mentioning Biddle's name in passing. The Atlantic article is the same, just Biddle's name in passing. The Tampa Bay 10 News article at least has some quotes from Biddle. But this all adds up to trivial coverage of the subject and is not enough for a stand alone article. It may warrant a paragraph about Biddle in some existing article, but I can't say offhand what the target article might be. - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLouie: Please explain why, as commented on above but not answered, the 5 mentions in Radford's recent book due to Biddles' position as an expert in this field, do not qualify as a "high quality sources" RobP (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's nice that Radford mentioned him in a book. But in my estimation, it's not enough to build a biography article on. Best advice is to get it into your userspace, clean out all the questionable sources (Ghostvillage.com, Spooktator.co.uk, adventuresinpoortaste.com, barrytaff.net, hayleyisaghost.co.uk, anomaliesresearchsociety.wordpress.com, Facebook posts, Youtube videos, non-notable podcasts, etc.) and try again using only the best quality sources you can assemble. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:58, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLouie:First, I'll try to watch my manners here, but saying "that's nice" is quite demeaning to Radford and Biddle, and that statement does not address my question... which was why are editors saying that a book by a WP:Noteable expert in this field saying Biddle is an expert is excluded from being considered a WP:RS in this AfD. One editor didn't like the publisher I recall. And of course I did not build the article on that one source anyway; it was actually a late addition as it was just published. I thought all the other sources - in combination - made him notable. I fail to see, though, why the sources used continues to be mis-stated as has repeatedly happened, for example, regarding FaceBook. As I mentioned above in detail, WP says it is OK to use a subject's personal website for basic facts. AND there were no other FB references used; just his own page. So why do editors like yourself continue to say Facebook posts (plural) making it sound like I willy-nilly threw in other people's references to Biddle on FB as sources for anything? This is the type of comment that had me thinking at least some Delete voters had not actually thoroughly reviewed the article prior to deciding to trash it. Now to the larger issue: Is it your position that editors are only expected to write short, bare-bones articles using only WP:RS and then let them grow over years by the slow addition of less powerful sources (which WP allows once a subject is notable) to flesh the article out? My understanding is that every reference in a WP article need not by of the same magnitude. Am I wrong?? As I did with my previous 3 articles (one was a GA) I took the time to create a full article by using all sources, top-notch and not, to create what I thought was a fully realized article about the subject. Should I not do that anymore going forward? You just want stubs - notable articles - but stubs published? Seems like that is what you are saying. RobP (talk) 22:32, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we were talking about *this* article. You know, the the one that was deleted. My personal philosophy about articles in general is not actually relevant to the discussion. (I have written articles that are very large, and others that are very stubby — it all depends on the sources) Let's cut to the chase: I'm impressed you got 3 GA's 1 GA under your belt. You know *this* article has problems, which is why it got deleted. The best course of action is to stop WP:BLUDGEONing the process and get it into userdraft and fix it. Hell, I'll even help you if I have time next week. Cheers, - LuckyLouie (talk) 23:06, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not going to say no to that offer - unless it will just lead down the path of wasting even more time on a losing battle to get this work accepted. As of right now, I do not believe there are any additional usable sources I didn't use already to add to prove Biddle's notability, so what are you suggesting be done? As mentioned, I don't think just removing material helps notability. BTW it is already just 1/2 the size of what I first posted, thanks to Elektricity. I personally do not see less as making for a better article. Have you found something I am unaware of?
And that raises a big question: If fixing it would be a simple matter, why was AfD initiated at all? Isn't the goal to do that if possible rather than to Delete and throw away so much effort... not to mention all the time this made everyone involved spend (not the least of which is me) on the AfD process? RobP (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 January 2018[edit]

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

The article was deleted because it was created by a banned user, but I think the subject of the article has a good claim to notability with in-depth coverage from multiple sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. I brought this to requests for undeletion, and the admin who deleted it (Berean Hunter) noted that the article had been previously deleted via AfD. I don't know what that article looked like, but the discussion makes me think that the coverage in the sources I've listed wasn't known to the participants in the discussion. The version that was just deleted had started as a translation of the Spanish version, and Berean Hunter noted that the same banned user had created that article in Spanish, but since the user wasn't banned at the time in Spanish, I don't know that that's relevant. -- irn (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn G5 doesn't apply if the article had substantial edits by people other than the banned user who created it. Irn had made a number of edits to this page to refactor and rewrite the content, and I think that collectively they qualify as substantial. The deleting admin also mentioned the fact that this was deleted at AfD two years ago. The sourcing for the AfDed version was a joke, it was entirely referenced to IMDB, Wikipedia and social media (aside from a couple of other pages which are blatantly not reliable sources). This version had a number of references to newspapers and magazines, which is a substantial improvement, even if it doesn't demonstrate notability. Therefore G4 wouldn't have applied either. Hut 8.5 11:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 applies as the content was substantially the similar: there was some pruning, etc. but the content of the biography was overall the same, and while there were some differences, the banned sock factor certainly weighs here. While it might not have been a clear cut G4 or G5 independently, combined, it is enough to make me say there is no way this should be restored. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:28, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn has different references so G4 does not apply and has substantial edits by a reputable editor so G5 does not apply. Atlantic306 (talk) 17:23, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment- don't know if it's relevant, but there was some previous weirdness around this article. See this business here. Reyk YO! 14:35, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There are substantial edits by a non-banned user. Also the recreated article and references differ, so G4 does not apply either. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. I've tempundeleted this for review. It's entirely possible (likely even) that this is promotional and/or SEO-fodder, but the current version of the article is different enough from the one that was originally deleted at AfD that I don't think WP:G4 can apply. Actually, if this was a serious SEO attempt, I'd think it would have a better photo than the slightly blurry street snapshot. Maybe WP:G5 applies, maybe not. Looking at the references in the current article, though, I think there's a pretty good chance this would survive AfD, which by itself pretty much eliminates any WP:CSD. If anybody thinks this doesn't meet WP:N, it can be discussed at AfD, but for now it should be restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (Non-administrator comment): For what it's worth, I had this article on my watchlist for some reason I don't remember, so I queried Malcolmxl5 (the deleting admin at the 1st AfD) about it when I saw it had been recreated. That discussion can be seen at User talk:Malcolmxl5#JC Gonzalez, but basically Malcolmxl5 felt a G4 deletion wasn't in order and a new AfD probably would be needed. I'm not sure about the G5 stuff or as TonyBallioni states above a combination of G4 and G5. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:22, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marchjuly: regarding your use of template:nacc, non-admins are totally welcome to participate in these discussions, with no particular need to identify themselves as such. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Understand. Just added it out of habit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:11, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My view, when Marchjuly and I discussed this, was that the new article was similar but not identical to that deleted at AfD. In particular, there were now 22 citations where there were only four in the article that went to AfD and I felt that this warranted reassessing the sources and taking this back to AfD if appropriate. As it happened, it was of course CSD G5 deleted as a creation of a sock. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:15, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 January 2018[edit]

  • file:PlumpWifeacp.jpg – Deletion endorsed. I don't have access to the OTRS ticket, but it's clear from the comments here that we don't have the required copyright releases and/or permissive licensing to use these images. – -- RoySmith (talk) 03:00, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
file:PlumpWifeacp.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
file:Bateau3acp.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Original photos by Alison Phillips --evrik (talk) 21:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The first one was a picture of some embroidery, even if the picture was taken by a Wikipedian the copyright would be held by the person who did the embroidery and that wasn't specified. The second one was attributed to the New York State Military Museum without any sort of evidence that we have permission to use it. Hut 8.5 00:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominator made no attempt to discuss the first deletion with me or the second with Ronhjones, which really would have saved him from this DRV. Neither can be restored based on the circumstances as noted above. ℯxplicit 05:42, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: The link for the second image (http://dmna.ny.gov/historic/articles/bateau.htm) does not work any more - but can be found at https://archive.li/4Yhr. The main web site seems to be poorly maintained, but no obvious release of copyright. Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll also add the edit summary from the original upload - 14:30, 1 October 2005 . . Phillipsacp (talk | contribs | block) (104 bytes) (Photo of Bateau from New York State Military Museum) Ronhjones  (Talk) 14:18, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 January 2018[edit]

17 January 2018[edit]

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

I submitted a draft for review at Draft:ThirdLove a few months back. The draft was deleted by an administrator for being a copyright violation. I asked the administrator where the copyright violation was and to restore the draft so it could be reviewed. Instead, they replied, “Surely Brakroid would have been a better user name? Kindly have the decency to wait until someone with no CoI thinks your company is notable and writes about it here. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC).” I am not sure what the purpose of making fun of my username is but I put the draft with minor corrections into my sandbox and would ask that it be restored to a draft so people can review it. Here is the link to me already asking the administrator who didn’t provide a response to my undeletion request - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:RHaworth#ThirdLove Barkroid (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. If it's a copyright violation, it's not getting restored, no matter what anyone said about your user name. --Calton | Talk 09:10, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The copy vio was of this article. What is your interest in this page please? Please declare your COI Spartaz Humbug! 11:01, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedy endorse- This was a copyvio so it's not getting undeleted. End of story. Reyk YO! 16:09, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I haven't been able to verify that the entire article is a copyright violation and I suspect it was taken from more than one source, however the "History" section (which was most of the article) is a copyvio or very close paraphrase of the link cited and some of the rest appears to be taken from other sources e.g. [15]. That doesn't leave much content left and I strongly suspect that may have been taken from somewhere else as well. We don't restore copyright violations to user sandboxes. Hut 8.5 22:26, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I agree with Hut; I don't see any massive copy-paste from a single source, but there's enough bits and pieces taken from here and there that WP:G12 deletion was reasonable. For example, some of the Products and fitting technology section was taken directly from https://www.thirdlove.com/blogs/press/114441796-independent. There's so much infringing material, any attempt to weed out the infringing from non-infringing text would be more effort than it's worth. I'm also going to delete User:Barkroid/sandbox, for the same reason. Copyright violations cannot remain anywhere on the site, even in user sandboxes. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per RoySmith. I had another look at the deleted article and while it is not a complete cut-and-paste job, there is enough copyright violation for G12 to be a reasonable response from an administrator. The response to an undeletion request was rather brusque—maybe even rude—which is unfortunate (let's not do that), but there was no problem with the deletion itself. If a new article were written from scratch, it would probably pass notability since there's some good media coverage: HuffingtonPost, SFGate, TechCrunch and Entrepreneur.com etc. —Tom Morris (talk) 13:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 January 2018[edit]

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

Lack of discussion / interruption of edits intended to correct the reasons given to delete the article.

This is an article that I was actively in the process of fixing to conform with WP standards, when it was deleted without notice or discussion. The grounds for deletion were claimed to be G-11, but the fixes were intended to correct this so interested parties could see the published evidence that this preparation is not effective for the claimed diseases. The ubiquity of the advertisements makes the article notable, and the corrections necessary to eliminate bias. An objection to the article was that there were no articles linking to it, so I was providing some from Ménière's disease and Tinnitus to the deleted article. However, some editors were objecting to them, even though they were sourced from the peer-reviewed medical lliterature, and I was in the process of revising them. My added links supported by a new reference from the literature were deleted by the same editor, with no reason given, and a note regarding the deletion I placed on that editor's talk page was also deleted by that editor. Since edits were being deleted without cause, I reverted them and asked for discussion, referrring editors to the talk:Lipo-flavonoid for discussion. Instead that page, along with the base article Lipo-flavonoid was deleted instead of holding a discussion. --Zeamays (talk) 21:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the peer reviewed medical literature" is not what WP:MEDRS calls for. There are no MEDRS refs about Lipo-flavonoids and the page that was deleted was indeed a blatant advertisement with promotional WP:OR in the footnotes. There is nothing stopping the Zeamays from trying to create a new draft, which I recommend they put through WP:AFC... but it will not stick around long because there are no MEDRS refs to use. There was nothing to work with in the deleted version. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel that the cited literature does not meet WP:MEDRS, then as a conscientious editor, you will explain why it does not. It is interesting that Jytdog's search didn't find the references my search located. The articles cited were clinical trials, not preliminary or in vitro studies, which is what the WP:MEDRS standards are looking to weed out. But Jytdog misses the point that negative results with lipo-flavonoid was the result of two somewhat different clinical trials. I consider it an important responsiblity to show when 'alternative medicine' products touted in ads on TV are not going to be effective. --Zeamays (talk) 22:38, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reason why I deleted it had nothing to do with MEDRS, but that it was an fundamentally promotional article for the product. DGG ( talk ) 23:19, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the original article was excessively positive, but I hoped that by presenting the available high-quality negative results a proper cautionary balance could be obtained. --Zeamays (talk) 23:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We don't do "balance". We source content from high quality secondary sources and where there are none we do not descend into "battle of the primary sources" which is just WP:OR, and cannot meet WP:NPOV, as NPOV depends on high quality secondary sources. The article should never have been in WP and was created as an advertisement. We flush the toilet and get rid of shit that was dumped into WP; that is what G11 is for. Jytdog (talk) 00:20, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:MEDRS standard does not require secondary or tertiary references where there are none, instead it requires "common sense". I have no way of knowing why this article was written, although I infer it was written by a favorable editor. Furthermore the references I cited explicitly presented clearly stated conclusions and cannot be described as my "original research". They were from NLM-indexed, established publications, from well-known medical research groups. --Zeamays (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The article was deleted because it was advertising per G11. You are repeatedly barking up the wrong tree with the MEDRS stuff here.Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I needed to answer your repeated complaints, Jytdog. My major complaint in this appeal is that I was in the process of fixing up the article to achieve balance when it was deleted. --Zeamays (talk) 02:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think eliminating this page does a disservice to Wikipedia readers. I have not seen the latest revisions of the page, but when I last edited it (admittedly a while ago) it provided a fair and balanced (though largely negative) review of the product based on the medical literature, not a promotional piece. Now the Wikipedia reader who wonders about the value of this highly advertised product finds nothing. This is very disappointing. Joalkap (talk) 02:49, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD G11 doesn't just require that the page was created for the purpose of promoting something, it also requires that the page is promotionally worded. If you decide to promote your product by writing a neutral encyclopedia article about it then it doesn't qualify for G11. The wording of this article wasn't particularly promotional and it included a paragraph explaining that there is no good evidence the product is effective against any of the things it supposedly treats, which would be a very strange thing to put in an advert. MEDRS concerns should be taken to AfD. Hut 8.5 07:56, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD Too much ambiguity for WP:G11. Any promotion could be for a competitive product, "This product is inert in the human body and that is why it is able to be sold as a vitamin".[16] Thincat (talk) 08:50, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD with much respect for DGG, I think this would be better for AfD. G11 requires unamibigious promotional tone. XfD can delete for promotional intent all it wants. Sending this for community discussion is best. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AFD. The references in the existing (deleted) text are garbage. They're all either first-party, or primary sources. But, I found three sources that look like reasonable WP:RS: healthline.com, WebMD, and consumerlab.com. I'm not sure this would pass AfD, but there's enough here to get past the WP:CSD bar. I don't blame the deleting admin: The current page is crap. But it's possible a better article could be written on the subject. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is truly stupid bureaucracy. The page was a piece of shit fundamental advertisement. If somebody wants an article write one. What a CWOT drama-queen ball. Really. Jytdog (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jytdog, while it's true that most revisions of this article - going back more than a decade! - read like the narration to a television ad, there's plenty that don't. Even the version you tagged wasn't one of them. Yes, the references in it are appalling and the editorializing in them worse, but that's easily fixed by removing just about all of them. What we have here isn't an article that's purely advertisement; it's an article that's periodically taken over by spammers. The proper tool to fix that isn't necessarily deletion. —Cryptic 23:31, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it wasn't. It still had ridiculous OR footnotes selling the shit, and the content trying to "balance" was just lipstick on a pig, sourced to refs that were not acceptable.Jytdog (talk) 23:37, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no objection to undeleting and listing at AfD. I suggest someone else close this accordingly. (and AfD has one advantage: it permits the use of G4 upon re-creation) DGG ( talk ) 23:05, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. Looking at the cached copy, it was a <slightly> bad G11. A decent attempt was made <though unsuccessfully> at sourcing. I expect it to be deleted at AfD. Nothing to do with Lipid or Flavonoid, but a catchy name to catch the susceptible. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 January 2018[edit]

  • Draft:Steak and Blowjob Day – Do I have clean hands on this? Dunno, its familiar but I can't recall why. Feel free to revert if you feel someone else should do this but the clear outcome is recreation permitted. The suggestion of recreating this as a page discussing the meme rather than asserting there is such a thing sounds like the kind of thing that will prevent future arguments about this subject. – Spartaz Humbug! 13:23, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Steak and Blowjob Day (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'd like to have this page re-considered at DRV, with the aim to be able to bring the page into mainspace. Despite being an admin, as an involved editor, I don't think I should just be undoing the salting and moving it myself. The previous DRV discussion last year summarizes the full history of the page neatly, but in short:

I would therefore submit that whether you like the topic or don't like the topic, there's enough coverage evidenced in the article for this to be unsalted and moved into mainspace, at the very least, and if necessary a full AFD could be carried out then. Thanks. fish&karate 12:08, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To correct the record above, the page was deleted TWICE in three AFDs, the second one being a sockpuppet-infested "no consensus" vote. It's been deleted multiple times since then, necessitating that the title be salted. Given all that, whether you are "involved" or not is irrelevant: if you use your admin privileges to unilaterally override both article salting AND a DRV decision, you'd be in the wrong, period/full stop. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion and salting. Washing garbage still gets you garbage. --Calton | Talk 12:34, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (and salt the draft title too). We've been around and around this. As for the new sources:
    • Maxim is a men's magazine. I suspect it would publish anything with Blowjob in the title.
    • Tango is a online magazine dedicated to love and relationships.
    • Metro is a free tabloid from the Daily Mail stable. The cited article is in the Lifestyle section, which has sub-heads Sex, Fashion, Food, Travel.
    These are not the kinds of WP:RS we base WP:N on. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm still not convinced we need this. It's not a case of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but more an issue of not wanting to turn wikipedia into Encyclopedia of stupid pop culture stunts. Be that as it may, the references cited by Cunard are more than enough to make this worth another look, so striking my !vote above and replacing it with allow recreation. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow move to article space it clearly meets WP:N. Maxim is certainly a reliable source. We'd best not be discounting sources because of who they are targeted to (Elle for example has off and on has had amazingly solid investigative articles). Daily Dot is probably reliable. Daily Beast is likely reliable. [17] Latina also seems reliable [18]. Frankly until I did a news search I had no doubt WP:N was met but I did have doubts it was more than a private joke that got published. But the number of hits in a news search is large and it seems to be something reasonable to have an article on. Hobit (talk) 21:27, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation this hasn't been to AfD in over a decade, and the version discussed then didn't cite any sources at all. The right place for considering this version is AfD, not here. Hut 8.5 22:01, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I still think this is crap, but it's hard to argue that AfD wouldn't be a better place to discuss sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:16, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt, allow re-creation, and test at AfD. Although I agree with RoySmith's analysis of the three new sources, the close of the previous DRV was a stretch. Per Wikisaurus (talk) 10:56, 17 November 2017 (UTC), fish&karate 15:05, 17 November 2017 (UTC), 17 November 2017 (UTC), per DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC), per Cunard (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC), per Jclemens (talk) 04:28, 27 November 2017 (UTC), there was no consensus to uphold the salting and prevent a non-G4 eligible recreation. The sources are significantly different to the last AfD discussion, unsavoury is not a DRV rationale, and all those arguing to uphold the old deletion are making AfD arguments. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:36, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Allowing AfD to make decisions of fact is not to waste time at AfD. Arguing depth and reputability of sources at DRV is wasting time at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:30, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I support it going to AfD where my !vote may be "Wikipedia is not for joke fake holidays that no one celebrates. This is, like a hoax, a topic supported by many secondary sources commentating, but zero reliable primary sources, it is fake." I support it going to AfD because I don't support process creep at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt, allow re-creation- this hasn't been at AfD for over ten years and the sourcing, though not terrific, seems plausible. This should be discussed at AfD. Reyk YO! 07:23, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added further references and expanded the draft further. References are all specifically about the subject of the article, and include coverage in Cosmopolitan, the Daily Mirror, the Huffington Post (2x), Instinct, and the Miami New Times. Yes these sources are online, but sources about internet memes and ephemera are likely to be. It's not going to be in the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Groves, or Who's Who. fish&karate 08:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline recreation. As I said in the precious DRV: Minor piece of pop culture ephemera, notability not established by the existing sources, which are mostly gossip/tabloid-type publications. This also applies to the sources discussed here, as explained by RoySmith above. Sandstein 08:57, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt and allow re-creation Enough difference, with numerous new sources, enough for another AfD 11 years later; salting is just page-protection - it does not mean that pages cannot/should not get a fair look at AfD. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt, allow recreation, and let anyone who believes that IDONTLIKEIT is policy take it to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 17:31, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Decline restoration, keep salted as per my comment at the previous DRV, our as of yet unneeded to be written policy: Wikipedia is not for shitty fake holidays that no one celebrates. Also, I'd encourage every admin to look at the deleted history here and ask if you really think that restoring this article is in Wikipedia's best interest? Notability be damned (and I'm not sure it is that), this would not be a positive for the encyclopedia. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:21, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • As noted above, I was surprised by the amount of coverage in sort of reliable sources. Is this a good case for IAR? I don't know. I was initially planning on a !vote of "meets WP:N, but I think we should pass as it's just a bit silly" or some such. But the sourcing isn't horrible and per NOTCENSORED I just really can't find a reason other than "it makes Wikipedia look silly" to not have this article. But I will say I won't be crushed if it ends up deleted via an overwhelming IAR !vote. Hobit (talk) 05:36, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is a case where we can rely on the whole rebuttable presumption of notability bit. We can decide, even if something meets the GNG, that we don't want it. My reasoning here is I suppose closest to WP:NOT#FANSITE (I gave it a funny name above, but that's what it boils down to). We could find enough press and primary sourcing for any of the hundreds of half-baked funny holidays that exist but no one actually celebrates (to use a not funny example National Stress Awareness Day doesn't, and likely shouldn't, have a page even though it meets the sourcing requirements). I'm sympathetic to the "undelete and then delete again at AfD" arguments, but those rely on AfD being needed to evaluate the sourcing: I'm not making a source based argument, so I don't think we need to waste time through another AfD when we have already salted it. Not a bureaucracy and whatnot. At the same time, I also won't be overly sad if consensus doesn't go my way at this DRV. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi Tony. I don't want to recreate the deleted history of the article. The deleted version(s) of 10 years ago were not encyclopedic, and were appropriately deleted. I want to be able to bring the new draft version into article space, and to do that I need approval at DRV because the redlink Steak and Blowjob Day has been salted. I do appreciate your strong objections to this article ever existing, but your argument seems, to me, to boil down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT, and is not grounded in policy. Sorry. fish&karate 11:08, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          Also thanks for bringing our lack of an article on National Stress Awareness Day to my attention. fish&karate 11:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no problem :). And sure, it is an IDONTLIKEIT !vote, but that is in the end what every single documented policy and guideline on this project is. The GNG is not a guarantee of inclusion, and I think it would be bad practice to include every gag holiday that gets press. WP:NOPAGE is the ALLCAPS fallback if you want one: this information could likely better be included on a list of joke holidays than as a standalone aritcle, and deciding to exclude it as it's own article because inclusion in a table on a list would be better is well within editorial discretion. TonyBallioni (talk) 11:22, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, and I am wandering off on a tangent here, but there's 198 pages under Category:Awareness days ... fish&karate 12:18, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
incontestable evidence of the occurrence of orange shirt day[19]. Can you supply evidence of steak and blowjob day actually occurring? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:58, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can supply, and have obtained, evidence of it being discussed significantly and specifically, in multiple reliable sources. We don't need to prove it's ever actually occurred. fish&karate 14:41, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Titles matter. How about Steak and Blowjob Day meme. Not real but people talk about it. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:35, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do we usually require other concepts that aren't "real" and haven't "occurred" to specify this in the title? fish&karate 08:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would. The title is content, the most important content, it stands alone and should not assert a falsehood. The old title asserts that there is such a day. That’s what I thought after the “Finland is not real” case. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about Virgin Birth of Jesus? Does that title assert it happened? fish&karate 08:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Unverifiable and implausible. I moved it to Virgin birth of Jesus narrative. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No need to give up on the GNG Toni. It fails WP:V. There is no such culturally celebrated day. It’s all a joke. It’s like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Finland does not exist. But these are debates for AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 January 2018[edit]

13 January 2018[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
K-3D (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Summary (For the TL;DR crowd)

  1. The nomination was in bad faith, as it was a retaliatory attack that was part of a content dispute. Wikipedia:BITE
  2. The nominator deliberately created an unethical Catch-22 to ensure the article’s undisputed deletion, by concurrently abusing the use of the COI template to suppress edits and discussion. Wikipedia:GAME
  3. The nominator admitted that the evidence provided by User:Bart 123 showing the subject of the article’s notability was valuable, and actually thanked him.
  4. The closing admin completely ignored a keep !vote (Bart’s) that demonstrated the subject of the article’s notability more comprehensively and cited than all of the other !votes put together. The closing admin cited WP:COI as their primary justification for their actions and treated the discussion as a poll, closing the discussion based on the number of delete !votes instead of closing the discussion based on the strength of the evidence and arguments supplied. Wikipedia:NOTDEMOCRACY
  5. The consensus relied on the logically weak arguments of two accounts, one a suspiciously proficient, yet newly created account, of which both had already been disproved earlier by the presentation of verifiable facts presented by Bart 123.

The following text is supporting material, however a decision should be able to be reached based off the five points raised above.

Overly verbose text hidden

Detailed argument (for the due diligence crowd)

Dispute over whether or not an image demonstrating how LuxRender is used in conjunction with K-3D should be included in the article as an external link

Initial conflict

User:Dsmatthews uploaded an image to Wikimedia Commons, [20], then included the image in the en.wikipedia.org article on K-3D as an external link. However, User:Codename Lisa disagreed with the inclusion of the link, and reverted Dsmatthews’s edit, incorrectly citing the Wikipedia:External links, which does not forbid this kind of external link. In fact, the guideline lists such links under Wikipedia:External_links#Links to be considered as allowed. An edit war promptly ensued, in which Codename Lisa acted in a provocative, unhelpful manner, inflaming the situation.

Nomination of the image for deletion

The edit war was stopped after FleetCommand, a user now indefinitely blocked for blatant harassment of User:Andy Dingley, nominated the file for deletion, with the rational being that the image was outside of the scope of Commons. When Dsmatthews defended the image, FleetCommand retaliated by violating policy by WP:Canvassing Codename Lisa, a known biased party, to the deletion discussion to support his argument that the image should be deleted. Dsmatthews then (naively) removed Codename Lisa’s !vote, as he believed it was not valid, due to it being the result of canvassing/brigading. Instead of pointing out that deletion of !votes is not allowed or pointing out the correct way of dealing with such comments (striking), Codename Lisa simply reverted his edit with an unhelpful edit summary, “Reverted vandalism. Deleting other people's comment in bad faith is vandalism.” No proof of the nature of the “faith” was offered, just the opinion that it was bad. Another edit war ensued, this time with both Codename Lisa & FleetCommand retaliating by WP:Tag teaming and deleting comments by Dsmatthews. It ended with Codename Lisa complaining to a Commons admin, User:Ronhjones, who reverted Dsmatthews and left an informative warning on his talk page, something which both Codename Lisa and FleetCommand failed to do. Dsmatthews followed the admin’s guidance and stopped the edit war while restoring the comments that Codename Lisa and FleetCommand removed. These more experienced editors should have known better, however despite this they acted in an unhelpful, provocative manner, violating WP:BITE.

Closing of the deletion discussion

The image was eventually deleted by an uninvolved Commons admin, User:Pi.1415926535 claiming that the image was outside of the scope of Commons, however they did not explain why it was out of scope.

Closing comments

FleetCommand failed to demonstrate why the image was outside of the scope of Commons, stating that “Commons is not a file hosting service to show off random works of art.”, despite the fact that the image metadata proved it was a diagram that represented information relevant to a feature in K-3D. Codename Lisa was incorrect in removing the link from the K-3D page. There was not, and there is no basis in policy for the removal, as the link added useful information to the page that supported a noteworthy claim, of output capability.

Uploading of the disputed image to the Internet Archive

After finding out the image had been deleted, Dsmatthews uploaded the image to archive.org, and fixed the-now broken-external link on the K-3D page to link to the archive.org version. This was also interfered with and needed to be re-uploaded. This constitutes WP:Harrassment.

Deletion of the K-3D page & unethical Catch-22 created to ensure the page’s deletion

In retaliation, on 09:17, 5 January 2018 (UTC), Codename Lisa nominated the entire article for deletion, their rational being “Non-notable computer program.” At the same time, they tagged the article with a WP:COI tag, later adding another tag to the talk page, implying that Dsmatthews, the only other active contributor to the page, of having a “conflict of interest”, rendering him unable to improve the page to save it from deletion. Yet when questioned denied that the tag was a reference to DSMatthews without saying who it did refer to. Basically, this states: “This article is bad quality and should be deleted, and you aren’t allowed to improve the page to stop the page from being deleted.” Doesn’t this seem unethical and a deliberate abuse of process?

Final moments of the deletion discussion

At the very end of the discussion, just before it was closed, two users showed up, User:Safe My Edit, and User:Timtempleton ‘Safe My Edit’ has shown an unusually high level of proficiency for a newbie, which is suspicious. They have also been evasive when questioned about this, stating “I have no other accounts here in the English Wikipedia (emphasis mine) Their !vote was “Delete: Not standing out from the rest WP:COOKIE--Safe My Edit (talk) 17:35, 11 January 2018 (UTC)” This is untrue and disproved by the reply to their !vote by Bart. This also violates Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to contribute, specifically the line stating “When making your case or responding to others, explain how the article meets/violates policy rather than merely stating that it meets/violates the policy.”[reply]

Closure of the discussion

The closing admin, User:Sandstein completely disregarded the significant contributions to the discussion by Bart, claiming he has a conflict of interest, implying that the multiple facts that he presented were not facts, and simply treated the discussion as a vote, deleting the article. Their closing rational was “The result was delete. Bart 123 has a WP:COI and everybody else advocates deletion.”, which is clearly a discussion of the number of !votes, rather than the facts of the matter. Dsmatthews (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing break

  • Endorse- Yeah, that really was TLDR. And it's a bad idea to make accusations of bad faith and gaming the system for a nomination that hinged entirely on notability concerns. As for the participants, we had the software's maintainer saying keep and neutral observers saying delete based on a lack of sources. I don't really see anything wrong with this close. Reyk YO! 10:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the fact that the nominator got an image deleted on Commons doesn't make the nomination harassment, in fact judging from the discussion I'd say you were harassing them by engaging in personal attacks. The discussion here looks fine, the argument for deletion is legitimate and the only person who opposed deletion is an account with essentially no other edits (the closing admin is allowed to downweight these per WP:DGFA). The idea that Safe My Edit is a sockpuppet created to influence the discussion doesn't make any sense given their edit history. Hut 8.5 11:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except that what DGFA (WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS) says is, "...or accounts created solely for voting on the deletion discussion.", which this account was not, and the closer cited COI, not DGFA.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The account made one minor edit two and a half years ago, as far as I'm concerned that doesn't make much difference. I don't think there's any particular policy or guideline on whether people with a COI can have opinions downweighted but I suspect most people would consider it reasonable, and in any case I'm more concerned about whether the closer did the right thing than whether they cited the correct justification. Hut 8.5 18:59, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the arguments for (ignoring the individuals COI which is essentially irrelevant for demonstrating basic notability) were that there are some brief mentions, WP:BIGNUMBER and it's included with some linux distributions. None of that meets the standards required of notability. DRV is not dispute resolution so all the other stuff seems irrelevant here. Of course none of this will stop a future article should the "product" end up meeting the notability standards --81.108.53.238 (talk) 12:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I must agree with Dsmatthews that the discussion feels unbalanced, it seems requesting deletion requires almost no argumentation other than linking a few Wikipedia policies, but then refuting this citing usage numbers and finding 3 references in books is not enough. I think many open source articles can be deleted if this really is the policy. One more thing to support notability: K-3D is a member project of the Software Freedom Conservancy. I disagree also that as current maintainer I can't bring verifiable facts to the discussion. —Bart 123 (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I think this is a bigger topic than is necessarily suitable for DRV, but here's a brief outline. Wikipedia has various policies and practices a common one for deletion discussions is what should be within the scope of the project and what shouldn't. The general principal is to take that decision away from the editors of wikipedia who are likely to all have different biases, interests etc. and move it more to the world at large, what do they think is "important", we try and determine that by what do "mainstream" (mainstream is really the wrong word here, it's about quality of the source, reputation for fact checking etc.) sources consider worth investing time in investigating and covering. In a deletion debate you can't prove a negative, I can't prove that mainstream sources haven't provide strong coverage of topic X, I can say I couldn't find it but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Those who believe it should be included can of course easily show it has been by pointing out the coverage. As to if many articles in Wikipedia fail to meet the standards and "should" be deleted, then probably so - but then again Wikipedia isn't selling it self as a directory of open source projects. I'm not sure where anyone has said as project maintainer you can't being verifiable facts to the discussion, you most certainly can - though what I've seen so far is you bringing facts which are what make you think your project is significant , rather than the things that the wikipedia policies and guidelines actually require - i.e. as above if it really is significant there will be lots of reliable third parties believing that the project is important to tell their audience about, directly and in some detail - that is the evidence that the world outside wikipedia thinks this project is important. --81.92.202.30 (talk) 14:23, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse, but maybe relist. Yes, it's true that the only person arguing to keep had a WP:COI (and is excessively verbose as well), but there wasn't really much on the delete side either. There's something fishy about User:Safe My Edit. Brand new users don't typically set up talk page archiving, configure their CSS and JS, and then immediately dive into highly technical reference formatting, WP:PROD tagging, and WP:AFD. I don't fully understand what's going on there, but something doesn't add up. If you ignore that as likely socking, there's really only two people arguing to delete, and one of them is just the nom who says not much more than not notable. My hunch is that this is indeed not notable (hence the weak endorse), but I'd rather see it get more discussion . -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NPASR  I don't see that process was followed here. 
    For starters, there is no material in the nomination to prepare the community for a deletion discussion.  The three-word WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination from an experienced editor disregarded the edit notice that directs attention to WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD, with this disregard drawing no attention from the closing admin. 
    Nor can I confirm that the objection of WP:COI was relevant or valid.  We don't count votes so that strength of argument prevails. 
    The 2nd delete tried a WP:VAGUEWAVE WP:MILL argument.  WP:MILL is an essay without metrics, so when used without providing metrics is a variation of an WP:ATA IDONTLIKEIT. 
    So there is only one delete !vote to bring evidence, and this !vote didn't consider three of the four sources provided by the keep !vote. 
    Not a single editor has considered the WP:Alternatives to deletion, and a quick check shows that we have a List of 3D graphics software.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:55, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note  The discussion with the closing admin is at [21].  Unscintillating (talk) 01:09, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin comment: The DRV nominator Dsmatthews (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has now been checkuser-blocked for sockpuppetry. In view of this I don't think I need to comment further. Sandstein 08:54, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While I can't see the evidence leading to the block (I think?) I would be highly surprised if this is justified. Still, the fact remains that as Unscintillating stated, there has been no real argument justifying the delete. If policy is to have a discussion based on facts, the Dsmatthews block is even irrelevant. —Bart 123 (talk) 10:35, 16 January 2018 (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.
File:Angel Recording Studios.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

I had asked the admin to relist however they pointed me here instead, I personally believe the logo fails NFCC #8 (Contextual significance. Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding.),

Anyway I'm not seeing any consensus to keep at the moment and no one in the FFD could explain why text alone wasn't enough so I personally think it should be relisted for another week (and if consensus is again to keep then I'll obviously accept that but IMHO I think it was a tad too soon to close), Thanks –Davey2010Talk 23:16, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will again note here that simplicity of a logo should not be a reason for deletion; it is the only logo that represents the company in question, and as such, contextual significance is given. Also pinging other contributors @Salavat, Aspects, and Killiondude. Lordtobi (✉) 00:05, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"I will again note here that simplicity of a logo should not be a reason for deletion;" - which seems a complete strawman, no one has said it is, here or in the XFD. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 00:17, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Seems a bit of a tough one, I agree by the letter of the policies NFCC#8 seems a stretch, on the other hand the foundation resolution under which our EDP lies, specifically considers such to be reasonable usage "Their use, with limited exception, should be to illustrate ... to include identifying protected works such as logos ...". --81.108.53.238 (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My position still stands. Keep the logo as it is the primary identification symbol for the company. Simple as it may be it still significant enough to identify the company. Salavat (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (Note:I took part in the original discussion.) This was the only possible close given the discussion with three editors arguing that the file passed WP:NFCC versus the nominator arguing that it did not. The discussion was closed after 7.5 days and 4.5 days since the last entry, there was a consensus and no recent discussion, therefore the closer closed the discussion correctly. The nominator is simply repeating the same arguments they already made in the discussion, instead of arguing that the closer was incorrect in their closing of the discussion. Aspects (talk) 00:45, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There certainly wasn't any consensus to remove the logo. It appears like a proper close to me. And I know that this isn't really the place to rediscuss the NFCC complaint but I'd have to disagree with your #8 complaint anyways. Most logos don't have actual contextual significance and could, conceivably, be said with just words. Their use under fair use has had a long standing acceptance anyways. --Majora (talk) 00:57, 14 January 2018 (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.
Hefei Beicheng Railway Station (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Deletion reason is (Mass removal of pages added by Cnrail37592114) without checking content (this station exists for real) Ywwuyi, GCCPK (talk) 11:51, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- the deletion by @Timotheus Canens: seems in order. But if this is a real railway station, allow recreation. Reyk YO! 14:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I'd have preferred a deletion message that gave some more details, but it didn't take me long to work this back to the article creator being indef blocked for Mass automated creation of articles without approval from WP:BAG. Anybody can recreate this from scratch if they want (with sources, etc), but it's not likely we're going to restore the deleted version. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the author created a few hundred very short articles about railway stations in China (here is one which is still publicly visible). They didn't say anything other than where the station is and what railway line it's on and didn't cite any sources. The creator didn't go through the required approval processes before creating these, probably because it wouldn't have been allowed. Feel free to write another article about the station, if you can say anything other than "it exists" then you'll have done a better job. Hut 8.5 19:44, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse  The deletion log lacks a CSD criterion; but DRVPURPOSE has petitioners discuss with the deleting admin before coming here, and an out-of-process DRV is not the path to resolve an unclear deletion.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:26, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as G5; User:Tratra22395768 had been blocked two and a half months already by the time this was created. On its own merits, the only datum in the article that's not in its title is the station's province. The Chinese version at zh:合肥北城站 is a little better, but not very much. —Cryptic 21:58, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Permit recreation if someone can show a source. Unless we know that almost all of such creations do not exist, mass deletion in improper. We do not delete, let alone speedy delete, because something might not be notable or even might not exist. There has to be a high probability that it does not, which can only be shown by a search. There have been exceptions, but those have required prior consensus at an admin board. (and in fact I think all the examples listed in WPCSD X are mistaken, because in each case a reasonable proportion o the articles were appropriate and were rescued.) DGG ( talk ) 17:52, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Conor Lamb – Relisted. Because it's a contested non-admin closure and we have no consensus here. – Sandstein 12:43, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Conor Lamb (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)


1. I don't think consensus is clear in the discussion. 2. National coverage continues. These special elections are unique and seen in national context. The same for the candidates. Much as Jon Ossoff, he is likely notable even if he losses. I think a search clearly shows he meets WP:N now. Casprings (talk) 04:36, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. Non admin closure of a 'no consensus' afd. Redirect was the close that would have been made by most admins so its not actually a bad close per se - but as we're here at DRV procedure should be followed. Szzuk (talk) 07:37, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
NOTBURO and all that - it's unnecessary to overturn NAC closures unless there's something wrong with it. Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm an admin and I endorse this message. Relisting or closing as NC would have been reasonable, but so is the actual close to redirect, backed up by a reasonable explanation in the closing statement. If we ended up with the right close, it seems excessively wonkish to object to it just because the closer doesn't own a mop. I could invoke WP:BADNAC to re-close it the same way, but I'm not going to do that because it would send the wrong message. If I were closing this, my thought process would go something like:
    1. There's about equal !votes for each of three things (keep, redirect, delete)
    2. Of those, two (redirect, delete) are really variations on do not keep, so I'd lump those together and go with that.
    3. Of these two, redirect is a decent compromise between the two more extreme positions. It's also the less disruptive since it leaves the history intact and allows anybody to turn it back into an article without additional admin involvement. So, that's what I'd go with.
    -- RoySmith (talk) 16:28, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • RoySmith, Just to point out, that rationale ignores the second part of the argument. Namely, things have changed and continue to change with the WP:N of Lamb. If he wasn't WP:N when this discussion closed, the amount of national coverage that occurred after the close makes him WP:N now.Casprings (talk) 00:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD closed 3 weeks ago. If you are going to argue that in the past three weeks, there has been sufficient additional coverage to establish WP:N, then you need to cite sources which have come out since then. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Generally waving people towards pages of search results isn't very helpful. Of those which ones address the topic of Connor Lamb directly and in detail? --81.108.53.238 (talk) 17:40, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • In regards to tallying the various opinions in the original AfD, AfDs don't operate like a voting process. See WP:AFDEQ. Plus, redirect and delete yield opposing consequences; an inclusionist would "vote" for redirect, an exclusionist would "vote" for delete. I don't see a consensus in the original discussion. Kekki1978 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as per Roy Smith. I could not have explained the reasoning better myself.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The dicta has no standing, but retain redirect and continue to improve the encyclopedia  IMO the redirect by itself is a good edit.  Continue with a partial merge of the education and the "Assistant U.S. Attorney" section to one new section in the target article.  Unscintillating (talk) 21:43, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for further argument. The principle at stake here is political NPOV. In a two party system the candidate of both parties should be considered to have sufficient notability for an article. Usually the race is between an incumbent and a challenger, and since the incumbent is always considered nota ble, this gives an inevitable political imbalance to our coverage. This has not gotten the attention it should have. For a local election for a national office, whether special or regular, the coverage will be mainly in the electoral district, and we should find it and use it to show the notability of both candidates. It would be reasonable to make the presumption that it would always be present. (I am not sure how afar we should carry it to the countries which have more than two major parties.) DGG ( talk ) 20:56, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for further discussion. Wikipedia precedent needs to be further considered. Assuming that folks are arguing that Lamb fails the notability test outside of this election (which I disagree with, given press coverage), Wikipedia has contained articles about otherwise non-notable candidates for upcoming notable elections. If others in similar circumstances are the subjects of accepted articles, why would Lamb be treated differently? In addition, if Lamb were to lose, precedent has shown that it is the articles about losing candidates for elections below the national level that are generally deleted. This election, on the other hand, is for an office in a national body that can affect national policy, so if Lamb were to lose, this precedent to delete after an election loss would not apply. In addition, precedent has shown that "Candidates who ran but never were elected for a national legislature...are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls,...or into articles detailing the specific race in question." But that merging happens after the election, not before. For details of precedents that support these points, see the Common Outcomes of Deletion Discussion re. Politicians explanation, which describes common outcomes of past AfD discussions. Kekki1978 (talk) 21:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore article National coverage of this election specifically of Lamb has increased substantially since this discussion began. Politico, New York Times, Washington Post have all published articles featuring Conor Lamb. This alone clearly demonstrates WP:N. Obviously, the coverage is only going to increase leading to the election. Thereafter, this will be cast as a significant historical event--with election results either way shaping the national debate. Which leads to yet another problem that already with the establishment of the article about the special election, we have de facto accepted the importance of this election and therefore also the key figures involved with it. We cannot say: This special election is important enough to justify an article, but only politicians who already hold office are WP:N enough to include in the discussion. Finally, although not the best argument but also relevant and telling, Kim Ward and Jason Ortitay also mentioned in the article both with Wikipedia articles about them have virtually 0 national (or potential historical) notoriety--though they have held office--and this alone, the weakest but the most "objective" of the criteria for notoriety appears to suffice. Quigley david (talk) 23:23, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Side note: there appears to be a draft space article located at Draft:Conor Lamb. Declined twice for lack of notability, reliable secondary sources. Mélencron (talk) 15:58, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 January 2018[edit]

11 January 2018[edit]

  • Total_Miner – Endorse. Subject does not yet have the required sources for a stand-alone article. Opinion seems to be that if better sources appear in the future, just go ahead and recreate this (or ask for the deleted text to be userfied as a starting point) and if people still don't like it, they can take it to WP:AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Total_Miner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The game was recently released on Steam, has an active following and is in constant development. It is one of the best selling XBLIG of all time, just like FortressCraft and Castle Miner. Both of those games still have their own articles, and are equally notable to Total Miner. The article should be reinstated and not a redirect to Minecraft. 86.150.18.203 (talk) 19:26, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any WP:VGRS discussing this game in depth? The deletion was a few months ago so it's not inconceivable that it is now notable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Metacritic is saying no critic reviews as of yet, google news saying no news. Based upon that an endorse is the only appropriate outcome for this DRV - it doesn't look notable now it has been released let alone two months before release. If the article is recreated we can just look at any refs and notability at that time in an AFD. The article history can be offered for a userpage now if there is an interested editor, I can't see much happening with this unless it grows substantially but sandbox games occasionally do. Szzuk (talk) 20:00, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not ready for an article yet, wait for the sources. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • F%CK THE HATERS – No Consensus. Maybe sending this to WP:RFD would have been better than WP:CSD, but at this point, it's gotten about as much discussion as it would have on RFD, so I'll take this as essentially endorsing the deletion. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
F%CK THE HATERS (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

"Gummo" is on the album F%CK THE HATERS by American musician 6ix9ine. Jax 0677 (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • If Gummo (song) had mentioned that at the time this was deleted (or even if it mentioned it now), it probably wouldn't have been. —Cryptic 15:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - I mentioned on the talk page, that this term can be redirected to 6ix9ine. --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:19, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've temp undeleted the talk page. If what User:Ss112 says there is true, then this shouldn't point at 6ix9ine either, nor should that article mention this. Either way, I would've sent this to WP:RFD instead of speedying it. —Cryptic 15:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jax, a random person on the Internet trying to make a name for themselves called "DJ Get It Rite" compiled a "mixtape" on DatPiff with "Gummo" on it. It's not from 6ix9ine at all. No other reliable search results show up for it aside from more uploads of this fanmade compilation. If it were official, there'd be something. Ss112 15:41, 11 January 2018 (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.
Fethi Sekin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The page was deleted for being created by a banned user evading their ban however the page was not created by a user banned at the time of the articles creation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank Schneider1972 (talk • contribs) 11:54, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 January 2018[edit]

  • Bobby kalotee – Endorse. Combination of WP:coi, copyright, and extremely promotional tone. The copyright issue makes it impossible to restore the sandbox. – -- RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Bobby kalotee (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

My page on Mr. Bobby Kalotee was recently deleted by your ADMIN (RHaworth), upon contacting him he asked me to work with DRV hence this request. The admin also deleted by sandbox (User:Sagar vaibhav/sandbox). Below is my communication with RHaworth admin. "Hello Mr. Haworth, You recently deleted by wikipedia page on Bobby Kalotee. Kindly help me fix the issues on the page so that I can either remove or edit them for the page to pass your and Wikipedia's criteria. Kindly feel free to email me to discuss further. Seems like you also deleted by sandbox page. Kindly let me know what and how can I fix it do retrieve my info back. If possible for both my page on Bobby and also my sandbox page kindly list 1. what text/link should I remove from it? 2. How can I restore my sandbox back with its previous contents? Thanks vaibhav — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar vaibhav (talk • contribs) 17:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Ask at DRV if you must. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:08, 8 January 2018 (UTC)"

Apart from this here's my impression of Mr. Bobby Kalotee. He's a true social worker and humanitarian who has worked for his local & international communities in times if distress and natural calamity. All his charitable work has been done with the sole purpose of serving humanity. He never ever expects or gets anything back from his humanitarian activities. I hope your review board will take this into consideration and work with me to get his wiki page listed. All the photos and awards certificates that I uploaded as part of this article were taken by me from his office. I only used the material and info that I would personally get from his office. Thanks for all your help and cooperation in advance. Sagar vaibhav (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Did you also write his LinkedIn page? If not, it doesn't matter how wonderful and important a person he is, nor how utterly inappropriate the tone of the article was for an encyclopedia; copyright violations are never restored. If so, we have a different set of problems entirely. —Cryptic 18:49, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there were two problems with the article. One is that the wording was extremely promotional, and it read like the sort of thing I would see in a press release or on the subject's website. Wikipedia is a neutral encyclopedia and doesn't allow this type of content. The other is that you copied a large amount of text from other places on the internet, including the subject's LinkedIn page. This makes it a copyright violation and we don't allow those either (not least because it's illegal). The article would have to be rewritten completely to address these concerns, and we don't allow this type of material in user sandboxes either. Hut 8.5 18:57, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hut 8.5, Cryptic - Thanks for your response. I'll keep your points while redrafting the page. Kindly restore my sandbox so that I can work on editing the article. I promise I'll rewrite the article but I need the basic text, links and formatting which will help me re-frame and rewrite the article again. Help here is highly appreciated.

Hello user RHaworth - I did that to cite and prove all the awards that he earned for his social work. Also SmokeyJoe kindle let me know if you can email me my sandbox info. I'll rewrite this page but I need my sandbox restored so that I can reuse all the wikipedia editing and formatting that I did. RHaworth, SmokeyJoe, Cryptic - Is there a way to avoid this. Could have I sent my page to either of you for a review and suggested edits to avoid deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar vaibhav (talk • contribs) 17:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sagar vaibhav: You can begin by disclosing your connection to Mr. Kalotee. You stated above that you got the information "from his office". Are you employed by him? —Cryptic 19:09, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptic - I do not work for or with Bobby. I first met Bobby Kalotee at India Day Parade and was impressed by his charity work and humility. when I tried to look him up online I did not see any Wiki page on his name and thought may be I could start one. I'm a JAVA software developer by profession and not a news reporter, so to get more info about Bobby I got in touch with Bobby's office and to gather more information about his work. I used the text from the resume that they sent me, which now I see is similar to his linkedin profile (I only read/checked his linkedin profile after my page was deleted). I personally took photos of all his degrees and certificates to prove all the text in my wikipage. I thought these pics would help substantiate all the awards and Bobby's charitable community work. I honestly did not know about copyright and other legal issues hence I request you guys to consider my request to restore atleast my sandbox so that I can rewrite the article. Restoring my sandbox will help me re-use the wiki markups that I used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sagar vaibhav (talk • contribs) 19:55, 11 January 2018 (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.
Ali Alsalim (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Khaled Alhnen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Iraqi singer and songwriter.I added more than six sources What is the purpose of deleting the article??? Also Khaled Alhnen.No need to delete such articles! - Regards (Please see this User_talk:Elahrairah#Ali_Alsalim_&_Khaled_Alhnen) IamIRAQI (talk) 02:42, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • requesting a temp undelete to address the speedy. If the sources are any good at all, it would be enough to overcome the A7. But that's a big if... Hobit (talk) 04:37, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temp undeleted. That's a big if indeed. Links to one's music are not sources. Endorse. —Cryptic 09:13, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources are all in Arabic. That's not a problem in theory, but in practice it makes it difficult for non-Arabic speakers (like me) to evaluate the sources. Could you help us out by reading WP:NMUSIC and then pointing out the two or three best sources which meet the requirements described there. Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Lacking the requested sources, I must now endorse the deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Refs are just links to music lists, blogs, lyrics etc. there is no assertion of notability. Szzuk (talk) 17:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • For clarity, my rationale for deletion explained:
    1. The article makes no credible claim to significance in the body.
    2. The parts of the references that are in English do not indicate significance.
    3. The vast majority of the material included in the references is written in Arabic, which neither I nor the majority of Wikipedia's users can read. It is therefore useless in determining importance or notability. ElAhrairah inspect damage⁄berate 17:53, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being written in Arabic makes it much more difficult for us to find new sources, but not especially so to evaluate ones that've already been given. For these particular articles, their nature was obvious enough even before running them through machine translation to confirm.
    @IamIRAQI: We don't need "more than six" sources listing the titles or lyrics of music these people have written, nor to pages selling it. The only thing that will be convincing are prose articles with clear editorial control, that are intellectually independent of them, and that discuss them, or at least their music, directly and in depth. Or, for the long version, see WP:NMUSIC, as RoySmith links above. —Cryptic 18:40, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse sources appear to not meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 19:15, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I translated each source, but you don't really need to. It's obvious that all sources are directory or track listings or song lyrics. No in-depth coverage of the artist. Zero evidence of meeting any of the criteria for inclusion in WP:MUSICBIO. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:48, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

9 January 2018[edit]

  • Template:FilmAffinity – Endorse. There's clear agreement that the XfD close correctly judged that the delete arguments were in line with policy, while the keep arguments were more along the lines of WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. There's also some feeling (but no real consensus) that the closer should review WP:SPA regarding our policy for how to correctly evaluate comments from those users. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: since WP:SPA is an essay, it's inappropriate to assert that it is a source of policy. Still, some people felt that reviewing the essay would be useful. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Template:FilmAffinity (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The template FilmAffinity was recently deleted without clear consensus since there were 4 deletes and 3 keeps. Moreover, the Wikipedia guidelines state that consensus depends on the quality of the arguments, not the quantity, and the ones that voted "delete" don't offer objective information or anything really valuable, even one user, according to Wikipedia guidelines, is showcasing incivility. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.61.46.126 (talk) 08:13, 9 January 2018‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment The deletion result seems within discretion to me but the claim in the closing rationale "SPAs are as always ignored" is an appallingly bad characterisation of WP:SPA which says "... a user who edits appropriately and makes good points that align with Wikipedia's communal norms, policies and guidelines should have their comment given full weight ...". SPA contributions are not ignored but are examined on their merits. Thincat (talk) 09:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Meat/sock SPAs with a most-probable aim to link-spam shall be always ignored.And, neither was their point of any use.Winged BladesGodric 13:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The discussion boiled down to the delete side raising legitimate concerns about accuracy and reliability, and the keep side saying WP:ITSUSEFUL and WP:ILIKEIT. That, and the fact that several of the keep !voters were very obviously sock- or meatpuppets, makes this a clearly correct close. Reyk YO! 11:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've no opinion (or understanding) of the underlying dispute. But yes, given that this was the first contribution of at least two of those arguing to keep this, I'd say actual consensus was clear. endorse deletion. Hobit (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer-Hmm..Interesting.Winged BladesGodric 13:39, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: As I stated in my nomination, the external link goes against MOS:FILM#External links, specifically, "Some external links may benefit readers in a way that the Wikipedia article cannot accommodate." In the world of movies, there are going to be a great deal of movie-related websites that clamor for traffic. A website can only qualify here as an external link if an ideal Wikipedia article cannot have that information. In the case of film articles, this is generally content that an encyclopedic article cannot show, like a list of more film reviews than can be sampled, or more detailed box office data that is not likely to be captured in prose. IMDb itself lists many more cast and crew members than Wikipedia could. FilmAffinity does not add anything beyond what a Wikipedia article on a film can have. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 14:16, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - if I had been the one to close this TFD it would have had the same result (minus the SPA comment). As mentioned above, the delete votes cited precedent and policy reasons while the keep votes barely managed more than "it's useful". Primefac (talk) 16:32, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the argument for deletion is that the links are either not useful or not as useful as other film websites, which is perfectly valid. Most of the Keep comments just asserted that they liked the site, which doesn't mean anything, and discussion about how great it is for Spanish speakers aren't that useful on a site that is aimed at English speakers. Hut 8.5 22:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 January 2018[edit]

  • Ripple pictures – Relist AfD. I'm going to relist the existing AfD per closing admin Spartaz's request below. As a side comment, it's generally not a great idea to rename articles during an AfD. People do that from time to time, and more often than not, it just causes confusion (as it did here). Better to make your suggestions for a rename and let people consider the idea before acting on it. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ripple pictures (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Turning picture (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Tabula scalata (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The consensus that the deleting administrator suggested is not at all obvious from the discussion. This administrator has not responded to a request to reconsider his conclusion. The reason the page was nominated and the argument for a weak redirect both seemed invalid after moving the page to Tabula scalata (please check this term with a Google Books search if in doubt). A merge with a page that is closely related would be acceptable, but I don't consider the page Anamorphosis in the argument for MERGE nor the page Lenticular printing as closely related. Joortje1 (talk) 19:55, 8 January 2018 (UTC)Joortje1[reply]

The redirect target isn’t as clear as I thought when closing. When I’m near a desktop I’ll relist. Fell free to close and do that if thats easy for someone. Spartaz Humbug! 11:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So the "deletion" discussion can proceed?  There is not a single editor who supported the need for a deletion discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:13, 9 January 2018 (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.
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is one of the worst closes I've seen in recent memory. There's no policy based reason for deletion, there's an obvious GNG-based rationale for Keeping, massively demonstrated by me, there's a big majority of AfD participants opining for Keep, and we have Sandstein Supervoting No Consensus for no apparent reason other than IDONTLIKEIT, I suppose. Of course, the closer is embroiled in big, loud AE drama just now over the Current American Politics topic and maybe didn't have time to really pay attention to this one or something, so maybe he should be excused, but I'd like to ask that this bad close be overturned to Keep on the basis of the above. Thanks. Carrite (talk) 09:30, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin comment: I wasn't contacted about this beforehand. If I had been, I might have proposed to clarify my closure that there was clearly consensus to not delete the content, but that there was no consensus as to whether to keep the content in a separate article or to merge it elsewhere. That discussion can still be continued on the talk page. As to my personal opinion about what to do with the content, I haven't expressed any. I don't really have any, I guess, except that it's mildly amusing, and that the question of whether we should cover political minutiae at this level of detail is a legitimate one. Sandstein 10:11, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What, were you gonna reopen the debate to correct your error? A better question is why you felt so compelled to close this one at all if you felt unable to determine a result. Why didn't you hold it open for further opinions? After all, the last five people after my huge list of GNG-meeting sources said, "Keep." Why jump in with a "No Consensus"??? Carrite (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking back on the AfD, that's basically what I said in the closure already. That something meets GNG does not mean that we necessarily need a separate article for it. If that were the case we'd have an article for every one of the U.S. president's tweets, for instance. We routinely exercise editorial judgement about whether to present notable content in a separate article or whether to summarize it in a higher-level article. That's why I think that the fact that GNG is undisputedly met here does not mandate a "keep" closure. Sandstein 10:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say "we" but actually that view is "you." Closers are supposed to interpret the debate, not to impose what they think should be a result with a supervote. Carrite (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse  This is not a process that starts with an XfD and then people debate if there is a discussion to be had.  Nothing is lost with a procedural close and instructions to come back if there is still a dispute with the closer's close that needs community attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 11:10, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meh. I probably would have closed this as Keep, but NC isn't unreasonable. But, I really suggest this be speedy closed as pointless time-wasting. There's no practical difference between Keep and NC; spending a week arguing about it seems pointless. I don't understand the degree of rancor expressed in the nomination. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more I think about it, the more I agree with the close, so let's call this a full endorse. There were three opinions put forth (Delete, Merge, Keep). The close eliminated the only one which requires admin involvement, and suggested people continue to hash out the other two (Merge or Keep) in a more appropriate forum, i.e. the article talk page. Having that conversation, in that forum, seems like a more productive use of people's time. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is called a Wrong forum closure and requires moving the discussion to the appropriate forum.  Closing as "No consensus" in the AfD forum imputes that AfD is the place that would have decided the difference between Merge and Keep.  Or says that there is consensus to not delete, which we call "Keep", with an option to initiate a merge discussion.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:28, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As for productive uses of time, I think you've wedged this discussion open with points that Sandstein could have made without your input.  Editors here are aware of the " 'Keep' vs. 'NC' difference doesn't argue well at DRV" premise.  The effect may partly be bandwagon-fallacy responses.  So I still support a procedural close, to clarify the dispute, and as a preferred form of feedback to improve the encyclopedia.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:59, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I think the keep votes were more numerous pushing this towards keep, but it is a stupid topic for an encyclopedia pushing it back towards NC. Either way this DRV isn't serving any purpose and should be closed early, this is Deletion Review - and there was no Deletion! Szzuk (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse there was substantial support for keeping, deletion and merging in that discussion, and while keeping seems to be the most numerous it wasn't by much. These positions are all justifiable and have reasonable arguments supporting them. That all suggests a no consensus closure. Hut 8.5 22:09, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- per Hut 8.5. There were people arguing for keeping, merger, and deletion, and all those opinions were legitimate. I'm not sure what OP is so grouchy about, but this DRV seems to be an attempt to illegitimise all opinions contrary to his own. That's not what DRV is for. Reyk YO! 10:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse--Good close.Unnecessary process wonkery with a side-aim.Winged BladesGodric 13:42, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Keep and No-Consensus are not materially different outcomes. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close Probably should have been closed as keep, but there's not enough difference between keep and no consensus that we need to waste people's time here. Smartyllama (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

7 January 2018[edit]

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

The rational for deletion was focused on tendentious behavior instead of evidence of notability as observed by user:Anachronist without any real objection from the discussants. Ejembi12 (talk) 12:27, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as a valid weighting of arguments by the closer and within administrative discretion. I’d encourage other participants to avoid the desire to turn this into XfD 2.0 because of the way the appeal has been framed. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have indef blocked Ejembi12 for violation of the terms under which his previous block was lifted and WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to allow the AFC process to run to completion as it was intended, since that is the only viable venue for COI editors. I agree that the deletion was correct when considering the weighting of arguments and within administrator discretion, but I disagree that the keep arguments were relevant to whether evidence of notability was present in the draft, which should have been the only consideration, in my opinion. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as original closer. The AfC process has run, and the article was declined three times with no improvement. Just because it can run for 6 months until the draft gets stale and G13'd doesn't mean it must run for six months. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:17, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The tendentious behaviour was astounding and understandably drew a lot of comments. The compelling reasons for deletion were simple, there was not much to say. Space spent commenting on the tendentious behaviours does not invalidate the reasons for deletion, which were simply stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ejembi John Onah. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:52, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The close of the AfD had nothing to do with "tendentious behavior [sic]", and instead focussed entirely on the content's notability - TNT❤ 16:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    @There'sNoTime: You may be confusing the AFD (which was about the main space article) with the MFD, which is about the draft space article, and the subject of this DRV discussion. The article was restored to draft space for improvement, and then deleted not based on notability but on behavior of the author. I find this ironic because draft space is really the only place where COI editors are allowed to work on content. ~Anachronist (talk) 19:24, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Endorse – I support the deletion because it's pretty obvious that it was the overwhelmingly likely ultimate disposition of the draft or any article based on it. My reservation is that the putative reason for deletion was based on lack of notability and that does not seem to be a proper reason for deletion under current policy for draftspace (according to this RFC). I think I understand why the policy says this (we should not be too hasty to delete a work in progress).
    What do I think should have happened? The MfD closed with "no policy-based consensus for deletion"; the contributor blocked for disruptive editing or WP:NOTHERE (as has now happened). Then, the draft would likely have to be deleted under G13 as abandoned. So this deletion just shortened the wait time to get to the end state. I'm thankful for that. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 17:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

6 January 2018[edit]

5 January 2018[edit]

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

I am asking for this discussion to be reopened as the close was a clear violation of established policy. There was no clear consensus for a redirect. 1. The discussion was closed only a few hours after it began, I believe the standard policy is seven days 2. This was a non-admin closure when there was no clear consensus. 3. The editor who closed the discussion was also involved in it, also a violation. In case anyone raises the issue, I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing editor because a. he is not an admin and b. this wasn't a judgement call, this is a clear violation of established procedures. Rusf10 (talk) 23:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Prapimporn Karnchanda – Speedy restore as contested PROD – consider it contested by me personally if it helps. I've deleted the AFD page that the article creator opened in a misguided attempt to protest the deletion (CSD:G6 "pages unambiguously created in error or in the incorrect namespace") and speedy closed the MFD of the said AFD. Anyone wishing to file a proper AFD for the article is not precluded from doing so. – Stifle (talk) 09:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Prapimporn Karnchanda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Miniapolis’s deletion isn't valid (no existing AfD debate), but whether it's being actively used or not is irrelevant as far as our notability requirements are concerned. My objections are here: 1) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda; 2) Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prapimporn Karnchanda. Janggun Dungan (talk) 00:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It was an expired prod for a non-notable subject. The OP apparently doesn't know the difference between a proposed deletion and an AfD discussion, because they then opened an AfD on their own article (the expired, uncontested prod I'd already deleted) which I listed at MfD because I'm involved. The OP has baselessly accused me of vandalism and paid editing. I don't really care if the page is userfied or whatever, but don't think we should be bullied into ignoring WP:NACTOR to do so. Miniapolis 01:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • IAR Endorse- Ordinarily I'd call this a clear case of contesting a PRODded article. But I'm not convinced rewarding personal attacks and unfounded accusations is appropriate here. Of course, any other editor in good standing could contest it as well and I'd then have no objection about restoring it. It's likely that this article was a hopeless case though. Reyk YO! 06:27, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Raegan Revord – as always, we remove content posted by banned users but that never prohibts a new artcile being started from scratch. – Spartaz Humbug! 03:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Raegan Revord (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Page deleted outside the AfD process. Last time I saw the page, it seemed a legitimate page for a notable child actress. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 22:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • You are correct that this was done outside of AfD. It was deleted per WP:G5 (Creations by banned or blocked users). As far as I can see, this was done correctly. If some other legitimate user (you, for example) wants to write a new article about this subject, they're free to do so, but I don't see any way the deleted text is going to be restored. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is that we can't allow the banned user to be given the attribution for creating the article. Unfortunately, like it or not, that means starting over from scratch is the only option in a case such as this. Bearcat (talk) 19:33, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
When I deleted by G5 I did not analyze the possible significance, only confirmed it was written by a puppet. (I would not have looked at a proposed A7 speedy in this field, as I have insufficient background). DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My recollection is that the article showed enough notable activity by the child actor to merit an article. Sometimes the sky is blue (talk) 06:25, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- I have no reason to question that the G5 was correct, but allow re-creation if anyone else wants to write it. Reyk YO! 07:36, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reyk is completely correct: we don't undo G5's, even to build off of, but we can re-do their work from scratch. Jclemens (talk) 03:02, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Sock article, sock mischief. A reputable user can recreate if they wish. Szzuk (talk) 18:12, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 January 2018[edit]

  • Wu Yongning – Endorse, with no prejudice against the creation of the redirect – ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:30, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wu Yongning (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Original: Under Jax 0677 (talk · contribs) subpage here. This would be an administrative !supervote regardless of the opinion of the closer there was no consensus that this person fell under WP:BLP1E.

BLP1E states: Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. We generally should avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:

  1. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event.
  2. If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article.
  3. If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented. John Hinckley Jr., for example, has a separate article because the single event he was associated with, the Reagan assassination attempt, was significant and his role was both substantial and well documented.

The term each is used and the 3rd criteria is not met. It was also debatable whether or not his social media allow him to pass the first guideline as Chinese sources had mentioned him prior.

Looking at these sources such as the Death of Man in Skyscraper Fall in China Puts a Spotlight on ‘Rooftopping’ from the New York Times states this man's fame in China has put a spotlight on rooftopping saying "The young man’s death exemplified, again, the internet obsession of inviting millions of strangers to witness a life, in all its perils, pranks and failures."

This source from The Sun describes him as "China's first roof-topper. Wu Yongning was well-known for his stunts, which he published widely on social media - so that in the end, even his death would be recorded."

Spartaz (talk · contribs) did not like the source from The Sun so I've replaced it with stronger reliable sources.

This stronger source from BBC states "A recent Beijing News investigation found that Mr Wu had posted more than 500 short videos and livestreams on Huoshan, garnering a million fans and earning at least 550,000 yuan (£62,000; $83,000). Huoshan had prominently promoted his videos as recently as June."

Another source from NYMag states "Performing dangerous stunts in the name of viral fame and incredible aerial photos has become a trend in recent years. It’s almost surprising — if fortunate — that we don’t hear about more stunts gone terribly wrong. One can only tempt fate by hoverboarding on a skyscraper so many times. Earlier this year, a photographer in Chicago died after falling 20 stories during a shoot. Since Yongning’s death, Chinese officials have asked people to stop livestreaming their stunts, and called for the streaming platforms to stop incentivizing users to attempt said stunts."

CNN states "Wu Yongjing, whose nickname on Chinese social media was "the Extreme," is a casualty of the international daredevil trend known as "rooftopping," which has taken off across China where a ready prevalence of newly built skyscrapers has combined with a boom in social media apps."

Another source Time magazine state: A Chinese climber famous for scaling skyscrapers without any safety equipment has died after falling from a 62-story building in the city of Changsha, according to his girlfriend. Wu gained a large following on the Chinese social media network Weibo — he has more than 60,000 followers at time of writing — where he had posted hundreds of photos and videos of himself atop buildings he successfully scaled. His followers began to worry when he stopped posting updates in November."

This person is not run of the mill and the dicussion focused on these sources. 3 keeps and 2 deletes the arguments for deletion were not any stronger. This person is from China and has received widespread coverage in international sources. We haven't even begun to delve into Chinese sources. Overturn to no consensus Valoem talk contrib 07:10, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin comment. It would have been cool if Valoem had followed instruction No. 1 up there and talked with me about the close before taking up everyone's time at DRV. I don't think this decision is particularly controversial and I might have convinced them of that. No one could possibly sum up the discussion any better than Anna Frodesiak did in the debate itself. If the subject is so significant, why has there not been a single article about him since his death two months ago? Where are all the retrospectives noting the impact of his death on Chinese society? As I said in my closing comment, I am completely open to re-considering with some sources to that effect, but Valoem hasn't brought us any new sources. A Traintalk 07:46, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
His death has signficant impact on rooftopping culture around the world, the NYTimes sources as well as the Time and many other sources suggest that. Generally closers are less likely to changing their views, however in the future I well gladly talk to you first. It is just that if you disagree, as you have, I would have to post everything twice. The opinion of the discussion participants favoring keep does not believe this person fails 1E. I am not seeing consensus. Valoem talk contrib 07:49, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If Mr Wu's death has had a significant impact, then I'm sure you can find some reliable sources that discuss that impact beyond the immediate aftermath of his demise. Those sources would slam dunk the deletion arguments that I decided had carried the debate. So if you just post them (or had posted them to my talk page earlier) I will reopen the discussion. A Traintalk 07:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion has been opened for over a month so a relist might be better with a second round. Valoem talk contrib 07:56, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- seems a good reading of the strength of arguments to me. Reyk YO! 08:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, why did you not raise this on the closer's talk page before bringing it here? Reyk YO! 08:03, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse if your sourcing to argue against the close includes using the current bun as a reliable source than I'm afraid your argument is irretrievably weak. (hint the Sun is an even less suitable source than the Daily fail). Spartaz Humbug! 13:31, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Spartaz:, there are many other sources, perhaps The Sun is not the best sources, so I've replaced it will stronger sources BBC, NYMag, and CNN. This should satisfy your disagreement, correct? I find it logically unsound to suggest that a man falling off a building a China and then receives international coverage is run of the mill. Valoem talk contrib 18:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or redirect - I recommend redirecting to Rooftopping#Rooftoppers, but a redirect did not happen, and was not discussed. IMHO, this is a very good redirect target. I am indifferent between redirecting and keeping, so long as the history is kept in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:47, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to redirect, but really, moot. If a reasonable redirect target is suggested in an AfD, and there's no strong argument why it should not be redirected, it's a no-brainer to invoke WP:ATD and create the redirect in lieu of deletion. I was just about to create the redirect myself, when I noticed that Jax 0677 had beat me to it. So, other than pointless haggling about whether to go back and update the closing statement, I think we're done here. And a trout to Valoem who's been here long enough to know that talking to the closing admin before playing the DRV card is the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A Train: and @RoySmith: That was my mistake, apologies. I agree with history being intact eventually I'll search for Chinese sources covering him before his death later. Until then a redirect is fine, I also think we are done here, someone please restore talk page. Valoem talk contrib 18:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as a fair reading of the discussion. The argument for deletion here is that while the subject has plenty of source coverage it does not represent lasting notability. To refute that you'd need to show that either (a) the subject has continued to get source coverage since his death or that (b) he was notable before he died. Finding lots of sources covering his death does nothing to prove this. The argument about passing BLP1E because the the event is particularly significant doesn't have any merit, that criterion is meant for much more important events than somebody falling off a roof (e.g. someone nearly killing the president of the United States). Hut 8.5 21:11, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't have a problem with a redirect, but a Delete closure at AfD doesn't stop you doing that yourself and you can just do it rather than going to DRV. Hut 8.5 21:15, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with a redirect and I am equally bemused that this wasted a lot of people's time at DRV. Judging from what he's written above, I think Valoem thought this was a place to re-litigate the whole debate. Just drop the redirect into place and if there are ever sources that extend this chap's notoriety beyond WP:ONEEVENT (they haven't materialized yet, that I've seen) then turn the redirect into an article again. A Traintalk 22:14, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@A Train:I believe that it is always better to have a community consensus before restoring something. This can be restore as a redirect and after sources show this person was notable before his death, can be fully restored. Some editors have different interpretations of requests to restore and more often than not request a DRV. I don't find this to be a waste of time, but a request for consensus. This person's death has had a notable impact on the rooftopping community. In fact when you search "rooftopping" at this time, Wu Yongning is the first subject that comes up. This is more than a request to redirect, but a request to restore when Chinese sources are provided. I don't see any disagreement at this time, this is the goal of DRV is it not? Valoem talk contrib 04:28, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The community consensus was determined at the original AfD, a debate that was open for a month. This DRV hasn't changed anything. A Traintalk 07:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
AfD was 3 to 2 in favor of keep saying that blp1e did not apply I believe there is no consensus to delete but redirect with future restoration is fine. I believe drv is appropriate for this I find it hard to believe otherwise. Valoem talk contrib 07:44, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you believe that DRV is the appropriate venue then you should take on board the fact that the AfD close is being overwhelmingly endorsed here. There is a consensus to delete citing BLP1E. If you actually wanted this DRV discussion to support a re-opening of the discussion, then you should have come back with new sources with datelines outside the 72 hours around the subject's death. Heck, if you had dropped those sources onto my talk page then I would have happily re-opened the AfD without wasting volunteer resources at DRV. A Traintalk 12:43, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, but redirect People do often jump too quickly to invoke the BLP1E policy, but in this case, the policy was correctly applied by the AfD contributors and the administrator did not err in closing the discussion in this manner. I agree with a redirect to preserve article history, but that is compatible with closing to delete. The way to get that outcome is to simply ask the closing admin to redirect—a DRV is inappropriate unless the decision was a flawed reading of consensus (it wasn't). —Tom Morris (talk) 00:09, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, delete the history, may redirect afterwards. On the count, it was indeed 3:2 with a couple of comments leaning delete, it is just the DRV nominator forgot to mention that the delete votes were not policy-based (and one of them not even motivated at all). Note that the long-standing consensus (even if not everybody sticks to it) is that delete means delete the article by using the administrative interface panel. DRV is not for opening another AfD, it is for deciding whether the decision was within the policy. It clearly was.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree which I why I opened DRV, which is the proper path, keep in mind, I do plan on restoring the article eventually as more than a redirect. Editors have posted sources and I've highlighted some sources which were not specifically highlighted in the AfD, these sources suggest that Wu's death has had an impact on rooftopping culture. I've brought NYTimes source which was not mentioned in the AfD. At the time the AfD had 3 keeps one delete the sudden deletion was surprising. A Train (talk · contribs) suggested this is a waste of time however this is DRV purpose, to suggest this is a waste of time is incorrect. The argument from the those favoring inclusion state his prior accomplishments and global impact does not fall under BLP1E. Since everyone was in agreement, I was going to close this DRV against myself as a redirect with history included until sources were found, two of which have been, however you stated to Endorse with history delete therefore it appears DRV has its purpose here. Valoem talk contrib 15:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
History was deleted as a result of AfD, and it should be deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - What exactly is the purpose of deleting the history from public view? --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:18, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Since the article is not notable, it should be deleted. Deletion means deletion of the page history. If ever a notable article would be created on this place (which I doubt), it should have its own history.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply - WP:R#KEEP bullet 1. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe this does not apply to this case. I do not think "merge and redirect" would be a valid outcome of the AfD discussion.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:51, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no-consensus or keep I do not think it was reasonable to make the judgement that it was BLP1E from the information presented. (Though I did not particpate in the AFD, it was obvious to me from the news accounts that he was well known in China previously--I admit it was without analysis of the sources). DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If he was notable he would have had an article before his death. It appears most of the participants in the AFD were aware of the central problem (News/One Event) but didn't address it. Meaning the AFD discussion was very weak (understatement), if participants are unable to address the basic issues I have no problem the closer doing so, even if it looks like a supervote. Szzuk (talk) 17:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Close seems to me to be correct and is within process. Guy (Help!) 12:03, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2018[edit]

2 January 2018[edit]

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

It seems to be unreasonable to delete Romance Europe while we accept Germanic Europe and Slavic Europe entries. The fact that Romance Europe or Romance-speaking Europe is "an awkward and uncommon term" should not be the reason to delete this page, because it has a popular term - Latin Europe. However, the entry Latin Europe is a disambiguation page, so using the term Romance Europe or Romance-speaking Europe really helps. Yejianfei (talk) 18:16, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn the original decision, as is stated above. Yejianfei (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If someone really believes the term must be Latin Europe instead of Romance-speaking Europe, then his/her suggestion should be moving Romance-speaking Europe to Latin Europe, after moving the original Latin Europe entry to Latin Europe (disambiguation). As a result, there is no reasonable reason to ask for deletion. Yejianfei (talk) 18:44, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I guess. There's so much to nit-pick here, I'm not sure where to start. I guess in reverse chronological order. I don't see any evidence that Yejianfei contacted Spartaz (the closing admin) to discuss this, per WP:DELREVD #1. Also, a complicated close like this really deserves a closing statement that gives some insight into why the closing admin came to the conclusion they did. In the end, I'm not terribly excited by the AfD arguments on either side.
The delete side is arguing that this duplicates Romance languages, but I don't think it does. Romance languages is a linguistic treatment. This seems like it's more about political history (I've temp undeleted it for review). And awkward and uncommon term isn't much of an argument either.
On the other hand, the keep arguments are even worse; WP:OTHERSTUFF and listing raw search results do not make good arguments at AfD.
I would probably have closed this as No Consensus, but the delete close isn't unreasonable. I wouldn't be opposed to overturning to NC, nor to restoring this to draft or userspace, and allowing recreation once it's fleshed out a bit and better sourcing found. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Actually, I searched for Latin Europe on Wikipedia yesterday. Wikipedia gave me a disambiguation page, where the first item was the red link Romance-speaking Europe. Now do you think it is suitable to be like that? Yejianfei (talk) 01:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with Roy on pretty much all of that. I do think there is a reasonable case that as it exists it largely duplicates Romance languages. I think I'd still argue NC was the better reading, but delete is within discretion. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse  This is not a process that starts with an XfD and then people debate if there is an discussion to be had.  Nothing is lost with a procedural close and instructions to come back if there is still a dispute with the closer's close that needs community attention.  Unscintillating (talk) 02:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn erroneous final decision. People who !voted to delete were searching for the phrase, not the concept. DGG ( talk ) 17:57, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reluctant endorse per RoySmith. The Delete arguments presented were better than the Keep ones. I wouldn't be opposed to restoring this to draft space so we can consider merging it somewhere else or moving it back to mainspace with a different scope, but I doubt the content has that much value. Most of it is just a giant table of countries where Romance languages are spoken with information which isn't terribly relevant, such as the country's religion and the entire country's population (irrespective of whether these people speak a Romance language or not). Hut 8.5 22:01, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not an anthropologist, so maybe what I'm about to describe is silly and/or obvious. I think it would be really interesting to look at migration of culture, with language being a proxy for culture. As the romance languages evolved and spread out from Rome, was there also scientific knowledge, technology, systems of law and trade, religion, etc that went along with the languages? That's kind of what I was hoping this article would be about. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was reasonable and included giving reduced weight to "other stuff exists" rationales. Stifle (talk) 17:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Caleb Maupin – Moot. Speedy closing this as moot. The AfD was three years ago. There's no need for DRV to get involved, just go ahead and renominate it for deletion at WP:AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I've created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caleb Maupin (2nd nomination) on the nom's bahalf. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:59, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Caleb Maupin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Relist A new discussion at AfD should incur a different result. Article subject is still not mentioned as notable in a single reliable source. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 20:11, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 January 2018[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_January&oldid=827377713"