Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2018 Deletion review archives November 2018 >

31 October 2018[edit]

30 October 2018[edit]

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

Major candidate with substantial national press coverage, in U.S. Congressional election La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 20:10, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order--should the page have been restored prior to the opening of this deletion review? Marquardtika (talk) 20:17, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It should not have been, but this issue isn't uncommon with redirected political articles in campaign season. Once again I !voted in the XfD so not !voting here, but there's nothing to review here, as deletion review is not XfD. I've added the XfD link, though. SportingFlyer talk 20:37, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The redirect itself said, "If notability of the subject can be shown, then be bold and convert this redirect into an article on the subtopic." Coverage of this person has increased since the article was deleted, to the point that this issue becomes a new topic. 3 of the 9 references currently in the article were from October 2018, after the deletion discussion closed. La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the deletion review template explicitly says: "Do not blank or redirect this page." So I'm pretty sure the page should not be redirected while the review is going on? Philepitta (talk) 00:45, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As noted on the talk page, the template is for articles which were "previously kept", which does not apply to this article. SportingFlyer talk 00:47, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, as far as I can tell the template is for any article undergoing deletion review. Among the rationales for deletion review are "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page," which is certainly true for this article given the extensive recent news coverage. Philepitta (talk) 00:54, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia:Deletion review: For nominations to overturn and delete a page previously kept, attach <noinclude>{{Delrev|date=2018 October 31}}</noinclude> to the top of the page under review to inform current editors about the discussion. The XfD ended in a redirect, and the history was not deleted. There's no reason to restore the article until DRV has run its course. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The notice that you're linking says "Do not blank or redirect the page". Why is the page getting repeatedly redirected?Philepitta (talk) 01:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Because of the result of the XfD was redirect, and we are restoring the article to the most recent consensus here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Max_Rose (politician) SportingFlyer talk 01:13, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the AFD template says "Do not blank or redirect the page"! So the page should not be redirected. Philepitta (talk) 01:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not to continually wikilawyer, but arguably template should not be on the redirect at all, since it wasn't a keep result. SportingFlyer talk 01:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The template on the page is this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Delrev. It's not just for kept articles. Philepitta (talk) 01:35, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep I was very surprised to notice yesterday that there was no Wikipedia article for Max Rose, so I helped to write the current article together with User:La comadreja. Although I didn't know anything about Rose until yesterday, there's been TONS of coverage of his campaign in many major newspapers around the country (and world); mutliple NY Times articles, an article in The Guardian, an article in Times of Israel, and many others. Many of the major articles are months or even a year old, so there's been sustained coverage in major independent sources for quite a while. Rose abundantly meets the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article." Philepitta (talk)

Additionally, coverage of candidates does tend to increase quite a lot in the weeks leading up to an election. I would be really surprised if the citations currently in the article are the last coverage of this candidate. La comadreja formerly AFriedman RESEARCH (talk) 21:16, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can someone please restore the page while it is being discussed? The deletion review template explicitly says "Do not blank or redirect this page," but some editors previously involved with the article keep redirecting it. Philepitta (talk) 00:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As per above, I disagree with this - the XfD resulted in a redirect six weeks ago, and the history's already there for anyone to view. SportingFlyer talk 01:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, given the wording on the deletion review template, I think your position is unsupported by policy. Philepitta (talk) 01:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @Alpha3031: who closed the original AFD. Hoping s/he can provide some clarity of process here. Marquardtika (talk) 01:49, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've protected the redirect. Obviously that'll be superseded if there's consensus to overturn here. That, in turn, isn't going to happen unless arguments meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE are advanced, which, for all the electrons wasted above, I don't see.
    As to process - a temporary restore's appropriate for articles which have actually been deleted, which this has not, and would leave the article blanked beneath a {{Temporarily undeleted}} template. Which is more or less what we have now. And no, of course you don't get to unilaterally reverse an AFD by reverting the redirect, slap the DRV template intended for intact articles on it, and then claim the status quo can't be restored while we discuss like civilized people. Sheesh. —Cryptic 03:34, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • NAC Comment. I would be happy to back out of the close for either an admin reclose or a relist, but it would require a policy based reason as to why the AfD consensus was incorrect, misread or no longer relevant. I can see there being a case that WP:1E should not be applied, but consensus seemed quite firmly for a redirect, at least until the election has happened.Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware of the previous discussion when I started working on re-writing the article yesterday (just that there didn't seem to be an article about someone I'd just noticed news articles about), but it definitely looks to me like there are abundant sources providing notability. Looking back at the discussion, lots of the sources were published since the previous AfD (although some of them do predate the previous discussion as well), so I guess that would provide significant additional notability? From the previous AfD, it also looks like some editors opposed the previous version of the article because of issues with the article itself (which has been totally rewritten, since I wasn't aware of the previous article). Are these grounds for a deletion review? Philepitta (talk) 03:55, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the AfD closure. This is fundamentally a judgement call with reasonable views on both sides, and most of the participants thought we shouldn't have a standalone article on this person. Both Keep and Delete !votes mentioned Redirect as a preferable outcome to the alternative, so Redirect is a fair close. I suggest we just wait until the election, which will happen in about a week. If he wins the election then he will clearly be notable, if he doesn't win and never gets any more coverage then the case for a standalone article is much weaker. I agree that the {{delrev}} template shouldn't be used in this situation, it's for articles which were kept at AfD where that decision is being appealed. You can't use it to temporarily reverse the AfD outcome. Hut 8.5 08:04, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure as redirect in reflecting the consensus. ——SerialNumber54129 09:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close is correct given the discussion. Discussion not so crazy that it can or should be ignored. That said, I think that the outcome is wrong--WP:N is met in spades with international coverage. Hobit (talk) 21:02, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse to redirect. Can be restored if he wins, but short of that the coverage was fleeting and typical campaign news. Reywas92Talk 03:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close as correct at the time, but allow recreation given the new sources. Quite frankly, this is a waste of everyone's time - the new sources are sufficient that the previous AfD isn't binding. Smartyllama (talk) 17:32, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I'm not sure you'd get a different result at AfD even with the new sources. Only three of the sources in the new article were from after the AfD was completed, all of which are local. SportingFlyer talk 02:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, but it's sufficiently different that we'd need a new AfD, IMO. Smartyllama (talk) 12:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unprotect The result of the discussion was to redirect but this is not binding indefinitely as all the content and history is still there for expansion if appropriate, as now seems to be the case. Ordinary editing and talk-page discussion should be allowed to proceed. Andrew D. (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I looked at what was discussed, and it's not a notable subject. All coverage is about the candidacy, nothing from before, which would suggest WP:LASTING. If he wins on Tuesday, then he's notable. If he loses, he's not. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone please fix the redirect link on the Max_Rose_(politician) page? I think this requires removing the deletion review template. There's consensus on the talk page for this change, but the article is protected so it requires an admin to make it. Philepitta (talk) 23:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently, the "#REDIRECT" must be the first thing on the page for it to be effective. I moved the template down below the "#REDIRECT" line. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore at this time there seem to be sufficient sources. I also have a basic and deep-seated objection to or policy about candidates in a two part system for a national position--it is not NPOV, for it gives an incumbent advantage/ Inclusion of borderline articles or not doesn't harm the encyclopedia--departing from NPOV destroys one of our fundamental principle. DGG ( talk ) 19:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Several sources have called the race for Rose. This article should be unprotected and restored immediately. I'd do it myself per WP:IAR to avoid wasting any more of anybody's time, but it's still fully protected. Smartyllama (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looks like the page protection has just expired, so I've restored the article. If an admin wants to close this, go ahead, but it's rather moot now. Smartyllama (talk) 03:16, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

He just won the election.

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

29 October 2018[edit]

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

The article/table was deleted, without discussing it. The reason given for the deletion was self-promotion, which is ridiculous because the table will eventually have 100s of rows, after communities added information. The information related to me is only one row in a long alphabetical list. A long alphabetical list, in which one row relates to me, cannot be unacceptably self-promotional by "the individual", "the other" etc. I hope Caiaphas Syndrome is not applicable at the whole of Wikipedia, like some other media companies. I cannot complete the table because links to prices and market caps have to be added. The idea is, the table should "be" kept up to date by many people. To ensure true information in the table, managers of tokens will have to, for example, upload relevant logos of tokens, because they control the copyrights. Strangely, it seems most of my history on Wikipedia was also deleted. I have no doubt about the unrepresentative subjectivity of the administrator, who deleted the article/table, after it seems, a request from a Wikipedia user in South Africa where i live. What was the relevance of "South African Empress", or something like that? Very strange. Makes me think of the image of the media in the USA currently, with regard to "fake news" and "Enemy of the People". The planned article/table will be a good contribution to the crypto-sphere, because some true information, especially for low budget over the counter ICOs, is hard to get hold of, partly because many media companies are asking large sums of money, all businesses cannot afford, for reviews of ICOs. The spirit of the crypto-currency phenomenon is partly to make it easier for startups to develop their own ideas, without losing "own" good ideas to capital rich organisations, close to the IMF money printing system. The organisations close to the IMF system have easy access to printed money and ideas are common property, partly therefore crypto-currencies came into being. Do you follow, that the proposed table will benefit society and "democratisation" of the development of ideas of "the individual".

Mdpienaar (talk) 21:26, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I suggest you read what wikipedia is not, particularly around not being a free webhost and not being a soapbox. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I can't see the article's history as I don't have sufficient privileges so won't !vote, but I endorse the deletion based on the information I have: I don't see any reason presented here which would cause me to vote to reinstate an article deleted under G11. SportingFlyer talk 12:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

28 October 2018[edit]

27 October 2018[edit]

26 October 2018[edit]

25 October 2018[edit]

24 October 2018[edit]

23 October 2018[edit]

22 October 2018[edit]

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

The AfD for this page was proceeding reasonably well with a developing consensus to expand and improve the list. While this was being done, the discussion was closed early, before the period specified by WP:DELAFD, "discussion lasts at least seven full days". A unilateral move was made to draft space by the closer, deleting the entry in article space and so leaving a red link behind. There was no consensus for this action and no speedy deletion criterion was satisfied. Andrew D. (talk) 22:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The page has not been deleted; it has been moved to Draft:List of science fiction short stories. There are too many disambiguation errors and other linking errors for this to reasonably be in mainspace. I would have moved it to draft even if there had been no AfD, and even if there had been an AfD discussion that went the full seven days and resulted in the article being kept, because the distraction and disruption that such a page causes to disambiguation efforts is a separate issue from whether such an article should exist. The existing disambiguation links and other link errors on the page could likely be fixed by an editor knowledgeable in the field in less time than it takes for this discussion to be carried on, unless of course the links are truly unfixable, in which case they should not be in any Wikipedia article. bd2412 T 22:58, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disambiguation issue is a trivial matter and that's what the {{disambiguation needed}} tag is for. The closer admits that fixing these cases is easy and so the page should be restored so that this can be done and the deletion discussion continue properly. Andrew D. (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there some reason this can't be done right now? If no one is willing to fix disambiguation links while the page is in draft space for this very reason, I have no confidence that any attention will be given to these when the page is in main space. We have plenty of pages that were nominated for AfD, kept on the promise that they would be improved, and then left with the same problems for years. bd2412 T 23:52, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I get that there are a ton of errors, but there isn't a speedy criteria (and moving to draft space isn't a way around those rules) for this and IAR isn't going to cut it when the action has been shown to lack consensus (I think there were more keep !votes than anything). I fully understand where this action is coming from, but have to go with overturn speedy--I just don't think anything else can be justified. Let's reopen it and get it its 7 full days at AfD. I'm guessing after this DRV there may be a few more !votes to move to draft... Hobit (talk) 23:22, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have seen no policy applying speedy deletion criteria to moves to draft space. The AfD can be reopened without changing the current draft status of the article. I would also note that the issues requiring the move to draft space could be fixed in short order if those who advocate for this article would do the work of checking and fixing the links. So far, I have personally addressed links to Arena (a kind of building, not a short story), and The Bitter End (a pub in England, not a short story), and Cassandra (a Greek mythological figure, not a short story. Let's focus on that first. bd2412 T 23:29, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was deleted out of mainspace, that it now exists elsewhere isn't hugely relevant. Are you claiming you are allowed to do this because you're an admin or are you claiming this is something you can do because any user can do a move? Hobit (talk) 00:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn draftification. Had there not been an AfD in progress, I could see some justification for being WP:BOLD and moving this to draft space. I'm not sure I agree with that, but I can at least see it being a plausible move. But, once there's an AfD in progress, it's inappropriate to blow that off and do your own thing. Sure, the problems need to be fixed, but it's not like a WP:BLP or WP:COPYVIO issue where core policy trumps community opinion. I also get the problem of people promising to fix stuff and then not doing so. I'd like to see the ability to close AfDs with a built-in time limit to fix the problems identified otherwise the article turns into a pumpkin. But, that's not current policy. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The disruption caused by an article with so many incorrect links is the locus for immediate action. If this were a clear copyright violation or a clear BLP violation, the fact that an AFD is initiated would not require that it be maintained in that form in mainspace. The difference here is that the article still exists to be worked on. The space that it occupies is meaningless. The work can be done all the same, at whatever pace editors prefer. As it happens, I have now fixed over two dozen bad links on the page myself, and will likely have them all fixed in another hour or two. bd2412 T 00:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: As I have now fixed all ~80 of the bad links that I could find on the page, I have restored the article to mainspace and reversed my closure of the AfD. bd2412 T 00:48, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Close as sorted, thanks to User:BD2412. The AfD close was reverted by the closer. Let the AfD continue, although I think it looks needing to be closed as "no consensus" with the possibility of a later WP:RENOM. There are too many good "keep" !votes for it to be deleted, and the discussion could use a refocusing restart. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and trout. Although the issue is resolved now, and thanks to BD2412 for doing the work on the links, I think we should note that it was incorrect for it to be draftified in the first place. Unlike copvios, Incorrect disambiguation links is not a valid reason for speedy deleting the article. Readers are better served by an article with incorrect links than by no article at all.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 October 2018[edit]

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

All but one of the Delete votes came before I improved the article. I feel that the page should be restored, as in the final form it had met the requirements of wp:gng. Thank you, Markvs88 (talk) 18:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment at this stage but I think we'll need to see the article. The final "delete" !vote commented on the lack non-local coverage. Now, people can !vote however they decide but neither WP:GNG nor WP:NPOL say that qualifying coverage should be non-local (WP:ORG is the one that does that). However, WP:NPOL does say "Just being an elected local official ... does not guarantee notability ...". The earlier !votes look a bit as if claiming inherent non-notability but they may be meaning that the sources are inadequate and, in this case, inherent notability cannot be applied. Thincat (talk) 20:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tempundeleted the deleted revisions. The most recent revision is a redirect, which was created after the page was deleted; I've left that in place, but the full history is available. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this deserves a relist. The AFD close was, I think, OK on the face of it but this DRV request seems reasonable to me also. When sent to AFD the article was like this, then the discussion (except for the final comments) took place, next the article was improved in contents and referencing (considerably so) to this and then the last adverse AFD assessment was made. I have not assessed the quality of the sources which is a matter for AFD. Thincat (talk) 22:36, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Thank you all! Best, Markvs88 (talk) 13:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist the discussion. The AfD discussants largely echoed similar claim that a mayor of small town is not notable. While true, they didn't consider the new sources provided which if are substantial can make him notable regardless of the smallness of the town he is governing. –Ammarpad (talk) 19:25, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As the user who claimed this still doesn't pass WP:GNG, I'm fine with a relist since the other delete votes were for the pre-WP:HEY version of the article with only one source, but I still don't think there will be consensus this will pass WP:GNG, as the sourcing is simply routine local political coverage. SportingFlyer talk 23:33, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (relist). That last !vote requires a response before the discussion can be closed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:52, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm fine with a relist here. Worth getting more views given the potential WP:HEY situation. Hobit (talk) 18:28, 28 October 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.
Katarrama (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I think Katarrama deserve a place in Wikipedia. You can find them on Spotify, Grooveshark, Deezer, iTunes, Youtube, Amazon Music.... They have 3 studio albums and played for 20 years around Spain and Ireland and they appear on compilation albums. They contributed to bring the Catalonia conflict against Spain to light and promoting catalan language in rock music. 83.59.133.253 (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gudapunk (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. The closure properly reflects consensus to delete the article. I figured perhaps it was a language barrier which may merit relisting the discussion, but my search for coverage in reliable sources of this band yielded nothing worthwhile. ℯxplicit 01:03, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and speedy close. Deletion review is not a venue for rearguing points that were (or should have been) made at the AFD discussion. It exists to remedy failure to follow deletion process. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 24 October 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 October 2018[edit]

19 October 2018[edit]

  • ABC Preon Model – Speedily closed because the IP nominator does not provide evidence for their assertion that new sources exist that now prove the topic's notability. Sandstein 09:47, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
ABC Preon Model (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

more notability since 2014 24.205.150.243 (talk) 01:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close if the IP doesn't provide evidence. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for a speedy close (or further endorses if not provided), but yes, you're going to need to show some sources to get any consideration here, not just assert that they exist somewhere. —Cryptic 04:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • My review of the IP edit history tells me he is a troll. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • DRV is for challenging deletion result and that's not what the IP is doing here. If there are new sources then just recreate the article or draft. New sources can't void earlier deletion discussion since they were not in existence then. If the new sources are true and substantial then it may stay otherwise that's why we have G4. I also suggest speedy close as there's nothing to do here. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:00, 19 October 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 October 2018[edit]

Not sure what's going on here. My intent was to relist the discussion, but the automation seems to be having problems doing that. For now, consider it relisted and I'll try to fix up whatever's wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chris Powell (politician) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that the Non-admin close of "Keep" mis-interpreted consensus, and that a redirect had a greater rough consensus than keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and Redirect (NOM - wasn't sure of status of Noms "!voting" in DelRevs, ignore if a "duplicate") - in the AfD there seems to be significantly more consensus in justified !votes for a redirect than for a Keep. I am firmly of the view it wasn't a NC, but it definitely didn't reach justification levels for a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 20:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and re-close I typically don't vote at DRVs if I participated in the AfD, but this is a clear non-admin close violation, and should be reverted and closed by an administrator. SportingFlyer talk 23:55, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • American Sleep Association – Endorse, but moot. Unanimous agreement that the original deletion and salting in mainspace were correct. However, several people opined that it is OK to try writing a new version in draft space, if the problems found in the AfD are fixed. And indeed, there's already such a draft (which has already been rejected). So, at this point, people can continue to work on the draft and if it's ever accepted, we can worry about the mainspace salt at that time. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
American Sleep Association (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Apologies for the improper use of syntax above by this newb. This is an article that has been accidentally salted.

What? There are wikipedians who unable to master all the fine points of obtuse template syntax? I'm shocked! I fixed it :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 23:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- Expertise and authority where questioned previously. These issues have been resolved by listing the physicians and scientists who are responsible for the content.

- Notability issues have been resolved. A previous notation referenced that was broken-link is now available. Furthermore, there are several notations and references to the organization from respected media sources, academic institutions, and government resources.

- Please note that prior to 2016, there was a domain squatter using the exact same entity name. The domain squatter has since been removed.

Please allow for one of the versions of the article to exist. Thank you. Sleepdoctor1 (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse I don't even know what to write here. SportingFlyer talk 00:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The salting was no accident.
    You need to provide proof of your other claims, probably in the form of a draft article that clearly overcomes the objections in the AFD, for this to be considered. —Cryptic 04:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- there was no other way the AfD could have closed, and I don't see anything wrong with the salting. There should be no objection to anyone writing a draft that shows that the previous problems have been overcome though. Reyk YO! 11:28, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Your comment "Please allow for one of the versions of the article to exist. " plus your username and the way this draft was written collectively suggest some kind of promotional or COI activities. This should remain deleted but may be until when an acceptable version is written and reviewed independently from draft. –Ammarpad (talk) 08:17, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 October 2018[edit]

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

It seems quite clear that the page violates WP:POLEMIC and has quite a few BLP violations in there. As a secondary, and much smaller reason, the page is unbecoming for an admin and might reflect poorly on Wikipedia. Having an occasional userbox or statement about politics is one thing, but this page is crystal clear a violation of what POLEMIC is. Sir Joseph (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse close. What is clear is that there was no consensus that it violates(d) POLEMIC. I said "delete" per U5, but that gained no traction. I disagreed that it violated POLEMIC as did others.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:17, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Unbecoming of an admin? That is not a deletion criterion of which I am aware.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict)Endorse and Procedural close -- DRV is not AfD, round 2.The community had already refused to agree that it violates POLEMIC.∯WBGconverse 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sole potential argument over here 'might be that in cases of NC over polemic stuff, it might be better to default-equate the call with a delete but I guess, that goes against the longstanding provison of equating NC with a keep, (except in BLPVIO cases in article space) and that's thoughts for elsewhere.∯WBGconverse 20:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict × 2) I am closing this for procedural reasons. DRV is not for relitigating an XfD: it's for addressing whether the editor closing said XfD judged consensus correctly. There's nothing in this opening statement which addresses that. Another XfD is probably the best way to go (if you would not rather just drop the stick, which is what I would recommend) and is not precluded by a no-consensus close. Vanamonde (talk) 20:19, 17 October 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 October 2018[edit]

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

Our article named "Treatstock" was deleted due to reason "Promotional content; without notability.". The closing admin "Coffee" appears to have retired ((https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Coffee) and therefore it seems it's not possible to discuss the matter with the admin who deleted the page. The individual responsible for writing our deleted article is no longer with us. Would it be possible to have another attempt at writing an article for Treatstock without any promotional content and with sources which we believe to be notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.69.106.68 (talk • contribs)

  • Admin comment: Without objection, I intend to speedily close this request because it does not identify any procedural fault with the deletion and because we do not help companies write articles about themselves, per WP:COI etc. If the company is notable, somebody else will write a non-promotional article about it. Sandstein 10:16, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close per User:Sandstein and WP:DRVPURPOSE. Most of us are here to write an encyclopedia. The nom appears to be here to promote their company, i.e. WP:NOTHERE. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 16 October 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 October 2018[edit]

  • Kanishk Sajnani – No consensus to do anything. There is a draft, it can be moved into mainspace, if that is done it can be submitted to AfD, and will likely be deleted there based on this discussion. Sandstein 13:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kanishk Sajnani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hello fellow Wikipedians. The above page was speedily deleted citing G4 criteria. I have a reason to believe that the latest submission had new sources/refrences & addressed the issues raised in the 2nd Nomination. Nonetheless, A New Draft on the same subject is pending review since 7 weeks now. Requesting experienced editors to look into this. Also, the title is currently unSALTED. The closing XFD contibutor cannot make edits on Wikipedia anymore. 2405:205:C865:30F3:530:C543:E970:FACD (talk) 13:48, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Close this as moot. Whatever history there may have been, there's already a draft pending at AfC. Let that process take its course. Yes, AfC is not quick, but it's not DRV's job to short-circuit the AfC queue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not accept the draft, and if it is accepted, it will undoubtedly be renominated for deletion, and in my opinion deleted as trivial coverage and BLP1E. ; it is less promotional than the original version, but has no additional evidence for notability . . (and FWIW, the XFD closer left WP in good standing--he blocked himself when he decided to leave. The reason AfC does not go quicker is the presence of so many articles like this one. DGG ( talk ) 01:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning mainspace the draft and list at AfD. That is clearly what the author wants. AfC is not mandatory. The draft has received a positive review. At AfD I would !vote "delete" because notability is not demonstrated by the sources currently listed, each fails because the subject was interviewed for the newspaper article, and is therefore not independent. I consider the topic to be promotional for the employment prospects of the subject, and so I believe the onus is on the author to supply the notability-attesting sources, instead of asking AfD reviewers to review all possible sources. However, the sources are interesting enough to justify a fresh proper process at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:36, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would look like to seek some clarifications regarding the inputs provided above. 1) DDG, How is it that you say the subject of the draft only has some trivial coverage? If one was to look closely, he/she would notice that 5/6 references(stated in the article) are based on the subject's work ONLY. Furthermore, WP:BLP1E is only applicable when the subject is notable for a single event, Am I correct? The article states 4 different events(at different times) for which the sources are available. I am not sure if Wikipedia:BLP2E could have been applied, even if it was a real thing. Aren't the above facts enough to tell us that the article complies with the WP:BASIC & WP:GNG (official Wikipedia policies) & hence, it is all the evidence that we need for notability? 2) SmokeyJoe, I believe that you wanted to say "therefore not Independent" in your comment above. Let me ask you if there is an offical policy that denies notablity just because the listed sources had taken any kind of inputs(as an interview or otherwise) by the subject of the article himself? Jimbo Wales believes there isn't. Please refer to his comment on this Afd.

Lastly, the reason why an AfC process takes so much time is also because of the fact that editors are afraid of putting in the effort of contributing to an article. Reason- It might get deleted in the future, despite possibly fulfilling all necessary criteria. 2405:204:830D:A3D8:5441:92B6:7979:D0FB (talk) 06:51, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Independent yes, thank you. I believe, and argue, that an interview is not a third party source, it’s a second party source. It is not independent. Interviews are necessarily done with the involvement of the interviewee. Often, the encouragement of the interviewee. Jimbo is wrong, and at AfD I would argue so. If the subject is notable, others we have written about him, from a distant perspective. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've responded below to this, but I really don't think that's what is meant by independent in this context. WP:INDY is what WP:N links to. And it doesn't say anything at all like that. Nor, IMO, should it. Hobit (talk) 20:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article listed above has references [3] & [2] that involve no direct inputs from the referred subject himself. Therefore, it should seem safe to state them as Independent Sources, right SmokeyJoe? 2405:204:830D:A3D8:CDD1:5D8B:5E09:DCF4 (talk) 13:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The subject does not appear to have been involved in the creation of these two articles. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. "The core policy WP:NOT requires that it be possible to verify a subject with at least one independent source, or else the subject may not have a separate article in Wikipedia." Reference- Relationship to Notability at WP:IS
SmokeyJoe Please let us know in-case you have any other reason to believe that this article is not eligible to be in the mainspace. 2405:204:830D:A3D8:C569:8F46:CA04:B4F (talk) 14:06, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. I'm a bit shocked that two editors I respect feel this doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines. We have an article in India Today which is not an interview (though it is based on one). The India Times article is also based mainly on an interview, but it isn't just an interview. The The Quint I'm not familiar with, but it's article does a bit more than mention him in passing. And the BBC article seems great (though not in English). This seems to be well over the WP:N bar (unless the BBC, India Today, and the India Times aren't reliable sources). For the record, I also don't see how an interview by a reliable source is somehow not independent of the subject. WP:INDY says nothing at all like that as far as I can see. Hobit (talk) 20:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel it is very simple, although it only came as a late realization. If the subject participated, actively and directly, in the creation of the source, such as by making themselves available for questions and giving answers, the source is not independent, the source is not third party.
This is itself does not mean "doesn't meet our inclusion guidelines". It means the source does not attest Wikipedia-notability, which requires minimally two independent reliable sources that cover the subject in depth.
A source based on someone else's interview of the subject is probably independent. I draw the line at whether the source's author interviewed the subject. I think this can be best understood in terms of perspective, is the author writing from a distant perspective, or a close perspective. For notability, a distant perspective is required. This accords with the requirement (undocumented?) that Wikipedia articles write about subjects from a distant perspective.
So WP:INDY doesn't say that a report of the author's interview of the subject is a non-independent source? I think that means INDY needs improvements. I invite User:WhatamIdoing to comment. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can't say I buy that definition of independent (and, as I said, it's not part of our official definition of the term here). But if we accepted it, The India Times one is an article about someone else's interview. And the BBC one isn't an interview at all as far as I can tell. If I'm understanding your definition, that would make those sources are independent yes? Hobit (talk) 05:32, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Isn't that how I answered above, 13:31, 16 October 2018? My !vote is "mainspace the draft and list at AfD", I am no longer sure I would !vote "delete" at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I'm out of it. Sorry. Hobit (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interviews are so varied that they're difficult to pigeonhole, but let me summarize the conclusions of some previous conversations:
  • Typical transcript-of-interview source, and the interview is all about the interviewee: Think about a magazine that interviews Joe Film about his career or his divorce or something. This is not independent for the facts (e.g., Joe Film's assertion in the interview that he's a nice guy is exactly as non-independent as if he published the same claim via his favorite social media venue), and not good evidence of notability. (Why? They're pretty run of the mill. They provide little or no analysis. There's no fact-checking. This indicates that Joe Film has a publicist, not that anyone cared enough to really look into Joe Film as a subject. If it's print-only, the whole thing might have been handled in e-mail and written by the publicist.)
  • Typical interview, and the main subject of the interview is not the interviewee: This is what you get when the radio station calls up Professor I.M. Portant and asks him to explain the upcoming holiday. This is both independent for facts and evidence of notability for the subject they talk about, not for the interviewee. This interview shows that Little History Holiday is (potentially) notable; it does not indicate that Prof. Portant is notable. Ditto for "panel interviews" on whatever the hot news story of the day is, or being the bait ("honored guest"?) for call-in radio shows.
  • Special-case interviews: Here we are talking about an hour-long grilling by Barbara Walters or being featured on Fresh Air, or some other major news show that uses interviews to present some of their research. This is not independent for any facts claimed by the interviewee, but it is independent for facts claimed by the journalists, and it is evidence of notability. (Why? Notability is about figuring out whether "the world at large" paid attention to you, and that's a lot of attention. Also, they've got a team of fact checkers, top-notch editorial control, and everything we'd hope for in the best news sources. The fact that they format part of that as an 'interview' is largely irrelevant for our purposes.)
WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to mention that the criteria just listed by WhatamIdoing are the ones I use also. ` DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WhatamIdoing What you just said, makes sense. And In-fact, probably most of us do make edits/decisions here considering the above. But, I would like to ask if there are any official Wikipedia polices that help us reach at this conclusion? If not, maybe we should raise a discussion on the same at the appropriate forum? It might help improve the Encyclopedia. Also since you're here, I would request your opinion/suggestions to move ahead at this particular DRV(since it's been already established above that the subject is notable).
DGG Still waiting on your reply regarding clarifications sought above. You said you agree with user WhatamIdoing. The subject of this article has total 6 references. 2 of them include no direct inputs & one of them is BBC(which is well-known for their fact-checking processes). Reading the above discussion, does it change your stance? 2405:205:C84B:66:9DB1:A228:7C10:C2E9 (talk) 19:45, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My advice is that you might do better to add the information to an article about the online system involved. You do not need to take my advice, but that's my advice. I'm giving advice, not making decisions. DGG ( talk ) 21:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DRV is not the place for editors to share new opinions about the notability (or lack thereof) for an article. That said, for your personal information, I think that m:mergism is an appropriate approach for this subject. Aadhaar#Impediments and other concerns might be a good place to start. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG Adding that extra piece of information that you're suggesting, invites other editors to un-necessarily apply WP:PROMO. I believe the author did right by just writing a Start-Class draft for now.
WhatamIdoing Isn't m:mergism only done in the cases listed at WP:MERGEREASON? Do you think this article would pass WP:MERGEPROP when it clearly meets all the inclusion & notability guidelines at Wikipedia by itself?

  • Allow Recreation by moving the Draft into Mainspace is what I would personally recommend. Wikipedian User:Ammarpad just

declined the submission stating "Interviews and passing mentions." We just discussed above that this reasoning doesn't stand true. 2405:205:C84B:66:2CE6:6E14:8018:80A3 (talk) 11:06, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion strongly. This appears to be a sort of covert promotion and doesn't meet notability bar for biography. I declined the draft as I don't see how that can be meaningfful biography but the ensuing wall of text by the IP telling me that I am not experienced to review their draft shows this is upto something and think that having Wikipedia page is necessity. The highest that can be done for this trivia draft is a one-line mention in a relevant article if there's any. It has been deleted 3 times by consensus and that should be respected else we would have rethink of validity of G4 policy.–Ammarpad (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ammarpad How does merely stating that something isn't notable, make it not notable? Everyone here is welcome to visit your talk page & refer to the conversation themselves. Not once did I mentioned that you're inexperienced for AFC. Maybe you implied it by yourself? All you keep repeating is "It has been deleted 3 times already" But, my friend that was 5 1/2 months ago. New information (& references) keep getting added. Even the last AfD close has been filed for a dispute here. Please refer to the top. Today, I am standing FOR Wikipedia's official policies & guidelines. It has nothing to do with this draft particularly. IP use is merely not to reveal my original user identity on Wikipedia.
Meaningful or not, If a draft meets WP:PG it should be pushed to the mainspace. You're more than welcome to prove if it doesn't, but only by clearly stating WP:RULES that it might fail. 2405:205:C84B:F990:F066:937A:ECF9:D6EF (talk) 16:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Notability" means "qualifies for an article on Wikipedia. Per WP:N, qualified subjects have all three of these requirements:
  1. it isn't rejected by WP:NOT,
  2. it meets a relevant inclusion guideline, e.g., WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO, and
  3. editors agree to have an article about it.
So how does merely stating that something isn't notable, make it not notable? Well, because one of the three requirements for notability is that editors agree that it qualifies for an article, and if they don't agree that it's notable – well, then, it's not notable, "by definition".
(All of this is somehow reminding me of the last line in WP:BFAQ#DISCLOSURE, which advises would-be subjects of Wikipedia articles not to pay anyone for writing articles because they're so likely to get deleted promptly.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:59, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am shocked beyond belief to have just read what you wrote User:WhatamIdoing. First of all, there's no "by definition" rule that says notability ceases to exist the moment an editor thinks so. WP:Consensus is what Wikipedia hugely relies on till date. Editors are to assume WP:GF & act according to the stated Wikipedia policies. That doesn't mean someone gets a break-all-rules card & they can go act with their personal judgement anyway. Someone as an opinion? Cool. But, it's also our job to check "How?" otherwise ask "Why?"
Coming to this particular case, as-per the above discussion, I don't think anyone was able to properly inform why the article doesn't deserve to be on Wikipedia. Thus, I hope there will be a positive & fair outcome.
2405:204:848D:477D:5C6:4BC8:DA25:BE5D (talk) 09:32, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"An editor"? No. But "the editors"? Yes. That is the nature of consensus. When "the editors" as a whole decide not to present some information in a separate, stand-alone article, then it is "not WP:Notable".
I feel like you are badgering editors here and demanding that they present you with an explanation that will WP:SATISFY you.
I also notice that your IP addresses geolocate to the subject's home city. On the assumption that you either are Kanishk or know him, I recommend that you read Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:WhatamIdoing You know what? If you feel that way, I am going to take a step back & relax now. Let the DRV take it's course. If I think something wrong has been done, I'll directly take it up with the WP:AC next.
Also, please stop with your attempt(s) to falsely prove that I might me involved with the subject in a way or another. 2405:204:8201:921D:8931:890:4623:F483 (talk) 20:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an uninvolved party, IP, let me just point out that ArbCom is likely to reject your case outright, as it is nothing but a content dispute. There's not a behavioral or systematic issue here. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:46, 23 October 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 October 2018[edit]

  • Ali Baba Khan – Endorse. Clear consensus here that the keep decision was OK. Some people felt that No Consensus might have been more accurate, but nobody actually objected to the actual close. You can WP:RENOM the article if you wish. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ali Baba Khan (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

BLP was kept but I believe the "keep" was not justified. The AfD was sock infested as noted here. At-least two established editors (DBigXray and Mar4d) cited coverage from Dawn, The Express Tribune to establish the WP:N, however these news stories contains namedrops, and quotes from the subject, which longstanding practice holds cannot be used to support the notability of the subject Saqib (talk) 04:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Given the socks, !vote wise, I think NC would have been a better close. But that Dawn article is hard to argue against. I'd say keep is justified and maybe the best close. Either way, that discussion couldn't result in deletion. endorse Hobit (talk) 08:01, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closer's comment: I'm in favor of a relist if the SPI finds that there was socking beyond the obvious IPs, but otherwise the consensus for delete isn't there in this discussion. Sandstein 08:09, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse removing the socks and the article creator, it's a fairly even AfD: there is a significant disagreement about whether the sources were significant coverage. While no consensus would have been a viable close, there was clearly no consensus to delete, and I don't see enough in the AfD to give weight to any side. SportingFlyer talk 10:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. That discussion cannot have been closed as “delete”. If you think the participants got it wrong, see WP:RENOM. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse . At best it could have close as NC, therefore Keep is reasonable close here. It can still be renominated after some time.–Ammarpad (talk) 08:37, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

13 October 2018[edit]

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

The article was deleted under A7. I contacted the administrator who deleted the page, and sent him proofs that the subject is "credible and important": User_talk:JzG#Atlantis_Word_Processor_-_Undeletion_request. He replied only once by accusing me of COI without any proof, and refused to comment why he applied the A7 criteria. Thank you. Gillian2008 (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • The article appears to have previously survived AFD so I think that rules out A7 (unless I'm missing something). I can't see the article, though if it's full of the stuff Gillian2008 seems to think indicate it's notable it likely needs a rewrite. I don't think JzG's worry about COI are completely unfounded, it's unusual for an individual to be more or less exclusively interested in one fairly mundane topic over a 9 year or so period. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 17:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Surviving AfD doesn't necessarily insulate an article against an A7 deletion, especially when the AfD was nine years ago, sparsely attended, and raised real questions about article quality. No way it would be closed that way today. It seems reasonable to ask if the OP has a COI under the circumstances. Looking at the deleted article, it makes no assertion of importance or significance. A smattering of reviews from 2008-2009 doesn't signify. Mackensen (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    CSD lists those criteria which are apparently not exempt, but A7 isn't one of them. A7 itself states "not to articles about their books, albums (these may be covered by CSD A9), software, or other creative works." (my emphasis) so I'm really not seeing how you determine it doesn't exempt it from A7. It seems to me by letter of the policy it's exempt from A7 as software blanketly, but even if not it isn't one of the exemptions from having previously survived AFD. (FWIW I disagree on how convoluted CSD seems to have become, but either the consensus view of CSD is correct or it's not the consensus view...) --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, that's my mistake. I was looking at the A7 criteria and missed that section. That said, I don't think the AfD should be treated with much deference, for the reasons I've outlined. Mackensen (talk) 22:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since we're in full-blown wikilawyer mode anyway, G11 looks more plausible for every version of the article I've looked at. (This line in particular sticks out at me: But this is not all! The Atlantis Word Processor has unique features:). Mindboggling that this was brought to AFD when it was instead of just speedying. —Cryptic 22:42, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Can't see how it's wikilawyering, the language of CSD doesn't seem to require any stretching, twisting or overwise tortured interpretation etc. it is pretty plain. FWIW G11 also isn't in the list of CSD which override a previous deletion discussion --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:50, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the supposed claim of notability? I didn't see one. It was a directory entry. Guy (Help!) 23:56, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, relisting at afd optional'. First,, as pointed out, software is specifically exempt from A7. Second, it was determined as being notable by the community in a discussion, and no individual admin should overrule that on their own. And this was indeed on their own, as it was a single-handed deletion without a prior nomination, which, though technically legitimate, is almost never done for A7 nowadays--although it was not all that rare back in 2007. The reason why we normally do not act onour own is to prevent this sort of error. The claim for notability at the AfD was based upon the reviews. JzG, did you notice them? I have not checked if they are sufficiently substantial to meet our present standards, but that would take a new AfD to determine. The article is descriptive, not promotional, and I do not think it a G11. (If this holds, what is there to prevent me or any other admin from revisiting all 10 year old discussions, and deleting those that I think appropriate without relisting them appropriately--there were quite a few back then that I disagreed with and now I could hope to have y way--and so could all the few hundred other admins. To prevent this sort of chaos is why we have process.
Mackensen, please reconsider your opinion here. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • history temporarily undeleted for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 04:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy CSD criteria used isn't valid for an article that has survived AfD (per WP:CSD), so the speedy is wrong and no clear reason has been given that IAR needs to be applied here. Hobit (talk) 08:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I don't see the article as being overly promotional. And sources appear to likely meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 08:10, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion A7 and G11 are contrary to CSD policy (and so will be A11 when someone suggests that). A7 is quite outstandingly wrong as has been noted here. Please avoid invalid speedy deletions. I'd vote keep at AFD even bearing in mind possible COI issues. Thincat (talk) 10:12, 14 October 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 October 2018[edit]

11 October 2018[edit]

  • Espen Gaarder Haug – Endorse deletion. Unanimous agreement that the AfD was closed correctly. If you want to try again, I suggest you take the advice given by DDG and Hobit and write it in draft space, paying careful attention to providing quality sources. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Espen Gaarder Haug (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am concerned about how this deletion was performed, please take a look

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Espen_Gaarder_Haug_(2nd_nomination)

again why are wikipedia pages that have been there for more than 10 years suddenly deleted? Do this mean there are many pages on wikipedia that should have been deleted years ago but that still is there? Or is profiles that have been on wikipedia for more than 10 years suddenly less qualified for notability despite they are more known that 10 years ago? It seems quite radom what pages are suddenly deleted or not. The recent deletion of Donna Strickland page show the extreme of this, in that case naturally fixed as it is hard to claim a Nobel prize winner in physics not is notable. Still there are many other pages where editors deletes part or whole of content based on not exactly transparent and scientific methods? For example editors can claim something, that then evidently is pointed to be wrong, this is still ignored. EntropyFormula (talk) 06:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse- there's no other way that discussion could have been closed. It was a near-unanimous discussion, with proper evaluation of the sources. As to why articles older than ten years can get deleted, this can happen for a variety of reasons. First, Wikipedia is a big place. It contains millions of articles and comparatively few editors to curate them all. Articles can go for years without being properly evaluated. Second, as the encyclopedia ages and matures its quality goes up. That means that sometimes articles deemed OK ten years ago don't cut it by today's standards. Reyk YO! 07:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse A well-participated AfD discussion could only have ended in deletion. SportingFlyer talk 10:08, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No other possible outcome for that discussion. Mackensen (talk) 15:45, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the outcome of the AfD was obvious. To address the OP's points, the age of the article doesn't make any difference at all to whether it's appropriate to have it around. It was in fact deleted in 2006 so it's not even that these concerns haven't been raised before. Donna Strickland was deleted in 2014 for being a copyright violation, that's not remotely comparable and I assume you're actually referring to the fact a draft article was declined at WP:AFC, which is also not comparable. If you have an actual argument to raise here (e.g. some compelling new argument which wasn't mentioned in the discussion, or a procedural irregularity) then please do so. Hut 8.5 20:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rewrite and Relist The previous discussion was unfortunately over-personal. But the key argument for WP:PROF was citations, and the finance work has citations. The argument was made in the AfD that the h value was low . This is a spurious argument, because h is insensitive to the presence of a few articles with high citation counts, and a person's influence on their field depends on their most important work, not their average work---and this is all the more true when considering work in 2 different fields, one of which he is clearly not notable (physics), and one where he might be (finance). The rewriting I suggest is to remove the physics material entirely or almost entirely (by almost entirely, I mean something like, he has also published two little-cited papers on theoretical physics(refs) . DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse Closure of the discussion couldn't have gone any other way. I don't agree with DGG that there is a WP:PROF argument here based on what I can find, but sure, someone could take a shot. I'd suggest a draft rather than in article space as I suspect an article would get speedied immediately. Hobit (talk) 17:01, 14 October 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 October 2018[edit]

  • Born Park – Overturn deletion. Clear consensus here that WP:G11 did not apply. Anybody is free to take this to AfD, but I'd suggest waiting a week to allow Greywin time to work on it. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Born Park (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

There is no advertising in the article, it was reputably sourced at the time of deletion. Maybe I used the wording "The park offers..." at one point. But that was meant just descriptive. If this is the wrong wording, this one word (!) can be easily replaced. The paragraph just described the public park's facilities, which are state-owned and non-commercial. Admin User:Deb refused to undo the deletion without any valid arguments. WP:ATD was violated by the speedy deletion; the article could be easily improved. The deletion is obviously part of a WP:HOUND strategy of this admin against me, who for political reasons seems to dislike the subjects of some of the dozens of articles that I wrote. But that must not be a reason to speedy delete sourced material as a form of harrassment, especially when it is completely non-political and reputably sourced. Greywin (talk) 19:05, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One instant addition has to be made: The admin claims on his/her talk page that the article was referenced by a "minor tourist website". Obviously he/she missed that it was by the German daily Die Tageszeitung which is a nationwide newspaper. And the ref wasn't broken when I added it; I think this claim of the admin is also wrong.--Greywin (talk) 19:19, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Quick note: in general, if you have a problem with an admin you are better off bringing up *that* issue at WP:ANI or WP:AN. Here, just focus on the deletion, not the person. Quick request: could we get a temp. undelete of the article? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 19:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, understood. I'm thinking about it.--Greywin (talk) 19:26, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Temporary undeletion would be good.--Greywin (talk) 19:32, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would merely note that I tagged the article for improvement on 1 October. The creator removed the tags without attempting to fix the issues, with the edit summary "An advertisement for a public park? Nonsense. It is notable as geographic object. And stop hounding me." The only reference was to a tourist website. Later, he added this: "Die Tageszeitung wrote that the park as the green vicinity of Osdorfer Born helps to let the quarter appear "like an idyll" ", adding another reference which does not seem to lead where he intended. It seemed to me that, without the praise for the park's idyllic atmosphere and the invitation to use the children's facilities, there was no substance left.Deb (talk) 22:55, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you were angry that I found a reputable source and thought it wasn't worth checking it? The first "tourist website" was not a tourist website at all, it was hamburg.de, the official page of the city. The second website, which I added was clearly a WP:RS as I pointed out above. "The issues" was just one word, maximum, if you interpret the word "offer" alone as "blatant advertising" for a playground and other public facilities. This deletion is still completely incomprehensible. --Greywin (talk) 23:06, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • article history temporarily undeleted for review. DGG ( talk ) 00:49, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy the language isn't ideal, but it's not massively promotional. It might be a reasonable AfD candidate, but I think it would be unusual to delete a 20+ acre urban park. There may be a good merge target, not sure. Hobit (talk) 04:03, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support a redirect, certainly. As you can see, it was not my original intention to delete it, and I would not have done so had not the article creator declined to improve it and then added further promotional language. Unfortunately, he seems to have a bit of difficulty following NPOV, and believes that his use of English is better than that of native speakers.Deb (talk) 08:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak overturn speedy- This article was basically a tourist guide, but I don't know if that counts as "unambiguous advertising". If it does, feel free to count my !vote as an endorse instead. Otherwise, take it to AfD where I will probably advise to delete. Reyk YO! 08:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy I'm not sure how I would vote if this came to an AfD, but it's clearly not unambiguous advertising (I'm assuming that was the speedy deletion category?). It even passes WP:NOTTRAVEL on its face. I would advise restoring it, giving the creator a small amount of time to find other secondary sources (I'm having difficulty finding any in English, and they're probably all or almost all in German), and taking it to AfD if it can't be further improved. SportingFlyer talk 10:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have a literature source to add, so there will be a sufficiently sourced article.--Greywin (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy Not really seeing this as all that promotional (for a public park?).Slatersteven (talk) 10:07, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion, clearly is not unambiguous advertising as written. May not survive AFD, mind you. Stifle (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn speedy deletion, it is a stub, not PROMO. Sources exist, but mostly under Bornpark. Speedy was inappropriate.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:23, 16 October 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.
Gariahat Chess Club (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This page was tagged for speedy deletion and deleted accordingly though content was reputably sourced. But in the talk page there was a note why this page shouldn't be deleted. but no farther discussion initiated and deleted. while tagged then gives a reason for copyright violation and showed ~42% content directly copied but reconstruction was going on and i remember after leatest revision it was only ~22%. And if you go through then easily understand that was very often, not a serious issue. So requesting un-deleted or convert to draft that it can be again reconstructed. Drawing attantion of respective admin @RHaworth: in that issue. শক্তিশেল (talk) 19:21, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going to need an admin to comment on the copyright issues. Hobit (talk) 04:05, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this was a copyright violation, and I have no reason to doubt RHaworth's judgment on that, then it's not eligible for restoration. A better way might be for you to get the content emailed to you, work on it offline, and then recreate the article once it's no longer a copyright problem. Reyk YO! 07:52, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Looking at শক্তিশেল's "improved" version, I doubt that this article would survive even without the copyright issue. Deb (talk) 08:34, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This wiki article written about Street Chess Club which is very famous culture in European country and Russia; even in Croatia there is chess street. Similarly in Kolkata this street Chess Club founded in '80. And its a registered Club. And very famous. Grand masters also used to visit here. So notability have no doubt. And article written with enough references of leading newspaper. So Promotional doubt also not to be questioned. Copyright issue is very less, in that case, I request to see latest revised version. As after tagged, this page revised several times. And Then it is very stable and violating issue free. If still this article questioned about any issue then my request make it as draft for improvement or mailed me the latest content. শক্তিশেল (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think you are missing the point. The article was deleted, not for notability and not for promotional language, but for copyright reasons. You can probably get help to rewrite the article in good English, but you have no grounds for asking for the deletion to be overturned. Deb (talk) 10:44, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • If article needed to rewrite then email me latest content or make it draft that will be helpful for me. I know what was the ground of deletion. Thats why I defending. Please Concentrated on my request, hope that will be logical. Again I am requested to see latest version. Probably before deletion latest version has not cheaked. Page may be deleted on the basis of previous checking and no talk page discussion have made by remover, where as I defend in talk page. And last version was Copyright violation free. My humble request see latest version and still you think its violated copyright issue, then email me the content i will work offline or make it draft. Thanks শক্তিশেল (talk) 12:04, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • e-mail Can't really restore a copyright problem. But sounds like it was being fixed. Once fixed it can be put back. Might be subject to AfD for other reasons, but shouldn't be speedied as long as the copyright issue is addressed. Hobit (talk) 16:13, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Barkeep49, you tagged this for WP:G12. Do you remember the URL of where you believe it was copied from? Unfortunately, the earwig link doesn't work on deleted revisions. My own attempts to find where it was copied from have drawn a blank. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:05, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @RoySmith: This was an unusual situation - I'm fairly sure I've never linked to the earwig report when doing a COPYVIO before. It was, at the time of my report, cribbed from several different sources (at least 2, maybe 3 or 4 I don't recall now). One such source I was able to find; I'm not able to locate the others at this time, sorry. It sounds like Cryptic was able to trace back more of what I was seeing when I tagged it? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:46, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sources the first revision infringed are in the speedy tag in the second revision. Later versions disguise but don't rectify the infringement. We don't permit copyright violations because of "heritage importance" and we don't fix them by "hand in hand contribution", as claimed on the deleted talk page. Endorse. —Cryptic 23:58, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse WP:G12, allow recreation from scratch. Looking at the most recent version, we have

    attained the look of a legitimate club with 13 tables bearing laminated boards. Arched lamp posts with 26 stools attacking any endgamer

    and the Telegraph has,

    has attained the look of a legitimate club with 13 tables bearing laminated boards, arched lamp posts and 26 stools laid out for anyone who likes an endgame

    That's virtually word for word. I see other similar duplications. I am curious, however, about the style of play in India where the players are attacked by the furniture during the endgame. What we've got now is unsalvageable, but the topic does seem likely to be notable, so I'm fine with somebody writing a new article completely from scratch. I would not email the old text to anybody, as that would just encourage reuse of infringing material. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS, given the history, you might want to start the new article in draft space. It'll be less likely to get jumped on by well-meaning admins wielding the CSD-stick. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 18 October 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 October 2018[edit]

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

I am only requesting undeletion of the first edit, which was a redirect to Rifts (role-playing game). The subsequent article was created four year later, and was the subject of the deletion request. The closing admin failed to review the article's history (as did everyone who commented on that AfD) to note the distinction, and there was no mention why the original redirect should cease to exist. The closing admin is no longer active on Wikipedia (and requested his/her account be blocked), so discussion with the closing admin is moot here. Also note that the deleted material was re-created at Rifts (role-playing game) shortly after Rifts Collectible Card Game was deleted. That probably merits a review too. Mindmatrix 21:31, 9 October 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.
Category:People of Huguenot descent (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

On the morning of 9 October 2018, I discovered that my Category Page of Russian people of Huguenots Descent had been deleted on 6 October by CydeBot. Apparently, from 27th of September of this year, there was a discussion initiated by Good Ole Factory to do so. Five experts chimed in and encouraged the deletion along with many other pages created by myself and others.

Here’s the funny thing: Over the last year or so Wikipedia has sent me messages inviting me to ArbCom 2017 or invitation to the Tea House. What I didn’t see was a simple, professionally courteous Wikipedia email notifying me that my page, along those created by other contributors, was about to be deleted. Given this bit of evidence I’ll confidently assert that no other creator or contributor was notified. This is an unimaginable bit of self-centered and myopic laziness on the editor’s part. That is unless the true goal was to limit discussion and the free exchange of ideas.

Tracing the discussion page (that again I was unaware and definitely not invited to) I find out that “Good Ole Boy” has taken it upon himself to delete _every_ Huguenot Category page, from North America to Europe and beyond. A grand total of five contributors now decide the fate of Categories that multiple contributors, over the years, spent endless man-hours finding and connecting.

What passes for a rationale is exemplified by the following five “experts”:

Good Ole Factory, (who proudly talks about his Museum of Stuffed Insults on his page) expertly stating that this is not a “defining” ethnicity.

BearCat’s assertion that his partial Huguenot ancestry has no effects on him. A scientific survey of _one_ (plus or minus 2% I guess).

Macrocappele- Not defining for a 20 or 21st century People.” (According to whom?)

Peterkingiron (expert on Windmills and Iron) would “not expect Huguenot ancestry to be significant in the biography of a person active even in the late 18th century; certainly not more recently.”

What a wonderful example of Group Think. Of course that’s what happens when, by accident or design, you avoid contacting anyone who might have a dissenting opinion. An easy counter argument to this collective mindset that this ancestry has no effect would be the numerous scholarly volumes that suggest otherwise. If actually verifying research or opinions in that way was too hard, they could just Google all the various heritage and lineage organizations that exist, many with a Wikipedia page. If they actually bothered to read Wikipedia articles before deleting them (via Bot) they might notice a handful of these organizations are listed in the Wikipedia article on Huguenots. An article that states that many refugee descendants still have a sense of identity.

The handful of experts, all patting each other on the back, make other logical fallacies. One is equating the percentage of ethnicity being a determining factor, remarking on declining percentages of Huguenot ancestry. Are we talking historical reference here’s or a JK Rowling novel about someone being “half-Muggle”? Was there some kind of bigoted, racial purity guideline for a Category page? There are also examples of persons reflecting on their heritage all the way into the 20th Century and it still has effects to the present day. What kind of “Either/Or” logical fallacy states you can only be one or another ancestry? Many (arguably, most) Huguenot descendants, myself included, are descended from many different ethnicities and nationalities. Actually, the once-available Huguenot categories emphasize that point, a point apparently too simple for that collective gentlemen to grasp.

Unlike these fine gentlemen, all I can claim is that I wrote a Master’s Thesis on the Huguenots. In doing so I was ably assisted by the National Huguenot Society, to whom I also presented a paper on the Huguenots in the Russian Military. While I firmly agree that Wikipedia should never be used as a source of original research I think it provides an outstanding tool for a researcher (or just the thoughtfully curious) in finding leads and connections to primary and secondary research. It definitely helped me, and also helped many others judging from the multiple other contributors that we could all _once_ easily see.

So is Wikipedia the encyclopedia anyone can edit (providing of course, that they follow its community standards) or should it be more accurately described as “The online encyclopedia that anyone can contribute to, but that a few snobbish elite really control, free of any honest attempts at public discourse or actually seeking conflicting views.”? All decided in TEN DAYS OR LESS. Right now, given the high-handed disservice just done to myself and other faithful contributors, who just had their work destroyed, with nary an attempt made at their input, I’ll vote resoundingly for the later. This confirmed by the sheer arrogance of their respective pages (Tell me, does “good faith” involve someone threatening to go all “SkyNet” on people?)

There is an even greater irony. If, for the foreseeable future, someone actually does an online search for “British” or “Dutch” or even “Russian” and adds the word “Huguenot” one of the first hits that will still come up is the Wikipedia Category page. Pages that don’t exist anymore due to a small handful of individuals taking action without any effort to hear a dissenting opinion. Not your best moment, Wikipedia. Not at all — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntldr (talk • contribs) 01:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I found a few articles that used to be in one of these categories on here though there must be many more. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Walther Darré: the article does not explain anything about how his Huguenot descent may be defining
John Blossett: the article does not explain anything about how his Huguenot descent may be defining
Ben Viljoen: the article does not even mention his Huguenot descent
William Vassal: it is clear from the article that being a Huguenot was defining for his father and grandfather, but less clear how this descent is defining for himself
Johannes de Peyster Sr.: the article does not explain anything about how his Huguenot descent may be defining
Daniel Perrin: he was a Huguenot and still in Category:Huguenots
Do I need to carry on? Note that this is not a random sample because these are mostly people from older centuries. Many biographies in the deleted Huguenot descent categories were about modern people for whom their Huguenot descent is even a lot further away. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The nomination was listed at CfD, the central venue for discussing categories. It's not as though people were kept away from the discussion deliberately. And the consensus there was clearly to delete. I don't see anything wrong with how things were done. Hyperbolic and insulting statements like "unimaginable bit of self-centered and myopic laziness" and "high-handed disservice" don't help your cause at all. Reyk YO! 07:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Notifying a category creator is recommended but not mandatory; however, more to the point, there was sufficient consensus that having done so would not have changed things. Stifle (talk) 09:18, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse (but relist) Endorse. Clearly, the CfD was closed properly given the material that was there. Even if the nom had known about it and participated, it seems likely that the result would be the same. And, obviously, the nominating statement was, ahem, excessive. But, the nom does have a point. There should be some automated way that people who are interested in these things get notified. If you use Twinkle to nominate something, the creator gets notified automatically (assuming you don't uncheck the box). But, not everybody uses Twinkle. My guess is that if you don't use Twinkle (or some other scripted tool), the manual notification mostly never happens. It would be good if the notification was baked into the software so it always happened. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per Hobit and DGG's comments below, I would not be opposed to a relist. I'm still endorsing the close, because I don't think the closer did anything wrong, but the lack of notification does argue for a relist. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing Sandstein's sentiment posted yesterday, for the good of the project, this thread needs to end. I no longer support a relist, since anything which could possibly be said after relisting has already been said here. It's time to move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - do not relist - watching pages one has created is a good idea. Oculi (talk) 17:16, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh come on. It's way too easy to miss a watch page update, especially for a prolific editor. Hobit (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Watching article alerts such as Wikipedia:WikiProject France/Article alerts is also a good idea. Oculi (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sure, but I still claim that my quote (below) is applicable here. A notification that should have happened didn't happen. It's not required, but it certainly should be considered and it's not unreasonable that absent the notice one might miss the discussion. Hobit (talk) 23:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Hobit, DGG, and RoySmith: I sympathise with the concerns about lack of notification, but I do wish the concerns about lack of notifications were expressed in a less accusatory tone than crept into some (tho not all) of the comments here
The problem is technical: there isn't an automated way of notifying creators in the case of multiple CFD nominations. WP:Twinkle does it for single nominations, but group nominations such as this are built manually, and there's no bot to do the notifications. In cases such as this, notifications massively increase the burden on nominators.
For example, the nomination under discussion here involved 30 different categories. Even using boilerplate text, a manual exercise of checking the history of each category and notifying the creator could easily take 1 minute each, which means 30 minutes for the lot. I recently did a group nom of 90 music organisation categories, and didn't notify any creators because I'm not willing to devote 90 minutes to the task.
So a requirement to manually notify is simply too big a clerical burden to impose on nominators. If that requirement was imposed, then much of the maintenance work at CFD and CFDS would simply stop. En.wp would not be improved by retaining 7 different formats for the same type of category, which is what would happen to those 90 music categories if manual notification was mandatory (I was happy to spend ten minutes on that nom, but not an extra 90 minutes). Nor would it being improved by massively raising the bar to proposing deletion of a type of category which may be superfluous or even disruptive.
What we need is some system of automatic notification, so that editors can devote their energies to the substantive discussion rather than to clerical work. AFD seems to have some bots which do the work, and it would be great to have something similar for CFD. WP:Article alerts helps too, and altho WPbanner tagging is haphazard, it is a step which projects can take proactively to enhance notifications. And as I noted below, I'd love to see articles displaying a CFD notification beside any category on that article which has a CFD tag. (We already do this for templates, and although the technology is simpler there, the resulting display is similar to what I envisage here).
Any or all of these steps would help everyone. But it's not fair to criticise individual nominators for the holes in en.wp's notifications software. We need systemic solutions here, not the shaming of alleged culprits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover the nominator Bearcat (whose nominations are scrupulously presented) did notify the creator of the top category (Mayumashu). Oculi (talk) 10:49, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • relist This is a lot of work to delete without letting the creator, who spent hours doing this, chime in. It costs us little to reopen the discussion. And we really are supposed notify the creator. Yes, it was a correct closure. Yes, notification isn't required. So "rules as written" everything is fine. But yes, this person chiming in might well have changed the whole discussion. As might the others who should have been notified. We need to keep editors. "All the planning charts and demolition orders have been on display at your local planning department in Alpha Centauri for fifty of your Earth years so you’ve had plenty of time to lodge any formal complaints and its far too late to start making a fuss about it now." Does that sound about right? Hobit (talk) 18:04, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • With a nod toward BHG, I really should have said endorse and relist as the close at the time was clearly correct. Hobit (talk) 23:28, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I agree with Hobit. The only good reason notification is not mandatory is that here are cases where one would deliberately and appropriately not want to do so, and it is difficult to define them exactly. We don't notify trolls, we don't notify blocked editors, we usually don't notify spammers--I'm sure there are other cases. But all good faith editors deserve a chance to defend their work, and it is even more true when it is a group of pages. This is especially true for the XfDs other than AfD, because they are much less watched. Participation in RfD is s rather specialized thing--most editors, even highly active ones, never go there.
We can not assume that his presence there would have made little difference: his arguments might have been convincing. Nor is it correct that the result was inevitable. There was a good faith keep, and one of the delete !votes proposed an alternative.
The statement that "there had a week's chance" is wildly unrealistic--the editors who come here every week are a minority, and saying something like like has always impressed be as being a little unfair to them. And in a relatively unwatched section, it can seem like trying to get a desired result by hoping those who might dissent will not notice. DGG ( talk ) 19:02, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but relist. The close was fine, but more input would be helpful in ensuring that any outcome is based on a wider consensus. It seems that the DRV nom has some expertise to bring to the discussion, so a re-run would be better informed.
However, I do hope that in any new discussion the nom will drop the verbosity and the prolific assumptions of bad faith. Personalising and souring the debate won't help anyone.
And I'm afraid that low attendance at CFD is a norm. It's obviously undesirable, but even article alerts and WikiProject notifications don't usually boost turnout much, and the 4 responses to this nom is probably above average. So please don't shoot the closer ... and @DGG, please leave off the nominator. The categories were properly tagged, and the discussion was listed in the correct venue for 9 days (not just the minimum 7). I see no ground sto suggest that the nominator had any desire to act stealthily. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:33, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I had meant it to refer to this particular discussion I would have said so explicitly. But people here was already discussing the general issue of notifications, and it is something which does happen sometimes. (if it weren't for BEANS, I could describe some of the exact strategies that often work) It's one of the reasons I think the non-AfD discussions should be combined into one process, in the hope of getting a wider audience. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ag, @DGG, I am sure I could also devise and describe such strategies just by inverting some of the steps I use to give discussions high prominence. But I don't see any reason to suggest such gaming here, so if you want to speculate like that it's best to start with a disclaimer.
I don't see how combining some or all of MFD/TFD/CFD/RFD would alter the main problem, viz that few editors are interested in non-article deletion discussions. Combining them would simply mean that those editors who do follow these discussions would have have to wade through a lot more to find what they want. That may well to less participation, not more.
The real gamechanger for CFD participation would be if the mediawiki software (or may some add-on widget) put a CFD indicator on articles beside any category with a live CFD tag. I'd love that; how could we get it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:02, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (closer). The nomination suggests that I expressed an opinion in the discussion that the categories were not "defining". I did not. I closed the discussion based on the opinions expressed by other users. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The statement at the top of this discussion doesn't afaics provide any reason to think the CFD close was incorrect.
(Copying from a comment above that matches my thoughts exactly) Clearly, the CfD was closed properly given the material that was there. Even if the nom had known about it and participated, it seems likely that the result would be the same. And, obviously, the nominating statement was, ahem, excessive.
This appears to be a classic case of an editor (very) interested in a particular characteristic viewing that characteristic as having special significance and hence thinking it's appropriate to categorize by it regardless of it being (for an encyclopedia) non-defining (Wp categorization is categorization - not WikiData). DexDor (talk) 06:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist This was a sudden deletion of a lot of work by a whole lot of people. Eddaido (talk) 08:28, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and relist Nothing wrong with the close itself, but I support reopening the discussion for another week so the nominator of this deletion review can participate in the discussion. Not sure if the result will be any different, though. SportingFlyer talk 09:58, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SportingFlyer: I think the chances of a difft outcome depends largely on whether @Gruntldr has anything to offer other than outraged ad hominems and I'm-an-expert. I'm willing to give them the chance, but I'm not holding my breath. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:59, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I realize that continuing to put time and effort into Wikipedia pretty much equates to “throwing good money after bad’” but a few thoughts on the opinions here but a few parting thoughts:
1. No matter how much you pretty it up, the review time for discussion of a proposed deletion is unprofessional and downright unethical. Comments like Hobit’s seem applicable…if you don’t have a job, or maybe stay on the internet 24/7 in your Mom’s basement. So the implication is that if you ever create anything on Wikipedia you better watch it like a hawk for years on end, and heaven help you if you aren’t able to get on the internet for a week or so (not hypothetical, as currently I often work in austere locations in different parts of Central Asia). Heck, even old-school public notices in a newspaper gave everyone a month.
2. I really want to find how Macrocappele’s worship at the altar of “defining” became the litmus test for justifying a category. I would helpfully suggest he do some research into the concept of the aggregate, instead of cherry-picking his results. I could just as easily find counter examples (easier for me, since I wrote a paper on it). That would be just a statistically relevant...or irrelevant. For extra credit please try Measures of Performance versus Measures of Effectiveness. And yes, they were effects even into the 20th Century.
3. Despite BrownHairedGirl’s misuse of ad hominem it was an attack on the position, as the unprofessional biases expressed by the Gang of Five were a significant factor in my dispute. And still are. “I don’t like it, so get rid of it” and “Sounds great, Bob!” are not actual debates. I also highly doubt I’m the only upset individual, except no one knows for sure until the other creators and contributors find out how their contributions were deleted by some a self-appointed committee unwilling to notify them (“But the Bot doesn’t have time!” is an excuse?)
4. I have notified about five thousand descendants of this non-defined group, who (silly enough) all keep in touch via web pages and heritage and lineage organizations, about what a small, self-contained elite of Wikipedia editors have done. The nicest words that came out may have been “anti-religious bigotry.” The most astute observation came from a PhD in history. She pointed out that Wikipedia has thousands of articles, including categories, about _fictional_ personages, yet felt it was appropriate to speedily remove pages involving, numerous actual people.
In conclusion, before I waste any more time on this, I will stand by and further emphasize my previous assertion that Wikipedia is NOT something that anyone can edit. In fact, Wikipedia is actually controlled by a small minority or users/admins who really ignore any other opinions, except in lip service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntldr (talk • contribs) 15:55, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1. The 7-day period for deletion discussions applies across all of Wikipedia, and has been stable for a decade. It is a compromise between the need to give editors time to find a discussion, and the need to make some progress on discusions rather than leaving thousands of them open. If opinions are fairly closely balanced, discussions can be relisted for another 7 days. Some may be relisted several times. And nothing is final; discusions are frequentky re-opened. So relax; everything here is reversible, if there is a consensus to do so.
  2. Wikipedia:Categorization says The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics.. More detail is offered at WP:DEFINING.
    Assessing definingness is obviously a matter of editorial judgement, which is why we have a discussion ... but that is the principle at play.
  3. You may not agree with how other editors assess the concept of definingness, or you may even wish they had put more time into the assessments, but that does not excuse your choice to make personal attacks on them. If you believe you have better assessments, let's hear them; your reasoning will be assessed on its merits, not on how angrily you denigrate others.
    And no, there is no self-appointed committee: there is a page where a discusison may be joined by any one of the tens of thousands of wikipeda editors. It's an open meeting, not a cabal. And yes, time is always relevant. Every other editor is like you: a volunteer giving their time. So there is always a balance to be struck with notifications, and that balance depends partly on whether there is technology to assist. (More technology allows more notifications)
  4. Categories are not content. They are a way of navigating between content; no content was deleted here. This is like roadsigns, where highways agencies draw a balance between too few signs to help travellers find their way, and so many that they are overwhelmed and bewildered. That's why categories are limited to the WP:DEFINING characteristics. The same principles apply whether the topic is people, businesses, geography, sport, culture, science or fiction; we still need to assess defingness.
    Your choice to realy a characterisation of this as "religious bigotry" is completely unsupported by the contnet of the deletion discusion; it's yet another ad hominem attack, which does your cause no favours.
There is no cabal, and no conspiracy. At worst an oversight; at best a clash of expectations. Nobody set out to ignore your opinion. On the contrary, most of the editors who commented here have been keen to give you the chance to make a substantive case, despite your hostile tone. (En.wp has a policy assume good faith. Please follow it.)
There's now a good chance that the deletion discussion will be reopened. If and when it does, the discssion will be closed on the basis of support for arguments which are founded on Wikipedia's policy and guidelines. The issue is not whether you think other editors are nasty or stupid. The issue is not whether some people in a club find that their shared attribute is important. The issue is Wikipedi'a Categorisation policy. If you actually want to make use of the opportunity offered by a reopened dscussion, then stick to that policy.
One policy which I really hope you bear in mind is WP:OWNERSHIP. Please do read that, because it is very important. Wikipedia is a collaborative environment in which many edits are undone and many pages deleted. The decisions are made by WP:CONSENSUS, and if you want to change the consensus then you need to work with other editors, not treat them as enemies.
I still think that the discussion should be reopened, to give the opportunity to make a policy-based case against deletion. From your conduct so far, it seems to me to be much more likely that you will instead waste everyone's time with anger rather than reasoning. But I do hope you will prove me wrong. Good luck. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with no prejudice against relisting. The nom is understandably upset, so perhaps a little time to WP:COOL and calm down may yield a more fruitful discussion.Alpha3031 (t • c) 09:45, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but extend a little latitude since it's not fundamentally problematic. I don't but and never have the idea that the originator should be notified. It's against the very nature of WP:OWN, against the nature of articles being edit by potentially many editors the initial creator perhaps having contributed little or nothing to the current state, many stubs written by bots who really aren't going to respond to an xFD etc. etc. unless we go to a subjective standard of "significant" contributors or every contributor (which would include the millions of bot edits, vandalism reverts etc.) then as a reason not to honour an xFD result it's pretty weak. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:43, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Excuse this butting ahead of the other responses which come chronologically first, I'm surprised this DRV is still open but as it is, looking through the nominators response where he doesn't seem to want to understand or work with other wikipedia editors I've struck out my view we should offer some degree of compromise on this. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Should be for certain--our policies say so. And not purely for reasons of WP:OWN. Also because the creator, assuming good faith, had a reason to believe the topic was appropriate for Wikipedia. We should ask them. Also for reasons of editor retention--nuking things behind someone's back isn't a good way to keep them here. <ec> Hobit (talk) 17:05, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • This isn't about deletion of a topic (i.e. an article); the CFD was about how articles are categorized. DexDor (talk) 20:06, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'd call that a topic but either way it is removing something someone spent a lot of time on and believed was appropriate for Wikipedia. I don't see the harm in giving them the oppertunity to explain themselves. Hobit (talk) 21:31, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
          • @Hobit: The harm lies in the disproportionate amount of time required for manual notification of multi-category CFDs, which imposes an excessive and disproportionate burden on editors doing category maintenance. An automatic notification system would be great; but a requirement for manual notification would make much category maintenance stop. And no, our policies do not require it. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:51, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
            • Certainly true it takes time and isn't required. But in this case someone is asking for us to reopen the discussion because they missed due to the lack of notification. Seems reasonable. The lack of a tool may justify not taking the time to do the recommended notification. But it seems only fair to give that person a chance to comment later when the only reason they weren't notified was a lack of a tool. Hobit (talk) 05:16, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
              • Glad we agree it's not required. And we already agree on the rest: give the editor a chance to make their case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would like to ask User:Gruntldr directly: assuming the discussion gets relisted, are you intending to defend that Huguenot descent is a defining characteristic? Because if you aren't, relisting has no purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I really need to shut down my Wikipedia account, as I realize it’s a waste of time, and stop receiving email notifications that the judge, jury, and executioner committee all of the sudden wants to discuss/lecture. So, with a promise to myself that this is the last drink at the bar before I cut myself off, here a few effects that lasted into the 20th Century, if not beyond. Note, I’ve also added some citations and links for convenience, though the sum of this would definitely qualify as “original research” (as it was available from a thesis paper and a couple other graduate papers that I wrote) and not something I’d stick in a Wikipedia article. Also, no matter how much Marcocappelle wants to make “defining” the sole litmus check of a category, it’s an asinine, single-prism metric. As stated before, a much better metric is effects, effects that extend beyond just people but into the diplomatic, information, military and economic instruments of power. These effects could result in an Irish linen industry or a South African wine industry, or even a bunch of German-speaking generals with French names proclaiming the German Empire in the former palace of their Bourbon oppressors. You could use the people to trace the effects… that is until all the categories were deleted.

18th CENTURY: Butler’s otherwise excellent The Huguenots in America: A Refugee People in a New World Society asserts that “Everywhere They Fled. Everywhere They Vanished.” However Back in North America Jon Butler uses a broad brushstroke to cover many, diverse types of settlements, with multiethnic cities like Boston, Charleston, and New York averaged alongside Francophone enclaves like New Rochelle, New Pfalz, and even New Bordeaux, the last of which was settled in 1764. Any rates of assimilation among different types of communities, to say nothing of different families and individuals within these various communities, are unlikely to average the same result. Butler avoids this dilemma by restricting his data pool to a roughly three-decade period of the Second Refuge: 1680 to 1710. Earlier Walloon and Huguenot settlements in North America serve only to set the stage for the following, larger flood of refugees. Later French Protestant settlements like Purrysburg and New Bordeaux are also discarded because “none of the settlements grew out of the original Huguenot emigration.” While this restricted model makes the subject matter more manageable, it also negates broader temporal and spatial connections, the family and social bonds that existed between Francophone Protestants across both Europe and the Atlantic, and across generations.

Throughout his research Butler repeatedly references increasing Huguenot marriages to non-Huguenots, exogamy, as evidence of dissolving cohesiveness and lack of identity among the refugees. While use or knowledge of the French language often serves as a prima facie indicator of ethnic identity among refugee descendants, marriage is more like church attendance in that the Huguenots often kept a foot in both doors. Butler’s use of ethnic purity as an indicator of ethnic identity is arguably a more emotional than scientific argument, something that seems more suited to characters in a J. K. Rowling novel describing the merits of someone who is “half-Muggle” than any objective measurement of ethnic identity. Both John Jay and Henry Laurens took non-Huguenot wives, Sarah Van Brugh Livingston and Eleanor Ball respectively, yet both men’s own writings proclaim them the most “Huguenot” of the Founding Fathers. In short, when it comes to a sense of Huguenot identity in the 1700s, loyalty trumps purity. Sorry if this is contrary to Marcocapelle’s (apparently) heartfelt requirement of “defining.”

Other researchers, including Brenda Fay Roth, Amy Friedlander, Bertrand Van Reymbuke, and Paula Carlo have presented evidence that support different conclusions than Butler’s, a minority opinion asserting a longer, continual sense of Huguenot identity, at least in certain enclaves in South Carolina and New York. Van Reymbuke’s, From Babylon to New Eden, referencing both Butler’s work and Amy Friedlander’s dissertation “Carolina Huguenots: A Study of Cultural Pluralism in the Carolina Lowcountry,” argues that in South Carolina “the Huguenot experience resembles a process of integration, or even . . . of acculturation and ‘Creolization’ rather than simply assimilation.” He further concludes: “The site of Charlesfort; the towns of Port Royal and Ravenal; Ribault Road in Beaufort; Horry County; Prioleau, Gendron, and Legare Street in Charleston, Gervais Street in Columbia, the Maginault House; the Charleston Huguenot Church; Hanover House in Clemson, the Middleburg and Hampton Plantations, Revolutionary War hero Francis Marion; the saying ‘rich as a Huguenot;’ and the dessert known as the Huguenot torte are some of the many indelible marks the Huguenot refugees have left on the history, toponymy, architectural scene, and cultural landscape of the Lowcountry and state of South Carolina.” SOURCE: Bertrand Van Ruymbeke, New Babylon to Eden: The Huguenots and their Migration to Colonial South Carolina (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2006), xviii.

“Indelible” is a far cry from “vanished.” They are also “marks” that did not disappear post 1750, only to magically reappear in the early 21st Century.

In her excellent Huguenot Refugees in Colonial New York, Becoming American in the Hudson Valley, Paula Wheeler Carlo, also asserts that the Huguenot settlements at New Pfalz and New Rochelle were “homogenous, autonomous” communities and that: “like Huguenot settlements in Germany, New Rochelle maintained a significant degree of ethnic homogeneity until at least the time of the American Revolution. While not as pronounced, some degree of ethnic homogeneity was preserved among the descendants of the founders of New Pfalz as well.” Later in her research, Carlo further discusses the allegiances of New Pfalz and New Rochelle during the American Revolution. She highlights a distinction between the New Pfalz’s leaning towards the Patriot cause and the more mixed allegiances of New Rochelle, concluding that, from both settlements founding until the American Revolution, the Huguenots “did not vanish as quickly or completely as had been argued previously.” SOURCE: Paula Wheeler Carlo, Huguenot Refugees in Colonial New York: Becoming American (Portland: Sussex Academic Press, 2006), 2-3.

In her essay “Family Bonds Across the Refuge” Carolyn Lougee Chappell describes how the scattered cousins of the Champagné family maintained relationships across the refuge from Rochelle to the point of Baron de Saint-Surin in Celle naming his cousin, an Anglican Dean residing in Ireland, in his will in 1776. The evidence is that at least some sense of Huguenot identity existed into the late 1700s in Europe. SOURCE: “Family Bonds Across the Refuge,” in Memory and Identity, The Huguenots in France and the Atlantic Diaspora, ed. Randy J. Sparks and Bertrand Van Ruymbeke (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2003), 172-173.

"Defining" did not matter for George Washington, even as a descendent of Nicolas Martiau, as he cared little about his ancestry. He did leverage the Huguenot Diaspora’s effects, particularly in the French language skills of John (Jack) Laurens and Alexander Hamilton (son of Rachel Faucett), who both used their native-level French language skills as his aides. As did Gouverneur Morris and John Jay (both alumni of Rev. Stroupe’s New Pfalz academy), Paul Fooks (translator to the Continental Congress), or even the “Widow Who Saved the American Revolution” Mary Valleau Bancroft, who used her charms (and French language) to delay Hessian Colonel Carol von Donop before Washington crossed the Delaware. SOURCES: Really too many to list, but a good start is the excellent website of the National Archives. Particularly telling is the primary source material by Founding Fathers like Laurens, Alexander Hamilton, and (especially) John Jay about their French Protestant ancestry.

“When I consider the Circumstances under which our Ancestors settled in America, & recollect what I have heard of the Friendship that which subsisted between them, I find myself heartily disposed to serve this young gentleman, and act a Part towards him which I am sure would be exceedingly agreeable to my Parents, who always expressed the most friendly Sentiments of the Families from which his Father descended.” — John Jay, 11 June 1783 letter to Elias Boudinot referring to John Marsden Pintard’s appointment as Counsel to Portugal, all three families being the descendants of Huguenot refugees. SOURCE: The Selected Papers of John Jay, Volume 3, 1782-1784.

19th CENTURY: In Europe, especially in parts of modern day Germany, the Huguenots maintained a sense of identity, to include the use of the French language that survived past the Napoleonic Wars. In America the Huguenots became part of the national myth. Paul McGraw in his essay “The Memory of the Huguenots in North America; Protestant History and Polemic” accepts the majority opinion that the Huguenots “essentially disappeared by the middle of the seventeenth century,” but not before noting that their “presence in the literature of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries” is something “nearly as important as their physical presence.” George Michael Smith also asserts in his research that the Huguenots existed in a greater American cultural memory throughout the 19th Century. This cultural memory was widespread enough in the 1800s, that multiple writers felt safe in their assumption that they could use the Huguenots as evidence to support their anti-Catholic or pro-American viewpoints, and rely on the easy comprehension, and even sympathy, of their readership with subject. SOURCES: Paul McGraw, “The History of the Huguenots in North America: Protestant History and Polemic,” in The Huguenots: History and Memory in Transnational Context, Essays in Honour and Memory of Walter C. Utt, ed. David J. B. Trim (Leiden: Brill, 2011), 286. AND George Michael Smith, “Huguenot Memory and Identity in 19th Century America” (Master’s Thesis, The National Huguenot Society, San Antonio, TX, 2015), vi.

John Adams was aware of John Jay’s Huguenot refugee ethnicity when he deplored the New Yorker’s strong prejudices against the French, prejudices congruent with Jay’s accompanying anti-Catholicism, asserting during the negotiations for the Treaty of Paris that “he (Jay) didn’t like any Frenchman.” In 1806 the exiled Dutch radical, François Adriaan Van der Kemp, would feel comfortable enough with Adam’s knowledge of the Huguenots, to discuss the very origin of the word Huguenot with him. Years later, in his 1821 letter to Alden Bradford, Adams is confident enough to identify the Huguenot ancestry of Massachusetts Governor James Bowdoin and the marriage of Samuel Dexter to another Huguenot, reflecting how: “Josiah Quincy I think was absent in England—The only plausible conjecture that occures to me is, that it was composed by Governor Bodwin, And Samuel Dexter; Father of the late great orator—For Bodwin was the Son of a Huguenot, and Dexter I think married a Huguenot—The luminous history of the Edict of Nantze (sic) and its revocation, indicates a French Protestant Origin. SOURCE: Founders Online, “From John Adams to Alden Bradford, 26 October 1821,” Founders Online, The National Archives, accessed 13 September 2015, http://founders. archives.gov/documents/Adams/99-02-02-7563.

In 1801 the dying merchant Captain John Batten expressed a different, but no less heartfelt, emotion about his ancestry, as recorded in the diary of Salem, Massachusetts pastor William Bentley. When Bentley mistakenly introduces him as a Catholic, Batten “tho’ confined to his bed, with the true spirit of a Huguenot, he rose on his arm, pointed out the place of his nativity, celebrated in the controversy, & expressed that he held his native place and its zeal to the highest honour.” Clearly these non-Huguenots are not observing an ethnic group that has seen its identity vanish. SOURCE: William Bentley, The Diary of William Bentley, D.D., Pastor of the East Church of Salem, Massachusetts, Volume 2, January 1793 - December 1802 (Salem, MA: The Essex Institute, 1907), 405-406.

French occupations of the Napoleonic Wars, and the resulting rise in nationalism, were to bring on a noticeable change in the attitude towards France in the various Huguenot communities from Hesse-Cassel to Berlin. German Huguenots, both in and out of uniform, increasingly began seeing themselves as connected to the local German populations and the idea of unified German state, albeit under Prussian leadership. The Franco-Prussian War of 1871 would see the officers of both the Prussian General Staff and various major commands, men with names like von François, du Vernois, and Bronsort, shocking both the French forces of Napoleon III and the entire world in a series of rapid campaigns culminating in a successful drive towards Paris. Their presence in the proclamation of the German Empire, this at the Palace of Versailles, royal residence of their former oppressors the House of Bourbon, can rightfully claim the title of “Huguenots’ Revenge.”

You know, you USED to be able to see all those German-Huguenot connections on Wikipedia.

20th CENTURY: An apt place to start the 1900s would be descendant John “Black Jack” Pershing’s willingness to serve as the guest speaker at the dedication of the monument to Washington’s ancestor, Nicolas Martiau (apparently he didn’t get the defining memo). At the bottom of his Wikpidea page you can still see that he is part of the Category:American people of German descent OR Category:American people of English descent OR EVEN Category:Burials at Arlington National Cemetery. Did any of these categories "define" Pershing? Arguably not, but it may be on interest to someone to know this, maybe even "empower and engage people around the world" at least as much as the still existent Category:Pornographic film actors by ethnicity.

More apt would be the World War Two actions of Henri Salmide, born Heinz Stahlschmidt, a demolitions expert in the German Navy who refused to obey orders to blow up the port of Bordeaux, France in order to greatly disrupt the liberating Allied forces. In a 1997 interview Salmide justified his actions by pointing out: “My family were Huguenots, and I acted according to my Christian conscience.” SOURCE: James Mackenzie, “Renegade German War Hero who Saved French Port Dies,” Reuters, 25 February 2010, accessed 11 January 2016, http://www.reuters.com/ article/us-france-bordeaux-hero-idUSTRE61O2SQ20100225.

And in what can arguably be called the Huguenots’ finest hour, the inhabitants of the French Protestant village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon, remembering their own history of religious persecution, hid hundreds of Jews from Vichy and Nazi authorities. These actions earned them the status of “Righteous Among Nations” from the Yad Vashem, the Center for Holocaust Studies and Remembrance for the State of Israel. SOURCE: The World Holocaust Remembrance Center, “The Righteous Among the Nations,” Yad Vashem, accessed 27 January 2016, http://www.yadvashem.org/ yv/en/righteous/related_sites.asp.

In 20th and 21st Century France the Huguenots gained a reputation as defenders of civil liberties and later provided political leadership in the same country that once spurned them, including a handful of Prime Ministers in the Fifth Republic. They also came to dominate many industries, from banking to various types of manufactures, including names like Hottinger, Hermès, and Peugeot. This coupling of political and economic power would lead to a once-powerless minority referred to as the “HSP,” or Haute Société Protestante. SOURCE: The Economist, “France's Protestants: Prim but Paunchy,” 16 April 1998, accessed 11 January 2016, http://www.economist.com/node/160426.

21st CENTURY: Glozier’s 2007 monumental collection, edited with David Onnedick, Wars, Religion and Service: 1685-1713, begins with a foreword from General Sir Peter de la Billière, veteran of both the Falklands War and the first Persian Gulf War remarking on how, “to this day many people of distinction in professions and trades are descended from Huguenot ancestors; as with my family they take great pride in their lineage.” Apparently, some Huguenot military traditions did linger….for a couple hundred years or so.

SOURCE: Peter de la Billière, Wars, Religion, and Service: Huguenot Soldiering 1685-1713, ed. Michael Glozier and David Onnedick (London: Ashgate Publishing, 2007), xiii.

You USE to be able to see de la Billière’s Huguenot connections on Wikipedia. Used to. Or hundreds of others. And Wikipedia also lists some (not remotely all) of the Huguenot heritage and lineage organizations, in North America, Europe, and beyond, who uphold their traditions and celebrate their refugee heritage, no matter how intermingled with other nations and ethnicities they are. In fact, that’s the POINT of celebration. And to reiterate a comment from above, that connection did not magically reappear in the early 21st Century. Though from the members I’ve talked to about this, hundreds of Huguenot descendants are now (somewhat magically) unhappy with Wikipedia.

"Do I need to carry on?"

Of course, this could have been brought up from the start, if there wasn’t a hypocritical “discussion period” for review that is so short that any reputable institution of learning would laugh at it. Or that no attempt was made to contact any of the actual contributors. I haven’t seen a single argument justifying that ineptness beyond either “this is the way we’ve always done it” or “it’s too much effort to do otherwise.” So, yet again, my overall assessment of Wikipedia stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gruntldr (talk • contribs) 12:17, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oh dear. Wall of text, in which Gruntldr says “defining” the sole litmus check of a category, it’s an asinine, single-prism metric and concludes by denouncing en.wp in its entirety. So it is v clear that this editor has zero interest in the consensus-building discussion. Gruntldr's contributions consist almost entirely of categorisation, but their posts here repeatedly reject any desire to build categories within the consensus-building framework which is the basis of all editing on en.wp. (Their edits include zero WP-space edits prior to DRV, and only one talk-page edit[1], back in 2014)
So much for all the efforts by so many editors here to hold the door open, and the goodwill expressed by editors who acknowledge that Gruntldr is understandably aggrieved. The person for whom we were holding it open has spat in our faces. This 600-edit user clearly has scholarly qualifications, but zero interest in working collaboratively and a clear preference for grudge-fests.
Nonetheless, in the midst of that rant there are some nuggets which would be helpful in a reopened discussion, so I will retain my !vote to relist. They also support the view which I have been intending to express at a re-opened CFD, viz that Huguenot ancestry was frequently a highly-defining characteristic in the 18th century, but much more rarely beyond that. So I still intend to support a "keep but purge" in that discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:24, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I still stand by my statement that if an 18th-century person can honestly be shown to be genuinely defined by Huguenot ancestry, then by definition they belong in Category:Huguenots itself rather than needing a separate "ancestry" tree that's so vulnerable to getting misused. Bearcat (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: Sounds like that establishes one important point for reasoned debate at a relisted CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: I've undone my "endorse" closure of this DRV after BrownHairedGirl pointed out to me that a case can also be made that this DRV has arrived at a consensus to also relist the discussion. That consensus isn't all that clear to me, but I'll leave this to another admin to determine, particularly because I don't have enough experience with CfDs to properly relist one. Sandstein 10:48, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Gruntldr: Thanks for so much background information. Why don't you turn this into an article, something like Historiography of Huguenot descendants? That would be a so much better contribution to Wikipedia than the creation of those categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:35, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • I want to say that I think that would be pretty cool if Gruntldr is up for it. Hobit (talk) 01:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • That article would of course be a welcome addition. However, the decision on categories is a separate issue. The article would not preclude the existence of categories, nor would it trigger their creation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:56, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was clear, and the closure reflected that consensus. It appears that this information is best laid out in article form, not through categorization. ℯxplicit 06:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse: Since nobody wants to close this, I can perhaps help by making consensus clearer. There is no real argument that the closure as such was wrong, and I oppose a relist because we do not need more walls of text like the ones above. People who want to contribute to a collaborative project need to learn to be concise or they need to leave. Sandstein 06:08, 26 October 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 October 2018[edit]

7 October 2018[edit]

  • Emerald Mine – Restore and improve. There's so little discussion here, I'm on my own a bit to come up with a solution. In particular, it's unclear if the new sources put forth by Koren are really novel, or if they're actually the same ones that were reviewed and dismissed at the previous AfD. What I'm going to do is undelete the old revisions under the current redirect. This will give Koren an opportunity to write a new article, possibly using the existing revisions as a starting point. Once that's done, and all the new sources added to it, if anybody feels the sources are still insufficient to establish WP:N, they can bring it back to AfD for another look. I recognize that this may not really be a consensus close, but I think it's a reasonable compromise and the best I can do with the limited discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Emerald Mine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I found a lot of new sources since deletion and included them on the german Emerald Mine article Koren (talk) 21:40, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse not the best participated AfD, but not an incorrect close, and the consensus on the talk page is that the new sources don't convey notability. SportingFlyer talk 03:08, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Their comments were made before even half of the sources were added, so I ask for a judgement of _all_ sources at the current state of the article. Emerald Mine has even got a Hit-award, and reached the yesterday-score for another. Don't count awards anymore as notable? "Notability is not temporary." And moreover, I thought the participants here would form an opinion based on the sources and not on the opinion of someone other. --Koren (talk) 05:54, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would vote for a relist, but the sources were already discussed on the talk page by the participants, the new sources presented seem very similar in scope and content, and I don't see another AfD turning out any differently, sorry. SportingFlyer talk 09:14, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A criticism was, that only the first part had sources, and the other parts not. I have added sources for the other parts, thus fixed this incompleteness and no reaction came.--Koren (talk) 10:35, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation/allow another AfD The AfD consensus seemed to be that there weren't enough sources on each particular game. More of the same seems like it would have potentially (likely?) overcome the AfD !voter's concerns. On top of that, WP:N now appears to be met (subject to consensus on a future AfD). Hobit (talk) 23:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I recreated (one of the) suggested redirects from AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:25, 9 October 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 October 2018[edit]

  • Draft:John Bourgeois – Restored to draft.. Based on the discussion here, the AfD close seems reasonable. Quoting from the AfD close, I will consider undeletion if someone who has actual sources wants to restore this and actually work on it. That's the the case here, so I'm doing that. There was no evaluation of the quality of the sources, so no prejudice against a new XfD after they get added. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:John Bourgeois (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The discussion should have either been relisted or closed as no consensus. The user who nominated the page for deletion is a SPA, having only made 15 edits all of which are related to the mfd discussion. That leaves three editors participating in the discussion, 2/3 who !voted keep. None of the arguments made are lacking in strength. Discussed with closer here. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 15:43, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The nom claims to have been an IP editor, and may well have been - it's unreasonable to simply disregard his argument on the basis that you don't believe that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:47, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not disregard, but perhaps discount. Even at full weight, it is still 2 deletes and 2 keeps; the keeps are not sufficiently weak enough or the deletes sufficiently strong enough to justify a delete. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 16:03, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. We do not, and should not, have infinite patience for the retention of content, even in draft or sandbox form, that people aren't even trying to reliably source at all. Sandbox and draft are for working on content that's meant to get back into userspace, not an alternative mainspace for the permanent holding of unsourced articles that don't pass our inclusion criteria — if people aren't even trying to put in the type of work needed to reestablish its eligibility to get moved back into mainspace, then there's no compelling reason to retain it any longer than we'd retain any other unpromotable draft. The disagreement hinged less on the idea that he actually had a strong notability claim, and more on the matter of how long of a cutoff it should be granted before the continued lack of sources finally became an actionable issue — but with no specific length of time formally defined in policy for this type of situation, there's going to be a point in the page's life cycle, whether that's today or tomorrow or five years from now, where we just have to buckle down and decide that it's finally hit the wall. And resolving a deletion discussion isn't just a matter of counting up the votes, either — even a discussion with just two deletes to 98 keeps can be closed as a delete consensus if the delete arguments are all based in Wikipedia policy and procedure while the keep arguments are all anonymous IPs and WP:ATA violations, so it's not just a question of counting up the keep vs. delete tally and taking it at face value, it's a matter of weighing the discussion against policy and procedure as well. Whether you agree with them or not, people are allowed to come to a different conclusion than yours about which set of arguments happened to be stronger. And if somebody wants to try again with proper sources this time, nothing's stopping 'em. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: "[Closer's] are allowed to come to a different conclusion than yours about which set of arguments happened to be stronger." Certainly, and this is the venue to check if the community thinks that conclusion is reasonable. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 00:46, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The page existed for over a year in draftspace, after existing for 11 years in articlespace, without anybody ever locating or showing a shred of evidence that he has any reliable source coverage at all about his performances in either of those films. The two film reviews I can find for When Love Is Not Enough fail to mention his name at all except in the footnotes, and the one I can find for Rudy glancingly namechecks his existence in one sentence while failing to say anything substantive, so they're not sources that help get him over WP:GNG for those performances. Bearcat (talk) 21:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Reasonable close. The argument of a discussion is what matters not who the nominator is. Existed for several years in both mainspace and draft but failed to be brought up to standard due to apparent lack of reliable sources, core component of meaningful article. Not everything can have and article and where notability doesn't exist, attempt to create it will surely be unfruitful. –Ammarpad (talk) 06:08, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is no deadline, and a concern about notability is not a valid reason to delete something at MfD. I only focused on what I did in my opening statement here because it was not touched on much in the deletion discussion in question. This is not the place to relitigate deletion arguments but rather to determine if consensus existed to delete a page; you may think the page should have been deleted, but there clearly was not consensus to delete it. — Godsy (TALKCONT) 17:30, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore to draftspace so editors like Godsy and me can work on the draft. I do not see a consensus in the MfD for deletion. Editors disagreed on whether one year in draftspace was sufficient time to find sources and improve the article.

    I found coverage in reliable sources about the subject that addresses the deletion rationale that there are no sources. Here are the sources:

    1. Donnelly, Pat (1992-03-07). "Rough Crossing a change of pace for director: Former Montrealer back after 11 years to mount a Stoppard production". Montreal Gazette. Archived from the original on 2018-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      It's welcome-home week for John Bourgeois.

      The Concordia-trained actor and director has returned to his home town after an 11-year absence to direct Tom Stoppard's Rough Crossing at Centaur Theatre.

      ...

      Bourgeois, the completely bilingual son of a Québécois father and a New Brunswich-born mother, headed to Toronto the day after he graduated from Concordia in 1981. He has lived there ever since — except for 18 months spent studying theatre in England at London's Webber Douglas Academy, three seasons at Stratford and three months working off-Broadway in New York.

      The article notes that he met his Michigan-born wife, Maria Ricossa, at Stratford and that they "have three daughters — a 4-year-old and 2-year-old twins.
    2. Crouse, Richard (2013-11-21). "He Chose the Road Not Taken and It's Made All the Difference". CTV Television Network. Archived from the original on 2018-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-13.

      The article notes:

      “It was the idea of connecting with another human being at a deep level,” that attracted John Bourgeois to acting. “I think that is what all artists try to do. We try to penetrate and get through to other people. To feel connected,” says the veteran mainstay of stage and screen.

      ...

      He came across his love of acting quite by accident while studying journalism at Concordia in Montreal.

      ...

      Around the same time he worked as a production assistant on a film called Blood Relatives and for the first time saw how a performance was created.

      ...

      That passion for acting and relating to audiences hasn’t dimmed over the course of 100 plus film, television and stage roles.

      ...

      In his latest gig Ottawa-born actor John Bourgeois is stepping into some very big shoes. In the dramedy God of Carnage, now playing until December 15 at the Panasonic Theatre in Toronto, he’s lawyer Alan Cowan, previously played by Jeff Daniels on Broadway and Christoph Waltz on film.

      The article notes that he is program director of Acting for Film and Television at Humber College.

    3. Stapiński, Grzegorz (2018-03-21). ""Carter", nowy serial w AXN (wideo)" (in Polish). SATinfo24. Archived from the original on 2018-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-13.

      From Google Translate:

      John is a film and theater actor, as well as the author of screenplays. He appeared in over 120 film and series productions, including in the films 'Prince and I', in the award-winning Peabody Award, the movie 'The Case of Michael Crowe', 'X-Men: Apocalypse' and also in such series as 'The Kennedys', 'Designated Survivor' and 'Killjoys'. 2018 will be seen at the side of Brendan Fraser in "Condor" based on the film Three Days of the Condor.

      John also appeared in several international commercials and radio dramas. He produced and directed the short feature film "Jimmy Pacheco", which received nominations for Best Comedy at the film festivals in Yorktown and Mill Valley.

      He is the author and performer of theatrical dramas shown, among others during the Toronto Fringe Festival. He has performed at such festivals as Stratford Shakespeare Festival and Off-Broadway, he played in the Philadelphia Walnut Street Theater, and for many years he has also collaborated with the Royal Manitoba Theater Center.

      Bourgeois also meets as an acting teacher at universities across Canada. Since 2005, he has been the director of the acting program at Humber College.

    4. Nicholls, Liz (1990-01-18). "Frankie makes for an easy evening". Edmonton Journal. Archived from the original on 2018-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article is a review of Frankie and Johnny in the Clair de Lune at the Citadel Rice Theatre starring John Bourgeois and his wife Maria Ricossa.

      The article notes:

      He (John Bourgeois) is an ardent and persistent suitor, impelled ot his single-mindedness by his sense of galloping time and a last chance "to connect."

      ...

      Bourgeois is wonderfully volatile, comic, buoyant and vulnerable as the self-styled "knight of the grill" who urgently chooses to "make life happen," to teach himself Shakespeare, to defy the world one last time and see himself as exceptional, even at the risk of being ridiculous.

    5. Crew, Robert (2013-11-28). "God of Carnage works if you enjoy blood sport: review". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2018-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-13.

      The article discusses the production of the God of Carnage play at the Panasonic Theatre.

      The article notes:

      John Bourgeois is the wonderfully work-absorbed lawyer Alan, who is clearly there on sufferance and can’t wait to get away and spin a web of deceit on behalf of his client, the manufacturers of a dangerous medicine.

    6. Kennedy, Janice (1995-11-19). "Play with frequent beauty and power fails to make a strong dramatic statement". Ottawa Citizen. Archived from the original on 2018-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-13 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article discusses Raymond Storey's 1992 play The Glorious Twelfth, which opened Thursday "at the National Arts Centre as a co-production of the NAC and Toronto's Canadian Stage Company".

      The article notes:

      As the other Klan recruiter, Morgan Kale, John Bourgeois creates a nice blend of sleazy hucksterism with zealous bigotry.

    7. Hoile, Christopher (2013-11-28). "Review - God of Carnage - Studio 180, Toronto - Christopher Hoile". Stage Door. Archived from the original on 2018-10-13. Retrieved 2018-10-13.

      The article notes:

      In this play where the humour derives from revealing what was hidden, it is crucial that the actors give us a glimpse of what their characters are hiding right from the start. Kash and Orenstein do this, but John Bourgeois as Alan and Tony Nappo as Michael do not. Bourgeois gives the impression that his constant phone calls are an interruption of his meeting with Henry’s parents. In the TfT production, however, Christian Laurent made it clear he was glad to take all these business calls as an escape from a family discussion he clearly felt was a waste of time. Bourgeois also does not tinge his polite conversation with Michael and Veronica with enough sarcasm that would point to his real view of them that emerges later.

    Cunard (talk) 09:52, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 October 2018[edit]

  • Child bullying – Speedy deletion endorsed for most articles, no consensus for some. Users agree that most of these articles were correctly speedily deleted, but that those marked as "possible" by RoySmith warrant further attention. There's no clear consensus about what to do with those, though. As per the directions, this means that they are restored by default for now, but can still be individually nominated for AfD. Sandstein 07:31, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Child bullying (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

About sixty articles were speedily deleted recently. One of them was raw intelligence which showed up on my watchlist as I had worked on it. I was not otherwise notified and so had to figure out what had happened. On investigation, I found that an admin had deleted these without discussion citing WP:G5. But WP:G5 has various conditions and one of these is that there be "no substantial edits by others". In discussion, the admin indicated that the details of these pages had not been reviewed to check these conditions. The deletions had been done in about 2 minutes and the admin stated that they had "decided just to ax everything". Other editors complained about particular pages too and they were restored. But my impression is that proper checks have not been made. As the details and edit history of these pages are not available to ordinary editors once they are deleted, it would be better to attempt such deletions using the WP:PROD or WP:AFD process so that due diligence can be done. The list of pages affected follows. Those that are still deleted will have red links. Andrew D. (talk) 09:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Amberwood Entertainment x
  2. Bocquelet x
  3. Boston rally x
  4. Canada Crew x
  5. Child bullying x
  6. Chomp Squad x
  7. Energee Entertainment x
  8. Family detention
  9. Figaro Pho x
  10. Fox40 News x
  11. French-German non-aggression pact x
  12. H.R. 1730 (115th Congress) x
  13. Harry Phillip Lovecraft x
  14. Ivanhoe The King's Knight x
  15. Jamika x
  16. Jessica Herthel x
  17. Kid Danger x
  18. Lazoo x
  19. MaXi x
  20. Michka x
  21. Neo Gomanism Manifesto Special x
  22. Our Shining Days
  23. Paris Dennard (possible)
  24. Quebec ban on face covering
  25. Raw intelligence
  26. RHMS x
  27. Roger Radcliffe x
  28. Sarah Grimes x
  29. Shandra x
  30. Shining Days (possible)
  31. Shining☆Days x
  32. Shiny Days x
  33. Shooting of Anthony Lamar Smith
  34. Shortman x
  35. Six Million (possible)
  36. SNSS x
  37. Soft'n Slo Squishies x
  38. Soikai x
  39. Superdimension x
  40. Superheroes Decoded (possible)
  41. Teepee Time x
  42. The Adventures of Figaro Pho x
  43. The Great Northern Candy Drop x
  44. The Magic Hockey Skates (possible)
  45. The Princess Knight x
  46. The Studio K Show x
  47. Tib et Tatoum x
  48. Trollman x
  49. Unaccompanied Alien Children (possible)
  50. Wandering Wenda x
  51. Welcome Home (2015 film) x
  52. What's the Big Idea? x
  53. Wicked! (TV series) x
  54. Yalena x
  55. Yanela Piñera x
  56. Yanela x
  57. Z-Squad x
  • Endorse. I'm normally a strict constructionist when it comes to WP:CSD, but there are limits. What's best for the project trumps what's best for any particular article or editor. And, sometimes, the volume of work required needs to be weighed against the potential value. In this case, User:The Blade of the Northern Lights made the right call.
However, I did a quick pass through the history of all the redlinks above. I've marked the list above with my findings. An x means WP:G5 clearly applied. If I wrote (possible), that's one that might be worth further consideration, which I'll leave to others to do.
I mostly just looked at the edit comments in the histories to determine if an edit was substantial. Things like cat sorting, running fix-up scripts, infobox maintenance, fixing typos, etc, are not substantial. I assumed any IP edits were socks. In a (very) few cases, I looked at the diff.
-- RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to RoySmith for recording their findings. But please could they say whether they have checked all the conditions of WP:G5. For example, WP:G5 also requires that:
  1. To qualify, the edit or article must have been made while the user was actually banned or blocked.
  2. To qualify, the edit must be a violation of the user's specific block or ban
Were these conditions checked too? I am pressing the point because I'm not understanding what the problem is. In the case of raw intelligence, the stub which was created by the editor in question seemed a reasonable start to the topic. It seems that that editor was blocked/banned for refactoring talk pages which seems to be a technicality and not a reason to delete valid content. Please clarify why the editor's status means that there's a problem with the content. Andrew D. (talk) 14:42, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From what I could see, these were all essentially worthless pages, with very little real content. If they didn't technically meet all the requirements of G5, so be it. They certainly came close enough. There's just not enough value in these to justify expending any more of my effort on them. My apologies if this seems brusque, but sometimes mostly right, and unlikely to do any real harm even if it's not is simply good enough. If somebody else wants to explore them in more details, they're welcome to do so. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The banned user in question has an extremely bad history here, and the less of his content that's here the better. It's not an improvement to Wikipedia if these marginal stubs with his imprint are languishing here, as anyone who isn't banned and wanted to write a new article on these wouldn't find the existing content helpful. (Also, though for good reasons it's not the easiest to find, the ban reason goes way beyond refactoring talkpage comments) The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:31, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all and request stern warning for OP This campaign Andrew's been on in the last week or so is reaching polemical levels, getting to the point where he actually protested the speedy deletion of an unambiguous copyvio article. If he keeps it up I think the restriction multiple editors have suggested on unexplained dePRODding will need to be expanded to a broad TBAN on article deletion in general. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:59, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • In the case of *this* DRV, he found an article that was incorrectly deleted as part of a large group of speedy deletions. He had concerns that there might be other cases of incorrect deletion. It appears as though there were one or two. I heartily agree Andrew can do things that are problematic. This DRV isn't one of them. He raised a real issue and I feel has been very reasonable in his comments here. Hobit (talk) 11:40, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Assuming there are no serious integrity challenges to the obvious G5s, can we Speedy endorse those marker “x” by RoySmith, and Temp undelete for review the rest? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:15, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The OP Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) is an experienced Wikipedian in good standing, and this request for review should be treated very properly. Please substantiate any allegations before mentioning any desire for warnings. DRV is a standalone deletion review forum. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I too am an experienced Wikipedian in good standing, so if you are going to call me out in public like that you should do so directly, not as an addendum to your own !vote. As for "substantiating": I don't know what else to say beyond that everything I said was accompanied by diffs and/or section permalinks where diffs would have been inappropriate. And as for the nature of DRV: yes, I know, but anyone is free to issue a warning at any time, and I think it would be better coming from someone other than me, given how recently this was. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 03:33, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you are. Yes, you did link. It looks complicated. I’m not sure what I was really asking, if anything, except that I don’t see anything approaching a justification for a speedy close of this review. You did not suggest that, but I wouldn’t want my partial “speedy”!vote to be read as supporting a broad speedy close. SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:52, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even though I said "endorse all", I actually have no problem with your proposal either. The thing is, though, that as of now your proposal seems to have already been implemented, leaving it a question of reinstating the original deletions, as opposed to one of overturning/endorsing, which puts this DRV in a weird place: do I now need to go through the undeleted pages and decide which ones I would !vote keep on in an AFD absent the ban evasion? I endorsed on principle based on the facts that (1) we need to be as clear as possible that ban evasion is never okay and (2) I read this as being part of a pattern of recent, questionable, CSD challenges from Andrew. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 08:20, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd request that we temp undelete all the "possible" ones as well as two random ones (picking out of the air: Fox40 News and French-German non-aggression pact) just so non-admins can review the situation. G5 is, IMO, one of the most problematic and tricky CSD criteria--we can lose a lot of good work through it. It sounds like this was largely a wise deletion, but that really does need a few more eyes. Strong thanks to Roy for going though *all* of them. Hobit (talk) 11:46, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yeah, I'm curious about "Gomanism" (an article I'm pretty sure I read before, thought it was on a topic that didn't merit an article, but didn't bother PRODding or AFDing because of red tape, long before the creator was blocked) and all the "Shining/Shiny Days" ones being related (?), which is in turn somewhat complicated by the fact that the one that has been undeleted was in fact primarily the work of editors other than the banned editor in question -- primarily SviktraLW, who was actually a sock of a completely different editor. Shooting of Anthony Lamar Smith actually needs almost its entire edit history rev-delled because Dream Focus, with the twelfth edit to the article (the seventh not by ScratchMarshall) added much-too-closely-paraphrased text, and while I fixed some of it seven edits ago I don't think it's fully clean. Similarly, most of the substantive edits to Quebec ban on face covering were made by User:Toddsschneider, who is not apparently a sock or banned, but paraphrased much too closely in that particular article, especially with this edit (compare the source's It is the second time since December a Quebec judge has suspended the controversial section of the province’s religious neutrality law, which is being challenged in court by a national Muslim group and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. and its quoting of Khalid Elgazzar as saying It points out that (at first glance) the law violates the freedoms guaranteed by the Quebec and Canadian charters. with Todd's For the second time since December 2017 a Quebec judge suspended that section of the law, challenged in court by the National Council of Canadian Muslims and by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. [...] In the courts' judgement, that law violates the freedoms guaranteed by the Quebec and Canadian charters of human rights and freedoms.). So several of these articles may run afoul of a combination of G5 and G12, wherein enough of the content was added by editors other than the sock, but that content itself ran afoul of another of the CSD. Or they have a kind of "double G5" wherein the two might technically cancel each other out, but do they really? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:36, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I had no idea when I first brought up G12 further up that it could possibly apply to any of these articles; that was an unrelated case where I had pointed out in an AFD that an article was probably a copyvio, an admin agreed and speedied, and Andrew challenged it. (And while I was aware of the connection on some level I don't think I was thinking about it: that was actually related to the problematic dePRODding, as the AFD came about as a result of such an incident, and Andrew, had he read the article carefully before dePRODding, probably would have come to the same conclusion Spinningspark and I did.) Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:42, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per request:
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page Paris Dennard (132 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page French-German non-aggression pact (3 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page Unaccompanied Alien Children (56 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page Fox40 News (5 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page The Magic Hockey Skates (7 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page Superheroes Decoded (14 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page Six Million (10 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
12:21, 6 October 2018 RoySmith (talk | contribs | block) restored page Shining Days (11 revisions) (Tempundelete for review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 October 5)
:-- [[User:RoySmith|RoySmith]] [[User Talk:RoySmith|(talk)]] 16:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)
I could take or leave Fox40 (a harmless disambig page that, if accurate, may be needed in the long run anyway, whether or not we give SM credit); Superheroes and French-German are both shit articles that should never have been left in the mainspace in the state they were in at the time of deletion to begin with, regardless of who did it. Magic Hockey is clearly covered by the strictest interpretation of G5 as the only substantial edits were by SM. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • My 2 cents:
    • Paris Dennard is not G5 eligible or even all that close.
    • French-German non-aggression pact is G5 eligible. The stub feels like a reasonable starting point.
    • Fox40 News is probably not G5 eligible. It's debatable as A) there isn't much there and B) someone else contributed most of what little is there. It also appears to be a valid disamb. page.
    • Unaccompanied Alien Children is not G5 eligible. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Magic Hockey Skates I'd say is not G5 eligible, but I can see that as debatable.
    • Superheroes Decoded is not G5 eligible.
    • Six Million is not G5 eligible.
    • Shining Days is perhaps G5 eligible.
All told, I didn't see one article among the group where the encyclopedia would benefit from that article being removed including the two that weren't tagged as being potentially problematic. I've never been a fan of G5, but it a rule. I agree that the French-German article was at best a stub, but it wasn't a horrible start IMO. Superheros I thought started poorly (at best) but made it up to a reasonable (if short and not great) article. In all cases, consider me !voting to restore all the articles Roy listed as being possible plus Fox40. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: What about Quebec ban on face covering, where the only substantial edits that weren't by SM were copyvios, and so need to be removed and rev-delled anyway, even if the combination of G5 and G12 don't mean the page gets deleted entirely? Or Shooting of Anthony Lamar Smith, where G5 definitely doesn't apply, but the close paraphrasing that was in the article from almost the beginning means almost the whole non-SM page history needs to be rev-delled anyway? I don't think you can say the encyclopedia wouldn't benefit from removing copyvio articles. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:51, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Those, per se, weren't under review as they are already fully undeleted. I'm not great at finding copyright violations, so unless there are diffs somewhere I really don't feel I have anything useful I can add. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were fully undeleted because most of their text was added by people other than SM, but the copyvio in that text is pretty blatant -- see the text I quoted further up. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:17, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you include in your analysis Shining Days, but that too was already fully undeleted because most of its text was added by someone other than SM, but that someone was also a sock; however, the topic almost certainly meets GNG and the text itself, separated from who added it, doesn't seem as problematic as the face cover or shooting articles' text. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 01:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The copyright problem identified is certainly too-close paraphrasing and needs to be fixed or deleted from the article, but I don't think it justifies deleting the entire article. Hobit (talk) 17:56, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But the justification for undeleting the page is that someone other than Tyciol edited it, even though that other editor's edits now all need to be deleted anyway. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest taking it to AfD if you feel it needs to be deleted. I don't think the issue is so dire that we can't wait for an AfD and I'm very conservative about speedy deletions (G5+something else especially). Do you feel an AfD isn't a good way forward? Hobit (talk) 23:15, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, personally I would have no problem with using AFD if you think speedy deletion (or speedy "un-undeletion" in this case) is the way to go, but for the fact that the project is full of lawyers who will attempt to argue down a proposal because the procedure is the wrong one or because the nominator states that he/she believes it to be the wrong one. If Andrew Davidson (talk · contribs) stated in advance that he would support deletion of a page where the only non-sock edits were copyright violations, then maybe, but he's been quite evasive in this discussion (see for example his continued failure to strike his discredited claim that Tyciol was banned for "refactoring talk page comments"), so I hold out little hope of that at this point. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 23:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any chance that someone, ideally the nominator, could simplify this review by restating which cases still need attention? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:57, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion has only been open for 3 days and seems to be making good progress in picking over these cases. I am not able to do much more myself, because I am not able to view deleted pages. Andrew D. (talk) 07:59, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, thought it was longer. SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: I can think of a few things you could do without being able to see deleted pages: you could comment on the closely paraphrased text or the "double-G5" status in the articles that have been undeleted, given that your original argument was based in part on the fact that other, non-sock editors made substantial edits to the pages, but in one such case the only other substantial editor was also blocked as a sock; you should also consider retracting It seems that that editor was blocked/banned for refactoring talk pages which seems to be a technicality and not a reason to delete valid content in light of TBotNL's clarification, which you do not seem to have acknowledged yet. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 11:23, 8 October 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 October 2018[edit]

  • Eric Ding – Void close. I don't get what's going on here, but it's clearly a WP:BADNAC. I'm going to back it out and relist. Um, Kirbanzo, you support overturning your own close??? -- RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eric Ding (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Closer cites "The result was speedy keep - unquestionably meets criteria for speedy keep." as a reason for speedy keep, but the only speedy keep vote doesn't actually cite any speedy keep criterion, and instead only cites WP:PROF#1 and Google Scholar citations. This is not a speedy keep criterion and therefore the close was invalid. The AFD should run for the full week. – FenixFeather (talk)(Contribs) 20:37, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - likely misinterpreted one of the policies for speedy keep. Kirbanzo (talk) 21:14, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I was quite put off by that speedy close and was considering bringing it here. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 4 October 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 October 2018[edit]

2 October 2018[edit]

1 October 2018[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2018_October&oldid=861782057"