Dear editors, would you please review the ThinkMarkets page, it was deleted due to lack of brand publicity. ThinkMarkets is a FCA regulated company and it has been fetaured on Forbes. 217.38.144.68 (talk) 17:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was marginal. I would have relisted it for another week, but the actual close isn't unreasonable. What would be most useful is if you could provide us with WP:THREE good sources which shows that this meets WP:NCORP. If you can do that, there will be a good argument to overturn, but lacking that, it'll probably stand. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:57, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - bad faith nomination. The nominator has a confirmed, undisclosed financial conflict of interest regarding the deleted article. MER-C 18:11, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, is any of these sources acceptable?
The FCA source is a directory entry, so it's worthless. The Financial Review source looks like it might be a WP:RS, but the article is behind a paywall, so I couldn't read it. European CEO and Finance Magnates are both highly niche publications, so they probably fail WP:AUD. Overall, I'm not hugely impressed by the sources. Combined with the fact that this is from an IP, and the comments from MER-C, above, I'm inclined to endorse. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:56, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, this was not deleted due to "lack of brand publicity". It was deleted because of a lack of independent reliable sources. No amount of brand publicity would have made any difference, because that would not be independent. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:16, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Keep deleted. No sign of independent coverage, but a lot of promotion. Forbes? Where, show the link. It is probably a contributor article, not a suitable source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:02, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
A NAC for a discussion that was closed prematurely, in my opinion, whereby a relisting would have been a more functional course of action relative to the input the discussion has received. Requests from me to the closer (Sheldybett) to consider reopening the discusion (diff, diff) have been ignored. Another user (78.26) has also expressed concerns about the matter (diff, diff, diff). I recommend for the discussion closure to be overturned and for the discussion to be relisted in hopes to obtain a consensus. North America1000 08:06, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I've been asked to clarify my close. Given my terse statement, it seems useful to give that clarification here. The gist is that the subject didn't meet WP:NPOL simply by virtue of his being a federal maritime commissioner. There are other ways to demonstrate WP:N, such as providing WP:RS covering other aspects of the subject, which could be done in a new article. The endorsement here does not prevent such an article being written, and, as always, future developments may render any consensus obsolete. I'm told that such a draft now exists. I haven't looked at it yet, so I offer no opinion on whether it does in fact meet these conditions. In any case, this consensus is a statement about the close of a particular year-old AfD, and any opinion about a new draft would be clearly out of scope here. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hello all. I would like to rediscuss the deletion of the page for Louis Sola. He has recently been nominated to a federal government post, which I believe qualifies him for a page under WP:Politician. 2605:6000:EE46:2300:F84E:D2C0:57D2:74FD (talk) 15:29, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
endorse close - this was from more than a year ago, and consensus was correctly judged. If circumstances have changed and the topic is now notable, an article can be re-created. 78.26(spin me / revolutions) 15:58, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse being a federal maritime commissioner doesn't come close to passing WP:POLITICIAN and there's no evidence provided of further press coverage. Note that while the original article reported on him as a Republican candidate for a heavily Democratic district it looks like he pulled out before the primary. Hut 8.5 21:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Seeking clarification I understand the coverage around Sola isn't particularly significant. However, I'm curious as to why federal maritime commissioner doesn't pass WP:NPOL since WP:POLOUTCOMES clearly states commissioners are usually considered notable. Happy to accept the deletion based on a lack of significant coverage but not sure why the commissioner spot is so quickly rejected. 2605:6000:EE46:2300:58A2:3A23:7FB6:C7DF (talk) 14:58, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:POLOUTCOMES isn't an extension of WP:NPOL, and it isn't binding. NPOL has much more weight since it's part of our notability guidelines, but POLOUTCOMES is just a collection of rules of thumb based on some previous discussions. As it says further up notability is ultimately determined by sources. Positions can be useful in indicating when sources are likely to exist, but I don't think being one of four commissioners of a fairly minor US government agency (Federal Maritime Commission) shows any likelihood that sources will exist. We don't even have an article on its commissioners. We do have an article on one current commissioner (Dan Maffei) but that's because he used to be a congressman. Hut 8.5 18:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
David Nemer – Draftification allowed. The existing draft may be moved to main space as soon as editors deem it ready (but a new AfD then remains possible), and either before or after it is moved to main space, the undeletion of the previous history can be requested at WP:REFUND. Sandstein 08:22, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Userfy. Let him work on it to overcome the 2015 reasons for deletion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. I prefer draft to userspace for things like this, so it gets more eyes on it, and has the built-in WP:G13 trigger. In any case, this was deleted as WP:TOOSOON. It's now three and a half years later and we've got an assertion that the subject has done more stuff since then. Allowing recreation is a no-brainer. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:47, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per Roy. Hobit (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify we should tend to err on the side of recreation on WP:TOOSOON deletions when new sources are presented. Restoring to draft and adding new sources should be fine here. SportingFlyerT·C 04:33, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just an update, there's more to be added to his profile, based on the wiki article that was deleted, but I just wanted to present a quick and updated version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikisharktank (talk • contribs) 18:23, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and Improve I'm glad that Wikisharktank is taking the lead on this article- I've tried in the past and I was shutdown- even thought we had several people voting to keep the article alive. Given that it seems that there's an interest and time have past (in re: WP:TOOSOON). Can we restore the article so we can have other people improving it? @Hobit, RoySmith, and SportingFlyer: - Thanks, lisamoore1313
The reason why I'd like to see this restored and improved is because the Nemer's wikipedia article in Portuguese has already grown to a larger article because other people are contributing. If we allow this to happen in English, the same would happen. Or maybe Wikisharktank could translate from there. --Lisamoore1313 (talk) 22:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Update: Wikiquote pages for David Nemer (Favela Digital- The Other side of technology): PT and EN --Wikisharktank (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore I did more research on David Nemer and, along with what lisamoore1313 and Wikisharktank mentioned, I found out his research informed policies in Brazil and Cuba- also I'm glad I did research on him because I ended up watching his cool TEDx talk (link) !. --J McCal (talk) 23:44, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just following up on my previous point: by "restore", I mean, to undelete David Nemer's wiki article and move the Draft there there. --J McCal (talk) 15:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, Charlotte Stokely's bio doesn't match the criteria for deletion, especially now that she's got AVN and X-Bix Girl-Girl Performer of the Year in the same year. If an AVN award isn't "significant" than what porn award is? It's the biggest award-granting body in the industry. There's also a possible lgbt-recogition issue here. Here's the talk with the original editor:
Sorry, never done this before but I THINK you're the person who deleted porn actress Charlotte Stokely's page? Anyway I know "significant awards" is part of the criteria? She just won AVN Girl-Girl Performer of the Year tonight, and this year also won XBIZ Girl-Girl Performer of the Year and was a Penthouse Pet of the Year this year. Does that make her more eligible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 (talk) 08:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: Other recent awards for Charlotte Stokely: 2019 Adult Entertainment News Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 XRCO Girl-Girl Performer of the Year, 2018 NightMoves Girl-Girl Performer of the Year Fan Voting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.77.32.133 (talk) 08:12, 27 January 2019 (UTC)
The article was deleted via a deletion discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Stokely (2nd nomination). To recreate it, the correct process is Wikipedia:Deletion review. However, these awards are not very meaningful, so I doubt that the effort would be successful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2019 (UTC)67.77.32.133 (talk) 23:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding your question as to what porn award is significant, the answer is that only awards that tend to lead to significant coverage in independent reliable sources are. Please think about the words "independent" and "reliable" before making a knee-jerk response listing blatantly promotional (so non-independent) and blatantly unreliable (as in they publish made-up "biographies" of porn actors) web sites. Very few porn awards lead to such coverage, so very few are significant. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:02, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. No failures to follow deletion process have been alleged. Deletion review is not a place to re-argue the AFD arguments. Stifle (talk) 12:12, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Industry awards without accompanying coverage. AfD 1 & 2 together are a clear “delete”. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:08, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this were AfD, I'd probably !vote to keep. There are a lot of industry-specific sources that are decent and more than a few (which are mostly but not entirely passing mentions) in the mainstream media. But this is DRV. The outcome is reasonable as meeting WP:N or PORNBIO is debatable and the debate said "no". Hobit (talk) 18:55, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clear consensus in the AfD and I don't think anything said here justifies revisiting the issue. WP:PORNBIO has a somewhat dubious reputation, the OP hasn't supplied any evidence that these awards are "well-known and significant", I suspect that "Girl-Girl Performer of the Year" is an ensemble category (which doesn't count), and even if the subject does meet PORNBIO that doesn't necessarily make them notable. I suggest concentrating on finding significant coverage in third-party reliable sources instead. Hut 8.5 19:28, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm confused. When I looked at the process to contest a deletion, it says contact the editor ( k.e. coffman). When I contacted coffman (see above) they said the proper process is Deletion Review and linked here. Now y'all are saying this isn't the right place to have this conversation--even though there are at least 2 new pieces of data arguing for notability since the article got deleted. What is the proper process here supposed to be, exactly? (And, no, G-G Performer of the year's not an ensemble category.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.244.21 (talk) 01:36, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A valid complaint. Porn here gets a pretty short shrift. Perhaps because porn isn't highly regarded, but mostly (and I think for most people) because a ton of the awards and press feel like press releases rather than real awards and real press. If someone could identify a dozen or so annual awards that industry members actually believe are real awards, that could easily change. But attempts to do so in the past have involved a very small number of editors who only edit porn, and thus feel like promotional agents rather than independent editors. Even the main AVN awards are done by just a single magazine and I can't find a well documented process of how they are judged. Even my hobby, board games, have awards that have a transparent process and are well regarded in the industry. So yes, until there is non-trivial coverage of her in a way that doesn't look like raw PR, this probably won't change. As I noted, I think there is enough mainstream coverage to suspect she's significant in the field. But all the coverage I can find in the mainstream is a passing mention ("in this film" types of things). Hobit (talk) 02:12, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AVN awards--whatever the process is, are the major industry award. Cardi B played the AVN awards this year, Lil Wayne played them last year. Kanye played X-Biz this year (and Stokely won one of those this year too). If the idea is: a porn star is only notable if they've done extensive non-porn work or if they are one of the top 3-5 performers of the decade, then, fine. If the notability is simply significant nonporn credits (American Apparel model) and recognition within the industry, then there's literally no bigger award a girl-girl performer can get (until she gets into the Hall f Fame). Is it only reported in porn industry press? Mostly, yes, but that's all porn has. The mainstream press about porn focuses almost exclusively on whether mainstream performers like musicians and actors are involved. And. p.s.: what is the process if not this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.36.244.21 (talk) 02:44, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, lots of money. And I personally tend to think we are too conservative on the topic--deleting articles that have decent sources (such as this one). But the new sources aren't enough to move the needle from where the consensus is. So the answer is that the article isn't coming back until there is a real improvement in sourcing. Or until we find a porn guideline that gets much wider acceptance and clarity. And that pretty much means we're waiting for a decent mainstream source to cover her in some depth. At that point, DRV would probably recommend recreation without prejudice against a new AfD. I'm not saying it's fair, I'm saying that's where the bar for porn actors has been for a while now. Hobit (talk) 03:48, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The problem with this DRV is that it asserts these awards are notable without bringing any new sources to the table. If new secondary source coverage is shown - not just award wins - I'd lean towards draftification. SportingFlyerT·C 04:34, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Page was originally deleted under A9, because at the time, neither of the artists involved with the relevant song had a Wikipedia article. A9 now no longer applies since Unlike Pluto has his own page as of 21 January. Jalen D. Folf(talk) 01:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
restore Probably best to head to WP:REFUND rather than DRV, but sure, this looks like a reasonable request. That said, based on what little I can find for sourcing, it looks unlikely to make it at AfD. So once restored, you might want to get to adding sources that get help it meet WP:N. I'd actually suggest requesting the old version be copied into draftspace and doing your work there and getting through the WP:AfC process. Hobit (talk) 03:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If someone thinks they can overcome the deletion reason (WP:CSD#A9]]), allow restoration or userification or draftification or recreation. For A7 and A9 and several other speedies, consider asking the deleting admin or requesting at WP:REFUND. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore which I would have been happy to do if it had gone to WP:REFUND. I think the original A9 was a little borderline, while the artist didn't have an article and the text didn't claim significance there were a large number of citations and some of them don't immediately look terrible. Hut 8.5 18:56, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The dufflebag – The status quo prevails, but a recreation of the redirect is possible. To summarize the facts: The dufflebag was created with vandalistic content, then redirected to Duffel bag. This redirect was made subject to an RfD, which was closed as "delete" after one comment and half a day. On their talk page, the closer then cited WP:CSD#R3 (implausible typo) as grounds for doing so. This closure is contested here. In this DRV, opinions are distributed roughly 10 : 6 for overturning/relisting and endorsing this closure, respectively. This results in no consensus. Now, normally, a no consensus result at DRV means that a contested XfD closure is maintained by default, but that a contested speedy deletion is overturned or submitted to AfD. This deletion is sort of a hybrid of both: it was made in the course of a regular XfD closure, but was then justified as a speedy deletion. It is therefore difficult to determine what should be done. Taking into consideration all circumstances, including that there is no worthwhile history to preserve, I determine that the most consensual course of action is the following: The deletion is maintained but without prejudice. This means that anybody who believes that this is a worthwhile redirect can recreate it. And anybody who disagrees can then take the redirect to RfD again, where, I suggest in view of this discussion, the discussion should not be prematurely closed again. Sandstein 16:16, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Premature closure, and even as a speedy deletion, this redirect does not meet WP:R3. The duffel bag article lists "duffle bag" as an alternative name, and the addition of a definite article does not make this a clear-cut enough case for R3 speedy deletion. I consider there to be a reasonable chance of this surviving RfD. I've discussed this with the closing admin at User talk:JzG#The dufflebag RfD closure. Also, if this were created as an article (regardless of notability) and subsequently redirected, this should not have been deleted under R3, because it does not apply to articles and stubs that have been converted into redirects. Regardless of the result of this RfD, if this were intended as an R3 speedy deletion, it should be marked as such in the RfD closure. feminist (talk) 01:11, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. I was also confused why this one was closed so soon after it was opened, but didn't care enough to ask about it. There has been good faith opposition to the deletion of this redirect, so the discussion needs to be open long enough for that opposition to registered properly. I also appreciate Feminist's detailed explanation why R3 is invalid. --Tavix(talk) 01:35, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. The XfD was open for half a day and garnered a single comment. What's with the rush to close it so fast? -- RoySmith(talk) 03:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per Tavix and RoySmith, who have covered my feelings accurately. SportingFlyerT·C 06:30, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse my deletion. The sole objection to this appears to be on the basis of process, the sole !vote was delete and was 100% correct on its merits and did not take into account the fact that the redirect should never have existed in the first place. The "article" was created in 2005 as an unsourced slang dicdef, redirected because that's easier than deletion, and has no inbound links. It was not a typo created by some good-faith newbie and deserving of any consideration, it was redirected as the quickest way to fix a problem. It should have been speedied back then then but the redirecting user was inexperienced (<300 edits) and we didn't apply G3 to obvious hoaxes back then int he way we do now. Neither the creator nor the redirecting user has edited since 2006 and it has been untouched since then save one bot edit fixing a double redirect. The title includes the definite article and is mis-spelled so it is of zero actual use and, if created today ab initio would qualify for R3. What is the point of relisting? Who is going to want to keep it? Why would we need a mis-titled mis-spelled redirect left over from a bit of sophomoric vandalism? This is process for the sake of process and is utterly ludicrous. Even listing it the first time was more than it was worth, this is an absolutely slam-dunk case for deletion as quickly as humanly possible. The debates over this redirect have taken vastly more effort than was ever put into it, and that in turn was vastly more than it was worth. Guy (Help!) 08:05, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for confirming that this page is far from meeting the "recently created" requirement for R3 speedy deletion. feminist (talk) 11:08, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you think this is such a waste of time, then you should have restored the redirect and relisted the discussion when asked so we don't have to go through this process, and your suspicion that the redirect should be deleted would then be confirmed after about seven days. The redirect has been existing completely harmlessly for over a decade, one more week will not hurt in the least. As for "Who is going to want to keep it?", some people want to keep any redirect that is "neither new nor harmful". Either way, I see you have strong feelings about this particular redirect, so I don't think you are neutral enough on the matter to be a good closer. You should have simply left your opinion at the discussion rather than close it. Then, when the closer comes around at the appropriate time, there would be a stronger consensus for deletion at that time rather then the current mess we have because you weren't able to follow the correct process. --Tavix(talk) 14:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is the most stupid argument I can recall in recent years. The redirect is useless. The entire bullshit here is because one person decided that it had to have its X days of people agreeing it was useless. This is processwankery of the absolute worst kind. Guy (Help!) 20:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The place to decide whether or not a redirect is useless is at RfD, not here. We are welcome to have this disagreement there when/if this gets relisted. --Tavix(talk) 20:33, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the tone of the above comments (in particular, some profanity which has since been reverted, but never should have happened in the first place) a review of WP:ADMINCOND might be in order. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:22, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I refer the hon. gentleman to the reply given by the respondents in Arkell v. Pressdram. The correct solution to a waste of time is not to waste even more time. WP:IAR is one of our oldest rules. Guy (Help!) 17:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. So much effort to preserve a useless redirect that has never helped a single editor or reader, that was created by a vandalism-only account who liked hoax articles about scatological sexual positions, and that persists only because an inexperienced editor didn't know how to get something speedied fourteen years ago. It should have been cleaned up right after it was created in 2005; it's better than nothing that someone deleted it now. And someone is actually pulling out WP:ADMINCOND over this? Seriously? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:03, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per guy and TenofAllTrades. No reason to go through the full process on this, it'd be a complete fucking waste of time. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:13, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy closes solely to save time never actually save time. Case in point. —Cryptic 19:41, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per IAR, Guy and TenofAllTrades. Valeince (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't understand the anger from the endorse side, now with multiple users chiming in with profanity. Someone cared enough about the speedy close to contest it, and since this isn't actually a typo (unless you're referring to the lack of the space?) but an alternative spelling (see [1]) I see no reason to not let this run the entire week. SportingFlyerT·C 21:09, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They asked, I told them, and they decided to insist on WP:BURO anyway. That is quite silly. Not at all what I expected from that editor, and pretty close to inexplicable once any explanation is given. Also note that I am English. My school is more than twice as old as the word fuck. I swear all the fucking time. Guy (Help!) 21:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't find it at all silly that some editors wish to keep a harmless, long-standing redirect. Rather, I find it quite silly that you are denying these editors the opportunity to do so. --Tavix(talk) 21:48, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not angry at all. I just find the objection to cursing really fucking stupid, so used it for emphasis. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:19, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest possible endorse per Guy and TenofAllTrades. Bringing this here served no possible purpose. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:46, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Newyorkbrad: OK, how does an out-of-process delete over the objections of an established editor do any good? Sure, this is likely going to end up deleted. But when people ask "why is Wikipedia losing editors", I'll point to things like this. We have a policy for how to handle discussions like this. There was no rush to delete this. It does literally no harm. I just did some looking and I'm guessing that this is somehow part of a larger issue? On its own, the deletion is wrong and (mildly) harmful for no reason at all. If there are deeper Wikipolitics going on, well, great. But the nom is correct and DRV generally doesn't smile upon out-of-process speedies for good reason--it can be discouraging to non-admin editors. Hobit (talk) 04:57, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"The dufflebag" is so plainly a nonsensical redirect that it does not require seven days of discussion to establish the fact. By the logic of this redirect, "the" could be appended in front of the name of virtually any topic to create a new redirect, regardless of whether the definite article is semantically appropriate in such context. This obviously is not the practice and could not reasonably become the practice. As has been noted above, the only reason the redirect exists is as a historical accident resulting from decade-old vandalism. This unreasonable redirect with the "the" is quite distinct from "duffle bag" or "dufflebag" --> "duffel bag", which are reasonable and appropriate redirects and no one is questioning them. On the other hand, even "the duffelbag" (with the more common spelling) does not exist as a redirect, nor is anyone suggesting that that redirect be created—which confirms that redirects from the "the" form are unreasonable. While the RfD discussion could have been left open for seven days, it was hardly necessary to do so. I perceive that bringing this to DRV was intended to make a point that it's possible to object to an early closing, rather than out of any legitimate disagreement with the outcome of that close. Reopening the discussion on DRV was not, in my view, a worthwhile use of the project's most valuable resource, which is our editors' limited time. It should always be remembered that Wikipedia's internal processes are not ends in themselves. Sherlock Holmes famously declared that "I play the game for the game's own sake" (BRUC), but that is not the right approach to our deletion processes. I also consider myself sensitive to editor-retention issues but I can't imagine that the speedy deletion of bad redirects is a meaningful aspect of the problem. I therefore have little doubt that this DRV was a waste of time, and that reopening the underlying RfD would be even more so. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:00, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but this could also have been fixed but either not closing it early or undoing the close when requested. It takes two to tango. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for seven days or demonstration of SNOW. There was no imperative to rush this deletion. Standard processes for standard things should not be shortcutted without good reason, and good reasons are rare. Closes like this undermine respect fir admins generally. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:59, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly chastise both the RfD nominator and closer for communication failures. It was not a fork. It was speedied for reasons not revealed. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn speedy Yeah, admins don't get to do things just because they want to. And IAR is a great policy, perhaps my favorite thing about this place. But speedy deletion is a really bad place for IAR. Once someone objects, just undo an out-of-process deletion. The problem is that a non-admin should be able to have some form of due process and not just get run over by a single admin. It's about editor retention and remembering that it's a mop, not a trump card that gets played in a dispute. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a great place for IAR when the original article should have been nuked as a hoax instead of redirected and the redirect is useless, which this is. In fact it's not ignoring rules at all, it's applying them as they shold have been applied all along. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was an original hoax article behind the redirect? Is this hidden history affecting a few admins that know about it? Can someone please temp undelete so we can all see the full picture? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:38, 22 January 2019 (UTC). I see on rereading, the complaint seems to more about the deletion of the history behind the redirect than the redirect itself. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without undeleting, because that would be a pointless waste of time, the entire text of the original bit of vandalism was "Dufflebag (the dufflebag)= Pleasuring a woman using feet as opposed to fingers. Also can be used in homosexual activity through the anus.". That's actually one of the milder hoax "articles" created by the original vandal. The vandalism (not a real article) was converted to a redirect by an inexperienced editor a day later, presumably because that inexperienced editor didn't know how to – or couldn't be bothered to – ask an admin for deletion. You want to make sure that we put that back up for 7 days before we re-delete it? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that explains much of the strength of opinion of the endorsers. You should have better temp-undelete, so that we could have read it in the history where no engine would ever read the text. In all my searches on “The Dufflebag” I never found anything like that. That history should be deleted, and I think no one cares if the redirect is recreated. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:06, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm disappointed that you still think – based on your vote above – that this needs a 7-day re-discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:09, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did I say that? Reviews are important things, and should not be rushed. Are you wanting to rush me into a formal change of !vote based on the last few minutes’ new information? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you did say that, given that you didn't revise your original "Overturn" vote. This isn't that complicated, fetishization of process aside. JzG correctly disposed of the situation, which required about 10 seconds of contemplation, not a week of discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:19, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe JzG should spend more than 10 seconds when summarily overriding an XfD. A better explanation, for example. I note that User:Bsherr’s RfD nomination statement makes a completely different implication about the history, “Was originally created as a fork”. Accidental forks are a reason to create a redirect. However, it was not an accidental fork, and its previous version(s) didn’t match the redirect target, which is a reason to delete. I’m leaning to calling that an understandable mistake by JzG (the evidence of the mistake is this discussion), and that at a minimum a better explanation of the prior content being speediable vandalism. I don’t see why any “The ___” title should be speediable, NYB, your bombasity today is unexpected, but neither do I support recreating the redirect. The exact title is the name of a trading business. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:50, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's certainly possible to restore the redirect without that particular revision. --Tavix(talk) 21:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's restored on that basis, I'll probably speedy it again, for the reasons I stated above. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:25, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If it's restored on what basis? If the DRV results in the restoration of this redirect, it should happen without restoring that particular revision. If it were to be speedy deleted again without consensus at RfD, we would end up right back here... --Tavix(talk) 21:40, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Only if someone wants to disrupt the project by engaging in another pointless instance of process for its own sake. As I emphasized above, we don't have a redirect from "the duffelbag" (the more common spelling) to "duffel bag," so what possible reason would there be for restoring and spending a week discussing whether to keep a redirect from "the dufflebag" (the less common spelling) to “duffel bag”? Please read what I wrote above in response to Hobit if you haven't already seen it. From a procedural point of view, it wouldn't be speedied again at RfD, it would be speedied (if I see it soon enough) as being pointless, without an RfD. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing whether or not a redirect is pointless is the point of RfD discussions, and I think it would be worthwhile to have such a discussion at RfD should that opportunity actually be afforded us. You have your opinions on why this redirect should not exist, I have my opinions for why this redirect should exist. An RfD discussion can lead to a consensus on this issue. People who think such an RfD discussion is a waste of time need not participate. --Tavix(talk) 22:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At some point, that is bullying behavior. Seriously. I know you don't see it that way, but saying "well if consensus goes against me I'll just do it anyways" isn't what anyone should be doing. You were on ARBCOM for years. Surely you agree that no matter how much you think it's the right thing, going against consensus to "right great wrongs" is the wrong thing to do (there are exceptions to that, but they are rare, BLP for example might be a good place to take such a stand). Doing that over a redirect is utterly silly. Maybe I don't know you as well as I think I do from all the things I've seen you write, but this feels really out of character. I keep feeling like there is something else going on here--the heat this is generating is just crazy for such a minor point. Is there something else? Hobit (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's astonishing to see an admin and long-time ARBCOM member announce his intention to override a community decision just because he thinks it's a bad one, without a justification in an important policy not subject to community weakening or exception. If the community feels strongly enough about an admin's misuse of tools for summary action, and calls for the full process to be followed, that is a decision that stands. If NewYorkBrad, or any admin, chooses to defy community will without cause, they shouldn't have the tools. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:39, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All of this could have been avoided if there had just been better communication. When the RfD was speedy closed, the closing statement could have explained why. When the closer was queried on their talk page, they could have explained why. When the closer commented at this DRV that they were endorsing their own close, they could have explained why. Instead, all we got was (paraphrasing), "I'm right, and if you disagree, I don't care", laced with invective. So, yes, WP:ADMINCOND and WP:ADMINACCT are factors here. It's not enough to be right. Admins also have obligations. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:49, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The closing of speedy delete would have been correct even without the history, because the redirect was nonsensical. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:58, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I assume you are referring to G1? The definition is "In short, if it is understandable, G1 does not apply." If I asked you where you'd expect this to redirect to, I assume you'd say "Dufflebag". That isn't nonsensical. It is a perfectly reasonable thing to believe that this is a useful redirect. I don't think it is useful, but frankly it ain't hurting anything either. It's been there for years. There was no need to rush and their was no basis (other than IAR) for which to do so. Once it was objected to, the admin should simply have restored and let the RfD reach its natural conclusion. Hobit (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist not a valid R3 speedy deletion, because R3 only applies to recently created redirects and this one was 13 years old. This requirement is there for a reason, it's to avoid breaking any links to the redirect. I also don't think it's that implausible given that Dufflebag is a perfectly valid search term. Don't see any other reason to close the RfD early. Hut 8.5 21:46, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There are (and were) no links to the redirect. It is unlikely that there was ever a single such link, at any time in the last fourteen years. If ever someone did create a wikilink to the dufflebag, it's probably a good thing for it to be a redlink, just so they know they made a twofold error: first the misspelling, and second including the definite article with the noun in the link. There's no plausible circumstance where a wikilink should include the the. Even if duffel bag were spelled correctly, no article should ever contain a link formatted as "the duffel bag" instead of "the duffel bag". And all this presumes, as well, that the deleting admin didn't check for and fix articles linking to this redirect, as part of the deletion—why do we presume that JzG didn't perform this basic check? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All whatlinkshere can show is that there are no links from current revisions of pages on the English Wikipedia. It cannot say anything about links that are in old revisions (which could be reverted to at any time), links from other Wikipedias, other projects or from any other site on the internet. Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here and below in your response to JzG's comment you're setting an impossible standard. Followed to its logical conclusion, your premise implies we can't delete anything from Wikipedia ever, because someone somewhere, at some point in the entire length, breadth and history of the internet, may have linked to the page. It's an absurd bar. And even if some random external site happened to link to this implausible redirect...well, so what? They're probably not watching WP:RFD, and their link would get broken next week instead of this week.
You further seem to have missed the rest of my comment, where I note that having any links to this redirect turn red would probably be a good thing, in that it would highlight places where there is both a style and a spelling error. This is still true even in the wildly unlikely circumstance where a link is resurrected from a page's revision history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say that redirects with links could not be deleted (although redirects should only be deleted when benefits from doing so will outweigh any harm caused, and the presence or absence of links is one factor in determining this). I was simply pointing out that the absolute assertions that there are no and have never been any links are incorrect. As for your second point - possibly it's a style error (depending on context), but as repeatedly pointed out it is not a spelling error. Thryduulf (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deletedOverturn and relist. The original speedy was out of process, and there was no reason not allow the standard process to reach its inevitable conclusion. Duffle bag and Dufflebag exist as functional redirects. If this misuse had been caught expeditiously, reopening the process would have been the right way to go, but more than a week later it's just not productive enough to do that. This DRV has become a stalking horse for allowing admins to exercise some residual power to speedy-delete pages in defiance of community policy that strictly limits speedy deletion, and that requires a suitable policy discussion, not a Trumpian announcement of a contrived emergency. That said, the deleting admin's insistence that the term involved is an unlikely typo is dead wrong [2]; it's better described as a common variant for an English term imported from a non-English language; and since the term goes back more than 100 years, the deleting admin's describing this as a "misspelled neologism" underscores the shoddiness of their analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No one has argued, as far as I can tell, that "duffle bag" or "dufflebag" are implausible misspellings—and those redirects exist, and are uncontroversial and un-deleted. The objection, which seems reasonable and which has already been described by Newyorkbrad and others, is that "the dufflebag" (or "the duffle bag", or even "the duffel bag") – that is, the word (with or without misspelling) plus the indefinite article – are collectively implausible as a search term or wikilink. Indeed, Hullaballoo, the link you provide shows an instance of "duffle bag", not "the dufflebag"; it's not germane to this discussion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 02:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The deleting admin doesn't make that claim explicitly, and I think you may be reading too much into his comment. I suspect he was saying that the entire redirect (with the the) is an implausible typo, not the 'dufflebag' alone. (Given that he hasn't made any move or suggestion to delete dufflebag at any stage of this increasingly ridiculous proceeding, that seems the more likely interpretation of his comment.) TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:00, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist which should be automatic when there is a good faith objection to a speedy closure, regardless of why it was speedily closed. This should even apply to G10 and G12 cases if there is a good faith disagreement about whether the page met those criteria, let alone something as trivial as R3. Thryduulf (talk) 16:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting is unwarranted where, as here, the objection to the speedy close is patently spurious and without any merit. Newyorkbrad (talk) 16:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is nothing spurious or meritless about this objection in the slightest, and even if there was nobody would lose anything from a resliting. Thryduulf (talk) 16:50, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And y the same token nobody will gain anything either, as the result is obvious, and in fact the same is true of this entire unnecessary farrago, for the same reason. A mis-spelled redirect with the definite article and no inbound links ever, left over from cleaning up sophomoric vandalism, is a clear and obvious delete. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why the rush? It had been their for years (and years). Why not wait? Or at least revert when asked? Hobit (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@JzG: the redirect is not misspelled, and unless you have checked every revision of every article you cannot be sure there have never been any incomming links from en.wp, nor can you be sure are not and/or were never links from places other than en.wp. Even if you are correct about the lack of links though, absolutely no harm could have come from reverting when asked (or from just leaving it alone in the first place). Thryduulf (talk) 01:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia stands on three footings:- editorial judgment; consensus; and procedure. Procedure is (or at least, ought to be) the least of the three----but where editors of good judgment differ, and there's a lack of consensus, procedure's all we've got to fall back on. And that's why DRV so often deals with the edge cases by enforcing the procedure. Specifically DRVPURPOSE points #2 and #5 in this case, I would tend to think.—S MarshallT/C 23:30, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Speedy deletion exists to handle uncontroversial deletions, which this evidently isn't. Stifle (talk) 11:34, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn – speedy deletion was out of process as R3 does not apply. Refusal to undelete and poor communication has wasted enough everyone's time. Politrukki (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist/Overturn Basically per the excellent rationales from feminist and Tavix. This appears to be out of process on two counts, and while it may have been a reasonable RfD closure eventually, after only 14 hours it can't be. R3 is, as noted, incorrect, so this needs restoring/relisting. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 12:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist This is clearly not uncontroversial, and I don't see any harm in relisting.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 15:10, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is pure arrogance by the deleting admin. Once the deletion was questioned then the obvious solution to avoid such a waste of time was to revert and continue the discussion, where the redirect would have been deleted with no fuss. Why do we put up with such childish attention-seeking behaviour by admins? Phil Bridger (talk) 20:20, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you argue it merited speedy deletion under g3. I had to remind myself what g3 was... Blatant hoax? It doesn't look like a hoax to me, not even close.
Over and above the whatever effect the closure has in undermining respect fir admins, it serves as a bad example for less experienced users. In my opinion it is essential that all quality control volunteers, trying to police compliance with our policies, should strictly comply with all our policies themselves.
Sadly, it is pretty common to encounter quality control volunteers who take shortcuts, skip steps. (Sometimes this leads to preventable mistakes.) The explanation those volunteers offer? Often it is a variation of "Yes, I didn't fully comply with policy. I skipeed steps I could have strictly complied with policy, but that would have seriously eroded my efficiency!" I first encountered this in 2005, and, in the years following my first encounter, I saw multiple instances where a promising new contributor, who had been learning the ropes, making good contributions, with the occasional good faith mistake, until they encountered a quality control volunteer who was high-handed, skipped steps, wasn't strictly complying with policy. Sadly, their encounter with the high-handed, step-skipping quality control volunteer either drove them from the project, or taught them that compliance with policy wasn't necessary, so they became rogue contributors, and ended up being blocked.
Guy, I am going to regard this closure as not representative of your best work. As the other guy said, if this was created years ago, there was no rush, no reason not to allow the original discussion to fully play out. Geo Swan (talk) 00:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How do I know? Simple. It started with the definite article, and was mis-spelled. The only reason for keeping such a redirect would be sheer bloody-mindedness. 00:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by JzG (talk • contribs)
Sorry, I used the wrong pronoun. I should have written "How can we know...". Finally it was offered that the original article described a sexual act, and presumably this is why you called it a hoax. Several respondents have asked why your closure didn't say that, why you didn't say so when asked about the closure, on your talk page, and why you didn't initially say that here. Even so I would like to see a restoration, and relisting. Geo Swan (talk) 01:23, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WRT "no incoming links" -- various endorsers of the original deletion have asserted the redirect had no incoming links. With a redirect that has existed for years that isn't relevant, because outsiders may have linked to the redirect, on their external web-pages. We have no way of knowing whether external web pages link to the redirect. Geo Swan (talk) 00:57, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding, We have no way of knowing whether external web pages link to the redirect, actually , we do. Google lets you search the contents of links. But, that's a red herring, and doesn't alter my opinion that this should be relisted (as I !voted earlier). -- RoySmith(talk) 14:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not 100% reliable though - It fails to find several links on my website that have been there since at least 2003 and which I have verified are indexed by Google. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the edit comment that went along with this (Abuse of process is what wastes time), I agree with you. I suspect we don't agree, however, on who was doing the abusing :-) -- RoySmith(talk) 02:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's very clear what the abuse of process is: (1) speedy deleting something that does not meet the speedy deletion criteria; (2) refusing to self-revert an out-of-process deletion when asked. If you think that a DRV that matches WP:DRVPURPOSE points 1, 2 and 5 is an abuse of process then you really are not fit to be an administrator. Thryduulf (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, interesting. I was wrong. We do agree. Looks like both of use were too lazy to go back and read the full history of who's said what on this thread. I hope you're OK with me keeping my mop. -- RoySmith(talk) 02:52, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I blame it on my being stupid enough to be reading DRV at 2:30am... Anyway, we seem to agree on what is and is not an abuse of process so your mop is safe. Thryduulf (talk) 03:00, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that's a relief or not. I'm a firm believer that if nobody's pissed at me, I'm not doing my job. Please keep an eye on my contributions list. I'm sure I'd do something unmop-worthy at some point. -- RoySmith(talk) 04:10, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There are multiple products and companies called "The Duffle Bag", so I disagree that this redirect is "plainly nonsensical". Also per the process concerns detailed by others.--Pontificalibus 13:08, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to do better than merely asserting something exists. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted/endorse. Waste of time -- except for the process fetishists, perhaps -- is right. --Calton | Talk 00:01, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have actually read much of this discussion, given that there have been numerous explanations why it isn't just a waste of time - not that your opinion about the result of a discussion that hasn't happened is not a reason to endorse a blatant abuse of speedy deletion which has wasted far more time and effort than any other option would have done. Thryduulf (talk) 16:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you have actually read much of this discussion...
Don't insult my intelligence with bad-faith, condescending twaddle. "Processwankery" is not a real word, but should be: those "explanations" you tout are pure processwankery.
..which has wasted far more time and effort than any other option would have done Raising this ridiculous discussion was the actual waste of time. --Calton | Talk 14:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, and I say that as one who, the last time I was here, linked to Process is important. I do think that the deletion was out of process, and that by following process we would have arrived at an entirely uncontroversial decision to delete. I also agree, as some have observed, that this discussion is a proxy for Some Other Thing. Whatever that thing is, I'm ignorant of it, and am not interested it learning the particulars. I arrive at an endorse decision, because no matter how we got here, deletion is in my opinion the only reasonable outcome. This shouldn't be seen as precedent, or as endorsing the initial decision to delete, but simply a recognition that the redirect serves no purpose. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 19:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xymmax: DRV is explicitly not the place to discuss the merits (or otherwise) of the redirect, only whether the closure was correct. As you acknowledge the deletion is out of process your recommendation should be to overturn, everything else is self-contradictory. Thryduulf (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree on what the ultimate outcome will be. But I also think when admins use the mop to delete an article out-of-process, it's best just to undelete when someone objects. If the nom is just being disruptive, that's a problem. Otherwise, it's less work to just restore the thing than to have it at DRV. Hobit (talk) 03:51, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Xymax: speedy deleting something that does not meet one or more speedy deletion criterion is never' harmless. If it were otherwise there would not be any point to having the criteria and we'd just let admins delete what they want whenever they want. Thryduulf (talk) 07:46, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
It was mentioned promotional material used which was not the case. Eehsani (talk) 18:01, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not being able to view deleted content I don't know whether this was blatantly promotional or not, but I can see that the log entry given when this was deleted was incorrect. The article was not previously deleted four days ago, but two years and four days ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:50, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The google cache version here doesn't appear to be particularly promotional. The references contained don't seem to establish notability so if there isn't more out there, I doubt this would survive an AFD. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (See reasoning below) - I wouldn't say this article is particularly promotional - certainly not to the point that it warrants a CSD. It may or may not satisfy notability, but can always be sent to AfD for that, which would give the chance for source hunting.Nosebagbear (talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. The language in the article is not unduly promotional. Now, if you look at the version at the time of the AfD two years ago, that version could have qualified for CSD G11. However, the most recent version is not unduly promotional in tone, and there has been work done to improve the sourcing (although I still have reservations about it). Those reservations might rise to the level of a second AfD, but I do not see where deletion is justified under criteria G11 or G4. —C.Fred (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)I've temporarily restored the article.This was neither a correct G11, as deleted, nor a correct G4, as the deletion summary implied. (The version deleted at AFD was actually closer to a G11.) Nonetheless, getting this article restored just long enough to see it deleted at AFD again isn't going to do you any favors - if nobody cares enough to write a Wikipedia article about a web publication besides its editor and cofounder, it really probably shouldn't have one. See User:JzG/And the band played on... for what this path leads to. —Cryptic 22:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I originally tagged this as G11 (I was not aware of the previous AfD, which is nowhere to be seen in the article history). When I see an editor writing about his own journal, including links to booksellers (like Amazon), that clearly seems promotional to me. (As an aside, if this goes to AfD again, I predict a "delete": if its own editor is not aware of any sources clearly showing notability, then those probably don't exist. But that is not for this DRV to decide). --Randykitty (talk) 22:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I can see why this was "tagged and bagged" as a G11, but I don't feel it hits the bar of G11. Hobit (talk) 00:29, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse It's borderline. WP:G11 includes self-promotional works that can't be rewritten to be non-promotional, and I don't think this one can - there are no good sources. You could also argue whether this fails WP:NPOV, which WP:G11 requires. I'm endorsing since I think the call within the bounds of reason. (I'd be shocked if this survived an AfD.) SportingFlyerT·C 02:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Paid editingas the deleted admin, I'm not going to ivote here, but I'll just note that the Eehsani is the editor of the magazine and is therefore an undeclared paid editor who has so far failed to declare any sort of WP:COI as required by our T&C, despite my request on his talk page. I don't know why we are bending over backwards to help someone defying our rules to sell his wares Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I don't think this meets the G11 standard but there was a fair bit of content in it which sounds promotional and I don't think we should be doing favours to paid editors. Hut 8.5 11:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - i stand by my initial evaluation as regards the promotional nature of the actual content of the article. However, as it definitely is a paid editor, and disclosure has not been undertaken, (and there aren't major editors of the current version) - a deletion is the correct call. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:30, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Creating user is a name match for the editor, the most charitable reading of the article is a directory entry, but actually it's obvious spam. Guy (Help!) 08:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like the nom is blocked. I'd be fine with this DRV being closed on that basis. Would keep the status quo (which is where we are headed anyways). Hobit (talk) 14:31, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
TriStar Products – The consensus is that this draft requires further work before it will be ready for mainspace. The decision to draftify is endorsed by the community.—S MarshallT/C 15:20, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This was moved to draft space. Organization is a major company selling prominent products such as the Dream by Genie bra with over $1 billion in retail sales. WP:TOOSHORT states that Wikipedia has many stubs. I support keeping the article, or moving this to AFD for a more publicized discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No deletion to review, no action to take here. If @Jax 0677: thinks Draft:TriStar Products is ready for mainspace, then all they need to do is submit it for review via the WP:Articles for creation process. I endorse the move to draft space and the non-creation of a redirect. —C.Fred (talk) 16:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse draftification. At least based on the sources in the draft, this doesn't come close to meeting WP:NCORP. A BBB directory listing, a Bloomberg directory listing, something on prweb, and something in the Daily Mail. Not a good source among them. If you've got better sources, add them to the draft. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:19, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn move didn't we have an RfC about moving an article into draft space as a way to bypass AfD? If it doesn't meet a speedy criteria it goes to AfD. A move to draft space shouldn't be away around our deletion policies. It looks like it would be deleted at AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:31, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't follow every RFC, so I probably missed that one. A link would be appreciated (and might result in my changing my !vote). -- RoySmith(talk) 21:13, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - Agreed, that this is a way to bypass AfD. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:42, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is summarized (and linked to) at [8]. It wasn't conclusively closed. Hobit (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The draft is blatant spam for the bra without any indication of notability. If it hadn't been brought here, I would have G11 speedied on sight. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 11:58, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If this meets G11 criteria, then it should just be deleted. If not, it should go to AfD. Hobit (talk) 07:51, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse draftification as a kinder alternative to deletion, which would otherwise apply (it's close to WP:CSD#A7 territory). This article is woefully undersourced and needs a lot of work to rise above a directory entry and demonstrate WP:CORPDEPTH. Jax 0677, rather than arguing please simply improve it. Guy (Help!) 08:33, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in Draft When an article is moved to draft space in this manner, the author can move it back without going through AfC, ifthey insist on doing so. But usually that's not wise--if there were substantial objections enough for it to be moved to Draft, it would be better improved and submitted. And that's the case here. If it is moved to mainspace in its current state, it will certainly be sent to afd, and very probably deleted. Additional substantial 3rd party independent published reliable sources, are needed. I wouldadvise keepingin in Draft until they become available. DGG ( talk ) 02:13, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Cardano (cryptocurrency platform) – Overturn. There's good consensus here that neither WP:G11 nor WP:G4 really applied. I'm going to restore this to draftspace. I'm not going to send this to MfD, but somebody else can if they want. -- RoySmith(talk) 00:35, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
I feel that the page has been deleted in error by Randykitty as I contested the nomination on the talk page, but did not see any reaction. The Cardano (platform) was live most of 2018 and then deleted. I rewrote the article twice, but it was speedy deleted. I asked a lot of Wikipedia 'collegues' to help me create a good Wikipedia article and even got help from an admin. As you can see on the deleted talk page. FlippyFlink (talk) 22:17, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Without looking too closely, this doesn't really rise to the level of what we'd G11 in other subject areas, but I'm leaning towards endorsing as a WP:G4 based on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardano (platform) (and subsequent deletions and saltings at multiple titles). @David Gerard:? Your opinion? —Cryptic 22:40, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello @Cryptic: I tried not to avoid WP:G11 by writing it in a neutral way. So I wrote a new version from the groud up and thus also tried to avoid WP:G4. I apologized on the deleted talk page for the numerous pages and the renaming done by someone else. As you can also see on the deleted talk page I contacted all the 20+ Wikipedia members who commented or contributed to the article and asked for comment. Any feedback on better abiding by the rules is greatly appreciated. --FlippyFlink (talk) 10:20, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's a G11. It's a draft that a pile of us have been working on for a while, trying to use decent sourcing. Here's a Pastebin of the deleted wikitext - David Gerard (talk) 13:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn the text isn't nearly promotional enough for G11 in draft space. And G4 deletion (suggested above) wouldn't be valid, as the deletion of an article in mainspace doesn't stop people from creating a draft about the topic. Hut 8.5 21:50, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore to Draft and, optionally, send to MfD. As a draft, it's not quite at the G111 level--we are more tolerant there , because the articles are in draft space so they can be improved, and they should normally hve achanceat this. Sometimesit's so hopelessly promotional as not to be even potentially improvable, and then G11 in draft is valid, but this is not quite so hopeless. DGG ( talk ) 02:19, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Nazo Dharejo – The nominator's reasonable and appropriate request to overturn the outcome of an old AfD on the basis of new sources has been unanimously approved.—S MarshallT/C 23:36, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Nazo Dharejo's story has been made into an acclaimed film My Pure Land and has received lots of media coverage. Last month JogiAsad requested the deleting admin Courcelles to restore the article, and HouseOfChange concurred and said they would improve the article after its restoration (see archived discussion), but Courcelles has been inactive recently and has not responded. Zanhe (talk) 20:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The general rule is that if an article has been deleted via AfD, but the discussion was long ago and the reasons for deletion are no longer valid, then anybody can recreate the article without needed to go through DRV. Since the AfD was 3-1/2 years ago, and there's ostensibly new sources due to new events, I don't see any reason that shouldn't apply here. I looked at the deleted article. It's not very well written. I'd have no objection if somebody wanted to restore it, but I honestly think you'd do better to start from scratch. The original references were[1][2][3][4][5] -- RoySmith(talk) 21:15, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What Roy said, except I would've been much harsher than "not very well written". —Cryptic 21:31, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the suggestion and list of references. I also gathered a few while writing about the film My Pure Land. I have started a draft of Nazo Dharejo in my sandbox, once it is past a stub I will post it to mainspace so others can work on it. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bad as the original article may have been, it would be useful to be able to see it. I am happy to host it temporarily in my sandbox if you want to put it there. I have not been able to access two of the references listed above. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:30, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much, RoySmith. I look forward to providing us with something more encyclopedic on the topic. HouseOfChange (talk) 00:57, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
These two should probably be histmerged. I've never been quite sure I understand all the technicalities there, so I'll leave that to somebody else to handle. -- RoySmith(talk) 14:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The technicalities are easier than they're made out to be. 1) Delete the article at the final title. 2) Move the other article to the same title. 3) Restore the old article. 2.5) (optional) Delete the newly-moved article before restoring the first article, so you don't have to make all its edits visible.
It's not necessary here. Inspecting the diff of changes made between your userfication of the afd-deleted article and the new article's final version, I don't see anything copyrightable lifted from the former to the latter. —Cryptic 14:49, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Koszalin escape room fire – Endorse. On a raw nose count basis, there's clear consensus that the close accurately reflects the discussion. On the other hand, even among people arguing to endorse, there's some feeling that the discussion itself was flawed, but that didn't gain enough traction to change the outcome. My suggestion to those who feel this needs a stand-alone article would be to keep researching sources. If enough secondary sources appear, over an extended period of time, to quash the WP:NOTNEWS complaints, this can always be spun back out. The history is still there, so material can be salvaged by anybody. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:30, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closer closed AfD as "merge". In terms of justified !votes, I believe there were 6 Keeps and 4 Merges (6 & 5 total). There was no delete/redirect !vote, so I could see that the discussion should be closed, but I feel either a Keep or No-consensus, along with a suggestion of opening a merge discussion was the appropriate action - consensus didn't support a forced merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and close(Wasn't sure if nom's should !vote again - ignore if not!) - just a clarification that relisting does seem a bit odd as technically it fell out of AfD remit once no-one wanted to delete it anymore, hence the close request. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:52, 14 January 2019 (UTC) (Struck due to clarifying no need for duplication)[reply]
Nom's don't need to !vote again. I participated in the AfD so won't be !voting here, but I am frustrated you did not allow the closer a chance to respond and possibly amend their decision before taking this to deletion review. SportingFlyerT·C 17:58, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying the !vote. I raised it on Randykitty'stalk page about 32 hours ago, which seemed a reasonable waiting period - obviously lots of editors go longer without being online, but there didn't seem a clear good alternate point to use either. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Also, just as a point of clarification, an IP voter did !vote delete. SportingFlyerT·C 19:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. I don't have much time right now to go into this very deeply. My close was based on the fact that a/ hardly anybody argued for outright deletion, b/ some of the "keep" arguments were pretty weak ("this is the first incident"), and c/ the article consisted of a mere 3 sentences (and it is not readily evident how this would be expanded, nor was there any argument brought forward during the discussion) and the target article was not very large either. In the light of all this, a merge seemed like the best solution and I still think that is the case. --Randykitty (talk) 18:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the result, but the discussion was defective, in that nobody made the case properly that this violates WP:NOTNEWS by being based on primary news reports rather than secondary sources. If this incident leads to changes in safety procedures for escape rooms then that should be covered in the escape room article rather than us keeping a news report in the pretence that it is an encyclopedia article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:05, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that NOTNEWS is applicable, Phil. We're editing an encyclopaedia that's so inclusionist we're not allowed to delete articles about individual animal ghosts, individual wrestling pay-per view events, or the list of Crayola crayon colours. This is a real world incident where five teenagers died -- if Wikipedia had any proportionate or intelligible significance threshold, then this would be way over it. But I do agree that merge was a reasonable reading of that debate.—S MarshallT/C 00:10, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (to “keep or merge”). That discussion is not a consensus to merge. Also, it was not a valid AfD, there never was a valid nomination arguing a full delete (or pseudo-delete). Note the currently highly relevant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion#Has AFD become "Articles for Discussion" ?. AfD is too clumsy to properly manage the complexities of a merge. At the target, this incident is a very special case, it should not be summarily concluded by this AfD discussion. Completion of a merge requires consensus at the target page, demonstrated at the target talk page if contested. The conclusion of the AfD was that a merge proposal should be opened. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:33, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The attempted withdrawal of the nomination is moot, as there were !votes other than keep, so it fails WP:SKCRIT. The attempted withdrawal or changed mind of the nominator does not undermine the discussion or the result. Merge may not have been the plurality !vote, but it is not an unreasonable result based on the weight of the arguments. A consensus to merge is a valid result of a discussion at AfD; see Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Recommendations and outcomes. A subsequent discussion about whether to merge is redundant and not required, as consensus reached to merge at AfD is substantially indistinguishable from consensus reached at the talk page. SmokeyJoe is right that AfD does not dictate how to merge; however, per WP:BOLD, a user may merge without further discussion on the article talk page, subject to reversion and discussion about how to merge. Deletion review is not the place to resolve disputes about how to merge. The merge result at AfD does not preclude a later split if the conditions of WP:SPINOUT are met. --Bsherr (talk) 01:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Bsherr: - a response to a few points here: I am well aware that merge is a valid result of AfD discussions, and that when a suitable result waives a need for a duplicate discussion. Given there were Keep !votes (numerous ones), they are inherently negative responses to merge - someone who BOLD merged when a talk page discussion had split viewpoints would be rebuked. DELREV indeed, isn't a place to resolve disputes about how to merge. It is the place to resolve whether consensus was mis-interpreted. At a minimum, this AfD keep/merge split was the equivalent of a No Consensus - which should either have been a relist, or as is the case in countless AfDs, had the merge discussion back on the article in further detail. As an AfD response I can't just treat it as a BOLD merge - I'd be violating what is, currently, an AfD consensus. Nosebagbear (talk) 02:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD is closed and can’t enforce the merge. Any interested editor should be able to challenge the merge at Talk:Escape room. If the material does not stay merged, the redirect should be reverted. I contend that the AfD does not show a consensus to merge, only that a merge could or even should be done. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Do you mean, assuming the close is endorsed here, that you think an AfD is never determinative of a consensus is to merge? Or just that how to merge is subject to further discussion? --Bsherr (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the AfD discussion was a "consensus to merge" then the merge must go ahead unless or until there is a consensus at the target talk page to not merge. Traditionally, this depends on the AfD closer doing the merge, or ensuring that someone else does, and of this responsibility being neglected.
If AfD discussion was not quite a consensus to merge, then it may be considered a suggestion within the AfD, and someone may WP:BOLDly merge, but if reverted it should not be merged until a talk page discussion finds agreement to merge.
This DRV is examining whether the closer was correct in finding a "consensus to merge". I have argued that that was an incorrect finding. In any case, the future of the two articles, or a marged article, is a matter for consensus on article talk pages. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosebagbear: I appreciate that reply. Absolutely, AfD was the place to reach consensus on the merits of a merge versus keep. And absolutely, DRV is the place to review the close to ensure it reflects consensus there. And yes, a no consensus result would have enabled a further merge discussion at the article talk page. And yes, this AfD result, if it stands, precludes a further discussion about the merits of merging. On all that, we agree. Among the issues here, the closest call is whether the close reflected consensus but, in my opinion at least, it did, on the ground that it did not meet Wikipedia:Notability (events). But it's worth considering what that result means. The redirected article was basically a stub. Right now, I think it's notability is dependent on Escape room (meaning it would not be notable but for its connection to that subject). But if that section at the merge target can be expanded to the extent that the conditions of WP:SPINOUT are met, it would be persuasive that the subject is independently notable, and nothing prevents it from being split out again. --Bsherr (talk) 02:52, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The keep votes are all predicated on news reports being secondary, which violates established practice in this discipline (history). A closing admin needs to ignore votes that are based on fringe theories, and Randykitty did that properly. Nyttend (talk) 22:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Randykitty, could you confirm Nyttend’s vote here, and give a brief explanation to the close explaining the downweighting of the “keep” !votes? Your 18:33, 14 January 2019 statement above might be sufficient, but I think something should be added to the closing statement. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Ahllam (singer) – Endorse. If somebody is willing to commit to working on this, ping me on my talk page and I'll restore it to draft space for you. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:53, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
as I said there she clearly passes point #9, #10, #11 and #12.TanksReza Amper (talk) 14:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this was originally filed under the wrong day. I've moved it here as a purely administrative function. -- RoySmith(talk) 20:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - clear consensus to delete - the editors did not accept the justfication(s) for notability, and I believe they were right not to do so. DELREV isn't design to re-litigate the fact-finding aspect. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but encourage draftification. Although no one mentioned draftification, all !votes were consistent with draftifying. WP:TOOSOON is a reason to draftify. Reba makes a number of points from MUSICBIO, but should be reminded that subnitability guideline subpoints are quick indicators of probably notability and are weak when push comes to shove. They do however easily justify a draft. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:41, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion; restore text and history to Draft space. On the one hand, I think the AfD played out fairly and was properly closed. However, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy, so there's no need to force this request to be copied over to WP:REFUND for a restoration to draft space. —C.Fred (talk) 16:39, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. (1) Merely looking at the participants' comments, "delete" clearly got support, and there's no reason to discount participants for voting without joining in the discussion. (2) Nobody presents any evidence why we should (and I don't see any reasons to) ignore specific participants, e.g. for sockpuppetry. (3) None of the participants' reasons appear to be unrealistic to the point of needing to be ignored (WP:RANDY), with Reza Amper generally being given replies that to me sound at least as well-grounded as Reza Amper's. Nyttend (talk) 22:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Category:Autism quackery – The result was overturn and relist. There is a strong consensus that this was an improper deletion for three reasons: BrownHairedGirl was by her own admission an involved admin, having participated in the CfD discussion; the cited CSD criteria (G4 and G10) did not unambiguously apply; speedy deletion is reserved for a limited range of uncontroversial deletions and therefore should not be used while a contested discussion is ongoing. – Joe (talk) 11:52, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
An admin stated their objected closure in CfD (diff). Their statement is I object to this close on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED and may take this matter to arbitration if informal discussions to reverse it are unsuccessful. JehochmanTalk 08:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)
I cannot decide what to do next. So I post here to request other people comment. See also closer talk page Hhkohh (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the relevant section, which prompted my actions. I have added bolding to the most relevant section.
The category will therefore be renamed Category:Advocates of pseudoscience (as of May 23, categories may be renamed through a page move, and this will be implemented once that option becomes available). Furthermore, this category will only serve as a holding category for subcategories (and should be tagged with {{container category}}). This category therefore should be empty as to articles, and should contain only subcategories such as Category:Alchemists and Category:Phrenologists, on the condition that reliable sources generally classify the subcategorized field itself as a pseudoscience. The rename makes the category more accurate (all astrologers advocate in some sense for a pseudoscience, but not all are pseduoscientists as many employ pure mysticism), while the depopulation largely eliminates the BLP problem (people do not self-identify as pseduoscientists, but do self-identify as crytozoologists). Because of this subcategorization, the "pseudoscientist" category will not appear on the articles of subjects, and therefore will not be detrimental to article subjects who might dispute that categorization.
It is regrettable that 4 years later, the BLP and neutrality principles which were asserted then on the basis of such substantive discussion are apparently controversial among some editors.
In particular, the term "quack" is significantly more derogatory than than "pseudoscientist". The OED definition of "quack" explicitly ties it to dishonesty, which is not necessarily the case with pseudoscience (which may be based on ignorance or folly).
There are many forms of words which can be used to describe those who advocate medical treatments which fall outside the current consensus, or which have been disproven. The use of attack labels such as the word "quack" is particularly problematic in categories, because categories appear at the bottom of articles without any qualification or attribution, as required per WP:WEIGHT.
WP:BLP and WP:NPOV are core policies on en.Wikipedia. We should not have to endless relitigate their application to this field, when the community has already had such an extensive discussion about it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think this warrants going to ANI, or further, as clear action by an INVOLVED admin. I see no reason to choose to ignore INVOLVED because we have no shortage of other admins to do so, there was no rush and no evident delay in getting it closed. Admins do not get to ignore policies on their whim like this, we have INVOLVED for a reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:56, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn (I prefer re-open) and let some other admin close it. We have plenty of admins. No need for an admin who was heavily involved in the discussion to close the discussion. Also, no need for speedy process here. Baby went out with the bath water. The category contained multiple non-BLP articles. Also, the discussion consensus was to rename, not to delete. JehochmanTalk 10:02, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Several of those non-BLP articles related to small organisations. WP:BLPGROUP notes the policy does not generally apply to groups, BUT that A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.
The category as it stood was a blatant attack category, per WP:G10, which says Examples of "attack pages" may include libel, legal threats, material intended purely to harass or intimidate a person or biographical material about a living person that is entirely negative in tone and unsourced. These pages should be speedily deleted when there is no neutral version in the page history to revert to.
The category's creator explicitly labelled the category as unevidenced (often harmful) quack treatments. In the CFD discusison, the creator described the category as an opinionated value judgment[9], and also explicitly state their desire to use to attach the label "quackery" to an identifed individual.[10] So the attacking intent seems very clear: to label those involved as causing harm, and as dishonest.
I urge editors to think carefully about both the specific consequences of endorsing attacking categories in this field, and the consequences of the wider precedent which would be set by tolerating blatant attack categories such as this. Note that other attack categories relating to science such as Category:Climate change deniers have been deleted (that one at WP:CFD 2015 Oct 16).
I know that some editors have very strong views on these matters, and sincerely believe that they have a responsibility to warn readers against some treatments. However the same applies to many areas of public controversy. As an NPOV encyclopedia, it is not Wikipedia's role to promote disparaging terminology for topics where editors have strong feelings. We do not, for example, categorise people as Category:Terrorists, and there is no reason to categorise in this field by opinionated value judgment. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're trying to explain your breach of INVOLVED by claiming that it was really important for the category to go. That is not the issue here.Andy Dingley (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From Carlos the Jackal: Carlos the Jackal, is a Venezuelan terrorist
So yes, we do identify BLP subjects as terrorists, rightly so, and we also identify Jenny McCarthy as an anti-vaccine activist. We can (and the CfD does) discuss what the phrasing for this should be – but that's still a long way from a single-handed CSD against consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
From Carlos the Jackal: Carlos the Jackal, is a Venezuelan terrorist
So yes, we do identify BLP subjects as terrorists, rightly so, and we also identify Jenny McCarthy as an anti-vaccine activist. We can (and the CfD does) discuss what the phrasing for this should be – but that's still a long way from a single-handed CSD against consensus. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Dingley, it is sad to see that you dismiss BLP and NPOV as "excuses".
Your example misunderstands the issue, which is the use of a non-neutral category. Carlos the Jackal is not in any category containing the word "terror/terrorism/terrorist". The use of a stigmatising word in body text is a different issue, where WP:WEIGHT applies; the term can be attributed, referenced and qualified, and alternative labels also given due weight. Per WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 April 27#Category:Terrorists: we do not place individuals in Category:Terrorists. I urge you to read the close of that discussion, and also WP:COP#General_considerations and WP:BLPCAT.
Note that the labelling of Carlos the Jackal as "terrorist" even in body text would not be permitted by Reuters[11], and is at least problematised by the BBC.[12] --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Autism Research Institute is also in Category:Alternative medicine organizations and Rope worms is also in Category:Pseudoscience so it is not super obvious to what extent BLP should play a role in categorisation. I think this discussion really is about where we should draw the line with respect to BLP issues and the outcome of that discussion is uncertain. But it is not up to WP:DRV to develop a view in this discussion so I would rather favour reopening the CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Category creator's response As the category's creator I was a bit disappointed to see that Autism:Quackery had been deleted (incidentally I was unaware of the previous 2014 discussion about Pseudoscientists) and wanted to thank @Jehochman: for re-opening the discussion / objecting. My own objection differs somewhat (I'm neutral about who closes it). Mine's that I really, strongly, think that - given the increase in popularity of unevidenced (and potentially harmful) autism treatments - a specific category that covers both autism and 'potentially harmful interventions or ideas' is helpful for knitting those otherwise disparate pages together. Is it possible to have a category that can only be used for 'things' or beliefs, and not for people? I think the main objection in its pejorative use was that it was used to categorise people, such as Jenny McCarthy (in fact I added that category to her page, so my fault) though by doing so I had no intention of 'attacking' her, it was simply that she is a promoter of unevidenced ideas relating to autism (already explicitly noted in her article). I'm aware of the irony here but I really don't think it's particularly fair to categorise me as having an 'attacking intent', but I realise outcome and intention can appear the same even when unintended. Anyway... I don't think 'quackery' or 'pseudoscience' is especially pejorative if applied to CEASE therapy or Rope worms (the references to the self-published authors can be removed, and couldn't the category can be removed and 'disallowed' for the Autism Research Institute?), as others have also commented. It does feel a bit baby / bathwater. Is there an option that restricts how a category can be used, eg 'this category may not be applied to living persons'? P.S. I didn't get a notification that the discussion had moved here, I just happened to spot it while looking glumly at the blue-background text on the CfD page. I may be slow to respond as I'm out for most of the rest of the day. Thanks :) JoBrodie (talk) 12:18, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
JoBrodie the category to which you added McCarthy was specifically described by you as a category for unevidenced (often harmful) quack treatments. It seems to me to be quite bizarre to claim that attaching the label "unevidenced", "harmful" and "quack" to a person is anything other an attack.
This argument is a red herring. If there is good sourcing we will write and categorize subjects negatively. If I call somebody a murderer or thief, that would be extremely slanderous, unless it’s true. We have Category:Murderers and Category:Thieves. We can make a category for those promoting unscientific automatism treatments. The title needs to be NPOV and anybody included has to have a solid reference. We fix NPOV violations by editing, not by mass deletion. JehochmanTalk 13:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, please stop flooding the discussion with walls of text. JehochmanTalk 13:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So why did you ignore the CfD, where there was at least some support for a rename, and instead choose to delete this altogether and so precipitously? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see nothing in policy which supports (let alone requires) the retention of a blatant attack page until the point at which it may be tweaked to be less attacking. Can you identify anything?
Policy at WP:G10 and at WP:VLP#Attack_pages is to revert to a pre-existing neutral version or delete. There was no previous neutral version of the category page, and in the case of a category with a title designed to attack, reverting the category page would not solve the problem.
If editors wish to create a neutrally-framed category or categories, it would contain a different set of pages. There might be some overlap, or maybe a lot of overlap, but there is no need to use the attack page as a starting point for a neutral approach. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:25, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, this category is not a recreation of a category deleted per an XFD discussion and so is ineligible for G4. We should never interpret XFD results as broadly as was urged here to justify speedy deletion, where it is merely the same "type" of category, as the closer describes it above. The closer's interpretation would also justify speedy deleting Category:Pseudoscience because we had deleted Category:Pseudoscientists, or Category:Terrorism because we had deleted Category:Terrorists, examples that should hopefully make it clear that a category for individuals raises different issues than a topical category such that a judgment on one is not the same as a judgment on the other. This is also why the G10 and BLP claims fail, and I see nothing in policy that empowers admins to make those kinds of determinations outside of a demonstrated consensus on that particular category. postdlf (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to RoySmith's comment below, I'm not voicing any opinion on what the close should be either, beyond that it should not be how it is presently closed. postdlf (talk) 21:53, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Void close and trout. BrownHairedGirl is clearly WP:INVOLVED due to participation at the CfD. Back out the close and leave it for some uninvolved admin to re-close. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:57, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I'm not advocating an overturn to any particular outcome. CfD has its own nuanced policies and customs; we should leave it somebody who is familiar with those to handle the actual re-close. Our job here is just to observe that the current close was out of process. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:03, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is quackery.
Endorse for what I think are obvious reasons: WP:G10. I can't believe a group of adults actually seriously discussed keeping a category called "______ Quackery". That is an obvious "attack category"–it's not even a close call. Unless you're talking about ducks or geese, calling anyone or anything a "quack" or "quackery" is a blatant insult and thus a personal attack. This is an encyclopedia, it should be encyclopedic in tone, meaning professional and neutral. "Quackery" is not professional or neutral. That the creator of this category then went to add a BLP to it strains my ability to assume good faith. It seems like we wanted to officially call Jenny a quack, and while she might be one, that is not for an encyclopedia to do. I have issues with "pseudoscience" as a similarly-loaded term. I don't see the reason to sort all of human knowledge into two categories: science and fiction. First of all, let's step back and realize that a lot of things that were once considered "quackery" are now considered "science," and vice versa. Secondly, we are not here to right great wrongs. Thirdly, while I personally can live with a container category "pseudoscience" (but not a "pseudoscientist" category, for the same reason "terrorism" is ok but not "terrorist"), there comes a point where something is such an obviously bad idea or a such an obvious attack that speedily deleting it is the right move (as opposed to a discussion about how to move it/change it/otherwise clean it up). The "murderer" analogy is a bad one because being a murderer involves being convicted of murder, whereas there is no formal legal process for labelling one a "quack" (or a "pseudoscientist"). This was a bold admin action and I'm no fan of supervotes, but in this case, I think a very experienced editor made the right call and I support it. Levivich (talk) 18:44, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strawman argument. The discussion was not going to keep the original category name. The discussion consensus was converging on a rename to something like "Autism pseudoscience" when an involved admin decided to substitute her opinion for everybody else's. We all seem to agree that "quackery" is an unencyclopedic, unacceptable term. Nobody is still advocating to use that word. JehochmanTalk 21:33, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, agreed - I'm not holding out for the retention of the term quackery, and I agree that the category should not be used on living people. If the current category remains wiped I'd hope that a separate Category:Unscientific autism treatments or Category:Unsubstantiated autism treatments category could still have potential value for non-BLP pages at least. Unscientific advice and treatments for autism are quite widespread and harmful, see the findings in a report presented at UK's Parliament earlier last year. Recommending bleach enemas (or drinking bleach) to cure autism, or that people should avoid MMR vaccination to prevent autism, or homeopathy to 'detox' children from their vaccinations to reverse autism are things that I don't think could ever be supported by science. I can't check the edit history of Category:Quacks so don't know how long that label was in use, or whether just one person was adding people to it (I never used it myself) but as of yesterday there were 59 people listed there, many alive. Against that backdrop it didn't seem particularly un-WP-ish to tag JMcC as someone who promotes some pseudoscientific views about autism but happy to accept that we were all wrong to have done so. (Incidentally there are currently six people listed as Persons accused of quackery#Living on the Quackery page). JoBrodie (talk) 21:42, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich – See Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose. That's not the purpose of DRV. The grounds for DRV here are (mostly) on the basis of INVOLVED, also for ignoring what looked like a clear consensus otherwise, and they're both independent of whether the answer was "right" or "wrong". Andy Dingley (talk) 22:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah OK, sorry - I wasn't sure where to add it as I don't think I'm meant to edit the original discussion page now JoBrodie (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Purpose #2 of delrev is if a speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria or is otherwise disputed, and I'm arguing above that it was not done outside of the criteria and should not be otherwise disputed. As to WP:Involved: If the issue is framed as "did the closer post in the discussion?" then the outcome will be fixed: obviously the closer posted in the discussion. That doesn't mean the closer is necessarily involved. Exceptions exist for "straightforward cases" and "purely in an administrative role". (Not to mention WP:IAR.) The closer's posts in the discussion were all about the same G4 and G10 issues. I see a correct application of those principles here, and I don't mind that the closer tried to point this out in the discussion before speedily deleting. With the benefit of hindsight, I would have preferred if the closer had just speedily deleted it right away without posting in the discussion, taking a purely and unquestionably administrative action, but that's just Monday-morning quarterbacking on my part (I'm super good at that). There is a reason to delete it rather than rename it: to also delete, rather then preserve, the history of it starting as "___ Quackery" (and I think the categorization of anyone or any organization, but especially BLPs, under that category should be revdel'd). If everyone agrees "Autism Quackery" was a bad name, let's close this delrev, leave it deleted, and just start a new category, "unsubstantiated" or "nonscientific" or whatever neutral, supported-by-RS term editors want to use. Levivich (talk) 01:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to throw this into the mix too, we also have Category:Health fraud (and it's already being re-added to some of these articles). Whatever finally happens, it may involve that equally. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
'Fraud' seems a wee bit harsh though? Also often implies intentional wrongdoing rather than being mistaken. Hmm, not sure. JoBrodie (talk) 22:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For what it’s worth, I think “pseudoscientific” is a useful term. There are scientific “medical” treatments, some of which may be “experimental” (unproven but having a plausible theory how they might work). Everything else is “Alternative medicine”, a whitewash term that tries to conflate pseudo-medicine with medicine. Alternative medicine is like the Trump spokeswoman who said “alternative facts”. I don’t think we should use the charlatains’ preferred terminology. There really needs to be a full discussion of what to call these categories. JehochmanTalk 23:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
“Alternative medicine”, a whitewash term ... charlatains.
Not much NPOV in there.
This enthusiasm for pejorative labels wouldn't be entertained in other topic areas. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:10, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist per WP:INVOLVED, on purely procedural terms, and get an experienced closer to re-close this one. SportingFlyerT·C 07:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist It is called "Categories for discussion", rather than deletion, and for some time into the discussion nobody at all expressed a view towards deletion. However strong might have been the case for early deletion, the discussion proved it was not one of the "most obvious cases" as required for WP:CSD deletion – even the deleting admin suggested a rename might have been suitable. Even if a speedy had been "most obvious", it was unbecoming for a (strong) discussion participant to have taken an immediate unilateral decision for deletion. (Of course, as named, the category was no good at all.) Thincat (talk) 09:43, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist If it had been closed before any comments were made about this category other than the nom, then I could accept a G4 claim. However, consensus can change, and this discussion clearly indicated that there are reasonable grounds for saying it did in this case. As to the use of the word "quackery", there can be no doubt that the responses show that the users noticed this word and responded with something along the lines of "good category, bad name". עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:30, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A number of procedural issues here. A) It's almost always a bad idea to speedy something that is under discussion at XfD. B) WP:INVOLVED applies. C) The speedy criteria here is a stretch--this isn't the same category. B and C are larger issues than A, but yeah, this is a bad call. I understand the sense that WP:BLP applied and therefore a rush was needed, but overall a really bad idea. overturn and relistHobit (talk) 15:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually WP:INVOLVED would be if I as original CFDer were attempting to close it. ;) Trying to link it to a previous discussion wouldn't really mean involved. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 18:31, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Undeleting this category just to rename it is process wonkery. Just make the new category and populate it appropriately. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:54, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That’s fine but a recreating deleted content is ordinarily improper and can result in speedy deletion. We need clarity that it’s ok to creat or rename with a better name. I’ll leave it to the regulars here to determine what’s best. JehochmanTalk 19:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and reopen (1) CSD is reserved for completely non-controversial deletions. The fact that several views had already been expressed during the discussion should be an immediate disqualification for any speedy process. (2) We don't need potentially controversial debates being closed by an admin who had already made three contributions to the discussion. We might be short of admins, but we're not that short. --RexxS (talk) 22:20, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The speedy deletion was a bold move, but afaics not incorrect and not outside the discretion we should allow admins. The closure of the CFD was just an administrative act following the CSD and was well explained. If the CFD is reopened/relisted a list of the category's contents should be provided (rather than tagging the articles with a category that would probably later be deleted/renamed). DexDor(talk) 06:43, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn Disagree with the G4, it is not a close enough match, and for that reason alone the close must be amended. Undecided about G10. It looks bad, but I don’t think BLP applies to the category per se, as opposed to the inclusion of living persons. WP:BLP would be limited to justification of depopulating of living persons. Was the “delete” close required to auto depopulate very large numbers of living persons from the category. Also against G10 is the fact that multiple respectable editors had participated without !voting “delete”. The INVOLVED is a very bad look and I don’t think the G10 close was justified. This is not to say that I support the existence of the category, and I read the discussion as heading to a consensus to rename. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Autism quackery category had been applied (by me) to two living people: Jenny McCarthy and Andrew Wakefield (the latter had separately already been added to a 'Quacks' category, that category also now deleted). I rather wish I'd not bothered applying the category to living people which seems to be what has triggered this discussion! An Autism pseudoscience category would help to tie together a range of concepts including unevidenced treatments (eg CEASE therapy, theories (eg the mistaken idea that vaccination causes autism) and side-effects of treatment (eg Rope worms - an artefact from bleach enemas). Another possibility is Unevidenced treatments for autism, though that mightn't be so obvious for the MMR vaccine controversy, or rope worms, as neither are 'treatments' as such. Other categories already available don't necessarily focus on autism and it seems that there are enough problematic autism-specific interventions to warrant a separate and specific category (the reason why I created the contested category in the first place). That'll learn me ;) JoBrodie (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn for another admin to re-close. That and debate allows for a finding of either "delete" or "rename", and "delete" would be a reasonable finding for an uninvolved admin to make. But it's not enough to be right -- you also have to be impartial. Experience with BHG's closes tells me she is able to separate her own view from her determination of consensus and I therefore assume that she was genuinely impartial when she made her close. But impartiality isn't just about the closer's state of mind when they close the debate -- it's about your fellow Wikipedians being confident in you. Everyone has to be able to see you're impartial.—S MarshallT/C 23:51, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The speedy deletion was probably just to the safe side of the line for the limits of admin discretion, and the overall close was not unreasonable but I decline to endorse where, as here, there is a reasonable, good faith argument that the closer was INVOLVED. I'm a great believer in process is important and the proper outcome is for a disinterested editor to close this discussion. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 18:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn/relist There was no clear consensus to delete. The closer was involved, the CSD rationale was over-stretched. An uninvolved admin should close this.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 19:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Hello, I would like to see if i can get my wikipedia page active again - all the Information on there was completely correct, It was such a great source for information about myself over the past 26 of my career and what accolades i have been awarded. I hope you will reconsider the desision to delete my page, i do not have a web site as such and this was a great place for anyone to fin out information about myself if they wanted to. I hope my page use to have not bad click through from searches, some of my colleagues who have pages on here have told me they get a good amount of traffic and interest on their Wikipedia.
Dingonek – There is no consensus in this DRV discussion as to whether the "no consensus" closure was correct. Relisting the AfD discussion wouldn't be appropiate because it was already relisted twice. This means that the "no consensus" closure is maintained by default for lack of consensus to overturn it. Sandstein 08:34, 23 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Evaluation of consensus regarding the notability of this cryptid does not adequately consider the WP:FRINGE guideline. Although most of the "Keep" !votes say that cryptozoologists and credulous early-20th-century accounts are reliable sources and can be used to establish notability, the guideline states that "A fringe subject (a fringe theory, organization or aspect of a fringe theory) is considered notable enough for a dedicated article if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications that are independent of their promulgators and popularizers" and few or none of the provided sources actually meet this requirement. My opinion is that arguments that run counter to a guideline should be discarded by the closer. I discussed this with the closer, Michig, and we have a difference of opinion on whether or not this local consensus can trump an existing guideline. –dlthewave☎ 22:50, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please complete the following sentence: "I want the result to be overturned to ______". I've read your statement above, and I'm not sure which way you're arguing. -- RoySmith(talk) 23:07, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Delete". I feel that the "Keep" !votes contradict the WP:FRINGEpolicyguideline. –dlthewave☎ 23:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete - as pointed out by dlthewave, the applicable notability guideline is WP:NFRINGE, and simply counting the votes to close on "no consensus" doesn't seem to have taken that into account. --tronvillain (talk) 23:17, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Policy-based arguments better support deletion; a single source does not support notability, especially for a fringe topic. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete. Strongly in agreement with discussion above. :bloodofox: (talk) 00:20, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There truly was no consensus here. Experienced editors were on both sides of the argument and had the chance to interpret WP:FRINGE for themselves. While guidelines do trump local consensus, local consensus varied here on how to apply the guidelines. I also note three of the above !voters were involved in the XfD; if endorsed as a no consensus close, I would suggest trying again at AfD in a few months if the article has not been improved. SportingFlyertalk 04:49, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Was there though? I didn't see any evidence of keep votes even attempting to interpret WP:FRINGE. I just went and read through again, and I can't find one argument explaining how this meets that guideline. --tronvillain (talk) 14:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"I'm satisfied there were enough !keep votes which addressed WP:GNG in the context of WP:NFRINGE that this should not be overturned. SportingFlyertalk 22:33, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm stilling waiting for how this is an any way meetings WP:GNG, as it couldn't be more explicit: We have yet to find a single source that meets GNG's requirement of "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." :bloodofox: (talk) 22:57, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which isn't the point of a DRV, unfortunately. There were enough users who thought WP:GNG was met to merit a no consensus close. SportingFlyertalk 03:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion discussions aren't a simple headcount, though. If the sheer number of !votes were what swayed the decision, it was an improper close. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:57, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not arguing AfD is a simple head count. I'm saying you have two groups of !voters who think very differently about the quality of sourcing in the article. That's a clear no consensus. SportingFlyerT·C 21:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
One group is arguing based on established policy, the other is arguing against established policy. If the latter wants to change policy, they're free to go debate that. But they can't use an AFD to suddenly declare that FRINGE sources satisfy GNG. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 17:46, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I strongly disagree with you. There are times when one side of the discussion is clearly against policy. This is not one of those times. The keep !voters are nowhere near clearly wrong, demonstrated through the robust nature of the discussion. I would be more inclined to agree with you if the keep voters were along the lines of "clearly notable, passes WP:GNG," but you have experienced, reasonable editors on both sides of this discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 20:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as closer. As I pointed out on my talk page, the argument that sources that discuss cryptozoology topics are unreliable because they are discussing cryptozoology topics is a bit silly. The argument above is that one particular interpretation of WP:FRINGE trumps consensus, which it doesn't. There was no consensus to delete the article. --Michig (talk) 07:13, 10 January 2019 (UTC) I would also note that contrary to the 'single source' argument presented above, there were several sources identified in the discussion (and there are many more in Google Books). --Michig (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody made the argument that "sources that discuss cryptozoology topics are unreliable because they are discussing cryptozoology topics". The argument was that sources written by cryptozoologists and their promoters are unreliable and cannot be used to establish notability. As several editors pointed out, there are many sources that discuss "cryptids" such as Bigfoot from a scienttific viewpoint, however these sources do not exist for the Dingonek. Firsthand accounts may sometimes be used as a primary source, but they would also need to be supported by reliable secondary sources. Notability is based on coverage in reliable sources, so having "many sources" is not sufficient to establish notability. The reliability of these unnamed GBooks hits would need to be assessed before they can be counted. –dlthewave☎ 13:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The problem lies in the view that the only sources that are valid for an article on a cryptid would be scientific sources. Cryptids have an element of science, pseudoscience, folklore, culture, and downright bullshit. The argument that sources that discuss these from a non-scientific viewpoint are not reliable is fallacious. There appear to be several books that simply describe what has been claimed, what others have written, and sometimes offering possible explanations based on real animals - as long as these sources aren't just making stuff up from scratch, there's no reason to discount them as reliable sources. Indeed, some of these sources describe the Dingonek as "the stuff of legend and wild speculation" and a "fanciful creature", which hardly seems the work of 'cryptozoologists and their promoters'. --Michig (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read our cryptozoology article? Cryptozoology is a subculture with close ties to Young Earth creationism that advocates pseudoscience that experts like Donald Prothero frequently compare to Holocaust denialism. Under no circumstances are these references in any sense reliable. Seriously, a little research goes a long way when it comes to pseudosciences. This article is not about a "cryptid"—itself an anti-academic term the pseudoscience coined to avoid the word "monster" and appear more scientific to the public in the early 80s—it's about a creature some big game hunters in the 20th century claim to have knowledge of. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:18, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are getting way off topic talking about holocaust denialism. I get that you don't like cryptozoology, but it's not relevant to the discussion and you need to recognise that your POV is just that. The Oxford English Dictionary defines 'cryptid' as "An animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti". The Dingonek is "An animal whose existence or survival is disputed or unsubstantiated, such as the yeti", therefore it is a cryptid. --Michig (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've conveniently left out the most crucial part of the OED's definition: "any animal of interest to a cryptozoologist". Additionally, that reference to Holocaust denialism comes from Donald Prothero's description of the subculture, which is quite on topic, particularly when you're arguing that cryptozoology source should be treated by Wikipedia as reliable. This is bizarre behavior—you're presumably yourself not a cryptozoologist, so why are you using terminology internal to the subculture to refer to monsters? :bloodofox: (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't 'conveniently' leave anything out - the description above is taken word for word from the OED website. When you resort to behaviour like this you come across as having an axe to grind and lacking objectivity and reasonableness, and as a result you weaken your arguments, which are then less likely to be given weight when closing discussions. --Michig (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You know, it's tough to assume good faith with a user who edits the a dictionary entry they present to back their POV (I wouldn't have noticed that you had altered the definition had I not been the one to add it to Wikipedia in the first place). At this point you seem to be deep in your trench and squarely aimed at getting these fringe sources on the site. I won't help you with that, but if you can find a reliable source discussing this topic somewhere, preferably from an academic source, I'll switch my vote to keep and add it to the article. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you are claiming I edited to 'back my POV'. If you mean the definition of 'cryptid' above, you can compare it with this. And I'm not sure what you think my POV is, and what fringe sources you think I'm trying to 'get on the site'. You are not making much sense. --Michig (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are people who reasonably believed that this article should have been deleted based on policy. But I also think that at least User:Bloodofox is not approaching the issue of Cryptids objectively. Instead everywhere we see the same WP:POVFIGHTER behaviour and the assumption that anyone disagreeing with that POV must be a supporter of Cryptozoology. The comparison to Holocaust Denial is absolutely unwarranted and distasteful in the extreme, and should be withdrawn. I do not think any of the !Keep votes were made out of support for Cryptozoology. Few of us have even been involved in previous discussion about Cryptids on Wiki. Most were simply previously uninvolved editors contributing on AfD. FOARP (talk) 11:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every editor here has come over from some other related article, and most of the keep votes have tried similar approaches to get cryptozoologist sources on the wiki elsewhere. This is nothing new. And as this article's primary author (and cryptozoology's primary author), I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to say here about POV. These corners have in fact crawled with members of the subculture in the past (and some editors, including no doubt some editors here, are in fact cryptozoologists, as their off-site posts reveal). If you have a problem with Donald Prothero's quote (where he compares the subculture to Holocaust denial and UFO abduction subcultures), take it up with him. It does a good job of quickly communicating the level of fringe that cryptozoologists espouse. Meanwhile, find a reliable source on this topic and I'll change my vote to keep and add it to the article myself. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1) I'd never even heard of cryptozoology until 2-3 months ago when this campaign of deletions started popping up in AFD and have been insistent that it is pseudoscience. 2) You don't get to just invoke holocaust denial as a debating tactic by saying you're just quoting someone else. FOARP (talk) 19:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Looking at the keep !votes in the AFD, I don't see them as going against the guideline which says (as for all guidelines) "it is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." I do not think the !voters were acting in ignorance or wishing to flout any WP principles. The discussion did not reach even a rough consensus.
Overturn and delete Horrible close from someone, who days back was ranting about poor closes; favoring a zeal to delete stuff. Pretty clearly, his own philosophical beliefs have traversed into his closer's hat or that he is unable to weigh arguments.∯WBGconverse 14:04, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Get a thicker skin, please. ∯WBGconverse 13:27, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Behave better. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Renominate, with the deletion rationale being a failure of WP:V, zero reliable secondary sources. There are no suitable sources, but the discussion did not include an analysis of all the sources linked by the “keep” !voters. I think they all fail, but the case that all fail was not made in the discussion. Yes, the page needs to be deleted, but the case for deletion needs to be better made. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Oyi. Discussion is a classic NC outcome. Keep !voters don't have great sources, but they do have reliable sources. Not for this existing (it almost certainly doesn't and never did), but for the myth existing. In an ideal world, we'd merge to the List of cryptids article. But my sense is we're deleting any entry there that doesn't have an article (which is unwise IMO, that's what lists can be good for). Hobit (talk) 17:08, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What reliable sources are you referring to? :bloodofox: (talk) 18:36, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The ones cited in the keep votes. Yes, they aren't "high-quality academic sources". No, they don't need to be. If the article claimed this thing existed, sure. But as it is, this is an article about a myth. And these sources are fine for that. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, you're including the cryptozoologist sources, as somehow reliable sources, despite the large amount of academic literature we've accrued that describes the subculture as deeply fringe and at times outright compares it to Holocaust denial and often notes its ties to Young Earth creationism (many reliable sources on this over at cryptozoology). Cryptozoologists in fact do claim these things exist, often as living dinosaurs. This is an article about a big-game hunter's account of a fabulous beast in Africa, which may or may not stem from some level of tradition. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete. The Delete arguments here have far more basis in the WP:FRINGE guideline, specifically WP:NFRINGE, and therefore deserve to be given greater weight. NFRINGE says that for a fringe theory to be notable it must be "referenced extensively, and in a serious and reliable manner, by major publications" which are independent of the proponents of the fringe theory. Cryptozoology is a fringe theory, so sources written by proponents of cryptozoology are not sufficient to demonstrate notability of cryptids. This is not the same as saying that any sources writing about cryptozoology are insufficient, as it depends who's writing the source. Several Keep comments referenced a book by Bernard Heuvelmans, who our article describes as "probably best known as a founding figure of the pseudoscience of cryptozoology". That therefore disqualifies the source for the purposes of demonstrating notability here. Some other sources were claimed as evidence of notability, but they were all shown to have serious flaws in the discussion e.g. being more than a hundred years old, or being a children's book. This rather undermines the claim that these sources meet the "serious and reliable manner" standard of NFRINGE. Hut 8.5 21:39, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm trying to wrap my head around these arguments. People at one point believed in Zeus (and some still do). Most of our coverage of Zeus comes from these people. Obviously Zeus has enough coverage to meet any guideline. But it seems like the arguments being made here would put Zeus under WP:FRINGE, and I just don't buy that as a reasonable thing. Here I see a myth. Why can't we cover that with the level of sourcing we have? Hobit (talk) 05:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, there we rely on experts like anywhere else. In the case of folklore and its genre myth, we rely on academics: Example A, example B, Example C. We do not invoke fringe sources and we handle primary sources appropriately. We lack a single reliable, independent source for this particular entity. :bloodofox: (talk) 05:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying we have no sources which reliably claim that this is a known cryptid? That WP:V isn't met on that claim? And you didn't really address my point. Does WP:FRINGE apply to Zeus? If not, could you explain why it does apply here and not there? Hobit (talk) 06:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a religious analogy is the best one to use here. The relationship between religion and pseudoscience/fringe theories is a controversial topic and religious claims are often deemed exempt from classification as fringe theories due to their widespread nature. For example Christianity is not usually considered a fringe theory even though most versions of it makes claims which would normally get it classified as such (that somebody could walk on water, resurrect the dead, etc). But if you do want to apply fringe theory standards to Zeus then I strongly disagree with your assertion that most coverage of Zeus comes from people who believe in Zeus. Most available reliable sources about Zeus come from modern classics scholars who don't believe in Zeus any more than other modern people do. Even if that wasn't the case the existence of some such sources would meet the NFRINGE standard. I do also think you're on somewhat shaky ground deeming this topic to be just folklore. It isn't a tradition with a long history, it's a claim made about a specific incident in 1910. Hut 8.5 07:59, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX is usually a bad argument, but let's consider the many, many articles about apparitions of the Virgin Mary, for which the only sources are typically Christian-related, and reports of what the witnesses said. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, what? If you find fringe sources on an article, remove them. That goes for any article. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I look forward to your next campaign of article deletions against miracles and apparitions from various religions. FOARP (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm assuming you don't edit much in these corners. I write and rewrite articles about folkore and religion topics on the site frequently. Point me toward the fringe sources and I'll remove them. I do it all the time. Or, of course, you could, per any of the site's many guidelines on the topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete with a WP:TROUT to the closer who seemed to put their thumbs on the scale if I am reading their rationale in this discussion correctly. The delete !voters had WP:PAG on their side. The keep !voters had their love of cryptozoology. Wikipedia is not supposed to work that way. jps (talk) 00:43, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You claim that User:FOARP, User:Ryan shell, User:Hzh, User:Slatersteven, User:Tamsier, and User:Rhododendrites all !voted keep simply because they "love cryptozoology"? Perhaps you could provide some evidence for this claim so that we can evaluate whether this is a good argument for discounting their contributions to the discussion? --Michig (talk) 07:10, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT - I'm not sure I'm allowed a vote here but we were all very clear that Cryptozoology is a pseudoscience and that none of us believed that the subject actually exists. FOARP (talk) 08:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Michig: I'm sure it wasn't your intention but that message is arguably inappropriate canvassing, as it pings everybody who expressed one opinion in the AfD of this discussion with a partisan message. I suggest you notify the other AfD participants as well. Hut 8.5 08:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I note that most of the delete votes are already present here but the remaining one (USER:William Harris) should be pinged in here as well. Possible the keep votes just weren't as well organised. FOARP (talk) 08:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I was just giving the keep !editors an opportunity to respond to the accusation made against them, which I felt was totally unfounded. The delete !voters had largely weighed in here already quite early on. This edit looks more like canvassing to me. --Michig (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Notifications on relevant noticeboards is not canvassing. --tronvillain (talk) 17:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant to the AfD perhaps, but DRV is (or should be) about judging the closure, not AfD part 2. --Michig (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair I do love it, in the same way I love Dr Who or The man Who would be...OK not that much. But I feel no more challenged by this then by the idea that Mr Holmes is not real or I will never get to visit the camp at Primrose Hill. I can see these things as fiction and still enjoy them. Now in a way this is closer to my interest in religion, why do people believe this crap. And that is the point, I see this as no more prosthelytizing then having an article on the Eucharist. And as we are so fond of casting about aspersions, another example of them not getting their way and so not letting it drop.Slatersteven (talk) 10:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per my preceding discussion. Absolutely none of the keep votes were of the view that Cryptozoology is anything but pseudoscience. We did not violate WP:FRINGE, a guideline. Specifically WP:PROFRINGE is against articles promoting fringe theories which this article by its simple existence does not do, and is anyway an article-quality issue. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has brought up PROFRINGE here. Do you feel that the Keep !votes comply with WP:NFRINGE?
Yes, because we're talking about individual cryptids as cryptids. We're not talking about them as fact. We may as well be discussing Pokemon. FOARP (talk) 13:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Is there some reason why you're using the cryptozoology-internal word cryptid instead of the word the rest of the world, including academics, uses—monster? As a reminder, this article is about a lake monster. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You insisting we only use sources that use the word, that making it the go to term?Slatersteven (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? This whole discussion about the lack of non-fringe sources on this monster. If it's notable enough for an entry, surely there's some discussion from an independent reliable source somewhere. :bloodofox: (talk) 17:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You asked why he might have used the word Cryptid, that is a reason we might be using it.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, your argument is that talking about cryptids (ignoring the fact that calling them that concedes the story to appropriation by cryptozoology) as cryptids somehow exempts them from basic fringe notability requirements? --tronvillain (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care what it is called. I'm using the term "Cryptids" because that's what y'all keep calling it. If you want to call it a monster, that's fine with me too. I. Don't. Care. About. This. Subject. The only thing I care about is deleting articles that appear to be notable, especially when it's part of bad-tempered campaign. FOARP (talk) 19:00, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This behavior is ridiculous, in bad faith, and certainly counts as obstruction to make some kind of point. I'm personally strongly for keeping this article—it makes for an interesting colonial case study—but I know we must first at least produce a single reliable independent source discussing this monster to keep the article from being yet another slipped through pro-fringe piece. Yet there's nothing on JSTOR, Google Scholar, nor any other database I've searched. I'm also the article's primary author, and I've examined all of the sources we have here closely. Not a single one of them is by any stretch reliable. If you're here to build an encyclopedia and not just stick it to your fellow editors, you're going to need to at least first brush up on this topic. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You're literally assuming bad faith. I mean, that's literally what you're doing. Do you get why this behaviour doesn't help you get your message across? FOARP (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At this point, the best thing you can do for this thread and the several others you've inserted yourself into related to this topic is to at the very least read cryptozoology. Seriously, get a basic understanding of a topic before you engage in discussion about it. :bloodofox: (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice the bit where I said I don't care about this subject? I don't care about it. I. Don't. Care. About. It. What I do care about is sourcing. Macleans is about as reliable a source as they come - but you're saying we should ignore it, and the academic sources. FOARP (talk) 19:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse As above this does not "promote" a pseudoscience. I think fringe is being misapplied (or perhaps applied like a sledge hammer).Slatersteven (talk) 10:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as per FOARP. Tamsier (talk) 12:55, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete A few statements from explorers a century ago that they think they saw some weird creature do not a notable cryptid make. Failure to account for WP:FRINGE but also WP:LASTING apply. Simonm223 (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Given that independent academic sources have been given (old sources are still valid sources), the argument presented is simply a dismissal of sources they don't like for no reason other than that they don't like them, and is therefore invalid and a misuse of WP:FRINGE. Hzh (talk) 19:41, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"Independent academic sources"? Are we to believe that you think sources that state that the evidence for the Dingonek "is very positive and believable" and that the Dingonek is a "A New Monster Discovered in Darkest Africa" (MacLean's, 1918) and an eyewitness account of a "head big as that of a lioness but shaped and marked like a leopard, two long white fangs sticking down straight out of his upper jaw, back broad as a hippo, scaled like an armadillo, but colored and marked like a leopard, and a broad fin tail" (1910, In Closed Territory) are independent academic sources, or maybe the entry in the East Africa Natural History Society that claims that the In Closed Territory account might well refer to a lost dinosaur that wouldbe totally great to shoot—or are you chiming in here without having read any of the sources you're claiming are valid sources that people just don't like?
Please, people, take the time to read about what you're chiming in on before you vote for it. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I read. Of course I read it. Can you try to WP:AGF please? It doesn't matter what you think of the reference. What matters is what it says - what we think of it can simply be reflected in the way we write the article (i.e., not treating the Macleans coverage as a statement of fact). FOARP (talk) 20:12, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the MacLean's article before I mentioned it here, you certainly couldn't have typed that it was, as you called it, "as reliable a source as they come" with a straight face. :bloodofox: (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maclean's, Canada's most respected magazine. Yes, I would call that as reliable a source as they come. And what you're doing is applying your own POV to what the source says. FOARP (talk) 20:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out on the Dingonek page, the Maclean's article is almost entirely a reprint of an article by Jordan (the Jordan that Bronson is repeating in In Closed Territory). Almost all of the scant sourcing thus depends upon primary reports by Jordan. --tronvillain (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone who disagrees with you is a cryptozoologist. That must be the answer. FOARP (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We have read and understood perfectly what's written. Perhaps you have perfect 20/20 vision in hindsight, but that isn't the case when people encounter anything new or hear new claims. For example, we have news the last couple of days about Fast radio burst which some physicists claim to be possible signs of alien intelligence. Perhaps in the future people will determine that the sources of FRBs are perfectly natural and there is nothing artificial about them, but we can't decide what is true for now. If a journal discusses possible alien intelligence it doesn't make the journal unreliable, nor does it make the physicists who suggested alien intelligence fringe. The same is true when when we have first reports of dingonek, and it doesn't make the journal that reported them unreliable. In this case we simply need independent sources that discuss the claim, not whether the claim is true or not. Hzh (talk) 21:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When an early 20th century journal claims that a dinosaur may exist in the Lake Victoria region, we're in deep fringe territory. This becomes a primary source, and by no means could it be considered a reliable independent source. Unlike Mokele-mbembe or the Partridge Creek monster, we lack reliable independent sources discussing what's going on here, so the article simply echoes what these sources say without any independent discussion: The article promotes what is today very much a fringe theory. We don't consider early 20th century racial theory sources as reliable independent sources for the subjects they discuss today for the same reason. Imagine what this site would look like were this the case for the rest of the site. :bloodofox: (talk) 21:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Your interpretation, and wrong. A wrong racial theory would still be a valid entry in Wikipedia, as would any other wrong theories that have been discussed. You are deciding arbitrarily what is RS or not. Hzh (talk) 22:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
An article on a racial theory with independent reliable sources, of course. A bunch of early 20th century sources on racial theory without an independent, modern academic source discussing them? Yeah, no, see this. Not reliable by any stretch, and that's exactly what we're seeing here. Actually, if your comments are indication on how you're operating on this site, I think someone might want to look into your edit history. :bloodofox: (talk) 22:33, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AGE MATTERS applies here: "Especially in scientific and academic fields, older sources may be inaccurate because new information has been brought to light, new theories proposed, or vocabulary changed." These older sources, like many, would have been reliable at the time of publication but no longer reflect the current mainstream viewpoint. They may be useful for a quote or description of the outdated theory, but an article cannot be based solely on such sources. Articles on fringe topics do not simply describe the fringe theory; they also include the mainstream viewpoint for balance. I'm not sure how one would include the mainstream view if the topic is not covered by mainstream sources; this is one reason that our General Notability Guideline and WP:NFRINGE require coverage in reliable sources. Our guidelines do not make a special exception for fringe topics; if it's not covered by reliable sources, we don't include it here. –dlthewave☎ 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if you are deliberating misunderstanding what is being said or not, but no one has ever argued that dingonek existed, so you are using essentially spurious argument, and misunderstood what WP:AGE MATTERS is meant for. For a start, it is not meant for notability, and this discussion is not about whether the dingonek is real or not. Hzh (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned, our notability guidelines require the use of reliable sources, and outdated sources are not reliable. There is no provision that allows unreliable sources to be used to establish notability. –dlthewave☎ 23:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And I have already said, your wrong interpretation. WP:AGE MATTERS does not say that older publications must be wrong, but that where newer and more accurate information are available, then the newer and more accurate sources should be used. You are making a lot of assumptions about the creature or the journals that reported it based on nothing but your own personal view. What we see here is a lot of misuse of guidelines and policies. Hzh (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Would you not agree that credulous accounts currently represent a fringe view of the topic? –dlthewave☎ 16:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have already dealt with this above (20/20 vision in hindsight) and gave you an example that might appear credulous in the future. Please understand what people are arguing so we don't have to explain to you repeatedly. Hzh (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At the very least, the intransigence and conduct unbecoming of an administrator exhibited here by Michig (talk·contribs) (including canvassing, badgering commentators, and personal attacks) is enough for me to think that maybe a trip to WP:AN is warranted to discuss a possible WP:DESYSOP. jps (talk) 19:52, 11 January 201l9 (UTC)
Well, if he hadn't pinged me and the other people who voted keep on the original AFD none of us would be here. Strangely enough, though, all but one of the delete votes knew this review was happening without being pinged. And if you really want to raise this kind of issue, then you should do so at WP:ANI and/or on the user concerned's talk page, not here in the discussion. FOARP (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The hope is that he sees the error of his ways and tones down and sometimes by outlining a possible course of action for an investigation, we can encourage reform. Most rational people do not want to go through more drama than necessary. jps (talk) 20:02, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That may have been the intent, but it's likely simply to be interpreted as a threat when posted here. Better on their talk page where it won't look like a rhetorical device. FOARP (talk) 20:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Intransigence? Conduct unbecoming of an administrator? canvassing? badgering commentators? personal attacks? You are accusing me of all these things? Based on what evidence exactly? --Michig (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The evidence is in this very thread. If you don't see it, that may be a problem. jps (talk) 20:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe the problem isn't mine. --Michig (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe. On the other hand, you are the one with the administrator tools and the community imprimatur, so it seems to me that you should be held to a higher standard than those you seem to relish impugning. jps (talk) 20:50, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we might all focus on the issue raised by user dlthewave above, because anything else is irrelevant for the purposes of this page. William Harris •(talk) • 01:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse There was clearly no consensus to delete, looking at the AfD. If anything, there was consensus to keep but whether it's a keep or no consensus is irrelevant so that's besides the point and not my hill to die on. Smartyllama (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and delete, the proponents of deletion have convincingly argued that the sources are not reliable. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I was not involved in the deletion discussion and don't edit in this area. Reading the deletion discussion, it seems to me there was clearly no consensus. If I judge the quality of the arguments, I would say there was !keep consensus. The !keep votes brought forward a number of sources establishing notability, including articles and books published by the East Africa Natural History Society, Maclean's, ABC-CLIO, and Routledge. The !delete votes seem to be based on two arguments: 1) some of those sources are old (which I don't think is a persuasive argument), and 2) some of those sources were written by cryptozoologists. The latter I also don't think is persuasive per the !endorse arguments above: our source of knowledge about Zeus comes from people who believed in Zeus; our source of knowledge about Jesus comes mainly from people who believe in the divinity of Jesus. A cryptozoologist might not be a reliable source for facts about cryptids, but they are sufficient to establish notability of a particular cryptid. If XXX is written about widely by cryptozoologists, then it is notable, and should have an article (of course the article should be clear that it's a cryptid, not a real creature, and that cryptozoology is like a hobby not a science). But those are all issues for the prose of the article; not reasons to delete it. Seems to me the closer correctly read the lack of consensus here. Levivich (talk) 18:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the original AfD. Also I'll admit to having an interest in Cryptozoology, but I didn't cast my vote in the original AfD simply because of an interest in the subject, and I think my record as an editor of other non 'fringe' articles speaks to that. Might be a case of WP:AGF here, but I doubt the other keep voters made their vote purely out of love for the subject either Ryan shell (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to delete: the discussion did not apparently take WP:NFRINGE & WP:RS AGE, two key content guidelines, under proper advisement. The sources are primary and / or fringe and do not establish notability. There's nothing there that would be useful for a potential article, so instead of kicking the can down the road, we might as well delete now. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The sources currently in the article are mainstream sources and are sufficient; there is no implication the animal actually exists.It meets the guidlines. WP covers notable nonsense. DGG ( talk ) 06:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Cam we stop talking about users their motives, intelligence or competence. It adds nothing to the debate, and makes no ones case stronger. Can any such sub threads please be hated now.Slatersteven (talk) 10:53, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Probably too late since this is already basically a re-hash of the AFD, which DRV is not supposed to be. FOARP (talk) 14:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Local consensus can trump a guideline. That's always been policy: if local consensus couldn't do that, then DRV would be a lot easier than it is. But if local consensus does trump a guideline, then we're normally looking for quite a clear consensus with a lot of supporting reasoning. My view is that we should cover this cryptid somewhere but probably not in a separate article on its own. I think the simplest way to get there from here is probably to let this DRV close, allow the dust to settle for several weeks, and then start a talk page discussion about where it can be merged.—S MarshallT/C 00:19, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - This is just a repeat of the same arguments. Not much to add beyond what the endorse !voters above said and what was said in the AfD itself. — Rhododendritestalk \\ 14:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I would have !voted delete at the Afd, but DRV is supposed to be about evaluating the closer's assessment of consensus, and the NC close clearly was well within a reasonable closer's discretion. While the discussion and policy would also have supported giving less weight to the keep votes and deleting the article, such a reading was not the only proper outcome. I'm not willing to buy off on the argument that the fringe sources can be used, but the argument that the old books (from well before the current vanity press era) constituted reliable sources was supported by a number of experienced editors, and I don't think the closer was compelled to ignore them. XymmaxSo let it be writtenSo let it be done 19:27, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Rhododendrites and Xymmax are exactly right. There was no consensus at the AfD, and the close reflected the result. We're not doing second AfD nominations at DRV. --Bsherr (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis – There is no consensus about whether the G4 speedy deletion was correct. Because speedy deletions are intended to be used in uncontroversial cases, such outcomes usually are referred to AfD, which I am doing now. Sandstein 07:41, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
This page was speedy deleted claiming WP:G4, because a different page "Suicide of Katelyn Davis" about the event was deleted at an earlier point. However, the new page "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" is different in both references and content from the old page, so it should be evaluated independently on its own merits. For example, the old article was criticized for starting out with a casual DailyMail reference (and had a bunch of YouTube references), while the new article starts with the WP:RS The Independent (and has no YouTube references). The new article also has a section about effects and aftermath that wasn't present in the old, which further establishes notability and further demonstrates this is an entirely new article and should be treated as such. The old article was basically given WP:TNT and we started over. Remember, when applying WP:G4, "It excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version, pages to which the reason for the deletion no longer applies". The new article came into being after a formal "Articles for Creation" process over three months ending in admin approval, which can be seen in the new article's logs. Personal note: I didn't create the new "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" article (and I don't know who did) although I did participate in improving the draft it once I noticed it was present in the AfC stream. Jauerback who speedy deleted this article has been contacted and suggested I make a DRV entry here. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 20:50, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Before debating specific references in the article, we should remember that "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process". That said, yes, some content and references are similar between the old and new articles. Not every reference and sentence in the old article was bad. The important point is the bad references have been removed, and reliable references and content establishing notability have been added. Note the link https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dad-irish-teen-who-took-10356470 isn't dead, but works for me. Also the link https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/katelyn-nicole-davis-12-year-old-kill-herself-suicide-livestream-video-live-viral-cedartown-georgia-a7523666.html was mentioned in earlier discussions as a reliable reference from a source that's actually good to use and that many other Wikipedia articles make use of (as opposed to DailyMail that the old article used). More importantly, this separate article's draft went through and was approved in the formal Articles for Creation process, so if people don't like the new content, then they should discuss it on the new article's talk page, or go through an official 7 day deletion proposal instead of just speedy deleting it. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 21:55, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment After looking at the background to this topic (but not looking at either of the deleted articles), I could imagine supporting a WP:IAR deletion without even undeleting temporarily to see whether the WP:G4 criteria were met (I suspect they were not). However, I would not endorse a deletion under specious reasons for speedy deletion. Are the articles such that it improves WP to ignore the strictures of G4 and just keep deleted anyway? Thincat (talk) 23:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A G4 should be relatively easy to figure out - I don't have access to the historical versions of these pages, though, so I can't comment on whether G4 is met or not. However, the SNOW deletion of the article in September raised some very serious issues and I would expect a new version of the page to fix those issues and clearly demonstrate notability. Based only on Cryptic's reference analysis, I don't see how either of those needs are met. I would keep deleted regardless. SportingFlyertalk 04:55, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Wikipedia is not censored (see WP:NOTCENSORED) so this page shouldn't be deleted or left deleted just because an editor finds it "shocking" or "too sensitive". There are many other youth suicide pages very similar to this one on Category:Bullying_and_suicide. There are also other filmed suicide pages such as Suicide of Kevin Whitrick which have been deemed notable enough to easily survive [deletion proposal]. This page should exist because it's a highly notable event in both categories, a unique case of a youth suicide that was filmed, which literally millions of people saw on social media. (That makes this the most watched suicide in world history.) Fortunately, because this case pushed Facebook and others toward increased scanning and reporting, an event like this shouldn't ever happen again! Anyway, if this iconic page is deleted, then we should also delete all those other less notable pages. But as stated before, deletion review shouldn't be the place we debate wider Wikipedia policy or even the content of this page. All we're supposed to do here is determine whether the speedy deletion was appropriately applied due to the spurious claim of the new article being identical to the old. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 05:52, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, no one here has argued the article is too shocking or too sensitive, nor is this another bite at the AfD apple. A quick review of the available material clearly shows this article had multiple issues that would need to be addressed in a new version, were that new version to survive an AfD. The fact this was recreated under a new title less than three months after a snow delete AfD would concern me regardless of the topic. SportingFlyertalk 07:43, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that "no one here has argued the article is too shocking or too sensitive". I was replying to Thincat above who said, "After looking at the background to this topic... I could imagine supporting a WP:IAR deletion without even undeleting temporarily to see whether the WP:G4 criteria were met (I suspect they were not)." That's a strong statement, and we don't want this discussion to get derailed. Anyway, yes, people raised three issues with the old article, which contributed to it failing AfD: (1) Old article had a DailyMail reference and several YouTube primary source references, none of which exist in the new article. (2) Old article mentioned allegations of abuse against specific living persons, which has been removed from the new article. (3) Old article didn't cover long term effects of the event beyond the news reporting, which has been addressed with a new section in the new article. But again, the old article is gone and isn't on trial here, and the new article passed AfC and was approved for article space after several iterations. Since the new article addresses all the old issues, it should survive AfD should it ever get proposed again. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't (and still haven't) read either article to see if I find them shocking. Rather, the topic seems to me unsuitable for my concept of an encyclopedia. Why, then, do I find myself !voting "keep" for so many articles I think are on useless topics? It is because I don't like to hurt the feelings of editors who have put in work on matters that seem important to them. But in this case it is not the feelings of the editors I am most concerned about. It is the feelings of those whose lives have been wrecked. I can't start to know what I'd feel if this were my daughter but I wouldn't want the tragedy incorporating into Wikipedia. Thincat (talk) 12:05, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the article did "go through an official 7 day deletion proposal instead of just speedy deleting it", and it was deleted. We don't reopen these issues unless something has changed, and I don't see anything here. The main concern in the AfD was WP:BIO1E, namely that the subject is only notable for a single event which had little lasting impact and is only known because of a brief flurry of media coverage. There isn't anything here which comes vaguely close to addressing that. Of the "new" sources [13] was linked to in the AfD, so the participants were clearly aware of it and it didn't change the outcome, and [14] barely mentions the subject at all. Apart from that last reference everything cited is part of the brief flurry of media coverage after her death and doesn't demonstrate lasting impact. The claim that the case prompted Facebook to change its procedures isn't supported by the sources. The article also contained the same BLP issues as the AfDed version and all of the prose of the AfDed version was present. Hut 8.5 07:54, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the old version of this article never did "go through an official 7 day deletion proposal instead of just speedy deleting it". The old article was deleted a mere 19 hours after AfD proposal, which is hardly time for anybody to even notice the discussion, much less participate. Remember, even WP:SNOW warns that "closers should beware of interpreting 'early pile on' as necessarily showing how a discussion will end up". Anyway, alas now the very different new article is also being stealth deleted behind the scenes, without ever having given a broad spectrum of editors a chance to notice or comment upon how much this topic deserves an article. That just seems wrong, and seems to be an end-run around proper Wikipedia process. I agree issues shouldn't be reopened unless things have changed, which is why everything raised about the old article has been addressed in the new (see above for details). The new article focuses on the event, not the person, which is why like similar articles it's titled "Suicide of X" instead of just "X", and uses {infobox event} instead of {infobox person}, which means WP:BIO1E doesn't apply. Links such as https://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/dad-irish-teen-who-took-10356470 demonstrate how the event isn't a one time piece of news, but is still being referenced many months later and has had lasting impact. The only problem raised with the prose of the old version was allegations of abuse against specific living persons, which has been removed from the new article, so just saying some of the text of the new article is similar to the old is a non-issue without being more specific. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was closed early because of the very strong support for deletion and the BLP concerns (concerns which haven't been eliminated in your version, FWIW). Retitling the article does not address the concerns in the AfD, and some AfD participants said exactly that. Changing the infobox makes even less difference. Literally all the coverage you have managed to find of this person after the event is the sentence There was widespread horror when American girl Katelyn Nicole Davis, 12, ended her life in January and the tragedy was streamed live on Facebook written in an Irish tabloid five months later. If that's all the subsequent coverage available then the event has not had lasting impact. Your version still includes various accusations of sexual and other abuse by living people. The article also said that police opened an investigation into those claims. Two years later that investigation has likely concluded, so what was the outcome? We don't know, because the event is too low profile. Hut 8.5 19:35, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Forget about the old article! Suppose the old article never existed, and the new article is the first thing about the event to appear on Wikipedia. Now suppose you notice the new article after it got approved in the Articles for Creation process, and as you suggest above you personally believe that the event's long term impacts are weak. What would you do? Most would add a {notability|date=today} tag or such on it to allow the article to be improved and sources you like better to be found. Remember, WP:ARTN says, "if the source material exists, even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." If nobody finds anything after a while, only then propose a seven day AfD. An extreme deletionist would do a seven day AfD right away, which is technically allowed if a bit draconian. However to just nuke the article without even giving it a chance seems like censorship. Note that the old article never had any tags on it suggesting there was any problems with its quality (or if it did, they were added within the last few hours of its life). The old article was online for 19 months continuously without tags or even a hint of a problem, until suddenly without warning, within 24 hours it was "proposed" for AfD and deleted. Can you see why some are feeling cheated here? Note that even Jauerback who speedy deleted the new article admits "on my talk page" that he was unaware the new article had gone through and been approved in the public AfC process. Remember, the DRV guidelines say that "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process". Even if you personally still find the new article insufficient in certain respects, I doubt anyone can deny a WP:GOODFAITH attempt has been made so far to address the old issues.
Visit the page Suicide of Kevin Whitrick. What does that article have that the new Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis article doesn't have? Katelyn Davis was much more reported on local, national, and international levels, and affected the literally millions of people who saw her death video before Facebook and such were able to get the upper hand. (Unlike other suicide articles, Katelyn's actual death is viewable online, and beyond that she recorded much of the last 30 days of her life, making this a one-of-a-kind valuable psychological perspective into the suicidal mindset.) This isn't an obscure topic. There are 35 separate support groups about Katelyn Nicole Davis on Facebook while there are 0 about Kevin Whitrick. In May of 2017, the page Suicide of Katelyn Davis received over 21,000 page views in the past 30 days. That's way more than all the other lower profile Category:Bullying_and_suicide pages (Suicide of Kevin Whitrick has just 650 in the past month). A general Google search on ""Katelyn Nicole Davis"" returns 140,000 hits, while searching ""Kevin Whitrick"" returns only 5200. I know that "Wikipedia isn't about things that are notable, but rather it's about things that have been noted" but this is a high profile topic that shouldn't be so quickly dismissed. Page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism#Arguments_against_deletion says, "It can be frustrating for a reader to come to Wikipedia for information and inside find that the relevant article existed at one point but has been deleted. This discourages both Wikipedia readership and authorship." Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 04:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
We can't forget about the old article because you're contesting a WP:G4 deletion. If it's a substantially similar article, it should remain deleted. You're also continuing to make arguments better suited for an AfD discussion. I would strongly suggest familiarising yourself with WP:BLUD and allowing this process to run its course. SportingFlyertalk 05:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The "much better title" looks like a deliberate end-run around deletion, the text is pretty much the same and the same people are involved in both articles. Guy (Help!) 23:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would claim the alternate title is another point in support of keeping the article. Multiple people are wondering why Wikipedia doesn't say anything about the most widely seen suicide in history, and are starting drafts about it. There's nothing sneaky going on here. The new article was a draft for several months, effort was made to address all the issues raised about it before, it went through the formal AfC process where everybody had a chance to see and comment upon the new proposal, before it was approved for article space. A "deliberate end-run" would be just creating a new article directly that's identical to the old and hoping nobody notices. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relist I'm not sure whether or not the article should be kept, but the snow close was wrong. . A proper afd might have eliminated the need for this review. DGG ( talk ) 06:59, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
overturn speedy, list as desired WP:BIO1E says "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person." An attempt to cover this as an event, rather than a bio isn't "an end-run around deletion", it is exactly what policy says we should do. As an event article, this easily meets WP:N and isn't in obvious violation of our guidelines, certainly nowhere near clearly enough for a speedy deletion. The SNOW closed discussion was about sources (which have gotten somewhat better, a paragraph here, a bit more than a paragraph here are probably the best new sources) and BLP1E (which doesn't clearly apply given the change to an event article among other potential arguments). My guess is that the sources remain weak enough we may well end up deleting this, but there is no need to bypass AfD. Hobit (talk) 00:31, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, in general, I think an article that makes it through our AfC process should probably be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes to a G4. This warrants a discussion IMO. Hobit (talk) 08:02, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, I don't think it would have made it through AfC if it had the same title as the original. I personally would never accept an article at AfC if it had been recently deleted at AfD unless something had clearly changed, like a SNG being met. AfC clearly shows you how many times an article with the same title has been deleted, and this should be taken into consideration by those at AfC. (To be clear, I wouldn't decline the article on G4 grounds unless I could easily find a cache somewhere, since I can't see the history for a deleted article. I'd comment and leave it for someone else.) SportingFlyerT·C 08:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but we are talking about a topic that does have new sources (I provided two that I think are newer than the original AfD and I understand there were others), a new title (making it more compliant with BLP1E), and some new text. It also cleared AfC. I'm not saying the article should be kept, I'm saying it's not a clear speedy. And a G4 of that quite truncated AfD isn't ideal either (per DGG). Hobit (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first AfD cleared a deletion review, though. I see it as settled. SportingFlyerT·C 21:21, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A possible compromise: If some don't like that the AfC process thread didn't clearly show that this is an improved version of a previously deleted article, then why don't we just move this back to draft space? We can add appropriate comments indicating its history before submitting it again. We can also add the two new sources Hobit mentioned above, which are high quality since they're published books, and which have NOT yet been included in any version of this article. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 02:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It did clear a review (I had missed that) but the discussion was sparse and the outcome was no consensus. I think further discussion is reasonable. Hobit (talk) 04:26, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. She was twelve years old, and she reached international attention by committing suicide on video. I believe that it's irresponsible for Wikipedia to cover this. The risk of encouraging copycat behaviour is admittedly small, but it's not zero, and in my view a potential harm that serious outweighs the relatively minor benefit of covering the event.—S MarshallT/C 23:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is some risk of that, I agree. But there is also the hope that it will discourage copycat behavior by understanding just how much it hurt loved ones. Also, it can help get people to think about the impact of bullying (and is used as such in one of the sources I listed). I believe it would be a net positive--but I certainly can't prove that. Hobit (talk) 00:07, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore and list at AfD. AfD is where we decide which articles we keep and which we don't. So far, we've taken several detours around that process. The AfD that was held was closed after less than a day. Then we had the first DRV. Then it was promoted via Articles for Creation, which doesn't count for much. And, finally, it was speedy deleted. None of these involve the community spending a full seven days discussing the merits (or lack thereof) and the discussion being closed by a neutral party. And, trout to whoever thought recreating it under a different title was a good thing to do. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:28, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The different titles are unfortunate, but as mentioned above the old and new articles were created by different people. I believe the creator of the new didn't know about the old. In other words, multiple people are wondering why Wikipedia doesn't say anything about this high profile event, and are starting drafts about it. That said, I believe the new title "Suicide of Katelyn Nicole Davis" is better than the old "Suicide of Katelyn Davis". A general Google search on ""Katelyn Nicole Davis"" returns 162,000 hits, while searching ""Katelyn Davis"" returns 88,000. Many of the other youth suicide pages on Category:Bullying_and_suicide also include their first, middle, and last names. Another reason why the new article is a major improvement upon the old. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 21:42, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The creator of the new article must have known about the old version because s/he copied it. Hut 8.5 23:25, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, it would have been better for them to start with the new draft having the same name as the old, and only after it enters article space do a rename to the better title. Anyway, RoySmith makes a point. There hasn't been a decent quality AfD for this article yet, or a real opportunity for a variety of people to discuss whether it should exist in the first place. That's why many comments on both sides that would be more suited for a AfD such as "show a bit of compassion" are appearing here. We've kind of expanded beyond the original issue of "is the new article sufficiently different from the old" in added/removed content/sources to justify G4. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 22:41, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see I haven't !voted here so endorse having the article remaining deleted on the basis of my and other people's remarks above. Thincat (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per IAR. We really don't do ourselves any favors having an article like this out there. Let's show a bit of compassion.--WaltCip (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know the parents, but I can't imagine if my daughter had gone through something like this that I wouldn't try to make the most of it in helping others. I just see it not being compassionate to the family to delete the article. No policy basis for that one way or the other (as you say, IAR), but I wanted to say how I feel about what is and isn't compassionate here. Hobit (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
There is now (finally) enough specific information so that an article is appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move draft to mainspace two common objections in the previous AfDs were that there was no concrete information about the games, only vague expressions of interest by some cities/countries, and that the 2028 games hadn't been awarded yet. Neither of those is the case any more: this is now the next games which hasn't been awarded and Draft:2032 Summer Olympics documents that there are some actual announced bids as opposed to expressions of interest. That's easily enough to justify reopening the issue. Hut 8.5 21:57, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I should add that the current salting expires in 2027. That's far too late as the games will likely be awarded several years earlier. Hut 8.5 19:14, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move draft to mainspace as reviewer. There is now enough information for a separate article. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace per above. As I explained on the draft page, the WP:TOOSOON concerns are no longer valid, and notability is not and never was an issue. I don't even understand why we need to wait seven days for what's likely to be an overwhelming consensus to move it. Smartyllama (talk) 13:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Smartyllama or anyone else - Can someone check the weather forecast somewhere in Northern Europe or Canada for snow? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to mainspace per above. Reliable sources added that bolster case for move. Bkissin (talk) 17:12, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Clearly notable now. Normally I would just accept the draft, but he's been deleted too much and the page is protected. Should just be an easy procedural unsalt/accept draft, not sure why we're all the way at DRV. SportingFlyertalk 20:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SportingFlyer - I tried to accept it. I can't override the salting without an admin. That is why we are at DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, we're at DRV because you failed to follow the instructions, which say, Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. Had you done so, I would have almost certainly just unsalted the mainspace title. Which I have now done. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:33, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It contained some very useful information, and was being improved by adding links and the dates they were formed and the dates they were reorganized, and which ones were discontinued and such. RobThomas15 (talk) 13:08, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse looks like a perfectly valid close, the argument for deletion is well grounded, nobody was able to rebut it convincingly, and there was a substantial numerical majority for deletion. If you'd like to host the content somewhere else I'm sure it can be emailed to you. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion. The deletion discussion was well-attended, the consensus was reasonably clear both in number and in argument – the fact point the article runs hopelessly afoul of WP:NOTDIR was not rebutted – and I find everything has been correctly done. Deletion review is a place to deal with failures to follow deletion process, not to re-argue points that were or should have been raised at the AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The closing of the deletion discussion was an accurate reading of consensus, and the deletion was well-grounded in policy. SportingFlyertalk 20:35, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I believes the closer of the AfD discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. Although the delete/keep ratio was 2:1, a rough consensus, not enough weight was given by the closer to the arguments on policy from the keep editors. Of the stated arguments the closer cited as being convincing, WP:LISTN was refuted in argument, including citing sources that discuss the defined membership of the list. In the other argument, the closer reworded the definition of the list to create a different basis for the decision than the actual definition of the list. Thank you for your consideration on this. Mark Ironie (talk) 02:55, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The result should have been no consensus. The editors who actually contribute to Native American topics on Wikipedia all voted to keep, and the many delete votes came from individuals who had never previously been involved with Native American topics. Yuchitown (talk) 03:33, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
Comments from closing admin - I'm not sure I understand exactly how I "reworded the definition of the list", and would appreciate clarification of that. Here's my take on the definition / inclusion criteria for this list:
Before the AfD started, the article's first sentence stated:
This list of self-identified people of Cherokee ancestry includes notable people who claimed Cherokee ancestry but are not enrolled citizens of any of the three Cherokee tribes.
By the end of the AfD, the first sentence had been slightly tweaked to
This list of self-identified people of Cherokee ancestry includes notable people who have stated that they have some Cherokee ancestry but are not enrolled citizens of any of the three Cherokee tribes.
In my closure of the AfD, I wrote:
The introductory sentence of this article implies that the article is intended to be a list of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry.
I believe that all three of these statements are essentially identical, and therefore I didn't change the definition of anything. Furthermore, in an attempt to prove the notability of the list, Mark Ironie pointed out some sources that discuss the phenomenon of people who falsely claim Cherokee ancestry, clearly implying that he believes this to be the inclusion criteria for this list. If I'm mistaken and that's not the inclusion criteria for this list, please enlighten us as to the correct definition.
Assuming that I'm not mistaken and the intent is that this list includes only notable people who have falsely claimed Cherokee status, then I still believe that there is a compelling argument for the inclusion criteria and the overall concept of this list to be fundamentally flawed. As many people have already pointed out, it is possible for a person to have Cherokee ancestry while not being enrolled citizens of a Cherokee tribe. Therefore, basing the criteria of this list on citizenship within a Cherokee tribe is inherently problematic, as we could be mistakenly including people in this list who legitimately have Cherokee ancestry but are not an enrolled citizen (inviting BLP problems). If you remove the citizenship criteria, it becomes even more problematic, because proving someone's ancestry is hard enough, but disproving their ancestry claim is nearly impossible.
I admit that I may have missed some of the sources that demonstrated the notability of the list. Some of the ones given in the AfD were not necessarily from reliable sources, but I have since seen some sources that are, so I'm willing to lower the impact of that argument. However, the arguments given in this AfD about problematic inclusion criteria are still strong enough (along with a 2-to-1 ratio of delete votes) for me to call this AfD as a clear Delete. Thanks to Mark Ironie for keeping this civil, I know that emotions can run high when an AfD doesn't go the way you want it to. ‑Scottywong| gab _ 04:08, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not in any position to declare some people to be falsely claiming to be of Cherokee descent and others to be accurately claiming Cherokee descent (without being enrolled); that would require forbidden original research. The list simply was for people who have stated that they are of Cherokee descent (i.e. exactly how the list was defined), which would be an umbrella for both groups. Probably the most thorough academic investigation of this topic (including actual and perceived descendants) would be Circe Sturm's Becoming Indian: The Struggle over Cherokee Identity in the Twenty-first Century (School for Advanced Research, 2011), the result of 14-years+ of ethnographic research. Yuchitown (talk) 04:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Yuchitown[reply]
The introductory sentence of this article has always stated that the list contains people who have self-identified as Cherokee but are not enrolled citizens of a Cherokee tribe. It's not simply a list of notable people who have publicly self-identified as Cherokee. Yes, it's true that the article doesn't come out and explicitly say that it's "a list of people who have falsely claimed to have Cherokee ancestry" or "a list of people whose claims of Cherokee ancestry cannot be verified", but that's obviously what the intent is. However, if you wanted to change the intent of the list to simply be people who have said that they have Cherokee ancestry, then I think you'd run into legitimate notability problems, because the simple act of claiming ancestry is not notable enough for a list. This is why we don't have articles like List of people of self-identified Italian ancestry. ‑Scottywong| talk _ 00:34, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted - The closing admin correctly interpreted both the clear consensus of !votes and the policy-based arguments. There are no other "List of people of self-identified XXX ancestry" articles on Wikipedia. Where we have ethnicity lists, such as List of African Americans, they do not contain an implicitly-skeptical question in the title ("self-identified") and are instead simply and solely based on reliable sources. We do not say that someone is a "self-identified" African American, if reliable sources state that they are African American, and no justification has been made as to why we would treat people of Cherokee ancestry any differently. The clear intent of the list's authors, as expressed on the article talk page, deletion discussion, and a WikiProject thread, is to "name and shame" people who they believe are "falsely claiming" to be of Cherokee ancestry. A List of people who have falsely claimed Cherokee ancestry would be a createable article, if properly sourced. But that's not the article which was deleted. It's incumbent on us to remember that foundational policy requires us to treat living people with sensitivity, and treating people's statements of their ancestry with a "default skepticism" is simply not how we should be writing articles.
The problem in question is clearly displayed by the deletion review initiator, in this talk page post in which they declare that Being Cherokee, both historically and currently, is a matter of sovereign tribal definition. If someone claims to have Cherokee ancestors, then they should be able to name the specific ancestor(s). Constructed identity is not the same as genealogical fact or proof. That is the whole point of the list. In the case of biography of notable people in particular, it seems rare that the official, self-written bio information appended to their work is questioned. Claiming Cherokee ancestry is not some black box, unverifiable or unknowable. It is knowable and verifiable.
There are a multitude of problems with this concept of an article which Mark Ironie wishes to create. For starters, it is not up to us to declare or enforce the idea that being Cherokee is a matter of sovereign tribal definition. Certainly Cherokee citizenship is definable by the tribe, but Cherokee ancestry is a much murkier concept — the tribe has no special control or knowledge of a person's ethnic background, and if the tribe has a POV on someone's ancestry, that might be useful to include but it certainly is not entitled to any special privilege or status here. A tribe cannot tell someone what their ancestry is.
Secondly, the statement that If someone claims to have Cherokee ancestors, then they should be able to name the specific ancestor(s) is a textbook definition of what Wikipedia is not. We are here to write an encyclopedia article based on reliable sources, not make demands of biographical subjects. It is absolutely never our role to decide what level of evidence someone needs before stating their own ancestry. That's what reliable sources are for. If reliable sources say someone has Cherokee ancestry, that is, as far as we are concerned, the end of the story.
Thirdly, constructed identity is not the same as genealogical fact or proof is a great argument as to why we should not have a List of people of self-identified Cherokee ancestry. Again, we are not here to ask for "genealogical fact or proof." We are here to write articles based on reliable sources. If reliable sources say someone is of Cherokee ancestry, we should say that. If they don't, we shouldn't say that.
Fourthly, In the case of biography of notable people in particular, it seems rare that the official, self-written bio information appended to their work is questioned is another clear demonstration of the idea that this list is supposed to right great wrongs which are found in reliable sources. It may well be unfortunate that such biographical information is rarely questioned, but we are not here to question it. That's not our role as Wikipedians.
Lastly, Claiming Cherokee ancestry is not some black box, unverifiable or unknowable. It is knowable and verifiable again suggests that the article is intended for us to step beyond our role as Wikipedians and declare ourselves the arbiter of such claims. It is not our job to verify a person's statements of their own ancestry. Once again, if reliable sources say someone is of Cherokee ancestry, we have no grounds to declare, by fiat, that they are merely "self-identifying" as having Cherokee ancestry. And if reliable sources don't say that someone is of Cherokee ancestry, then that person shouldn't be on a list of people of Cherokee ancestry!
The evidence is clear: this list was intended to right great wrongs and present people who say they have Cherokee ancestry in a skeptical light, in essence declaring them to be liars unless proven otherwise. That's entirely backward and upside down from how we're supposed to write articles, and the deletion was proper. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - The closing statement shows that the closer did indeed evaluate arguments from both sides instead of simply counting votes, and I don't see where the WP:LISTN argument was "refuted". This list had foundational sourcing issues that were not addressed by "keep" !votes: Although reliable sources do discuss the overall issue of people falsely claiming Cherokee ancestry, very few of the entries actually had sources that discussed this for these particular individuals. There is also a dearth of sources that discuss ancestry vs. citizenship: Most sources are satisfied with the fact that an individual has Cherokee ancestors, regardless of whether or not they have registered as tribal members. Wikipedia is limited by what has already been published by reliable sources which means that we cannot be on the forefront of "naming and shaming". –dlthewave☎ 16:46, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a good close of a difficult AfD, and one in which I think consensus was accurately read. I agree with the closer's detailed summary of the close and remarks above. SportingFlyertalk 22:44, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I think the closing admin's summary of the issue above is a good one, and there are substantial problems about the scope of the list. The topic of people claiming to be Native American who don't meet requirements for being considered Native American (and Cherokee specifically) does appear to be notable. However the list focused on people who are not enrolled members of the recognised Cherokee tribes. Not being an enrolled member doesn't prove that someone doesn't have Cherokee ancestry, as the requirements for enrollment in many tribes are a lot stronger than that. It doesn't even prove that the person wouldn't qualify for membership of the tribe. On the other hand a list of people who are falsely claiming Cherokee ancestry would have very serious problems, as it is extremely difficult to disprove an ancestry claim. I do think that both types of list also run into serious BLP issues, as they essentially accuse the subject of lying. Given this argument and the numerical majority for deletion the closure was reasonable. I would suggest that people here refrain from ad hominem arguments. What counts here is the quality of the argument, not the person making it. Hut 8.5 08:06, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, close was good and no process failures have been identified. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse deletion - no procedural or substantive issue with close. Neutralitytalk 03:14, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
I originally closed this as disruptive, and blocked the nom. I've since become aware that they have an extensive history on other projects, so I've come to the conclusion that my reaction may have been excessive. AINH stated on their talk page that the reason they want this restored is because they, want to create the exact same article on zhwiki and I prefer to start a page by translating it rather than start from scratch. I don't know what policies are in place on zhwiki, but on en, the desire to translate an article to another project is not a valid reason to restore it here, so this nomination fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. In any case, the deleted article is such a shambles, if WP:A7 didn't apply, then any of WP:A1, WP:G1, or possibly WP:G11 might have. -- RoySmith(talk) 17:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well the only content of the deleted page was the infobox from World War I, where the creator changed a few fields to have stuff about the subject matter, breaking the formatting in the process. I can't see how that could possibly be useful in encyclopedia article and it's certainly close to the intersection of several speedy deletion criteria. Somebody else has written PewDiePie vs T-Series about the same subject, and that page does have actual prose, references and the other things we expect from an encyclopedia article, so I suggest the OP just contribute to that one (or translate it). Hut 8.5 18:37, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. Thanks-AINH (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per the above comments on content being non-existent, of the sources I can read no one describes it as "the great subscriber war" etc. Maybe this as an event has some notability, but likely within the articles on the individuals as a footnote as present and certainly not under an exaggerated title. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 22:39, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
