The article is worthy of presence in Wikipedia, citations have been improved and more citations can be added. Lazy-restless (talk) 07:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more specific. The deletion decision was (largely) based on, sources are primary, unreliable or not independent. If you believe that no longer to be the case, you need to list here sources where are WP:SECONDARY, WP:RELIABLE, and WP:INDEPENDENT. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:09, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Endorse, but allow re-creation with new sources. As I started reading the above list, my first thought was, "Hey, this LIFE reference is pretty good", which led me to invest more time reading the others. Some of them look pretty reasonable, others look like passing mentions. But, the real problem is, every single one of them was in the version of the article that was reviewed at AfD. So, what's changed since the AfD which would make its conclusion no longer valid? -- RoySmith(talk) 16:04, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Send to AfD I think the redirect consensus feels like a compromise close rather than a true reading of what the editors who participated said which I see as a merge at minimum. However, given the length of time since that AfD and because consensus can change , I think it's worth considering whether the strong set of sources above would pass community muster now. This is obviously not the place to have that discussion and I feel bad given that the editor was directed here by a new page patroller, but at a certain point I think DRV becomes stale and it's certainly with-in the timeframe here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:43, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I don not see a likely change is the decision. The references are mere mentions. DGG ( talk ) 22:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC) --[reply]
RoySmith, please, check the page history of last week carefully, all the references I mentioned here are new, which I have added two days before, I think you should change your previous comment where you said the references was almost present in the time of AfD and there is no new in the article, check out here, this is the version while AfD was closing. Lazy-restless (talk) 18:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, you are correct. Not sure what I was looking at; I think what happened was not noticing July 2019 vs July 2015. In any case, thank you for the correction. I have updated my comment, above. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Hope other editors who commented will also check this and review it again. Tagging Barkeep49, DGG. - Lazy-restless (talk) 14:00, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Association, American Book Trade; Union, American Book Trade; Philadelphia, Book Trade Association of; Trade, Publishers' Board of (1992). Publishers Weekly. Whitinsville, Mass. : R. R. Bowker Company. p. 156. Retrieved 31 July 2019..
Besides, I can give a lot of translation book link of the book in different prominent language from google books. Anyone can find them by searching with the writers name in the google books, which are worthy long in number to count to an end. see it here. Here are some links. There are countless translations. Few of them i gave below and got bored of collecting the links, so please search in google books with outhors name with inverted comma: inauthor:"Michael H. Hart". Many more translations are also found with the help of google translator by translating authors name in non-latin letter's languages on google books.
The current redirect seems fine to me. This is not at all a major piece of work. Guy (Help!) 20:38, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
*Endorse I don't see anything source-wise which would cause me to believe an AfD wouldn't be a waste of time. SportingFlyerT·C 21:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Cunard: Sorry mate, it's now source-bombed and I don't have the time to go through all of them at the moment - would you mind telling me which WP:THREE quality sources are the ones I should be focused on? Will take a look then. SportingFlyerT·C 18:42, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer (talk·contribs), here are three of the quality sources (among the many quality sources in the list):
Endorse the 2015 AfD decision to redirect. The recent bold attempt to revert the redirect was reverted. Procedurally, this calls for a discussion at the redirect target's talk page, Talk:Michael H. Hart, to establish a consensus for reversing the AfD decision and to WP:SPINOUT a subarticle on the book. There was no deletion, and so this is not in scope for DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore because the page is "not substantially identical to the redirected version" (paraphrasing from WP:CSD#G4) and because I have found 33 reliable sources about the book that strongly establish notability because they were published over a period of 31 years and are from multiple countries.
I therefore supporting restoring the article on the basis that {{db-repost}} does not apply.
A second reason to restore is I have also found numerous sources that establish notability.
Summary of the 33 sources
The book received sustained coverage in reliable sources over a period of 30 years: 1978, 1980, 1981, 1987, 1988, 1992, 1993, 1998, 2002, 2003, and 2009.
The book received substantial coverage in a journal article in Business Horizons.
Negative coverage of the book
Charles Solomon of the Los Angeles Times criticized the book, writing, "his jejune volume stands out as a textbook example of culutural parochialism: Hart's list includes three Africans, two women and one South American. His mini-biographies of his choices feature such arbitrary, unsubstantiated pronouncements as ..."
Ken McGoogan wrote in the Calgary Herald wrote, "If Michael H. Hart has done nothing else, he has demonstrated that picking a public fight can be profitable. Hart is the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, revised and updated for the '90s (Citadel Press, $24)."
Frederic Raphael wrote in The Sunday Times, "In today's climate of overweight biographies, this unassumingly corpulent century of famous lives has a welcome Plutarchian succinctness. If it has a weakness, it is not inaccuracy (the exposition seems clear and the facts reliable), but monotony. The writing is unpretentious, but it is also po-faced. When it comes to the scientific fraternity, there is little awareness of confusions or contradictions. In Newton's case, who would guess that his rationalisation of science was accompanied, perhaps fuelled, by a belief in alchemy which took him at least to the edge of madness? Perhaps, by the same token, if Hart had not been driven by his ranking frenzy, he would not have had the energy to complete this eminently decent, marginally dotty compilation. Its only serious deficiency is the lack of even a rudimentary bibliography."
Barbara W. Tuchman wrote in The Washington Post, "The superabundance of science and applied science in the list (30 out of 100) is remarkable in view of the absence of any figure in law, architecture, poetry, business or the labor movement. ... Mr. Hart finds it "worth noting" that his list contains only three persons who lived from the 10th to the 15th centuries. This demonstrates only Mr. Hart's limitations, not those of the Middle Ages."
Edwin O. Reischauer wrote in The Washington Post, "I find 38 names from the fields of science or technology, to 17 or so conquerors and explorers, to two each in literature, art and music. Even a non-esthetic type like myself is shocked. The English-speaking corner of the world has 24. A man from outer space should have no difficulty in determining the cultural background and interest of our list maker."
Walter C. Langsam wrote in The Cincinnati Enquirer, "When an Enquirer editor asked me whether I would comment on Michael Hart's [book], I replied I had not read the book and, indeed, had no desire to read it. For, in my opinion, no one can rank accurately the hundred most-anything among all the men and women who have peopled the Earth since the beginning of history. Yet, inasmuch as the editor is unusually persuasive, and since I was promised a summary of author's selection criteria and his list of rankings, I agreed to the request. Would that I had remained firm in my initial reaction!"
Positive coverage of the book
In 1988, Hosni Mubarak, the President of Egypt, honored Michael H. Hart, the author of the book, in Cairo for naming Mohammed as the most influential person in history.
Michael Gartner wrote in The Wall Street Journal, "But that's just the beginning of the debates that Michael Hart can start. For he has boldly come out with a ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and his ranking will stir more dinner-table discussion than even a list of the 10 best films of 1977 or the 10 worst restaurants in New York. ... Hart's fascinating book contains brief biographies of his 100 and, often, explanations of why the 98 men and two women (Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I) are ranked where they are. The book is a concise and readable history of the world. Hart proves to be a clear writer and a fine teacher—few readers will recognize all 100 names on the list."
Mike Barnicle wrote in The Boston Globe, "In terms of upsetting people, Michael Hart is the new champion. He is the author of a collection of names entitled 'The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History.'"
The Washington Post "asked three nationally-known thinkers to assess Michael Hart's list in his book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History". The "three nationally-known thinkers" who wrote essays about the list in the book were Chaim Potok, Edwin O. Reischauer, and Barbara W. Tuchman.
Albert Hofammann wrote in The Morning Call that it is "a curious book with some curious bits of information" and "could create a parlor game among contentious guests".
Jane Sullivan wrote in The Age, "That perverse inclusion of the totally obscure amoung the more conventional big guns of the encyclopaedias is what gives Dr Hart's book all the fascination of a good parlor game. ... The facts are sometimes trite, but it is the arguments for each rating which provide the real fun."
Arnie Arnesen wrote in The Boston Globe, "The 100 is an interesting hybrid. ... The list is an exclusive product of author Michael Hart. He brilliantly defends his choices and their ranking with pithy descriptions of each."
Janice Harayda wrote in The Plain Dealer, "Hart generally presents his evidence clearly, intelligently and without special pleading. This tends to give his arguments plausibility even when their conclusions are debatable, as when John F. Kennedy (No. 81) wins a ranking but not Abraham Lincoln, who is only in a roundup of 'Honorable Mentions and Interesting Misses' at the back of the book."
Michael H. Hart is an astronomer, a chessmaster — in short, a ponderer and puzzler. For the last three years, the main focus of his pondering and puzzling has been human history. All of it. His goal — to answer an essentially unimportant but fascinating question: Who were the 100 most influential individuals of all time?
He has detailed his list in a new book, to be released April 2, entitled "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." It is a thick volume, sketching the biographies of his choices, running down his reasons for putting them in the order he did, and even including a long list of runners-up.
...
Hart's book, besides being a useful encapsulation of world history, is an endless source of heady debate. So, for the sake of argument, and with permission from Hart and his publisher, the Free Press has summarized hist list, giving some of his reasons for picking his top 10 and a quick description of those who fell in the next 90.
Michael H. Hart, whose qualifications include degrees in mathematics, law, physics and astronomy, is the author of a new volume, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, which is bound to create a lot of discussion.
...
Taken into equal account by the writer, whose research and perseverance must have been prodigious, these were persons who influenced past generations as well as the present situation of mankind.
...
His book sells at $12.50 and its publisher is listed as Hart Publishing Co. (Maybe Michael Hart is nearly as close to Renaissance Man as some of the people he hails.)
Even those addicted to soap operas and the music of Rod Stewart can learn a lot from Hart's book.
Now, dear reader, Hart has made a list: The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History ... and ... a biographical sketch of the persons on the list. ...
...
Hart seems to have at his disposal a very sensitive instrument, such as a fire-gauge to measure influence of a person; not only the present influence can be measured — but he can set the gauge back and measure past influence. Perhaps he can also turn the gauge forward and measure future influence. It must be very accurate — for the author came up with this reader for Beethoven: ...
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Hart: $12.50; illustrated). The key word in this inflammatory title is "Influential," not "Greatest," and therein lies Hart's justification for including many of history's bad guys (i.e., Hitler) while ignoring many of the good guys (i.e., Mother Cabrini). Hart's ranking system may seem outrageous to some—Muhammad is ranked first, followed by Newton and then Christ—but the book is nonetheless thought-provoking and utterly absorbing.
Hart, an astronomer who investigates planetary atmospheres for the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., came down to earth to write "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." He said he chose, not the most famous or talented, but "the hundred who had the greatest impact on history and our everyday lives." The book, which took three years to research and write, is now in its second printing.
His first ten selections are Muhammad, Sir Isaac Newton, Jesus, Buddha, Confucius, St. Paul, Ts'ai Lun, Gutenberg, Columbus, Einstein.
...
Hart, 46, short, balding, shy, and rated a chess master, lives in a Washington suburb with his wife, Sherry, and their two young sons. He is also a lawyer. After practicing law for eight years he decided that science was more interesting, if less lucrative, and returned to school to get a masters in physics at Adelphi and a Ph.D in astronomy from Princeton.
The idea for "The 100" came when he concluded that historians have given us a one-sided view by over-playing the role of political and military leaders.
Michael H. Hart is a short, nervous Ph.D who ditched law to become an astronomer. Now, at 45, he lists his version of the 100 standout people, "stars" who have been confined to the planet earth.
Hart's book, "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," is a highly debatable who's who that is generating controversy ranging from the amused to the heated. It was printed by his father's publishing house.
But that's just the beginning of the debates that Michael Hart can start. For he has boldly come out with a ranking of the 100 most influential persons in history, and his ranking will stir more dinner-table discussion than even a list of the 10 best films of 1977 or the 10 worst restaurants in New York.
...
Hart's fascinating book contains brief biographies of his 100 and, often, explanations of why the 98 men and two women (Isabella and Queen Elizabeth I) are ranked where they are. The book is a concise and readable history of the world. Hart proves to be a clear writer and a fine teacher—few readers will recognize all 100 names on the list.
Muhammad, says Michael Hart, who lists the prophet of Islam as his No. 1 choice in his book, "The 100, a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
He decided to write the book after a friend challenged him to compile a list of the greatest persons in history. The book took three years to research.
...
The author does research in astronomy at the Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., and is a visiting professor at the University of Maryland.
Americans love lists—the 10 best, the 10 worst and so on—and now an astronomer and amateur historian named Michael Hart has given us something to chew on all winter with his own list of the 100 most influential people who ever lived.
This list, along with Hart's explanation of his choices, is published in "The 100" (Hart), a book that runs to 572 pages and costs $12.50. The reader is invited to challenge Hart's selections, and as Newsweek magazine notes, "It's a game anyone can play, and at one time or another, almost everyone does."
I haven't read the book, but the list if published in Newsweek, and I see no reason why I have to read Hart's arguments to quarrel with them. He probably won't read mine either.
Green, Blake (1978-09-22). "The 100 Most Influential Persons in History". San Francisco Chronicle. p. 24.
The article notes:
...
For all that insight, Edison ended up only No. 38 on Michael Hart's list of the "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
...
There was a time when it was all so much fun and games to Hart as well. Then, the list, which began as a dinner-table conversation with friends, grew into a book and has proceed to arouse a fair amount of interest and controversy.
The most influential person throughout the ages has been, according to Hart, Muhammad. The third most influential was Jesus. You can see right there that a lot of people are going to disagree.
...
There were several basic rules Hart followed:
Influence is not synonymous with fame. This is why very few figures from the arts are listed and none from the entertainment or sports even considered.
...
The list is "based on what actually did occur, not what should have happened." Therefore Hart says he saw no reason to "cover up the disagreeable fact of discrimination by adding a few token women" and minorities (by U.S., not world, standards). "To be influential," he explained, "one needs opportunity as well as talent. If Einstein (No. 10) had come from Africa, he probably would not have invented the theory of relativity.
In terms of upsetting people, Michael Hart is the new champion. He is the author of a collection of names entitled "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
Hart has placed Mohammed No. 1 because he was the founder of Islam. This is a religion and not a restaurant in Worcester.
Any list that tries to rank Jesus, Buddha, Moses and Einstein in some order of importance is bound to run into trouble. When the subject is influence on world history, the controversy is inadequate. Yet Michael Hart ran this gantlet in his recent book, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," and he put Mohammed and Isaac Newton over all of the above.
Hart is an astroomer, mathematician, lawyer, physicist, chess master and amateur historian. His criteria for influence provokes thought on the way history is made and its villains and heroes decided.
The Washington Post asked three nationally-known thinkers to assess Michael Hart's list in his book, The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History. Here are their comments.
Mr. Hart's criteria that only "real persons" were eligible for listing and that emphasis be on influence not greatness, are plain enough. The decision to equate "a significant impact on one important country" with "a less commanding influence affecting the entire Earth," offers a less tangible guideline. And the goal "to divide the credit for a given development in proportion to each participant's contribution" seems me unattainable. The resulting attempt to calculate, for example, who should be ranked 71 instead of 70 or 72, vividly reminds me of my history professor of 55 years ago, who recorded numerical grades "only to the third decimal place," because carrying them further would be "a little difficult."
Bearing in mind that Mr. Hart is a scientist, it is not astonishing that the list of 100 includes some 37 scientists and inventors. There are 28 persons from Great Britain and the United States. All Western, Central, and Northern Europe, excluding Great Britain, are represented by 39 names; the Near East and Middle East by 12; the Far East, mainly China and India, by 11; Ancient Greece and Rome by six; Russia by three and Latin America by Boliva.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Hart Publishing Co., 572 Pages, $12.50) is a curious book with some curious bits of information. The size is slightly larger than normal, and the volume includes appendices, index, a historical chart and copious illustrations. The title is a clue to the approach — influential in the course of history, not the greatest. Hart, an astronomer, ranks the 100 in what he considers order of influence: Muhammad is No. 1; physicist Niels Bohr is 100. The author adds a list of 100 runners-up and selects 10 of these also-rans for short analyses to explain why he rejected them from the top list. The book could create a parlor game among contentious guests.
Rankings of all kinds, from football teams to churches, from places to live to academic programs, compiled on the basis of age, quality, speed, or any of a number of other criteria, appear to fascinate people today. Michael Hart, the author of The 100, is quite obviously fascinated with those individuals who, by their achievements, have influenced the development of human history. This fascination has led Mr. Hart to select, rank, and comment upon those one hundred individuals who, in his opinion, have had the most significant influence upon the manner and quality of the way in which each of us goes about living our everyday lives.
...
The result of Mr. Hart's work is both entertaining and interesting, but most of all quite revealing. While reading this book I found myself continually challenging the rankings of Mr. Hart (who placed Sir Isaac Newton ahead of Jesus Christ) and his observations on the accomplishments of each individual. In the process, I discovered that making such choices reveals much to each individual concerning his own values and priorities. Mr, Hart's values are indicated by his inclusion of thirty-seven scientists and inventors in the top one hundred and only eleven religious leaders and six artists and literary figures; seventy-one Europeans and only eighteen Asians, and only one woman, Queen Elizabeth I.
...
While it is both entertaining and instructive to examine the lives of those individuals who stand out in history as giants, perhaps the greatest value of Mr. Hart's book lies in its ability to make the reader think seriously about his or her own values.
If not, improve your store of bizarre information and discover why Michael Hart places Ts'ai Lun at Number Seven on his list of the 100 most influential persons in history, ahead of Gutenberg, Columbus and Einstein.
That perverse inclusion of the totally obscure amoung the more conventional big guns of the encyclopaedias is what gives Dr Hart's book all the fascination of a good parlor game. As he points out, influence is not the same as fame or talent or virtue. He is looking for the 100 persons who had the greatest effect on history and on the course of the world.
Dr Hart lays out his ground rules for assessing influence in his introduction, then plunges into his potted biographies. The facts are sometimes trite, but it is the arguments for each rating which provide the real fun.
"The 100: A Ranking of History's Most Influential Persons" by Michael H. Hart ($12.95 paperback, $19.95 hard cover) is the latest release from the Citadel Press.
For good or bad, the 100 men and women described in this book swayed the destinies of billions of people, determined the rise and fall of civilizations and transformed the course of history.
The author's selections and evaluations are challenging and certain to invite lively debate among readers.
The book gives a brief biography describing the career and contributions of each person, as well as an analysis of his or her importance.
In addition, the author offers a listing of "honorable mentions and interesting misses."
Seventy-one of the 100 are from Europe, 18 from Asia, seven from the United States one from South America and three from Africa.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael H. Hart (Citadel, $12.95). The inventor of the wheel is not in here; the poor fellow neglected to leave his name. Otherwise, he would be because, as Hart notes, he was far more influential than Muhammad, who is at the top of the list, making him the most influential person in history. "My choice of Muhammad . . . may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others," Hart writes. So you can see what we have here, a tome of nearly 600 pages full of biographies, each including the author's arguments for ranking each as he did, and in some cases, for ranking him at all.
Egypt will honor Michael H. Hart, an Anne Arundel Community College professor of astronomy who stunned the scientific community in the '70s by questioning the existence of extraterrestrials, for a feat having nothing to do with the stars.
Mr. Hart, who also has garnered acclaim as an amateur historian, will be honored Sunday in Cairo by Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for naming Mohammed, the founder of Islam, the world's second-most-followed religion, as the most influential person in history.
Mohammed was awarded the top spot in Mr. Hart's controversial 1978 book, "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History," for more than religious reasons, the author said.
The way things look for the fathers of communism in the latest revision of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, Marx, Mao, Lenin and Stalin soon may be mistaken for a personal injury law firm.
In the edition released today -- an update of the original 1978 listing -- Karl Marx, formerly No. 11, finds himself ranked 27th, one rung below George Washington.
...
The original edition caused a fuss 14 years ago by ranking Jesus No. 3. Christians don't cotton to No. 3 rankings of their deities. But Hart's listing sold 70,000 copies and inspired endless hours of dinner-table debate.
...
In 1978, when the first edition of The 100 was published, Hart believed that communism might endure for decades or even centuries. He now contends that the world's last communist regimes may disintegrate within 20 years.
...
Hart's wholly arbitrary listing still leaves acres of room for debate, even among the forces of democracy.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History by Michael H. Hart (Citadel Press: $18.95; 556 pp., illustrated). Lists of the most, best, etc. generally tell the reader more about the author's tastes than about the ostensible subject, and "100" suggests that Hart has an oddly limited view of history. It may not be surprising that an astronomer would include more scientist/inventors and political/military leaders than artistic/literary figures (67 to 5, with Picasso, Mozart, Stravinsky, Dante and Leonardo ranking among the notable omissions). But this jejune volume stands out as a textbook example of culutural parochialism: Hart's list includes three Africans, two women and one South American. His mini-biographies of his choices feature such arbitrary, unsubstantiated pronouncements as "Although Johann Sebastian Bach is almost equally prestigious, Beethoven's works have been more widely and more frequently listened to than Bach's.
History's 10 most influential people haven't lost their pop, 14 years after they first were ranked, but a few of the next 90 have shifted in importance. And artist Pablo Picasso and physicists Niels Bohr and Antoine Henri Becquerel are plumb out of luck.
Such is the view of Michael H. Hart, who recently compiled the second edition of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History (Citadel, $25). The Virginia scholar and astrophysicist has graduate degrees in various fields from Cornell, Adelphi and Princeton universities, and from New York Law School.
Between his 1978 edition and the 1992 edition, out this week, some world theologians, philosophers, scientists and artists have lost importance as others have loomed larger on the world stage.
New to the list are nuclear physicist Ernest Rutherford (No. 56), industrialist Henry Ford (91) and Mikhail Gorbachev (95), ex-leader of the former Soviet Union.
The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, by Michael Hart (Citadel Press, $25, 556 pages). Revised and updated for the current decade, Annandale resident Michael Hart ranks the 100 most influential persons in history and gives a brief but detailed biography of each, complete with black-and-white illustrations.
Mr. Hart's arrangement of entries in the book is somewhat unusual. The individuals are not listed alphabetically or chronologically, but in order of importance, as the author sees it.
He rates Muhammad, the Muslim prophet, as the most influential person in history, a rating sure to upset readers in a mostly Christian nation. (Mr. Hart ranks Jesus Christ as the third most influential). The author claims that his choices are not necessarily meant to represent the greatest individuals in history, only those who influenced the destinies of the most people, determined the rise and decline of civilizations and altered the course of history.
If Michael H. Hart has done nothing else, he has demonstrated that picking a public fight can be profitable. Hart is the author of The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History, revised and updated for the '90s (Citadel Press, $24).
How about, for starters, ranking both Muhammad and Isaac Newton ahead of Jesus Christ? Or including John F. Kennedy while relegating Benjamin Franklin and Abraham Lincoln to a list of "honorable mentions and interesting misses."
Hart offers arguments and thumbnail biographies. And did I mention profitable? First published in 1978, The 100 has sold more than 60,000 copies.
Author Michael H. Art has recently released a second addition of his 1978 publication "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History" (Citadel $25). In "The 100" Hart (who has a degree from New York Law School, is an astrophysicist and also earned graduate degrees in a variety of fields from Cornell, Adelphi and Princeton) has assembled a list of people whom he, in his learned opinion, believes have most influenced the history of mankind.
"Some talk of Alexander, and some of Hercules, of Hector and Lysander, and such great names as these." And some, including Michael Hart, would drop all of the above, with the exception of Alexander, from their squad of the 100 most influential persons in history. ...
...
Most of the entries are sanely argued, although John F Kennedy seems lucky to be in at 81. The case for his inclusion is based not on his sexual scope or iconic fame, but on his sponsoring of the space programme. JFK thus modules in ahead of Mani (the third-century prophet who brought you Manichaeism) at 83, and Lenin at 84. Vladimir Ilyich has had a big fall since the unpredicted collapse of communism, which procures Mikhail Gorbachev his involuntary eminence at 95. Mahavira (b. 599BC) is tail-end Charlie: hands up all those apart from Jains, his followers who had him, and not Elvis Presley, on their list. It's tough even at the bottom of the top.
...
In today's climate of overweight biographies, this unassumingly corpulent century of famous lives has a welcome Plutarchian succinctness. If it has a weakness, it is not inaccuracy (the exposition seems clear and the facts reliable), but monotony. The writing is unpretentious, but it is also po-faced. When it comes to the scientific fraternity, there is little awareness of confusions or contradictions. In Newton's case, who would guess that his rationalisation of science was accompanied, perhaps fuelled, by a belief in alchemy which took him at least to the edge of madness? Perhaps, by the same token, if Hart had not been driven by his ranking frenzy, he would not have had the energy to complete this eminently decent, marginally dotty compilation. Its only serious deficiency is the lack of even a rudimentary bibliography.
...
After the informative solemnity of the main body of the text, Hart is entitled to his larkily appendicised B team, where, I suspect, Gerard K O'Neill (the Gerard K O'Neill?) is sitting in Tolstoy's seat, and Tamurlane is considered to have blown a louder trumpet than Satchmo (or Joshua). ...
Hart, a physicist, doesn't answer those questions directly in the second edition of "The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." But his entries are generally stimulating and informative enough to justify themselves by their usefulness, if not by their organizing principle.
As in the first edition, published in 1978, Hart hasn't tried to rank the most admirable figures in history - an effort that would have excluded people like Joseph Stalin (No. 66) and Adolf Hitler (No. 39). Instead, he profiles the 100 men and women whose actions have in his view done the most to shape the destinies of others.
...
Hart generally presents his evidence clearly, intelligently and without special pleading. This tends to give his arguments plausibility even when their conclusions are debatable, as when John F. Kennedy (No. 81) wins a ranking but not Abraham Lincoln, who is only in a roundup of "Honorable Mentions and Interesting Misses" at the back of the book.
...
Only one entry is controversial enough to be called kinky (by ordinary readers) or crackpot (by orthodox Shakespearean scholars). Apparently, Hart has been won over by the publicity campaign being waged by the descendants of Edward de Vere, the 17th Earl of Oxford, to convince the world that their ancestor wrote the plays of William Shakespeare; the author thus reverses his earlier position and gives the No. 31 spot not to Shakespeare but to de Vere, whose circumstantial case he argues more rationally than many who have taken on this volatile topic.
Perhaps a bit too rationally. In de Vere's entry and others, the no-frills prose of "The 100" lacks the color and flair that would have revealed the beating heart of the history-maker. Like a well-trained editorial writer, Hart favors concise, straightforward exposition, strengthened by his talent for anticipating - and defusing - arguments that might be used against him. How, you might wonder, could Mohammed rank higher than Jesus when the world has twice as many Christians as Muslims?
"The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential People in History" by Michael H. Hart. (Citadel Press, $22.50)
Hart is a senior staff scientist with the Systems and Applied Sciences Corp. in Maryland. He's come up with an idiosyncratic look at history's movers and shakers. This is a book guaranteed to start discussion and provide insight. Just ask yourself or your friends, "Who is the most influential person who ever lived?" It's not an easy question to answer. Hart, of course, has no problem listing his top 100. His first three choices are: 1. Mohammed. 2. Sir Isaac Newton. 3. Jesus Christ.
But three of the five — Joan of Arc, Mozart and Thomas Aquinas — are conspicuously absent from a slightly more studious work, Dr. Michael H. Hart's "The 100, A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History."
...
To his credit though, Hart's book is not millennium driven. He first compiled it in 1978, in fact, and then revised it in 1992, dropping Chairman Mao from 20th to 89th, adding Mikhail Gorbachev (95th), Henry Ford (91st), and the scientist Ernest Rutherford (56th) and dropping Niels Bohr, Pablo Picasso and Antoine JHenri Becquerel right off the chart.
About a year ago a friend suggested I read "The 100 — A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History." Although I consume periodicals by the bushelsful, I cannot seem to find the time, or maybe the word is patience, for books.
The 100 is an interesting hybrid. The book is a compilation of the 100 most important people in human history, arranged in order of importance. The list is an exclusive product of author Michael Hart. He brilliantly defends his choices and their ranking with pithy descriptions of each.
The book was originally published in the late '70s and then revised in the early '90s. The biographical sections can be read discretely, a la my Economist or Harpers. Each remarkable description invited, nay demanded, consumption of the next choice and the next, and so on.
The compromise? Combine vocation and avocation by reading a person a week to my radio audience. ...
El abogado y astrónomo estadounidense Michael H. Hart se impuso la enorme tarea de seleccionar los hombres más influyentes, no necesariamente famosos, de todos los tiempos en la historia universal. Tres años invirtió en lecturas, consultas a eruditos de historia, ciencias, teología, arte, literatura, etc., y de concentración total de su tiempo y esfuerzos para confeccionar la lista de ellos, del uno al cien en orden de importancia y relieve, según la influencia que ejercieron en su tiempo y en la posterioridad hasta el presente. The 100: a Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History es un voluminoso libro; nos ofrece Hart, también, datos biográficos de cada uno sus seleccionados. Y su método selectivo, así como el sistema que utilizó para la evaluación. Tarea sin duda controversial, pero provocativa.
Colón no fue, afirma Hart, el primer europeo en poner pie en el suelo del Nuevo Mundo, pero él fue el que conmovió a Europa con sus descubrimientos. "Dentro de los primeros años de su regreso, y como una consecuencia directa de sus descubrimientos, la conquista y colonización de los nuevos territorios comenzó".
In 1978, a scholar named Michael Hart wrote The 100, which attempted to rank the 100 most influential people in history. The book has since caused endless shouts of "No way!" from people who just read the list without seeing his explanations. Muhammad ahead of Jesus (and everyone else)? Plato but not Socrates? Kennedy but not Lincoln? And where the heck are the Beatles? (Actually, he never explained that last one. No excuse, then). Hart did an update 20 years later, including Mikhail Gorbachev as the only living person. By then, he'd inspired a series of books by various authors, all purporting to rank different divisions of "most influential" people: "The Jewish 100" (with Moses edging out Jesus for No1), "The Black 100", "The Italian 100", "The Gay 100", "The Left-Handed 100". Well, there wasn't really a left-handed 100, but I for one would have been silly enough to buy it.
...
Reading some of these books, I found myself longing for Hart's unbiased appraisals. Hart's original book had only two women in the list: Queen Isabella I at No65, and Elizabeth I practically just squeezing in at No94. This was disgraceful, of course. Was Hart being a sexist pig? No, but in case you weren't paying attention in class, history has been appallingly sexist. Hart obviously had no room for tokenism. (He presumably ignored calls of "Why don't you include Marie Curie or Joan of Arc, just to be a gentleman?") If you protest his inclusion of notorious figures like Hitler and Genghis Khan, or obscure ones like 'Umar ibn al-Khattab, I suggest you look up "influential" in a dictionary. If you'd prefer a nice list, with no bad guys, you'll be happy to know about Simon Montefiore's latest book, Heroes: History's Greatest Men and Women. It's not exactly a new idea, but as the "heroes" include Margaret Thatcher, it's bound to get plenty of laughs. It includes plenty of women in its ranks, so it gives us a slightly more balanced history than the real-life one covered by Hart.
Overturn, and restore the article. Looking more carefully, there are enough sources to show that this is considered to some degree the standard work in its field. I think it now would pass another AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore the article, endorse the 2015 AfD close, overturn the 2019 decision to redirect – Heh, that's complicated. First, the numerous sources posted here establish notability almost beyond question (good job, guys!) – it's a notable book, meets our notability guidelines, and deserves a stand-alone page. I disagree with sending an editor to DRV to appeal a 2015 AfD decision, especially when what the editor is doing is rewriting/adding new sources. I don't think Lazy-restless's intention was to challenge the 2015 AfD result, but to improve the article (recreate with new sources), so I think sending Lazy-restless to DRV was a bad suggestion. Reverting it back to a redirect on the basis of the 2015 AfD, when the article was substantially rewritten with new sources, is also a move I disagree with. So, I think the 2015 AfD close was correct and should be endorsed (to the extent that it's even being challenged, which isn't clear to me); the 2019 revert-to-redirect should be overturned, and the article restored. The restored article can then be nom'd at AfD if someone thinks that it's still not notable. (Personally, given the number and quality of sources posted here, I think a new AfD would be a waste of time with an obvious keep result.) – Levivich 14:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn, and restore the article.- The Sources presented do show that the book passes our notability guidelines. I should add the page needs some serious work to meet NPOV.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 22:20, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow submission of draft to AFC for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn 2019 AfD, and restore article - having looked at the AfD, I don't see how a redirect could be justified as the specific close regardless of the above sourcing. A merge or keep seemed the acceptable options. With the sourcing, it's clearly a Keep and going back to AfD would seem a waste. Nosebagbear (talk) 22:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore article But please make sure to add in some of the sources Cunard found above, as I would have redirected myself based on the sourcing in the last version of the article. SportingFlyerT·C 23:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If the article is restored, then is it allowed according to wiki policy to add all the sources given by me and Cunard in the article? - Lazy-restless (talk) 15:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Operation Voicer – Notification of discussion happening elsewhere, not a request for deletion review in this forum. IronGargoyle (talk) 20:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The deletion did not follow proper procedure. No notice of this AfD discussion was ever posted on List of countries by population (United Nations). No new comments on this earlier AfD were made after March 29. In fact, a later AfD specifically on List of countries by population (United Nations) was closed on April 6 with a result of keep. The points I made on April 2 in that later discussion were never addressed in the earlier discussion. To summarize the most important point I made there: while I agree that the use of the data for every year in every variant of the UN projection model would constitute an unambiguous copyright violation, use of just two years of projections in one particular variant of the UN model should satisfy the WP:NFCCP criteria, and should be allowed. Cobblet (talk) 19:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Note: See follow-up below – the UN appears to allow free use of data from its database with proper attribution. I think undeletion is appropriate, and I will add the necessary citation. Cobblet (talk) 15:29, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See my post Wikipedia:Copyright_problems/2019 April 24. I'm involved, but there were indeed copyright issues with this article and it should remain deleted. The original AfD should not have been closed as !keep. SportingFlyerT·C 21:04, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the discussion that led to the deletion then there is an even more obvious procedural problem: Wikipedia:Copyright problems is for dealing with text-based copyright concerns, not concerns involving data or imagery. The issues involved are different and less straightforward, as the discussions over how the UN data was generated would indicate. Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have nothing to add to the conclusion of the previous discussion. The UN owns the copyright in every projection that it makes. There may be de minimus use in referencing two or three of them in an article, but not larger numbers of them. bd2412T 22:46, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider the quotation of two out of 800 columns of data in the entire spreadsheet de minimis. Even if we focus on the specific table in question ("Estimates, 1950 - 2020"), quoting two columns out of 71 still meets the criteria of minimal extent of use under WP:NFCCP: "An entire work is not used if a portion will suffice." Cobblet (talk) 00:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting two out of 800 columns does not avoid copyright any more than copying two out of 800 pages of a textbook. bd2412T 02:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's comparing apples (data) to oranges (text). According to the standard you've implemented, most tables of demographic or economic estimates on Wikipedia are copyright violations. In particular, most likely every list in Category:Lists of countries by economic indicator is a copyright violation, and probably many in Category:Lists of countries by population (at least any list that does not solely publish raw census data) as well. Cobblet (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is an WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. You are free to nominate for deletion any list that copies excessively from a copyright-protected source. bd2412T 03:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't meant to be an argument, just an observation. I don't agree with your assessment of what is "excessive", and am wondering if you are aware of the implications of your decision on other articles containing similar data. Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up – pinging @BD2412, SportingFlyer, and Diannaa: All of the data that had been presented in this article is also available from UNdata, a database provided by the United Nations Statistics Division, under the following licence: "All data and metadata provided on UNdata’s website are available free of charge and may be copied freely, duplicated and further distributed provided that UNdata is cited as the reference." Given this, would we avoid copyright problems if we were to cite this database rather than (or in addition to) the source report, in accordance with the terms of its licence? Cobblet (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's strange. Without doing too much looking into it at the moment, that would appear compatible with our license. SportingFlyerT·C 05:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Surely the issue is that CC-BY 3.0 does not allow us to add the SA constraint. And as part of attribution we need to link to the correct license. I'm not sure this is truely compatible. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:03, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is that UN license has been added since the deletion discussion, I'd be surprised if multiple experienced copyvio people missed it without anyone else pointing it out. I'm less objectionable now the data's been released under a less restrictive license. SportingFlyerT·C 21:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All we care about is whether somebody can reuse the content if they comply with CC-BY-SA. That allows us to use material which has fewer restrictions than CC-BY-SA, such as public domain material and CC-BY material. Yes we'd have to provide attribution in the page contents but that isn't a reason to delete it. It does look like the free licence was added recently (in the last few months). Hut 8.5 20:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The point is the CC-BY has specific language "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." we cannot simply add the SA constraint, and say "it's compatible" we will need to be absolutely clear on the attribution and licensing of that part of the content. --81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:47, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we could not be able to enforce the share-alike provision in this case, but that has nothing to do with whether we can use the text or not. Our copyright disclaimer just says "Permission is granted to copy, distribute and/or modify Wikipedia's text under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License..." and you would be able to legally reuse the text under those terms. Hut 8.5 22:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the page being restored if the material is released under a compatible license and proper attribution is given. data.un.org was not one of the citations provided in the article, and I had no way of knowing the page even existed. — Diannaa🍁 (talk) 14:06, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think we're done here. It's a slam dunk. Any passing administrators want to give this debate an early close?—S MarshallT/C 15:54, 28 July 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 had cited two national newspapers where the news was covered (there are others too) and two famous personalities who had inaugurated the festival in 2017 and 2018 (one of them is world-famous and the other a noted novelist and writer and famous all over India). I had given a link to the government location where this festival is held every year. This is more than say, what the Kerala Lit Fest has done but that article has not been deleted. My article has as much authenticity as say the Jaipur lit fest though I am not saying that the PILF is as great as that. I stated facts and there was no advertising, not even a little bit. I do not know what was in the first article on PILF as I have not read it. I came to search for a page on PILF as I live in Pune and love my city and was surprised to find that there was nothing on the PILF, the only significant English Language Literary Festival in the city. Pune is a hub of educational and cultural activities, a very prominent city. The deletion is illogical and unfair as the article I posted had good credentials. I was told I should write a draft article and then ask for a discussion on it, but there is no point as I would simply duplicate what I wrote yesterday. My article was short and there was no advertising. As I said, I do not know what was written earlier as I do not know the people who wrote it. If the article on PILF remains deleted that means that almost all the articles on lit fests in India should be deleted which would be quite shocking. People in India refer to Wikipedia to get information and it is a great pity that this is happening.
No logical reason has been given to me for deletion. However, if the logic is that Pune is an insignificant city then we have to agree to disagree. - Nitajk. Nitajk (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC) Nitajk (talk) 02:13, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Close DRV with no action; defer to AfC. There's already a draft under review. As far as I can tell from the history, this is the original article which was deleted at AfD, restored, and moved to draft space. Since then, it looks like it's gained a bunch of reasonable looking sources. So, I'd suggest we just let the draft be reviewed via the normal AfC process. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with the draft at afc as suggested just above DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the G11 speedy deletion. The way forward is via Draft:Pune International Literary Festival. Advise authors of the advice in WP:THREE, which is de facto mandatory for previously deletion topics that may be read as promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Jonathan Yaniv – Practically endorse, as the consensus here is clearly that there is no good evidence of notability, as many of the sources are considered to be unreliable; any restoration would (per SmokeyJoe) require sufficient reliable sources to be presented (e.g in WP:AFC). No consensus on turning this into a redirect, the key counterargument is that there is no evidence that a redirect would be useful here. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:54, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Yaniv was not notable in 2015. However she got a notablity during gender transition and transgender activism. Her new name is Jessica Yaniv. Sharouser (talk) 15:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Two things: first of all you will need to supply some sort of evidence that the subject meets WP:BIO, preferably with a draft article which could be moved to mainspace. Secondly there is essentially no usable content in the deleted version, it was less than 100 words long and half of that is extremely promotional. Needless to say it does not say anything about gender transition or transgender issues. Hut 8.5 18:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd endorse this. This has been continually deleted and recent coverage seems mostly fringey. SportingFlyerT·C 21:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FYI: This conversation at WP:BLPN provides some useful context. I think she's pretty clearly WP:BLP1E, and the sourcing on her is very weak beyond this case. Her name was subject to a court-ordered publication ban until a couple of weeks ago, but she happens to be the outrage-of-the-month for the grossest corners of Reddit and Twitter. Also, I don't think her previous name is something that appears in reliable sources. Nblundtalk 23:41, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not typically have biographies on people notable for a single event (WP:BLP1E) unless that event is extremely high profile. Merely getting in the news for a single controversy doesn't mean that somebody gets a Wikipedia article. The source you linked to is an opinion piece and therefore not reliable for anything other than the opinion of the person who wrote it. Hut 8.5 10:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't mean she gets a Wikipedia article, but this is a plausible search term now and likely to attract other persons who're interested in the topic. I'd suggest covering this matter (in a few, very brief, totally neutral words, with low prominence that's proportionate to its low importance) under Transgender rights in Canada. You could then legitimately redirect both Jonathan Yaniv and Jessica Yaniv to that article.—S MarshallT/C 16:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was some disagreement at BLP/N regarding whether or not her case was worth mentioning at all, but I don't think any editor thought that her full name should be publicized at this time - so this seems like it would be sort of an end-run around that view. Moreover: I'm extremely skeptical that the name Jonathan would be a search term since it's not really something that is mentioned in mainstream reporting on this case. I understand that we sometimes use prior names when someone was well known under that name, but that wouldn't be the case here, and so that seems like it would be a unjustified violation of privacy. Nblundtalk 17:16, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is anther opinion piece. MOS:CHANGEDNAME says that we can do this when someone was previously notable under a different name, but that's clearly not the case here. Nblundtalk 14:08, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Allow a case for re-creation to be made via WP:AfC, with specific attention to WP:THREE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Belle Delphine is definitely notable enough for an article now. She wasn't earlier this month but is now. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What, specifically, has changed to make her now meet WP:NBIO? -- RoySmith(talk) 10:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
She has more sources than ever before. I created the page before she started selling her bath water. After she started selling her bath water, all the mainline media, USA Today, CNN exc started covering her. AdrianWikiEditor (talk) 20:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You need to be more specific. What sources? Please list the sources you would use. -- RoySmith(talk) 10:20, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Only sources that are deemed reliable on WP:RSP
USAToday (not there but would most likely be reliable)
Comment not really sure what to do with this one - I don't think there's harm in allowing a draft to be written, but I also don't think it'll be accepted. SportingFlyerT·C
Keep deleted. We're not here to report on every gross publicity stunt somebody can think up, even if the news media wants to. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:16, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't particularly like the idea of covering this, but if there are multiple news sources, then there's notability.—S MarshallT/C 16:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Existence of coverage is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition. This fails WP:SUSTAINED and WP:BLP1E. Stuff like this is sensationalistic; somebody does it precisely because it's wild and flamboyant and will attract media attention. That doesn't make it worthy of an encyclopedia article. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Allow recreation. The deleted article fails to impress but the media coverage now has cultural commentary and analysis of some generic applicability which could, just barely, be used by a capable editor to create something we wouldn't be embarrassed to call an encyclopedia article. But this is tricky stuff. Haukur (talk) 00:13, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm kind of relieved by the way this discussion is going but this might be a good place to mention that our ahegao article gets an average of 3000 hits per day lately and really could use some work. Or some deletion, if we don't have the sources for a decent article. Haukur (talk) 23:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the clear decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Belle Delphine, and keep deleted with prejudice for at least 6 months. The new sources, eg "Is Belle Delphine, a.k.a. Bathwater Gamer Girl, the Greatest Troll On the Internet?" are joke articles, not reputable sources, even if the publishers are usually accepted as reputable and reliable sources. 6 months is the standard time to leave a clear decision before allowing repeat challenges, such as what an AfC submission would amount to. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Other media may co-operate in a job of self-promotion because they think the person amusing, and providing readable human interest stories is a perfect reasonable goal of even a very good newspaper. But we're an encyclopedia. There was a time, 15 years ago, where there was little good coverage of many aspects of popular culture unless we did it here, and this could justify presenting information on matters of no real interest. This has changed, and nothing of this nature will be lost to the world because we don't include it. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and salt. This has the potential to become an attack page.--WaltCip (talk) 16:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg – List at FFD. Ignoring all discussions not about the deletion or copyright, here we see a rational claim that since the USPS has the right to claim copyright to stamps made after 1978 - which has not been contested by anyone - the file might be a copyright violation. However, there is also a legitimate counterclaim that since the stamp is just a slightly modified public domain file and as noted by Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. and other court cases and US copyright office decisions mentioned in commons:Commons:Threshold of originality#United States of America people and organizations are not automatically entitled to claim copyrights on overly simple works or only slightly modified public domain works. Because of this some people are advocating a full discussion at FFD as these copyright interpretation discussions usually occur there and most copyright experts are active in FFD, plus in general contested speedy deletion cases are often settled through a deletion discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Please advise what appropriate action can be taken to restore the image of (a) the Battle of Bull Run, and to preserve the period painting images found on USPS stamps depicting (b) the Capture of New Orleans, (c) the Battle of Antietam, and (d) the Battle of Vicksburg — all found for five years since March 2014 at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps.
An ethnocentric wikipedia user on the English Wikipedia, using the characters user: 廣九直通車 has abandoned the conventional Asian use of romanji to communicate in good faith with westerners in English media, and arbitrarily initiated the removal of an image that is not subject to copyright at File:First Bull Run 2011 U.S. stamp.jpg.
(1) The USPS stamp uses an image that is NOT copyrightable, whether following the USPS practice of incorporating an image authored by a public employee in their job, or from an out-of-copyright image painted before 1924. Neither may not be copyrighted by placing an over-print title from a subsequent user to secure exclusive proprietary ownership of the image . . . it will take some digging to get the previous five-year-old discussion links at a forum page . . . prior to any "dispute resolution" with someone I cannot yet identify who does not respond to my posts . . .
(2) A “speedy removal” process initiated on 10 July 2019. There was no response to my timely posting of the rationale for maintaining the image. My post has been purged from my User page “Contributions” tab. Something that has only happened twice before in nineteen years of posting on Wikipedia.
The initiating Japanese-Korean-Chinese-Okinawan author has an “OTRS” icon on their User page. At Meta-Wiki [[1]], it is said to be software used to “handle queries, complaints, and comments from the public by email to Wikimedia projects.”
(3) There is no assertion by others anywhere on my Talk page or on the image page that any public complaint was ever made objecting to the image, other than the diktat (дѝкта̄т) proclaiming “a blatant copyright infringement.”
Another administrator User:Gonzo fan2007 removed the image on 11 July 2019 without response to my post.
(4) The subject matter is a painting by a National Park Service painter as a public employee.. Therefore, the rationale for this USPS stamp and others depicting Civil War battle scenes: “This image is ineligible for copyright and therefore is in the public domain, because it consists entirely of information that is common property and contains no original authorship.”
I directly communicated with “Gonzo fan2007”, posting on his User page 14 July 2019, “Please restore image”, and his reply was “Please provide a link to the discussion, and I would be glad to assist with the request”.
(5) But there was NO discussion before deleting the image. A visitor to the image link finds all reference to the previous stamp image “does not exist”. — At the USPS webpage for the stamp The Civil War: 1861, we have “The Bull Run stamp is a reproduction of a 1964 painting by Sidney E. King titled “The Capture of Rickett’s Battery” on Henry Hill, Manassas, Virginia. We see the painting at Wikimedia, Rickett's Battery Painting.
It is in the public domain because Sidney E. King painted the image while a public employee as a National Park Service painter. “This image or media file contains material based on a work of a National Park Service employee, created as part of that person's official duties. As a work of the U.S. federal government, such work is in the public domain in the United States.” USPS continues, “For the stamp pane’s background image, [USPS Art Director Phil] Jordan used a photograph dated circa 1861 of a Union regiment assembled near Falls Church, Virginia.”
(6) USPS stamps using National Park Service images are covered under the “Ownership” provision found on the NPS website on the tab "About Us". It says, “Copyright law does not protect 'any work of the U.S. Government' where 'a work prepared by an officer or employee of the U.S. Government as part of that person's official duties' (See, 17 U.S.C. §§ 101, 105). Thus, material created by the NPS and presented on this website, unless otherwise indicated, is generally considered in the public domain. It may be distributed or copied as permitted by applicable law.”
@TheVirginiaHistorian:Please have a look at Template:PD-USGov, which explicitly state that This template also does not apply to postage stamp designs published by the United States Postal Service since 1978. As the file is, indeed a derivative work, and the author of derivative work won't give out a free permission, therefore the file is copyrighted and unfree, and is a definite WP:F9. It should be reminded that for a speedy deletion, there is no need for discussion once an administrator finds that the involving page falls under a, or more criteria of speedy deletion. Also please refrain from making accuses of racism (An ethnocentric wikipedia user...). I am open when it comes to issues of copyright, especially if I made a mistake, but baseless accusation of racism would only force myself to fend for my rights (or course not with legal threats), regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:47, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車 and 廣九直通車: I do not post to the Chinese language wikipedia in English, although of course I have a right to do so, or do I not? There is no racism in that, one way or the other --- is there ? --- nor is there any indirect legal threat to be made in common civil discourse, surely not among collegial Wikipedians at the English Wikipedia.
I take everything I see on the English WP by wp:good faith. Of course you can use any symbols you choose in any order, unless it conveys something untoward that is prohibited by the English Wikipedia. Please link the administrator's post that translated and approved the term -- "廣九直通車|廣九直通車" -- for use on the English Wikipedia. (The qualified administrator was fluent in which of the eight major Chinese dialects; I do remember 山 means mountain, whether it is pronounced "yama" in Japanese or "shān" in one or the other of the Chinese dialects ... likewise with your 力, "power" -- well, more power to you, my fellow Wikipedian.)
I am also intellectually open-minded as an intentional personal discipline; you and I are standouts in the general population, worldwide; mutual congratulations are in order. Salud, to your health.
Point of information: Do I properly understand that the Chinese word for "foreigner" is not the English "other" person, but the English translation for non-human "ghosts" or "devils"? To avoid inadvertent racism that is unconsciously telegraphed by any source of unchanging, inflexible linguistic habit of mind, perhaps it would be best to discourse here in the more adaptable English, Shall we? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The template that generically addresses USPS postage of original design does not refer to images from prior to 1924, or created by public employees and replicated by the USPS that CANNOT be legally copyrighted. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 11:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@廣九直通車 and 廣九直通車: You have miscast the issue surrounding the USPS use of a NPS employee's painting on the job. You suppose that "the author of derivative work won't give out a free permission". But merely making an overprint of a postage amount does not make the image "derivative" in a copyrightable sense.
Further, there is no permission to be given by a public servant performing his required job responsibilities. In this case, the professional National Park Service painter has no "free permission" to give regarding the future use of his painting created on-the-job during regular work hours.
If I look up "public" in a Mandarin dictionary, 上市 , I get "on the market". But "public" officials in the English and American traditions do not sell their official services at market as a fish monger does to the highest bidder. In this culture it is a legal offense called "bribery", a crime against the people for whom the governmental employee works. He is not to convert the conduct of his office to private gain.
There is even U.S. federal law prohibiting American corporations from bribing public officials in lands where it is lawful and customary. Hence, following several trillion dollars spent to assure an independent Iraq with some innovative democratic-republican institutions at a national level, its oil contracts went to the same French, Russian and Chinese corporations who had won bids under Sadam Hussein; the Americans could not bribe openly and competitively ----- so they lost out again. It is meant to be different here from most of the rest of the world, like an exception, so to speak.
Support@TheVirginiaHistorian: OK, so you think that as the stamp is based on a public domain painting, and the words added by USPS is not eligible for further copyright protection. I think I remembered that the words added seems not to be to complex. So, though the discussion somehow went a-bit off-topic, I would support for the undeletion, and thank you for your nomination.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is a more concise, better restatement of my proposal. Yes, sir. Thank you. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 12:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and optionally send to WP:FFD. Speedy deletion is only for clear and uncontroversial deletions, and there is a debatable case that this image may be free. Stifle (talk) 14:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as the deleting admin, I will defer to the consensus determined at this deletion review. That said, I must caution TheVirginiaHistorian that their comments implying racism on my part are not only obviously ridiculous, but are borderline against WP policies. As you can see on my talk page, TheVirginiaHistorian requested undeletion because they said this issue had already been discussed on-wiki; I kindly requested a link to that discussion; they replied with the massive comment above implying I'm a racist, among other interesting comments. That said, based on the wording here, the stamp seems like a clear copyvio and eligible for speedy deletion. If I am misunderstanding something, I am happy to be corrected. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:24, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To further elaborate, I don't see how using a public domain image in a stamp somehow makes that stamp ineligible for normal copyright protections offered to stamps issued after 1978. The issuance of a stamp creates a new derivative work of the USPS, and thus is given its normal copyright protections. The stamp is obviously a completely new work with new artistic embellishments. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:33, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and list at WP:FFD. There's a plausible argument that this is a free image, so WP:F9 doesn't apply. The folks at FFD will be better versed in the nuances of copyright policy, since they deal with this stuff every day. It's also been around for years, so there's no harm in spending another week discussing it. I also suggest that everybody take a step back and a few deep breaths. WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, etc. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:32, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith, I'm not opposed to a deletion discussion at a different venue, but I fail to see how this isn't an obvious copyvio. "All U.S. stamp designs since 1978 are copyrighted." This is clear an unequivocal. It does not matter what the copyright status of the underlying image on the stamp is. Some further reading here. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:56, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment廣九直通車, Stifle, RoySmith, and TheVirginiaHistorian, please note the deletion was based on the USPS copyright. Note on the USPS web page: "All U.S. stamp designs since 1978 are copyrighted." This is based on the Copyright Act of 1976. The underlying image found on a stamp bears no impact on the copyright of the stamp itself. Since the stamp was issued in 2011 and the image did not claim fair use, and instead claimed public domain, it meets the standards of a clear copyvio and was speedily deleted. I recommend you review your rationales with this information in mind. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:02, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that an image on a stamp is copyrighted does not make it so. If the image was public domain before, putting it on a stamp doesn't make it no longer PD. Stifle (talk) 09:25, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reply toGonzo_fan2007 I am informed by administrator 廣九直通車 that no discussion is required at an administrator's "speedy deletion" initiative. I really appreciate the bots and administrators who police the many wp:vandal attacks on my authored pages. I guess that's the only way things can get done in an expeditious way over such an expansive platform. Sorry I took the deletion as a personal attack, and I inappropriately replied in kind.
- Though @RoySmith: I do not get how calling out "ethnocentric" use of symbols on the English Wikipedia by others, -- pictographs that are not in common use for 600 years in worldwide commerce -- nor commonly used on 21st century English language webpage platforms -- makes "Gonzo fan20007" out to be a "racist" as he charged. (for context of the virtual extinction of inter-continental use of pictograms in commerce, see the self-imposed trade restrictions by the Chinese Empire at 1421: The Year China Discovered America)
- Thanks for all that you administrators do to maintain the integrity of my contributions from vandalism, notwithstanding any final decision on deleting stamps with un-copyrightable images that merely bear USPS over-prints on their face. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk)
Thanks for the reply TheVirginiaHistorian. Dlaiming someone is being ethnocentric (i.e. one definition of the word is "characterized by or based on the attitude that one's own group is superior") can be an implication that they are not respecting other cultures/ethnicities/races. It appears that there is some mutual misinterpretation or miscommunication between what everyone is saying to each other. I would just recommend you steer clear of describing users using adjectives while commenting on Wikipedia. I think from now on we can just focus on the deletion discussion and whether this image meets our guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Undelete and if someone thinks it should be deleted, send it to WP:FFD. There are issues to consider such as whether this particular stamp is copyrighted, whether USPS's license for non-profit/educational use applies, and also whether the proposed use would be fair use. – Levivich 19:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich, all stamps after 1978 are copyrighted. Non-profit/educational use only is specifically not compatible with Creative Commons or Public Domain. If someone wants to upload this again and claim fair-use, they can go right ahead! What other issues are there to discuss? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:03, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There was a fair use claim. [2] Besides which, the image consisted entirely of uncopyrightable elements: a portion of the public domain painting File:MNBPRickettsBatteryPainting.jpg; the text "2011", "Forever", "First Bull Run July 21, 1861", and "Usa"; and a black and grey border divided undy. Overturn. —Cryptic 20:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Gonzo fan2007: What Cryptic and others said. Despite what our templates say or what the USPS says, "all stamps after 1978 are copyrighted" is an overstatement. A better statement is that stamps after 1978 may be copyrightable. The actual law, and analysis, is more complicated than a black-and-white rule or a before/after date divide. In this case, adding some text to a PD image and putting that on a stamp doesn’t create a copyrighted work (it’s not original enough to be a derivative work), and even if it did, there’s a viable fair use claim. All stuff that should be discussed at FFD. – Levivich 19:04, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Restore with an optional listing at WP:FFD. Since the image consists of a public domain painting with the text "First Bull Run July 21, 1861", "Forever" and "USA" added there is a reasonable claim that the image is in the public domain as the painting is PD and the additions aren't exactly creative. F9 is only supposed to apply to unambiguous copyright violations, and speedy deletion in general is only supposed to be applied to obvious cases. Other cases should be sent to FFD. Hut 8.5 20:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted Even though they're a work of the U.S. government, they're not public domain - postage stamps are copyrighted, and in order to be displayed on the website, you'd need permission from the USPS. There are colourable arguments the work itself is public domain since it's a public domain photograph, so I don't mind sending this to WP:FFD to argue over it, but I believe it should remain deleted until we're sure we can use it (and I don't think we can.) SportingFlyerT·C 04:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Who said anything about being a work of the USG? It's true that 17 U.S.C. §105 doesn't exempt works by USPS employees from copyright protection, but that doesn't mean that the act of printing public domain material on a stamp magically removes it from the public domain. —Cryptic 08:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
editbreak
Recap of posts to date: (a) seven “undelete”, “restore” and “overturn deletion”, (b) with four of those suggesting listing “Battle of Bull Run” USPS stamp at WP:FFD, and (c) one amenable to follow the consensus here:
Will follow consensus here: Gonzo fan2007, administrator deleting image by speedy removal: "The stamp is obviously a completely new work." There is no "fair-use claim" for the stamp image, and reference USPS assertion for collectors, "All U.S. stamp designs since 1978 are copyrighted."
Undelete, overturn - three:
- TheVirginiaHistorian, petitioner: The USPS stamp lost by speedy removal uses an image that is NOT copyrightable at "Rickett's Battery", whether following the USPS practice of incorporating an image authored by a public employee in their job (for Battle of Bull Run stamp), or from an out-of-copyright image painted before 1924 (for Capture of New Orleans, Battle of Antietam, Battle of Vicksburg). Neither practice can copyright an image by merely over-printing a title, border and postage. All four stamp images can be found at Commemoration of the American Civil War on postage stamps for the last five years, since March 2014, following a previous review, perhaps at WP:FFD.
- Cryptic: Fair use claim at [2] (see link above for administrators). The image consisted entirely of uncopyrightable elements: a portion of the public domain painting, the text "2011", "Forever", "First Bull Run July 21, 1861", and "USA”; and a black and grey border.
Undelete (restore) and list at WP:FFD (or optional, as needed) - four:
- Stifle: If the image was public domain before, adopting it on a stamp does not remove it.
- RoySmith: There is a plausible argument that this is a free image, so WP:F9 doesn't apply. FFD will be better versed.
- Levivich: re issues: if this stamp is copyrighted, if non-profit/educational use, and if fair use.
- Hut 8.5: [see Cryptic, and] F9 is only supposed to apply to unambiguous copyright violations, and speedy deletion in general is only supposed to be applied to obvious cases. Other cases should be sent to FFD.
Noted. I meant to summarize for the purpose of advancing a consensus, but NOT to dominate the discussion by replying to “almost every comment”. I am amenable to referring the issue to WP:FFD --- I think I have about a 50-50 track record there from some years back . . . learning curve . . . so that makes five, and with “Gonzo fan2007”, that’s 6 out of 8 . . . to restore and refer . . .
To summarize my participation in the thread of 20 posts, I've made 3 after initiating it: (a) 廣九直通車 and I exchanged two posts, concluding with his support to restore the image — which I hope was by persuasion, not dominance on my part (the administrator did not seem to me to be particularly intimidated in the exchange with the contributing editor); (b) “Gonzo fan2007” and I exchanged one post each to reconcile our misunderstanding.
I then summarized the first eight editors to the best of my ability. Nevertheless, I appreciate the caution to be patient . . . more learning curve . . . Thanks. TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 14:31, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Directi – Endorse. If somebody wants to take a shot at writing a new article on this subject, do it in draft space, make sure WP:NCORP is satisfied, and then submit it for review. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
1. Directi (a high-tech company) is actually very notable within the IT sector in India, and overseas.2.Directi directly spunoff a six-letter TLD and business,namely media dot net, which was bought for the sum of Nine Hundred Million Dollars, a substantial and notable transaction.3.The nomination for deletion and its debate did not progress past superficiality in that matters-of-fact were ignored or not taken into account.4.It is clear to the average reasonable man or woman that the Directi Group of companies easily qualifies for inclusion in wikipedia.5. A redirect happens when readers search for Directi, although redirect leads to a BLP-type wikipedia article on one of Directi's founding executives. 209.240.35.58 (talk) 03:35, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse no evidence that the subject meets WP:CORP, which is the standard used here (not whatever you think an "average reasonable man or woman" would say). If you have evidence then please present it, the fact that someone sold one of its spinoffs for $900 million doesn't help. Hut 8.5 11:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AFD as properly closed, but permit submission of draft for review, in particular to see if company is more notable than in past. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse AFD closed in line with discussion. To note directi on their about us, or business units page mention nothing of media.net. Other articles I've seen don't state a relationship other than through being owned/created/run by the same person(s). i.e. at best this seems at attempt at notability by association. Though it's "about us" does seem to run out of steam in 2015, there seems plenty there which might suggest there would be coverage, just need to find that--81.108.53.238 (talk) 21:23, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Thonburi University F.C. – To the extent that the original closure was contested, the consensus is clearly to endorse. Whether it should be recreated (from the draft) isn't so clear, although most participants are open to the possibility that now the topic might meet inclusion criteria, so allow recreation through the normal AfC process for drafts. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Thonburi University Football Club (Thai: สโมสรฟุตบอลมหาวิทยาลัยธนบุรี) is a football club in Thailand, it competed in Thai League 4 (Thai: ไทยลีก 4) also know as Omsin League (Thai: ออมสิน ลีก) since 2019 season. This is the club's data from Thai League official website. This article has deleted in 2018 since the club has not promoted to the professional league. At that time, there are not enough of sources. But now in 2019 season, they has promoted to Thai League 4 that is a professional league. This is the PR brochures of 4 professional football leagues of Thailand from Thai League official website, This is the news about the sponsorship of Omsin bank (Thai: ธนาคารออมสิน) from FA Thailand's official website. We could found the club's info in the official website of Thai League that have a lot of data including fixture, result, standing, and all player's statistics. In addition, Thonburi University Football Club has competed in 2019 Thai League Cup also know as Toyota League Cup (Thai: โตโยต้า ลีกคัพ) and advanced to the round of 16 by beaten the club from the top division Samut Prakan City. This is the news from Thai League official website about drawing in the round of 32. And this is drawing in the round of 16 Thonburi University vs PT Prachuap, this is the match highlight of Toyota League Cup round of 16. There are a lot of news about Thonburi University F.C. such as this show that Thonburi University is a club competed in Bangkok zone (Thai: โซนกรุงเทพ) of Thai League 4, this showed that Thonburi University funded 5 millions Thai Baht to competed in the 2019 season of Thai League 4, and they will renaming to Thonburi United in 2020 season, now you can found this name on the club's official Facebook page that update every situations of the club.—Gunkiet (talk) 06:45, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is the page salted? If new sources exist which clearly pass WP:GNG, go ahead and write a new page for the club in draftspace. It will be difficult for anyone to clearly agree with you without spending some time reviewing each source since all of the sources are in Thai, but it looks like only the siamsport.co.th articles would count towards WP:GNG (the others are not necessarily independent, looking just at their domain names) so be careful and look for secondary sources - most voters probably won't think a source from the league they play in is independent enough. The discussion itself should be endorsed, but no harm with trying to recreate it. SportingFlyerT·C 20:36, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with SportingFlyer in all respects. Hobit (talk) 21:15, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and salt. The AfD was basically unanimous to delete, so endorse. The deletion log shows this has been deleted four times in the past nine months, so salt as to not continue to waste time on this. The new draft states, The club is currently playing in the 2018 Thailand Amateur League, which means it fails WP:FOOTYN. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:48, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
To be fair, only one user recreated the page multiple times and created a whole number of stubs which got deleted, they haven't edited since March, and they're not the requesting user. WP:FOOTYN includes exceptions for teams which participate in national cups, and WP:GNG overrides it anyways. Perhaps endorsing is proper, but I don't see a need for a salt at this time. SportingFlyerT·C 17:19, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Based on Number 57's comments below, I'm no longer sure if the newly-promoted team is notable or not. It's clear that the original AfD was correct, so my endorsement of that remains, but I've struck the rest. The current draft is sufficiently different from the version that was deleted by the AfD, so WP:G4 doesn't apply. So, let's just endorse the AfD and leave the new draft to be reviewed as a normal part of the AfC process, presumably by crazed footy fanatics people who better understand the nuances of footy notability. -- RoySmith(talk) 15:47, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I can't tell if the league is fully professional. I agree that in 2018 they played in an amateur league, but they were promoted and it may be a fully professional league, I can't tell. So I think I disagree with Roy here--the GNG may be met and FOOTYN may be met. I don't think we know enough at this point. Hobit (talk) 13:48, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That is only relevant for player notability; semi-professional and amateur clubs can be notable even if their players are not. Number57 21:47, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit and RoySmith. These are documents about club licensing regulations and AFC statutes from FA Thailand official website. [3][4] FA Thailand is very strict about club licensing regulations of the clubs that compete in Thai League 1, 2, 3, and 4. If the club don't pass the assessment of the club licensing regulations, they must relegate to begin in the amateur league. In the same way, If the club in the amateur league don't pass the assessment of the club licensing regulations, they cannot promote to Thai League 4. This is news about club licensing assessment of T3 and T4 clubs in 2018 season (in Thai). [5]Gunkiet (talk) 8:39, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
For the record, endorse deletion and leave draft seems the right way to go. Let AfC figure it out as normal. Hobit (talk) 00:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In the official website of Thai League (organized by FA Thailand) [6] showing all of their national league data including fixtures, results, table, clubs, stadiums, and etc. In each menu, you can select filter by competition including Toyota Thai League (Thai League 1), M-150 Championship (Thai League 2), Omsin League Pro (Thai League 3), and Omsin League (Thai League 4). I cannot show only one competition because URL has fixed. Gunkiet (talk) 05:03, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but allow recreation The closure clearly judged consensus at the time. But consensus can change, and notability can change, and there's enough to suggest they have to allow recreation. Smartyllama (talk) 11:16, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
AfD resulted in delete but the page has since been re-created. Speedy deletion was declined with the reason given that the original AfD was marginal -- there was a mix of opinions that didn't result in an entirely clear consensus. I am neutral on keep/delete, but would like clarity regarding the notability of this page. Paisarepa (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Second AfD. Paisarepa was correctly following policy to tag G4, but the original AfD was a bit sparse. In particular, the keep !vote from Michig, where he backed his rationale with multiple sources, against a handful of delete !votes of variations of "just not notable" led me to feel the AfD needed to run for a further week to cement a consensus against that. Ritchie333(talk)(cont) 18:09, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on second AfD I can't tell since I can't access the history, but if this is a substantially similar article, than the WP:G4 should not have been declined. Perhaps it's moot with the new AfD, but is it possible to temp undelete history for a currently existing article? SportingFlyerT·C 19:36, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. DRV aside, the WP:G4 should have applied for the new edition of the article - it's not the same, but it's substantially similar, and most importantly it doesn't appear to have anything added to it. If I were Wikipedia dictator, I would delete the current article on WP:G4 grounds, void the current AfD, and endorse the original AfD as a correct close. SportingFlyerT·C 20:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse old AfD I might have voted differently had I participated, but a delete was a reasonable reading of the discussion, especially since the !votes broke delete after the sources presented by Michig were identified. SportingFlyerT·C 19:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and close this discussion. I think we should have an article on this subject, but the close of the first AfD as delete wasn't unreasonable. So there's no case for DRV. The speedy deletion tag shouldn't have been removed as this is a clear case for G4 deletion, and this shouldn't be at DRV unless someone comes up with a cogent argument that the original AfD closure was incorrect. --Michig (talk) 06:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy endorse, speedy delete, and salt- as the article was re-created by a sock of banned user User:Qualitee123, this qualifies for G5 speedy deletion. ReykYO! 10:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per CSD:G4, which does not have an exception for "marginal AFDs". WP:TROUT whoever declined it. Stifle (talk) 14:32, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just two delete votes are not enough to delete an article. More consensus needed Erkin AlpGüney 20:58, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Counting delete votes is never enough to delete an article. I'm curious where you get the idea that there were "just two", though. —Cryptic 21:34, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as a valid judgment call by the closer, and because another call would really be reason to request Deletion Review. There are two Delete !votes and one Weak Delete !vote, plus the nomination is at least 3.5 and maybe 4, and one valid Keep !vote. A Relist would have been a valid judgment call, and Delete was a valid judgment call. No Consensus would ignored a rough consensus. Right call. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as rough consensus is not enough. Clear-cut consensus is needed. Erkin AlpGüney 11:31, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was well within the discretion typically given to sysops closing deletion discussions, and there's no other way it could have possibly closed. Listing it again is pretty much guaranteed to have it close the same way. DRV isn't AfD: Round Two, and unless you have something that wasn't covered in the AfD (like reliable sources directly covering the subject, which would be helpful to immediately list, or basically anything that isn't a rehash of the AfD) there's no way this will end in anything other than an endorse. Alpha3031 (t • c) 04:41, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not the best participation for an AfD I've ever seen, but a delete result certainly is within reason given the nature of the discussion. SportingFlyerT·C 04:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse as within admin discretion per WP:NOQUORUM — specifically If the nomination has received very few or no comments but appears controversial to the closing administrator, or has been declined for proposed deletion in the past, the discussion may be closed at the closer's discretion and best judgement. Common options include [...] closing in favour of the nominator's stated proposal; IMO a relist would be unlikely to be closed with a different result because of NOTINHERITED. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:24, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I count that as four people supporting deletion, not two. The participation is over the threshold at which the discussion can be closed. Only one supported keeping it and their main argument was the existence of addons, which is irrelevant. Hut 8.5 06:52, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- consensus to delete was clearly reached. ReykYO! 10:23, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a consensus had been appropriately established and was appropriately recognized. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:02, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. This was not “within administrative discretion”. It was the only decision rationally available to the administrator.—Mkativerata (talk) 11:41, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Dream Pod 9 – Relisted as WP:BADNAC. Thank you SportingFlyer for pointing out that this was a non-admin close. This clearly didn't fall into the realm of NAC, so I've backed out the close and relisted the AfD, per WP:NACD. Let it run for another week and then some admin can re-close it. As for it being closed 50 minutes early, that by itself is a de minimus violation. -- RoySmith(talk) 22:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Closing is a difficult task and I think the closer did an admirable job when faced with a tough call. However, I feel this AfD would benefit from being reopened as an informed consensus has not been reached. I say "an informed consensus has not been reached" because "consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." (WP:NotEarly) which was not achieved, as I describe next.
A close reading of the Keep !votes finds that half (3 of 6) were simply pro forma "Keep per above"; further, in each case — a review of editor AfD records will show — these are rubber stamp !votes applied by said editors to all AfDs involving fantasy roleplay games, typically highly outside of consensus. A fourth !vote declared "Keep ... [because] I have heard of them..." which is not a policy-based argument. (Two Keep !votes did offer rationale, though, one - rebutted by all three Delete !voters - advanced an unusual argument that declared Wikipedia:Notability (people) also applied to profitmaking companies because corporations were simply groups of people. While the argument that "corporations are people" may be case law, it's not a WP guideline.)
As it stands, this article on a corporation has five sources which amount to a light WP:REFBOMBING run: one doesn't mention the company at all, one mentions it in a single sentence, one is unambiguously non-RS, and one is a product review on one of the company's products that already has its own standalone article. The WP:BEFORE in the AfD revealed nothing more than a handful of other incidental mentions. Wildly better sourced (and sourceable) company articles are rightly rejected daily at AfC. We would never allow a corporate article on a vacuum cleaner company to pass with this paucity of sourcing, and should not apply relaxed standards to fantasy game manufacturers. (As an AfC reviewer, I'm constantly questioned by paid editors asking why Wikivertisements of this type meet WP:N but I'm rejecting their crypto startup; to which I must simply shrug and say WP:OTHERTHINGSEXIST.)
I feel the close should be overturned to no consensus and the discussion reopened to achieve an informed consensus. Chetsford (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC) Chetsford (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, you don't have to like the carveout in NORG for groups of creatives, inventors - small groups whose creation of intellectual properties would clearly fall under NBIO if done by one person - also fall under NBIO with individual creators, but the carve-out is there. I quoted NORG in the deletion discussion, which you ignored rather than "refuting" it. Your work in this area would be more productive if you focused on changing the guidelines you object to, rather than hectoring their application.
Also, between the chapter in Designers & Dragons and the 1990s print sources there is undoubtedly enough coverage to pass GNG even without the application of CREATIVE. On the other hand, your attempt to apply AfC standards to AfD shows either insufficient alphabetical astuteness or a willing disregard for the differing policies applying in different venues. The question is whether the subject passes notability criteria, and it undoubtedly does, regardless of the present state of the article (which is simply not a policy-relevant consideration at AfD). Newimpartial (talk) 04:13, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GF courtesy note per WP:DELREVD; editor involved in original discussion Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse close, especially as more sources were added after the two delete responses, and all responses after that point were keeps. Per Newimpartial's argument, I believe there is enough to meet the WP:GNG here. BOZ (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
GF courtesy note per WP:DELREVD; editor involved in original discussion Chetsford (talk) 04:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As closer of this AfD, I would like to think I was correct, as half of the keep votes still provided reasonable explanation as to why this article should not be deleted. I was convinced against the delete votes and nomination itself. User:BOZ, an admin, seems to agree with me here per his arguments above. ––Redditaddict69(talk)(contribs) 05:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I don't disparage your effort here (or in AfD, generally). I think you do excellent work and this was a very tough call. Making closes is difficult because eventually someone always complains (this time it happens to be me). To the reason you stated, however ... while BOZ is an excellent admin, I think one should be careful of presuming an AfD should be correctly kept based on the way s/he !voted as they have a unique view that is outside consensus 83.3% of the time [7]. This, in itself, is fine as outliers are important for progress but can get dicey (no pun intended) if a closer sees BOZ's !vote in a fantasy game AfD and interprets it as an elevated !vote. Chetsford (talk) 05:51, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sparking of involved editors, Chetsford, you yourself bring "unique views" to the world of RPG AfDs (as the four nominations you have brought since launching this Deletion Review would seem to indicate). Are you hoping to re-litigate your own behavioural issues again? Your noms are starting to look POINTey. Newimpartial (talk) 10:28, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the way: your seemingly deliberate (otherwise incompetent) use of false or misleading categories for AfD noms? Equally POINTey, and not at all compliant with policy. Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As I have pointed out in the past Chetsford, you seem hung up on this idea of a "success rate" having an actual merit; it does not. If a person with a 99.9% "success" rate comes to a discussion they are not automatically correct, nor is the person with a 0.01 "success" rate automatically incorrect. Other respondents and discussion closers will weigh each person's comments using their own interpretations, and likely don't care how "accurate" that person has been on other discussions. While you have often touted your own "success" rate as being some kind of important metric, and pointed out mine as being a sign that my input should be given less weight, I have seen you "fail" often enough at AFD to know that most other people could care less about these figures. Based on previous discussions, you may be proud of your "success" rate and it seems to me you are likely disappointed that your "success" rate is lower on game articles, so my observation is that you are looking to get more deletes to raise your "success" rate, and I don't think you're going to get one here. It took a lot of work for you to get User:Chetsford/GameAFD up to as high of a "success" rate as you did, don't ruin it by barking up the wrong trees - keep aiming for the lower hanging fruit! BOZ (talk) 11:23, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's no reason to make this personal. The closer seemed to indicate that a justification for the close was your status as an admin and I simply said that was not a good justification as you have a unique view that tends to be outside consensus, which is true (noting, at the same time, that having outlier views was fine and, in fact, often helpful); this is a perfectly valid observation when presented with such an argument for close. Second, AfD is not about "success", I'm concerned that you'd choose that word to describe it. It's about improving the encyclopedia. Thanks, again, for your contributions, as well as the passion and knowledge you bring to this subject. Chetsford (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, if you don't see AfD as being about success, I am quite curious what this is about.Newimpartial (talk) 14:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Record keeping for continuous self-improvement, the same reason we have this [8] or this [9] or any editor history analysis. I review AfDs, articles I've created, and past RfCs to identify ways to improve my contributions and the AfD history tool doesn't allow a topical breakdown so I manually track it on some subjects on which I'm active. If you have further questions about me, feel free to ask on my Talk page, though, as this is a Deletion Review. Thanks! Chetsford (talk) 14:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Chetsford, you were counseling another user against taking my input seriously because I have "a unique view that is outside consensus 83.3% of the time", so I felt that your emphasis on the importance of statistics needed to be addressed. If you want to call that being personal, I was not the first person to bring that up in this discussion. My view is that your statistics are irrelevant to most people, although I suppose if you think they are important, you can start every AFD by stating how high your statistics are, and then point out the statistics of everyone who replies, so that we can weigh them appropriately. Or, otherwise, do not mention them at all. BOZ (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I counseled the closer against weighing your input with more gravity than other editors, not against taking your input seriously at all. If you read it in the latter way, I apologize. Chetsford (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's fair enough, then. BOZ (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen positive contributions and efforts on AfD from User:Chetsford on multiple occasions in the last several months... I would speak against many of the accusations that may imply otherwise. At AfD, there is a learning curve which may take a lot of time to adjust to. I used to have trouble here myself, but I've since corrected it, even though it took close to a year for me. Maybe Chetsford didn't know of these policies before, but now that they'v ebeen made clear, hopefully these similar issues won't occur again from this user. I wouldn't be upset if this discussion were to be reopened/relisted for another week, and maybe I did see User:BOZ's comments as slightly worth more than others, and for that I apologize. But I still believe, after reviewing the discussion, that the keep close was just. This can always be revisited in a second AfD sometime in the near future. ––Redditaddict69(talk)(contribs) 07:08, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist, early closure after less than 7 full days. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As to the argument that this was an "early" closure... if the closer had given it another 50 minutes or so, then it would have been a full 7 days, for the sticklers out there. BOZ (talk) 11:44, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse – As I understand DRV, the question is whether the close was a valid exercise of the closer's judgment, not simply whether we at DRV agree or disagree with the editors who took part in the AFD. My answer is that, with multiple Keeps and multiple Deletes, and more Keeps than Deletes, the closer made a reasonable judgment call to Keep. As I understand the appeal, the appellant is saying that the only arguments that should be considered are ones that are lengthy and tedious. Some of the Keep !votes and some of the Delete !votes were lengthy and tedious. Others were very brief, agreeing with another editor. Maybe the appellant would have preferred if the Keep !voters have filibustered with walls of text. They didn't, and I for one appreciate that some of them were terse. My guess is that the appellant also wouldn't have wanted a filibuster and walls of text, and simply won't be satisfied with anything short of their own way. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. Just to clarify my writing, I did not say "the only arguments that should be considered are ones that are lengthy and tedious". I did, however, say that the only arguments that should be considered are "reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments" as per our policy. I'm sorry if I expressed myself in a way that was not clear, and I appreciate you taking the time to weigh-in. Chetsford (talk) 22:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist – The keep !votes were based on the sources put forward by Newimpartial. Delete !voters argued that those sources were product reviews and didn't establish notability of the company per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:PRODUCT, or that the sources weren't significant/in-depth coverage sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. The longest of the sources put forward that I saw was Gizmodo's review of Heavy Gear, and what it says about Dream Pod 9 is: Currently, publisher Dream Pod 9 has the game split into a purely tactical wargame version, known as Heavy Gear Blitz!, and an RPG element published under the name Silhouette (aka SilCORE) ... (Dream Pod 9 also produces a full line of Heavy Gear miniatures) ..., and that's it. Others are even shorter mentions, like "as is done in Dream Pod 9’s 'Silhouette'", "Heavy Gear is a trademark of Dream Pod 9", "Jovian Chronicles is a science-fiction role-playing game published by Dream Pod 9", "Title: Gear Krieg the Role Playing Game by Dream Pod 9", and "Published by Dream Pod 9". Those policy-based objections to Newimpartial's sources were not addressed by keep !voters (instead, there were unhelpful comments, such as this one in response to a request for a link or DOI for a source: If you can't use Google Scholar for yourself, how does it become my responsibility to do it for you?). A couple editors noted that some of the sources were apparently self-published, but whether they met WP:SPS was not fully discussed. I was surprised by the closer's statement, "I was convinced against the delete votes and nomination itself.", as my understanding is that the closer should be assessing consensus among the voters in the discussion, not evaluating their arguments and deciding which the closer finds more convincing. In this case, no sources were apparently put forward besides brief mentions and product reviews, and the AfD had never been relisted. I think the close should be overturned and re-listed so that editors can have additional time to discuss and reach consensus about whether there are reliable, policy-compliant (e.g., WP:SPS-compliant) sources sufficient to meet WP:GNG/WP:NCORP, perhaps by someone putting forward the WP:THREE best, and editors discussing if they are significant coverage of the article subject from a reliable source. – Levivich 01:06, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment is factually incorrect, as it does not address the entire chapter of 'Designers & Dragons' concerning Dream Pod 9, which I cited, nor the 1990s print sources from the company's heyday. Levivich also cites NCORP even though it does not apply to "small groups of closely related people such as ... co-authors, and co-inventors": a carve-out that clearly applies to the authors and developers of the 'Silhouette system'. The ensuing !vote should therefore be ignored. Newimpartial (talk) 01:29, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming arguendo that the chapter (pp. 116–125) you mention is WP:SIGCOV from a WP:RS, WP:NCORP#Multiple sources says A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization. I didn't see in the AfD discussion any consensus that there were two or more sources that met GNG or NCORP. Nor did I see consensus for the notion that the sentence in the introduction of WP:NCORP, This guideline does not cover small groups of closely related people such as families, entertainment groups, co-authors, and co-inventors covered by WP:Notability (people), applied to Dream Pod 9, but I did see the argument made that Dream Pod 9 is not "covered by WP:Notability (people)" and therefore that sentence from NCORP was not relevant. One reason this should be relisted is to see if anyone can put forward a second example of WP:SIGCOV, or if there is any policy support or AfD precedent for the "carve-out" contention. – Levivich 03:10, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since you seem dismissive of my dead tree references for some reason, Leviv, perhaps this RS review will give you a clear sense of what I mean. It dedicates several paragraphs to discussing the Silhouette core system, which is a Dream Pod 9 IP that could not be tied to any one individual author/creator - it is a full CREATIVE product in the sense of policy and the carve-out (and per cantankerous contributors elsewhere, the review discusses Dream Pod 9 explicitly rather than relying on NBOOK/NAUTHOR rules for Notability).
Also, to anticipate the kind of churlish comments I have received from others previously, this review is an independent, self-published source that amply meets the requirements of professional standing of the author and, in this case, multiple publications in publications in the field subject to reliable editorial oversight in Pyramid, Games Unplugged and Gaming Outpost, so it is an unquestionable RS for N.
I see no presumptive utility in reopening a discussion so that editors from Missouri can become convinced by additional evidence of the merits of policy-compliant, sourced arguments that already convinced the first closer and most AfD participants. I believe we all have better things to do with our time. Newimpartial (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This page is for reviewing the close of the AfD; it's not a continuation of the AfD. The source you just provided (which is a self-publishedproduct review) wasn't provided in the AfD (nor did were any specific "dead tree references" provided in the AfD), so it has no bearing on the consensus at the AfD. For example, editors at the AfD didn't look at whether that source complies with SPS and NOTINHERITED. Bringing new sources and arguments here only supports the contention that the AfD should be relisted.
One other thing: aside from the comment I quoted above, in the AfD, you made comments like Please try to keep up. and Would you not rather take up another hobby, like billiards? Those remarks, and the ones above about churlish comments and editors from Missouri constitutes inappropriate WP:BATTLEGROUND behavior that detracts from the collegial environment necessary for constructive collaboration. Please stop making such comments. – Levivich 14:34, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist Surprised no one has mentioned WP:BADNAC here. There's not a consensus to keep here IMO given the low quality of the keep votes (you can't have a snow keep if only one person has voted) and especially given none of the keep votes discussed the sources as they relate to WP:NCORP, which applies here. This needs to be overturned and relisted. SportingFlyerT·C 04:21, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
SportingFlyer, much as I respect your work, you can't simply assert that NCORP must be followed when a policy-compliant argument has been made that the CREATIVE carve-out applies. That isn't really cricket. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, that is not the correct analysis, as that exception looks at groups of people such as families to which WP:NBIO applies, but WP:NBIO does not apply to a company. But this needs to be overturned anyways just on the contested close of a non-admin. SportingFlyerT·C 14:40, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a group of inventors or a group of entertainers can be a company, so also can be a game studio. That is the correct and unbiased analysis.
Also, there is no "contested close of a non-admin" rule to Deletion Review, that I can see. Deletion review "is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." A non-admin close should not be overturned at DRV simply because it has been contested (by the nominator, in this case); there has to be an actual procedural error in the close.
Since you invoked BADNAC earlier, perhaps you meant "controversial" rather than "contested". But given the actual discussion, I am not seeing the controversy: the nominator was followed by only two rather ill-informed !delete votes, while the balance of !votes, evidence and argumentation was clearly !keep. It doesn't become controversial because YOUDONTLIKEIT.
And I understand that you were somehow offended by the "Snow" preceding my "keep" vote, but I really don't see how a subject with reliable online sourcing, producing multiple Notable works per CREATIVE, and with significant dead tree coverage from its heyday could not meet with an eventual keep outcome, per NOTTEMPORARY. Newimpartial (talk) 14:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC) Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an error in the process, in this case a non-administrator closed this as a keep without a closing statement, and when pressed on their talk page essentially admitted they did not weigh consensus but instead just agreed with the keep !votes, which is a supervote. Please do NOT accuse me of voting just because IDONTLIKEIT, I really don't give a shit about the article and you're coming very close to assuming bad faith. You're still incorrect on which policy applies, and you also need to realise that snow keep votes should only be used when a number of people have voted keep ahead of you. As friendly advice, doing so with your first vote makes it look like you don't know what you're doing, which is not what you want when you're trying to get others to agree with you. SportingFlyerT·C 15:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you're saying, but I don't see any requirement here or here for any more of a "closing statement" than the closer gave. I don't close, so I don't know where those instructions might be hidden; care to enlighten me?
Also, your repeated assertion without evidence or comprehension of the subject matter about "which policy applies" really rankles me, which is why I thought YOUDONTLIKEIT; however, I certainly meant to maintain AGF in spite of my rankles, especially in respect of your work elsewhere in the project.
And yeah, I won't try to use Snow keep for similar rhetorical effect next time; I'll stick to Speedy. I just liked the Game of Thrones feel of it, you know? Newimpartial (talk) 15:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The article is clearly about a company and doesn't mention a single person directly associated with the company, but I digress - has little to do with what should happen here at DRV. Also, please note a "speedy keep" implies the article meets one of the criteria - just voting speedy keep without mentioning how any of the speedy keep criteria apply is similar to a snow keep vote above. I recommend just !voting keep and presenting a quality argument. SportingFlyerT·C 19:32, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist The fact that this AfD involves a lot of editors who've had these conversations with each other around the topics did not help the discussion. Nor does it help that there was a NAC closure, and early to boot so it's not even like sysops had passed on making a "tough call" as there was no call yet to make. There seems to be serious debate among the participants about the validity of the sources provided to show notability. In the end this might be enough to carry the day for keep as several editors are endorsing their value but is also a situation where further perspectives might help to clarify consensus. If after a relist there has been no further discussion a keep close seems appropriate. But we have enough problems here that a relist seems like the appropriate action to me. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn and relist. Terrible close. No explanation given for the decision. 50 minutes early, which matters because some AfD !voters scroll up from the bottom of the 7th-day log. And totally inappropriate for a non-admin close. When the article is about a company and the reason for deletion is that it is sourced to its own website, the spam concerns are such that we have to give the deletion rationale full and proper consideration. Another seven days would help us get there. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The [Dream Pod 9] article is not "sources to its own website". Terrible !vote. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was at the time the AfD was started, which is exactly what "reason for deletion" refers to. --Mkativerata (talk) 21:11, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But there were no spam concerns at the time of the close. This company is well past its prime; NOTTEMPORARY is a much more relevant concern than PROMO in this case. And the close was "early" by less than an hour; there had been several days for anyone besides Chetsford to raise issues, if appropriate. Newimpartial (talk) 21:15, 17 July 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 keepers do not list any report from reliable source. One of them is the creator who referred me to a PR release of the festival which suggested many famous people received the award, note that you just invent an award and give it to anyone. If it is really as famous as they suggested I should easily find usable media reports on this, however, there is nothing more than press release. Specifically, the creator keeps making ad hominem arguments and as much I'd like an article to remain, I failed to see any reason in this case. The other keeper simply suggested there is coverage from international media, while the google news search resulted in a different result. Notice this festival is still running, therefore it doesn't make sense for media like NYT WashingtonPost and many more not have article on it if it is truly as the keepers said a famous international film festival. Viztor (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn to No Consensus at best it is here (as one of the Keep votes had no policy or guideline based reasoning at all). This is certainly not getting deleted now at least if that was your intention of raising a deletion review, as there was no consensus for that. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:28, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Jovanmilic97, do you think it is possible to just relist as there is clearly a lack of discussion, not a long discussion with no consensus, with total three person participated other than the closing administrator or should I just propose it again myself? To be honest, had any of the keepers point me to any reliable source on this subject I would have not requested DRV. Viztor (talk) 19:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse firstly there's no way this is going to be deleted, nobody aside from the nominator supported deletion and two people opposed it. The debate was relisted twice, which is the usual limit before it gets closed unless there's a particular reason to relist it again, and I don't think there is. The idea that there is no independent media coverage of the festival is pretty ridiculous, simply by typing it into Google News I found numerous press reports about the festival and things that happened at it. Hut 8.5 07:00, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hut 8.5, I am not saying I cannot find any report on this, I am saying I can not find sources that are usable, not to mention to credit it as a well-known international film festival. Most of the results are press release about the film festival and about the films or actors/actress who received an award at it. Xinhua and ChinaDaily have some reports on this, and these were interviews with persons who were closely related to the film festival, I am aware that this festival exist and it award people/films, but there is few that qualify as a independent coverage on the film festival besides some local Houston newspaper, in these cases they reads more like a guide in Houston than news report. Viztor (talk) 22:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage doesn't need to "credit it as a well-known international film festival", the bar for notability is a lot lower than that. I'm struggling to see how [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and many others do not represent significant independent coverage of the festival. You didn't make any attempt to show this in the AfD debate either. The rationale in the nomination was that "no one recognize it", which clearly isn't true. Hut 8.5 06:46, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any of that constitute "significant independent coverage", most of them are just short message about who gets/nominated for the awards and nothing else. Try find one national media in the US reporting this this Houston festival, cause I can't any. Viztor (talk) 22:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hang on - a moment ago you wanted coverage which considered this to be an international film festival. When presented with some international press coverage you're now asking for national US media coverage (although most US media is to some extent local). It doesn't work like that: significant coverage in independent reliable sources meets the GNG, whether international or not. I don't agree with your characterisation of those sources as "short message about who gets/nominated" and I don't think WP:EVENT is the right standard to apply here because the article is not about a single event. Hut 8.5 10:41, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's not accurate, it was mentioned in my first reply "Xinhua and ChinaDaily have some reports on this". viztor✦ 06:28, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Based on my own searching, I'm not 100% convinced this is notable. I also don't think the AfD was perfect, but there's no way you can wrangle a delete consensus out of that, and haggling over keep vs no consensus is silly. If you still feel strongly that this should be deleted, my suggestion is to wait a while and bring it back for a new discussion per WP:RENOM. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:36, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith Technically, keep vs no consensus matters if you are citing the WP:RENOM essay since it's main point is "After a “no consensus” close, wait at least two months. After a “keep” close, wait at least six months." Jovanmilic97 (talk) 13:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm aware of that. I still don't think splitting hairs about keep vs NC close calls is useful. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that I need to specifically disagree with that. So long as lots of people raise disputes and rebuttals in reference to past Keeps (quite possibly including myself), then editors aren't being unreasonable to seek a review to a NC rather than a Keep. That's not saying a shift to NC is appropriate here, but I do think that it can be. Nosebagbear (talk) 14:22, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Not unreasonable exactly, but not worth the trouble. There are always a great many more articles--andafd discussions that need attention DGG ( talk ) 00:47, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Not sure you can have any other outcome here, especially given one of the keep !voters I know as a user who presents well-reasoned delete !votes most of the time. Give it a few months and try again, or even better, improve the article. SportingFlyerT·C 04:26, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Flawed reasoning like "given one of the keep !voters I know as a user who presents well-reasoned delete !votes" must be objected, this is a specific case and impression of the voters hardly works, it is not hard to see that none of the keep voters present any reliable source in the discussion. Viztor (talk) 18:07, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources have been presented here by Hut 8.5 so it is clear that the article passes WP:GNG and should be kept. Another AFD will most likely result in a clearer keep vote with the reproduction of the sources identified here so unless you let this go you will be wasting your own time and that of other editors imv Atlantic306 (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do nothing. Deletion would have been improper here. It was essentially a WP:PROD contested by two editors, which of course can't be deleted. The nominator should feel free to re-nominate the article after a reasonable period has elapsed. --Mkativerata (talk) 06:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
seeking review of deletion by editor without prior discussion Jmbranum (talk) 18:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close Wrong venue, as it was not deleted by XfD or by any speedy criteria, or by a PROD. Seems like it was restored and re-redirected 3 times today, dangerously close to WP:3RR. I would recommend sending it to AfD for a consensus to be honest. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not send things to Articles for deletion where no-one wants an administrator to use a deletion tool. There are places to get third opinions and to discuss redirects, and they are not AFD and do not require administrators. Uncle G (talk) 19:43, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I know all that. Problem is that those things you mentioned are (sadly) rarely used, and AfD ends up as a common practice to solve disputed redirects, just like the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ignition (video game) (though this was demonstrated as notable). Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:58, 15 July 2019 (UTC)Viztor (talk) 18:06, 17 July 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'd be happy to review the sources given and add new, reliable sources where necessary. NinaUTA (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Since Northamerica1000 closed it as soft delete, just asking on their talk page probably would have been enough. If you want to work on it a little, I'd suggest getting it moved to your userspace. If you need any help, we have a guide to writing articles for new users and you can ask questions at the AfC help desk, as well as the Teahouse, Help desk or the Live Help IRC. Alpha3031 (t • c) 01:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
AFD Ali Sami (talk) 17:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I would like to provide further references, ThinkMarkets has been awarded a license by the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) to offer electronic financial trading services to South African investors. ThinkMarket is authorized by FCA, ASIC, and FSCA. Established in 2010, ThinkMarkets is a premium multi-asset online brokerage with headquarters in London and Melbourne and hubs in the Asia-Pacific, Middle East and North Africa, Europe, and South America.
. I believe there are reasonable references online to support ThinkMarkets in order to have the Wikipedia page live[reply]
[17] is written by the company's CEO and is therefore not an independent source. [18] looks very much like it was also written by the company or someone working for them. [19] is behind a paywall but I've found something which appears to give its contents, it's a pretty short piece about a round of fundraising, which WP:CORP describes as routine coverage. All three sources have been previously listed in the three prior deletion reviews this article has had. Keep deleted. Hut 8.5 21:08, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedily deleted for rule G11 (spam/unambiguous promotion), but Operation Fastlink is a well-known international law enforcement operation referenced extensively in news reports[Fastlink 1][Fastlink 2][Fastlink 3][Fastlink 4]
and verified by the agencies themselves[Fastlink 5]. It’s unlikely that an article about such an event would constitute spam or promotion, especially as the article was notable enough to be referenced over a dozen times in what are now broken wikilinks. Danhomer (talk) 16:10, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It was replaced with unrelated spam, and then deleted by an administrator who didn't check the history first. Nice going. I've restored and reverted it. —Cryptic 16:27, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
(Notice:Old version)As an OTRS volunteer, I recently accepted the free permission given in Ticket:2019022210003023 regarding File:Apoyevmatini front page.jpg. May any administrators assist with restoring the old version of the file? 廣九直通車 (talk) 09:18, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
More recent and continuing references and sources that are significant, unsupported opinions on self-promotion and conflict of interest Contributingauthor (talk) 11:55, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt that you will get anywhere with this request unless you give details of the sources you wish to use rather than simply state that they exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I was attempting to do just that when you edited/added your comment. Contributingauthor (talk) 12:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I can total understand if a topic was decided to be "not of noteworthiness", which is a known issue and reason many articles are deleted or the note place about this lack. If that is the eventual decision during this appeal, of course I'd accept it. However, the comments to support the deletion seemed of personal opinion like the criticism of my user name, and stating self promotion and/or conflict of interest without verifiable or substantiated reasons. I responded on the Talk page, giving reasons and examples, which can be seen in the archived edition. I believe a revised page relisted with significant updated information or the allowance of recreation should be considered, thank you.
The information I had posted in the discussion and newer sources
Are you, or are you connected with, Red Haircrow? If you don't have a conflict of interest then there are good grounds to summarily overturn that AFD because it was mistaken on the central reason for deletion. But those are sources not dissimilar to the ones already considered at AFD. —S MarshallT/C 16:30, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not connected with Red Haircrow.
But as anyone might know the AfD is a conversative to far right German organization that is very opposed to non-white German people, immigrants, etc. and it is considered a racist party by many Germans so it is really absurd if anyone added an affiliation with AfD to someone like Mr. Haircrow. Contributingauthor (talk) 20:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The close appears to have been reasonable. The appellant is entitled to a reasonable AFD and close, and they got one. They may be saying that it wasn't a perfect AFD. There is a rule in American criminal appellate law that the defendant is entitled to a fair trail, not a perfect one, and we aren't required to provide the same due process as US state courts are. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the AfD was closed correctly. The suspicion of a conflict of interest seems reasonable and one which I'd love for Contributingauthor to respond to. As it's been 7 months since the AfD if there were new sources that wouldn't prohibit recreation, even without a DRV, in my mind. However, the quality of the sources listed here are not the kind that are generally thought to help establish notability and as such I would not suggest recreating the article with those sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There's two possible reasons to overturn an AfD. One is that the close did not correctly summarize the discussion. That's clearly not the case here. The other is that better sources have appeared since the AfD. None of the sources presented here are what we need, so that's not the case either. -- RoySmith(talk) 16:03, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While the article is probably eligible to be re-created by now, the AFD was, in my opinion, definitely correctly closed. However, the deletion comments of a potential conflict of interest are...worrying, as they don't actually cite any plausible reason why Contributingauthor may have a conflict of interest, other than that he contributes largely to that article, which, unless the individual edits would suggest a COI, simply contributing to the article for most of their Wikipedia history doesn't imply a conflict of interest. EggRoll97(talk) 15:45, 12 July 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 decision is made based on counting votes! Those people who voted for deleting the article ignored references that establish notability (I think because of time, feelings and the language barrier where many of these references are in Arabic and other languages). The article topic cover three closely related projects (Supernova, Ring & PWCT) by the same team and from references that cover all of them together, they are one topic and no other Wikipedia article cover them. References for notability in printed journals, magazines & research papers :
Four articles in Youm7 by 3 different authors in 2011, 2016, 2018 provide significant coverage [20][21][22][23]
Three articles in 3 different printed magazines provide significant coverage [24][25][26]
Other references too [27][28][29]
Thanks!
Charmk (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I think this was a fair reading of the debate by @Sandstein:. ReykYO! 07:01, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Correct reading of consensus, well explained in the closing statement. The correct weightings were applied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:47, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. To the extent that I could force myself to slog through the AfD text, it's clear that the close was correct. There's nothing in the nomination which isn't a rehash of what's in the AfD, so this should be speedy closed as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. The nom is strongly urged to read WP:BLUDGEON. -- RoySmith(talk) 13:29, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the useful information. Charmk (talk) 13:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse but it appears that the appellant is saying that the close should have been based on counting the number of words of text. Counting votes comes a little closer to strength of arguments than does counting words of text. Anyway, saying the same thing twenty times is only one argument. The close was valid, although it was made difficult by the wordiness of the appellant. The appellant should be cautioned that future arguments like this may result in XFD restrictions. (This comment is such a caution from one non-admin.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I'm new to the process and I am happy to learn new things about Wikipedia Charmk (talk) 17:17, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Since this AfD closed as delete a couple of days ago, the sole author has discovered a new pastime: listing computing-related articles at AfD. They've listed (at my count) 15 so far. For an editor who had previously shown zero interest at AfD. Also be careful around this editor, because if one happens to list one of their created articles at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/PWCT (software), their immediate response is to look through your creation history, find the first software-related article and to AfD that in clear retaliation: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tox (Python testing wrapper), and without even notifying the author. This is not acceptable editing behaviour. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:34, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just helping Wikipedia by discovering articles about non-notable topics and submitting them for deletion, I like this type of contribution and I think this is something useful to do because articles like Tox (Python testing wrapper) are about non-notable topics and doesn't deserve an article in Wikipedia. Charmk (talk) 18:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That would be precisely what WP:POINT says not to do. Stifle (talk) 09:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for the useful information, I will focus on writing new articles. Charmk (talk) 09:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Charmk - That is a good idea. Please try to select notable topics that we do not have articles about. As you have observed, articles about non-notable topics get deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I will do this, Thank you very much Charmk (talk) 21:57, 8 July 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 didn't violate any rules, the information I added contains only facts, which can be proofed. Also I added updates, pictures, where needed (on blank places, etc.) Leonid Zyabrev (talk) 06:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
List Category:Hebbar Iyengars was deleted speedied without discussion, criteria given did not match the problem, full discussion at AfD looks warranted. Hebbar Iyengars are a community in Karnataka and worldwide where notable number of people of the community exists who come under this Category Sampigesrini (talk) 10:37, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Discussion at CFD lasted for three weeks before being closed so I’m unsure why the nominator is claiming it was a speedy deletion, not discussed, or why they believe that a category should be discussed at AFD.--64.229.166.98 (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - Even an unregistered editor can see that this filing is confused in characterizing this as a mistaken speedy deletion and in suggesting that AFD is the right forum. Valid close, invalid appeal. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Confusing argument by the OP: “deleted speedied without discussion”, “discussion warranted at AfD”, when it was listed at CfD? Suggest a procedural close as no valid reasoning for a review has been presented here. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:29, 5 July 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 created by 3rd party in 2012, arbitrarily reviewed and deleted in 2019 by Editor who discounted 3rd party citations and has since resigned (Spartaz) 173.56.44.222 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse In my mind it's a reasonable candidate for soft deletion given the low participation but that was a correct reading of consensus at that discussion. The fact that the sysop has since resigned has no bearing on their having closed this AfD in-line with the consensus of participating editors. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The deletion decision was clearly correct on the basis of the discussion, the participants in which carefully and thoroughly explained why Mr Peizer's biography does not meet wikipedia's well-settled inclusion standards. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clearly the result of the discussion. To answer the OP's points: the age of the article doesn't matter, the deletion wasn't "arbitrary" (rationales were given), the deletion was as a result of the discussion as a whole and not just the opinion of the person who closed it, the existence of third-party citations does not prove the subject meets WP:GNG (they have to be reliable and constitute significant coverage as well), and whether the closer is still an admin is irrelevant (his/her resignation had nothing to do with closing AfDs). If you think Wikipedia should have an article on this person then I suggest you create a draft version which addresses the points made in the discussion and submit it for review. Hut 8.5 21:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. What does 3rd party mean? That implies there's a 1st and 2nd party as well; who would they be? In any case, the most recent AfD, while sparsely attended, produced a clear consensus to delete. The previous AfD, while many years ago, produced an even clearer consensus to delete. -- RoySmith(talk) 21:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse not the best attended AfD, but both delete !voters provided very good reasons for deletion, and the user commenting didn't provide anything helpful toward keeping the article. SportingFlyerT·C 21:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- Firstly: there was nothing wrong with the AfD. It had a detailed nomination statement, two well-argued opinions that it didn't meet our inclusion criteria, and no disagreeing opinions. Secondly: that Spartaz has resigned his administrator's tools does not have any bearing on this close. ReykYO! 11:46, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For completeness, the subsequent discussion of the deletion is at [30]. I wonder if the OP has a COI he would like to tell us about. SpartazHumbug! 16:56, 3 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Plainly a good reading of the discussion and the right outcome. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:47, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse - The only real question here is the one asked by Spartaz, which is conflict of interest by the filer, and that isn't in scope here, and, besides, a rational H. sapiens knows what the answer to that question is. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
