Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miss Multiverse (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Salted for 1 year. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 03:24, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Multiverse

Miss Multiverse (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log · Stats)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This has been deleted previously, and recreated and deleted. . It's back. As there are sources , I'm taking it here for a decision. If deleted again, it should be salted. DGG ( talk ) 14:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have notified Gidonb (talk · contribs) of this discussion, as they appear to be the most active contributor to this article. —Mz7 (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for this notification, Mz7! gidonb (talk) 13:01, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't know - weak (but not non-existent) notability, but much less of a puff piece than the previously deleted version. Pinkbeast (talk) 16:18, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as notable. There are sufficient sources for just this one article at this time, i.e. not for per country and per year articles. I confess that I happened to run into this article, did some web research, threw out the PR, and hopefully changed it into a reasonable entry for WP. gidonb (talk) 07:18, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt. Nonnotable beauty pageant.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Greetings Tomwsulcer
    Can you tell me what is the criteria for notable or nonnotable, did you look at the page where all the pageants are listed? i can see that there are bigger pageants and smaller ones, so what is the criteria here, what are you basing this on? Jose Cuello (talk) 06:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• this article meets policies of wikipedia I have read the policies for deleting, and much more, it states that an article that has an open discussion or was approved by and administrator cannot be put up for deleting again besides it also mentions there are other alternatives page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page, except in severe cases. why are you doing this then? Jose Cuello (talk) 06:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Question Is there a wikipedia group, that follows pageants or has experience with pageants that can comment here? as far as i see people commenting here have experience in physics, biology, history or other topics irrelevant to pageants. Jose Cuello (talk) 06:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Beauty Pageants is "believed to be inactive" but you could try a message on its talk page. PamD 07:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Frankly, I'd **much** rather be able to get it saved than to get delete it deleted, and I hope someone can come around and do that. We can;t just remove it on your request because others have contributed to it; Salting means protecting the page title so it can't be recreated without going to Deletion Review--it's an option when the AfD is closed. We can courtesy hide this discussion (again, an option for the closing admin) but I need to alert you that some copies of it will remain on the internet beyond our control.

But btw--any article can be deleted at AfD -- it just can't be deleted by speedy deletion if there's been a discussion ending with a consensus to keep, pr with no-consensus. & no subsequent AfD. If it is kept after an AfD, a second afd after a reasonable time is permissible--what is unfair is to keep nominating the article repeatedly until eventualy it gets deleted, perhaps by chance. Our procedures are complicated because we try to arrange them that anyone wanting an article kept has every possible opportunity to find sources that justify it; even after it is deleted here, deletion review remains open if anyone finds new sources. No WP decision is irreversible.

You do have a very reasonable complaint that many people here would rather argue than do actual article improvement or writing. I can't personally help you here, as it's too far out of my field. However:

We do have a WP:WikiProject Beauty Pageants, but it is marked inactive. I posted a notice there asking for help here, if anyone is still looking. I've also notified two active users who might be interested in working on it, and asked them to have a look. DGG ( talk ) 09:10, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt for being a repeatedly recreated article about a beauty pageant that might become notable in the future if they get enough exposure, but isn't sufficiently notable today to have an article, because WP isn't for creating notability. I first had no intention to !vote here, but the disruption on both the article and my talk page is becoming too much, so let's get it over with. Thomas.W ^talk 09:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is exactly my point notice how User talk:Thomas.W now wants it deleted based on a personal reaction and not founded on professional opinion or wikipedia guidelines for an article, he wats a whole article removed just because i am posting on his talk page. this is wat this is all about Jose Cuello (talk) 09:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not. I gave a reason for my !vote, a reason based on policy. All your disruption has done is make me !vote, it hasn't influenced what my !vote would be, as can be clearly seen on my talk page, where I told you what my !vote would be if I chose to !vote, in a post that was made before your disruption started. Thomas.W ^talk 09:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly my point again LOTS of time used warning me etc.. instead of using that time to help the article, I DARE YOU to make a google search and really tell me that Multiverse is less notable than many pageants i see listed in Wikipedia, i see articles there of i really don´t see the spirit of collaboration that made wikipedia what it is today, this notability issue i have read the wikipedia guidelines from top to bottom and it clearly stated that this is if reliable sources are not found.

Look at this and tell me if they are more notable than Multiverse

Bride of the World: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bride_of_the_World

Fresh faces: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Faces

Miss Black: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Black_Universe

Miss Color international: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miss_Colors_International

ECOWAS Peace Pageant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ECOWAS_Peace_Pageant

Jose Cuello (talk) 09:56, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and salt the earth. Just not notable. I can't put it any clearer than the others have here. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 09:57, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ufff how do i get dragged back in to this nonsense Jose Cuello (talk) 10:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BIG BULLIES picking on the newcomers unwelcoming, unfriendly and no collaboration whats so ever. Where are the positive people? this is what happens when an organization becomes big, the administrators become cocky, abusive and think they own the world. DGG, i had no idea this would be so unpleasant and unprofessional, i did this with good intentions, but this is turning upsetting, abusive and not based on professional opinions, the sooner this is done the better so i can just log out and get out of i here Jose Cuello (talk) 10:17, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep It's unbelievable that an international beauty contest that's run for dive years and been televised could have garnered insufficient media coverage to be considered notable. And "I don't like what's been said on my talk page" is not a reason for deletion. But @Jose Cuello: Please tone down your objections; you're doing yourself no favours. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Where do you find someone saying that "I don't like what's been said on my talkpage", or similar, is a reason for deleting the article? Thomas.W ^talk 11:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete Salting is reasonable given the history of this article, with numerous deletions and recreations. I added a reference; still the references overall do not seem to meet the GNG but I am willing to switch if more references are found. Applicable rules are WP:NOTABILITY, WP:RS, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 13:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Also salt per above, the article is not up to par with notability. More second party sources are needed and not just ones that talk about how the local tourism has been boosted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:16, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete & Salt per everyone above - Enough's enough, 5 years it's been going and in those 5 years there's been no evidence of any notability, Jose Cuello should also give up and edit something else since he's fighting a losing battle here!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Can you prove that no Wikipedia administrator has pageant experience? Can you tell me what experience I have? I don't think so. Don't think that we put everything about ourselves onto our user pages. Anyway, what has experience in pageants got to do with assessing something to see if it has sufficient reliable independent coverage. All coverage I found on Google fitted into 13 pages of 10 hits for "Miss Multiverse" (and that's not a lot Googlewise) - and at least one was about a sculpture called 'Multiverse' which one was being advised not to 'miss'. The rest appeared to be not WP:RS compliant. The Missology link you give is a promotional piece, and a very large part of the ghits seemed to be promo too. By the way, articles are not approved by administrators. An admin might give an opinion that he or she thinks an article is ready to launch, or that it doesn't fail a certain criterion, or so on. We do not put a stamp on an article saying that it is officially approved on behalf of Wikipedia as a whole and may not be challenged or deleted. Peridon (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you did Peridon, then you would collaborate with the beauty pageant group, otherwise what is the point of having such experience: furthermore, with your experience can you then answer my one and only question so i can finally understand why other less notable pageants are here and this one is under attack? i turn your question around, can you prove that you have experience? if so can you then tell me if those pageants mentioned above are more notable? besides, am i wrong about the notability guidelines, is this about popularity? the pageant with more money to pay the press is the one entitled to be here? and WOW 13 pages is not enough? does every article in wikipedia have more than 13 pages on google? Administrators do much more than just give an opinion, they also help improve and are here to collaborate, and of course they put a stamp, what do you call the Delete you placed here. Regarding your experience, then what position do you put missosology, do they endorse and promote just any pageant? is this why they are seen as the main board? do they have credibility in the pageant world? I would be delighted to hear your experience, would definitely be great, maybe we can finally re open the pageant wikipedia group that has been abandoned, hummm... can you explain why it is abandoned? why is everyone gone?

• Comment - I've collapsed Jose Cuello's replies as as it stood everything became too confusing, Jose Cuello - Please post shorter comments as it makes replying to you a hell of alot easier, Cheers, –Davey2010 • (talk) 17:20, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• @Jose Cuello: That was just too much to leave unanswered. Who do you think you're fooling? Your claim that "your" article has had no chance to be improved is patently false, it has in fact been vastly improved by other editors here, compared to what it looked like when you created it (as can be seen here). Not only by having been made encyclopaedic, but also by having had several references added to it. But it still doesn't meet our notability criteria, for the simple reason that the in depth coverage by multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject that is required doesn't exist. Your beauty pageant, which has existed for several years now without really taking off, desperately needs publicity, which is why you want an article on Wikipedia, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, with articles about persons and things that already are notable, not a place for promoting things, in the hope of making them notable. Thomas.W ^talk 17:30, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Thomas.W: Ok so you really think that wikipedia is the place to promote pageants?? I thought it was missosology, contestants and fans don`t come here, thats why there is not even an active pageant administrators group, but lets hypothetically say that wikipedia is the place to promote pageants, then what is promotional about the article in comparison to other pageant articles? I think you are missing the point. To make my self clear, the pages i am referring to have been in wikipedia for years and instead of a delete or notability tag they receive a help to improve tag.

Regarding the in depth coverage; i agree, but then you also have to agree about the numerous other beauty pageant pages with reference to missosology, their own websites and way less in-depth articles, if any; to put it simply, pageants are not big world news unless a contestant though off as a woman turned out to be a man, then you can see it on CNN.

I was hoping for a fair solution, but the chosen route is exactly the one wikepedia advices administrators not to take (the so call all or nothing) penalize the whole pagentry because of not meeting notability standards tailored for other industries versus acknowledge that there is a real point here ¨one article that can be supported and improved ¨,

I notice you sound a bit upset... With your attempt to get me banned, I learned to keep calm, respectful but to the point, so that will not work any more, if you want to be upset and retaliate with this article, that is all up to you, i seek fairness and equality, even the constitution was challenged on this basis, so why not a wikipedia policy and a couple of administrators that cannot see this from the same perspective some administrators say notable, others say its not and some vote based on being upset with me, indicating that this policy is totally based on opinion Jose Cuello (talk) 18:58, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Jose Cuello: Your endlessly repeated message about other articles being no better than Miss Multiverse is not going to sway the opinion here. Every article is judged on it's own merits here at AfD, so it doesn't matter if there are other articles that are as non-notable as Miss Multiverse is. Period. I'm not the least upset, BTW, only bored by your endless repetion. Thomas.W ^talk 19:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and Salt This subject of this is simply not notable and @JoseCuello's feelings that such !votes for delete are personal attacks tells me that salting it will give him some time to calm down. The !votes for deletion are not personal, they are simply our comment on the notability of the topic of the article. Simply stating that there are other articles that he believes are less notable than this one does not justify keeping this one. If he believes the others are less notable, then he should nominate those for deletion. As a reminder to @JoseCuello, please remember to sign your entries. Vertium ^{When all is said} _{and done} 01:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment [Back from a week-long vacation - did manage to insert my own humble opinion.] A few points about the discussion above:

1. The nay sayers clearly disregard the independent, verifiable sources in daily publications on several continents, seem to be tainted by I don't like it and in this case also "I don't like him", as a participant in this discussion seems to create antagonism.
2. The otherwise valid point of PR is totally irrelevant if the article has been cleaned of PR. Thomas put a comment on my talk page (!) about PR that has recently been introduced into the article. I will look into this. He did get my attention.
3. While concealing rant can be a reasonable measure, at least one of the sections closed also includes the substantial part of Jose's statements, notably the body of coverage in the international press, including a detailed list of sources not yet included in the article (only some of these are usable). Thus the rant and concealment may have contributed to a snowball effect, while deleting the article has, frankly put, no legs to stand on.
4. Suggestions of salting seem to be tainted by emotion rather than substance. Most contributors to the discussion above duck the sources, the centerpiece of AFDs. Even if you'd claim that the sources fall just short of notability (that'd be a tough one!), this could change any day, hence salting should be totally off the table. gidonb (talk) 12:46, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*New found references for Miss Multiverse

inside this collapsed comment, would like to know if these references are good, thank you Jose Cuello (talk) 02:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's dissect the sources in the article, one by one. They're numbered the same as in the article.

1. Het Nieuwsblad, a newspaper in Belgium. It's a short news story where Ellen Bequeart, winner of Miss Multiverse Belgium, is the main subject, not the Miss Multiverse pageant, telling the readers what school she attends, what her hobbies are and who designed the dress she's wearing. Meaning that it IMO fails to give Miss Multiverse significant coverage, as required even by WP:GNG.

2. Listin Diario, a newspaper in the Dominican Republic. It's an interview with the people behind Miss Multiverse, largely in the form of direct quotes, and presented in a way that reads like a prepared press release. It does give significant coverage to the pageant, but since it's just an interview I would personally not rate it as being independent of the subject.

3. G1 Espirito Santo, Brazil. An article about Deborah Lyra in a regional news source, which, like #1, is totally focused on a contestant, not on the Miss Multiverse pageant. Meaning that it IMO, just like #1, fails to give Miss Multiverse significant coverage.

4, 5 and 6. missmultiverse.com and missmultiverse.wordpress.com. Sourced to the organisation themselves, i.e. primary sources.

7. de Stentor, a newspaper in the Netherlands. An article about Dominique de Haan and her daughter and their participation in a totally different beauty pageant in Paris, with Miss Multiverse mentioned only in passing. Meaning that it fails just about everything.

8. D.R. Ministry of Tourism, Dominican Republic. A letter, reading like a press release, from Linda Gausachs, the CEO of Miss Multiverse, thanking everyone "who has made the event possible", and then listing a Mariam Matthias from the Ministry of Tourism (who has apparently helped coordinate some events during the pageant, which would be a normal service provided by a Ministry of Tourism) as one of those they want to thank, along with a list of hotels and others. In other words a standard thank you letter from Miss Multiverse, making it a primary surce and not a reliable secondary source.

Meaning that only one of the eight sources in the article, #2, can be said to be a secondary source giving Miss Multiverse even significant coverage, which is very far from the "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources independent of the subject" that is usually required. So how anyone can claim that the notability of the subject of this article has been established beats me. Thomas.W ^talk 14:59, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*New found references for Miss Multiverse

Thank you very much Mr. Thomas.W for your valuable time spend highlighting the references that need to be corrected in this article. I am sure this was done with your good spirit of collaboration and constructive means to evaluate the references. I have followed Mr. gidonb comment and therefore included in the article 21 new references.

I will begin by providing a wikipedia link toward the main and most important news papers of The Dominican Republic so their reputation and professional level is not put here in question.

• Listin Diario: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List%C3%ADn_Diario
• Periodico Hoy: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoy_(Rep%C3%BAblica_Dominicana)
• Diario Libre: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diario_Libre

In order to not overflow this message board with links and information, i will summon by stating that references are located following each paragraph of the article, as means to provide a secondary source to support that particular information. Each reference does not have to be in-deph coverage as this is a reference to that particular chapter or phrase and not the entire pageant or article. There are 3 solid newspapers similar to the one you believe gives significan coverage, each news paper reporter has their own style or section within their news paper; reporting, interviewing or both. each newspaper organization has issued diverse articles regarding different activities of the pageant and on different occasions. This is called coverage.

• The complete wikipedia article has 3 blocks of information, each block is referenced as follow:

A. General information about the pageant, the TV program, the current holder of the crown

1. ref1) About the pageant in general
2. ref2) About the TV reality program
3. ref3) Reference that it is held in The Dominican Republic
4. ref4) The current holder of the crown

B. list of winners of this event since its conception Each winner per year has several reference source

C. Selection criteria

1. ref15) References the touristic region
2. ref16) In addition of this being mentioned in most of the news articles, the placement of an article, mentioning a letter or message directed to the president minister of tourism, and the ministry of tourism puts this article in their official website, corroborates that this is with their awareness and support; furthermore, providing tours, visits to the presidential palace and much more, is the whole point of referencing that phrase. your comment that this is what any ministry of tourism is supposed to do is irrelevant of this being a reference to that fact
3. ref17-18-19-20-21) Reference that there is a fashion show in support of an orphanage.

I hope you have had a good Sunday, mine was very insightful with learning how to reference in Wikipedia. Jose Cuello (talk) 00:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding in-depth article, I would be delighted if you can provide a link of an in-depth article of a beauty pageant so i can take a look, and see the difference with the article you mention that has quotations from the president of the organization, i don´t see how an in-depth article can be in-depth if it does not include the reporter interview with the directors of the organization. Please enlighten me Jose Cuello (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. DGG i find it not fair that some one that voted against the article can be self appointed to collapse my comments USER Davey2010 is doing so, every time i post something about new references or points i believe are important for the article, but he leaves other comments that are just as long but negative, for example me fueling, upset at the beginning. How is it possible that someone that is not impartial could do this? when everyone knows that this can strategically influence peoples opinion, he is now sending me warnings limiting my answers to 3 lines, how can i for example explain this right here in 3 lines, what is this? an imparcial person has to do this or DGG whom opened this board, if Davey2010 could collapse, then i can also collapseJose Cuello (talk) 02:05, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As explained on your talkpage - Your comments are excessively long, and confusing to everyone here & to whoever closes this AFD, As I said above and on your TP - Post short messages that are to the point. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The question i answered to was just as long, and posted there in the open for hours, but my answer you collapsed in minutes You are a voter, you cannot be impartial, if self appointing is possible for anyone to do, then i hereby self appoint the job of giving you a hand and collapse one of my very long message that you missed because that particular one makes me look bad, and please don´t post on my talk page if you feel i am in breach of a wikipedia policy and deserve a warning, do it here in the open Jose Cuello (talk) 02:18, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting ridiculous in every sense of the word!, If you deserved a warning I would've given you one a long time ago my friend!. –Davey2010 • (talk) 02:58, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jose Cuello, as I see it, Davey2010 was trying in good faith to keep the discussion focussed. And to help you, also, for the way you have been arguing during this discussion is inevitably going to result in the article being deleted. Right or wrongly, we generally do interpret over-fervant defense as over-committment, as showing a lack of proportion and judgment. It is advisable to make one's case, and then perhaps answer one or two objections briefly, or add other evidence, but after that it is better to stay quiet and let the discussion happen and the community come to whatever conclusion it does. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DGG This is all new for me, and i am reacting and learning as i go, this is emotional for any new wiki user made out of flesh and bones. I am not alone others here are also posting an over-fervant offense and i take this opportunity to ask for this to stop, i might have been upset at early moments but i have already learned that being upset just puts peoples focus on me and not on the real issue on hand, therefore, I posted my latest messages very respectfully, I have taken it down and hope others do as well, I am focused on seeking feedback from those that can tell me if i am improving the article with new references or not. If Davey2010 was trying in good faith, then i ask for a sincere apology, and hope he does not take it personal, when i say, that i still stand behind that articles should be collapsed by a neutral moderator, here and anywhere else where opinions are divided. I am prepared to hear feedback that is factual even if is pro or against the article, and hopefully without unnecessary or upsetting remarks, so we can all reach a constructive conclusion regardless of what it may be, because at the end the knowledge gained from all of this is still a benefit. Jose Cuello (talk) 06:27, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This is getting sillier and sillier. We're looking for reliable third-party sources providing in-depth coverage of the subject of the article, that is the Miss Multiverse pageant, not "references" like this one, which has nothing whatsoever to do with the Miss Multiverse pageant, or this one, which mentions Miss Multiverse only in passing. Which are typical of the new "references" you added. And why are there no references for the claimed world-wide TV broadcasts of the pageant? If the pageant was on TV there ought to be dozens of very solid references... Thomas.W ^talk 16:08, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Greetings and thank you for looking in to this and for your feedback. I see that you have objected to 2 references out of 24

1. As I mentioned before each reference points to an individual frase of the article; the first one you are addressing about, (the fashion show) is 1 out of 5 references used for of a single short frase, and this reference together with the others [20][21][22][23][24] that you are not posting here becomes coverage of that particular event, which is more than enough for a fashion show to race funds for a children's orphanage.
2. TV program, the wikipedia article does not suggest or support your comment that this is a world wide TV program, there are more than one article listed as reference but i have used [3] because its focused on the TV channels broadcasting.
3. The third reference you mentioned, i did not put there, but i do thank who ever did, for their contribution. I am not sure if videos can be used as references in Wikipedia, but maybe some one here can tell me if videos such as multiverse press release video can be used. Wishing you a good day Jose Cuello (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Jose Cuello: No, I object to many more of the new "references", in fact I didn't find any reference among the ones you added that establishes the notability of the subject. I only linked to two of them, though, and then wrote that they're typical of what you added, since there's more than enough to wade through here as it is. Don't try to twist my words around, BTW, you're not good enough to manage that. The article doesn't mention any TV shows, but the interviews, press releases and passing mentions you have linked to do, which is why I asked, but I guess the TV broadcasts never happened. And no, company press releases on Youtube are not reliable sources and can not be used to establish notability. Which, from your point of view, is a pity, since it seems to be all you have... Thomas.W ^talk 17:59, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ok thank you, have a nice day Jose Cuello (talk) 18:14, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Given the abundance of independent verifiable sources, I would like to suggest that AfD will be withdrawn or closed as keep. There is simply no case for deletion. gidonb (talk) 18:53, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ????? Not a single one of the "abundance of verifiable sources" that has showed up so far has established any notability for the subject of the article, which is what matters. It's not about numbers, it's about quality: "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable third-party sources". Thomas.W ^talk 20:03, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, several of the sources do fall into that strict criteria. Others, that you use in your postings, are reference to specific information in the article. I would like to advise taking more distance from the subject by not developing complicated theories why a topic cannot be notable (because eventually such theories will collapse on you) and stop inserting messages in people's talk pages that mislead. This is a very annoying practice. I have been so long around that it won't matter for me, but if you do this to new Wikipedians you will chase them away. Also the "vote summaries" that you have put in your closure requests are unnecessary and against policy. You also mentioned on my page how you "voted" and that therefor you cannot improve the page. Discussions here are not voting or to quote WP:AFD: "The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments." and "Consensus is not based on a tally of votes, but on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." I see these behaviors as errors and would advise you to do some thinking about what you are doing. If you would, in the end some good could come out of all this. gidonb (talk) 20:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Gidonb: Thanks for the lecture, but I'm very familiar with the procedures here, and what an AfD-discussion is and isn't. Which is why I wrote "!vote" (with the preceding exclamation mark, the symbol for logical negation), both on your talk page and everywhere else. A way of writing it that since 2006 has been the established Wikipedia way of clearly indicating that it's not a vote, but a keep/delete/whatever opinion. I didn't write that I couldn't improve the article, BTW, I wrote that I didn't want to remove the few sources there were, as can be clearly seen in the diff I provided. So stop misrepresenting what I write, it's the second time now, first in an edit summary and now here. Thomas.W ^talk 21:09, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is clear that you know the procedures as well as the strategies to achieve what you set your mind to within wikipedia, as i see others in here have as much experience as you do, and perhaps they don´t need a lecture about references to judge if the references are good or not; your vote is already well established and i respect that very much, everyone is well aware of your vote but please allow the rest of the community to evaluate the 20 new found references so everyone can make an educated and well informed decision to cast their vote.. I know you have a strong stand behind your vote but please regard the advice above given by other administrators, we generally do interpret over-fervant defense as over-committment, as showing a lack of proportion and judgment. I wish you a peaceful and wonderful day Jose Cuello (talk) 21:38, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.