Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 June

History of the Jews in Nepal (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Disagree with judgment of closing admin. I queried closing admin on their talk page as to the policy based rationale, but the admin flat out refused to provided any indication as to the reasoning serving as the basis or the close as a "Clear policy-based "keep"". User_talk:DangerousPanda#Your_close_of_AFD_discussion_on_History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal I do not consider that the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly. There was an An/I thread filed in relation to the deletion discussion here, and the OP of that thread has opened an RfC at the article Talk page here. As was pointed out by several editors during the deletion discussion, there is nothing of historical note in the article. One editor that didn't participate in the deletion discussion made the same observation toward the bottom of the AN/I thread as well. There was a proposal to merge made by a couple of editors which may be a viable alternative--to deleting the article--for some of the material. The OP of the An/I thread added a substantial amount of irrelevant or fringe material to the article during the deletion discussion, but has since removed the most contentious material. After he removed that material, however, there is absolutely no basis for an "Ancient history" section in the article, for example, which now simply states that there is no ancient history. Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC) -->[reply]

• Support Close as Keep . I agree with decision of closing admin. What's done is done. No need to re-open this.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• It's been re-opened absolutely bloody everywhere else. Those extraneous discussions should all be closed. DRV is the correct venue to dispute an AfD outcome, and Ubikwit is entirely within his rights to begin a deletion review, so this is the only place the discussion should be re-opened.—S Marshall T/C 12:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Fair enough. My sense is the closing admin did a responsible job, and that the subject has pretty much exhausted itself. My current take is there is a problem with the article title, specifically the word history in the title, I think it should be renamed to Judaism in Nepal or possibly Jews in Nepal, but that the content is worthwhile and should be kept, since it meets GNG, is encyclopedic, etc.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 12:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ... and I find this utterly bizarre. I've been a frequent participant at DRV for five years and I don't think I've ever seen anything like it.

  If we review the debate without examining the article the debate was theoretically considering, then DangerousPanda's close is right in the bullseye. But when I look at the article, I can't connect it with what people said in the debate. I mean, the "keep" recommendations just don't make any sense to me. Neither the Jewish nation nor the Jewish religion have any meaningful history in Nepal and it's not anti-semitic to say so. I don't think your problem is with DangerousPanda's close. I think the debate, rather than the close, was what was defective.—S Marshall T/C 12:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was under the impression that consensus was not based on a vote count, but on assessment of policy-based arguments, in this case, WP:NOTABILITY. If, as you have also found and as many participants in the deletion discussion pointed out, there is no content in the article related to the title, then I was assuming that the consensus of policy based opinions put forth in the discussion would lead to a judgment of consensus such that the article would be deemed to fail to meet the notability criteria, and the discussion closed as "delete", or possibly merge, but not all of the material would fit into the proposed merge destination article. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 13:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Unfortunately, this is rather par for the course for this topic area; article squabbles from the Israel/Palestine/Islam/Judaism rarely make it to DRV, as one side usually marshals (pun unintended) the forces to come bloc vote along strictly ideological lines. Nearly every incident of stone-throwing, axe-wielding, bulldozer-driving, etc...has an article in the project. Even the incidents that are truly notable get bloated to 100k of prose in a matter of days. The alphabet soup of WP:* acronyms is no match. Tarc (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose the DRV nomination and Keep article as is, because the closing admin followed policy, while the nominator in this case, barely 24 hours later after he lost his nomination at the AfD [1], and has been warned for violating WP:DONOTDISRUPT [2] [3] [4], now rushes to this DRV based merely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT & WP:LIKE. In fact, admin DangerousPanda (talk · contribs) goes so far as accusing User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) of "lies and attacks" [5], that added to his general unstoppable violations of WP:DONOTDISRUPT, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL should make him eligible for a quick block here and now. The nominator is simply continuing his WP:WAR [6] over content that has nothing to do with the correct procedures and policies followed by the closing admin. Nominator would be well-advised to follow WP:DROPTHESTICK and WP:SPIDERMAN. Thank you, 13:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC) IZAK (talk) 13:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse the keep decision: I agree with S Marshall above. Consensus does not merely mean numerical vote. The views of editors whose opinions are unrelated to the actual content of the article should be discounted. It is patently absurd to have an article about the history of Jews in a country that has never had a Jewish community. I have suggested a number of compromises that would preserve potentially notable material contained in this article, and all these have been rejected by a group of editors that seem blind to the total absurdity of this article. --Ravpapa (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Close as Keep The closing administrator was rather clear in addressing the strength of the arguments. The AfD was turned into a battleground and now the effort to fight a needless and disruptive battle shifts to DRV. The arguments made in support of the article at AfD directly addressed notability and substantial efforts were made to improve the article in the face of persistent disruptive efforts to remove those improvements. The arguments being made here for overturning the closing administrator's decision simply repeat the same arguments rejected at AfD and go nowhere to making the case that consensus was ignored. Alansohn (talk) 14:19, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• How embarrassing for Wikipedia to have such an sub-standard article. I didn't read it until now and played no part in the previous discussion. Where is the argument for notability? Is it notable because no Jewish community ever existed there? Because none of the 10 tribes were supposed to have moved there? Perhaps it is notable because some Israeli mountain climber was there? Chabad has some emissaries there, like they have everywhere else, big deal. I'm an inclusionist by nature and often vote to keep marginal articles, but this one is essentially devoid of content. Zero^talk 14:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. The discussion had a rough consensus to "Keep". The discussion could not have been closed as "delete".

S Marshall's comment of 12:39, 1 July 2014 is interesting. I agree, it appears that the AfD discussion was faulty, but not the close. I suggest, as often in DRV protests against a Keep closure, to follow the advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion.

Sure enough, the nominator began the discussion with a weak nomination. "The article is purported to be about history, but the article describes no history, with the earliest date referred to being 1986, with absolutely no historical context or relevance." is an argument for improving the article. The sentence fails to assert that the topic has no history, or even no sourceable history. The first nomination sentence does not assert that the topic has no events prior to 1986. It is just a collection of loose statements. It could equally be a rationale for a RM proposal to rename the article to Jews in Nepal. The second sentence, "The article does not meet the notability criteria" appears to miss the point that deletion considers the merit of the topic, not the current state of the article.

Is there a non-trivial history of Jews in Nepal? Is there sourcing from reliable sources? Can the nominators issues be solved with a rename? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the critique of the wording of my proposal, but I didn't want to appear to presume to know whether there was anything that would be turned up to establish notability. That, however, was not the case.

The questions you pose were all substantially answered during the course of the deletion discussion, and the answer is no, there is no non-trivial history of Jews in Nepal. Ravpapa did some research that pretty much established conclusively that there was no "there" there, and proposed ways to salvage some of the content in the article, namely the material about Chabad and the material about diplomatic relations.

A couple of editors on the "keep" side made overzealous efforts to "improve" the article during the course of the deletion discussion to prove that the topic had merit, but their efforts were an exercise in futility; moreover, fringe material and irrelevant material was added to the article, detracting from the focus on the deletion discussion.

Your suggestion of Jews in Nepal might pass notability, but outside of Chabad and the embassy, there are only Jewish tourists, apparently. Jewish tourism in Nepal? I don't know, but it is clear that there is no notable history.

Finally, the content that was added to the article during the deletion discussion, starting with the current opening sentence, redefines history

The history of the Jews in Nepal describes the activity of people from Israel as well as Jewish people who live in and visit the nation of Nepal, including tourism, cultural ties, and religious experiences.

and attempts to support that the article addresses something that fits that new definition. What that first sentence attempts to call "history" is not. Whether the closing admin should have considered a rename or merge, which were both suggested in the deletion discussion, is beyond the scope of my procedural knowledge. --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:54, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the benefit of others here for the first time, I just found the guideline WP:ROUGH CONSENSUS, which includes this text

  Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any). Arguments that contradict policy, are based on opinion rather than fact, or are logically fallacious, are frequently discounted.

  --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:27, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Close To do otherwise requires far stronger policy based arguments than here presented. No sign that the closer ignored policy based arguments is given, and thus the close holds. Collect (talk) 00:27, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close. Well within discretion based on discussion. If the article is still in flux wait for a consensus stable version and then renominate for afd based on changed article.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:34, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or re-open AfD: The "keep" votes in the original AfD are policy-based, well-argued -- and appear to be totally disconnected from the actual content of the article. If History of the Jews in Nepal had the contents implied by the "keep" votes and the "close" reasoning, I'd be in favor of keeping it, but it actually reads like a list of every tenuous link between Judaism and Nepal the authors could dig up. --Carnildo (talk) 02:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse close no one has shown any evidence that the close was wrong. Those who complain about the quality of the article should well understand that the present quality or lack thereof of an article is NOT NOT NOT a basis on which to delete an article of we could dump 80% of our content. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Carlossuarez46: Quality is not the issue here, it is a logical fallacy to assert that the material in the article relates to history. None of the keep arguments that attempted to do so could back that up with RS, though some fringe and otherwise extraneous material was introduced during the AfD. Both Racpapa and User:Drmies did some research into the topic that fairly conclusively determined there was nothing there. Meanwhile, it was acknowledged that there was notable material that could be integrated into other articles, but no name was presented that would facilitate keeping the article in its present form that would meet the notability criteria.

How do votes such as these, for example relate to policy relevant to an AfD? It seems to me that they should have been discounted because they are based solely on opinion

Keep - I would err on the side of assuming notability, as this article comes from a link in the almost-entirely-filled-out Asia in topic|History of the Jews in template. The topic seems pretty notable, and if the article could do with some (or a lot of) expansion, that's not a matter for AfD. ∴ ZX95 [discuss] 02:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep and link to WP:ODD. Bearian (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Keep per Bearian and numerous references. One comment, I think the article is not only about the history of Jews in Nepal, but more about relations between the two countries, as well as about Israelis/Jews in Nepal.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 23:28, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Had such votes been discounted, the likely outcome should have been to move some of the material to one or two different articles, as there were editors on both the keep and delete sides that favored that option. The fact that the content of the article did not correspond to the name of the article makes it clear that there was a logical fallacy involved in any keep vote attempting to maintain that the article was notable as an article on history and should be kept as such.

In the meantime, this is a learning process for me, as I have not participated in a discussion here before and only a couple of AfD's. If another AfD is the best way forward after people have had more time to try and fill out the article, then I would have preferred a close of "no consensus", for example. I don't see how the keep votes merited a "keep" close in light of the "rough consensus" guideline.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 09:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak endorse but strongly suggesting a speedy new AfD discussion, per sound User:S Marshall, Tarc and Carnildo's arguments. Cavarrone 07:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: As this DRV commenced, User Pharos (talk · contribs) has taken on the task of improving the article and adding even more solid content that even the nominator has verified and endorsed [7]. IZAK (talk) 11:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was able to find a source and reworded the comment added by Pharos to reflect what is in the source, but as I mentioned in the edit summary, I do not find the fact that a scholar visited a country and wrote a study on it to substantiate the notability as "history" of "the Jews in Nepal".

For what it's worth, it should also be pointed out, perhaps, that the source I found makes no mention of the fact that Levi was Jewish.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 11:20, 15:13 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ubikwit: Could you please tell us, as briefly as possible, what you would consider to be Jewish history in Nepal or any country or place for that matter? Since no one knows what your minimal "requirements" are in that regard. Is it something grandiose? Is it that Jews should be born in that place? Is it a major catastrophe? A migration? It is just impossible to get a handle on your thinking, or better yet what "principles" or rules" you are going by, that most people are just not accepting. Please stop yelling about what it is "not" and tell us what you think Jewish history "is"! Thanks and regards, IZAK (talk) 11:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IZAK, briefly, this is not about my version of anything, it is about history per se. The second paragraph of the lead of that article states

History can also refer to the academic discipline which uses a narrative to examine and analyse a sequence of past events, and objectively determine the patterns of cause and effect that determine them.

It has already been pointed out by Ravpapa ad Drmies that there are no Nepali Jews--and there never have been--and there has never been a community of diaspora Jews in Nepal, so there is no "history". That leaves only the present.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 12:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit: First of all we don't know what went on the last 5,000+ years in the area of Nepal. Secondly, there have been Jews in Nepal at least since 1960, why does that not count? Thirdly, you are evading my question, I asked you what you would consider to be JEWISH history (hint, it is about Jews in a country, no matter whether they are born there or not), it is not the same as general history, and that I think is the central problem here, we are arguing apples and oranges, can we agree on that? Let's try to be brief (I know we both like to be wordy, so I am trying my best, I assure you.) Thanks, IZAK (talk) 12:17, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't argue with the close given the debate, but wow, that article, and the topic, just really aren't encyclopedic. There is no meaningful history here if the article (and the comments here and at the AfD) are to be believed. But I can see the closer feeling that deletion would have been a supervote. But given the article and the strong sense it can't be meaningfully improved, I'm going to go with overturn to delete. This is basically an article that says "X in Y" and has as content "there is no X in Y". A merge would be a better solution (Jews in SE Asia? I'm not sure Nepal is considered to be in SE Asia though) if a solid merge target can be found. Hobit (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete: echoing reasoning of Hobit. And as for user IZAK's (unsigned at 12:17 above) assertion that we cannot know what went on in Nepal over the last 5,000 years, there is therefore no history involved for a Wikipedia article, since there can be no accurate sources and without sources it is OR. Hence no history. I agree that this article was essentially badly named. Fylbecatulous talk 14:21, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Close as Keep. I find that we have an article on Contemporary history which is speaking about a timeframe closely connected to the present. And I find that the BBC refers to "recent history" in reference to events and developments only decades old. (Note topics under "Recent History" at the linked-to BBC website.) Our article clearly states the limitations of the history under consideration, and assertions in the article seem well-supported by sources. Bus stop (talk) 14:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you re-read the Contemporary history article to which you linked and then try explicating the article under discussion in terms of contemporary history. What is in the article under discussion do you find to be of historical note along the lines of the events described in the "contemporary history" article?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:08, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Wow. Far be it from me to disagree with a fellow admin, but there is no history of the Jews in that country, and no one in the AfD had any arguments to prove otherwise. The presence of one organization does not history make. Jews haven't lived there or built there or anything else until quite recently. I suggested a better course but its pretty well-known that Wikipedians would rather write a bunch of crap with stuff pulled from Google than a real article with journal articles and books as a source. The suggestion that all this stuff is "history" proves our history, and that we should keep this "because something may have happened in the last 5000 years" is so ignorant I don't have words for it. But I suppose that editor will vote to keep Drmies in Nepal since they also don't know anything about that.
• Endorse This is a mere argument over title: if people really insist on interpreting "history" in the narrow sense, it could be changed to Jew in Nepal. DGG ( talk ) 18:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a link to a google search on "Jews in Nepal". I won't repeat what I mentioned above, but if you peruse the Afd, you'll see mention of a JSTORE search conducted by one of the participants.

It seems to me that if the "history" aspect is acknowledged to be a logical fallacy, there is nothing else on the thematic level that holds the collection of material in the article together, and it begins to look like a blog.

I've also found this interesting essay WP:MASK, which states

The use of numerous, often unnecessary references, known as bombardment, can give a good impression and make an article appear notable. In many cases, these could be sources that do not reference the main point of the subject, but rather trivial details that may not even belong. But the number of references does not matter when these sources do not meet the requirements for establishing notability.

Without general notability, the article sounds promotional in relation to the activities of Chabad and perhaps those of the organization converting tribal people from India because it is illegal in India to do so. WP:NOTPROMOTION states

Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.

Since there are dedicated articles on Chabad and the other organization (can't remember the name), the material belongs there, not in a general article called "Jews...". They are not representative of "Jews" as a whole, and there are almost no other Jews in Nepal (except tourists).--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 20:13, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ubikwit, repeating the same slogans does not make them "true" so please quit talking for the Jewish people, since there is no such thing as the "'Jews' as a whole" except in your mind because Jews come in all varieties, in all situations and cannot be judged the way you are judging them from your obviously very narrow POV. You have yet to prove that you know anything about the principles of Jewish history. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closing admin and anyone still to !Vote: Please be aware that even since the commencement of this DRV, the article is being constantly upgraded with additional information with more WP:V WP:RS [8] particularly by User Pharos (talk · contribs) and myself. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

::WP:NOTNEWS, with respect to the History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#Security_issues section, for example.

Other than that, the material being added is tangential at best, consisting of isolated one-off stories about individuals. The latest relates to an eleventh century merchant based in Tunisia who reportedly sold a spice said to originate in Nepal--but even that is not certain. None of this marginalia is about history of "Jews in Nepal". I also looked at the source here on "Jewish history, and you are misrepresenting that by using history as a hook for your coatrack article about any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal.--Ubikwit<sup 連絡 ]]_{見学/迷惑} 07:11, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You know what Ubikwit, by now it's pretty obvious absolutely nothing will ever make you happy, you have tried an AfD, complaining at ANI, and now at this DRV, you just want the Jews out, out, out of Nepal, and you figure if you just repeat yourself long enough you will get your way, no ands ifs or buts, and there is no reasoning with such an irrational approach. Furthermore, since you are such a self-claimed "expert" about the History of Nepal why don't you go and fix that key main article first because since 2011 (three long years) it's been tagged with a huge {{Multiple issues}} template that requests and notes: "cleanup=February 2011; refimprove=June 2011; confusing=January 2011" and as they say, "charity begins at home" and once you can show your bona fides over there maybe you will have some credibility here. But right now, all it seems like is that you are just being stubborn, not acknowledging the constant improvements to the article being made daily and just tiresome obstructionism that is getting to be a pain. IZAK (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah Ubikwit and when you hiss things about objecting to "any Jew that has ever had a tenuous connection to Nepal" it is both worrisome and weird that you are so blind to the obvious conclusion that certainly collectively that that is in and of itself part of the History of the Jews in Nepal, besides the strong WP:V and WP:RS (e.g. 1 Horace Kadoorie was awarded the Order of Gorkha Dakshina Bahu, First Class by the Nepalese government -- obviously they didn't think his links were "tenuous" to Nepal; or 2 The French Jewish scholar Sylvain Lévi who visited Nepal in 1898 and published a three-volume historical study Le Népal: Étude historique d’un royaume hindou, 1905-1908, considered the authoritative Western account of the country for most of the 20th century -- nothing "tenuous" about that either; or 3 the Israeli-based humanitarian organization Tevel b’Tzedek that sponsors Israelis and Jews to go to Nepal as a contribution to improving the lives of Nepalese -- nothing "tenuous" about that either...and there are more such so-called "tenuous" and truly un-tenuous examples in the article that you blithely want out, out, out in your rampaging against this article, while all these, and more in the article, show you are 100% wrong and even if you do not like it. Wake up and smell the coffee, IZAK (talk) 10:41, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, the article is being transformed during the course of this DRV and that many verifiable, reliable sources are being added. I admire the effort and ingenuity that's gone into this process, and I wish it had been used more appropriately. The article now consists of a series of reliably-sourced facts, incidents and anecdotes. The problem is that you and Pharos are making connections between these facts, incidents and anecdotes that, as far as I can tell, no authoritative or scholarly source has ever made. I can understand why you're doing it; you're linking together things that have happened involving Jews in Nepal because you want to keep the article. But it's a WP:NOR violation (specifically WP:SYN): you're creatively mixing together ingredients that no reliable source has ever connected to each other. I'm sorry to say this because the effort is commendable but I believe it's misdirected.—S Marshall T/C 12:16, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Addressing :Ubikwit|'s argument that the material should go under Chabad in Nepal, there at present is really only sufficient material for an article; However vague the definition of Jews may be, it certainly includes Chabad; equally, it certainly includes others than Chabad, and evidence has been presented they're other Jews there; more specific articles can be written if there is need for them. DGG ( talk ) 12:44, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: In light of the addition of the material related to Shavei Israel centers in Nepal, there would seem to be a bit more of a basis for renaming the article to Judaism in Nepal. I don't know if such an article would survive, but it would be better to go with something like that than what there is now if it is to be maintained in any form. The Shavei centers would also seem to be a somewhat tenuous presence, though, tasked solely with the mission of converting the remaining people from a community in NE India.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 15:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG: Could you please clarify your last comment. In retrospect, I'm not sure I understood it. Are you agreeing with the suggestion of Ravpapa and others about moving it to a Chabad based article? And adding others about other groups as they become notable?--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 16:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete This is one of the weirdest articles i've seen recently (vandalism excluded), it claims to deal with the "Jewish history in Nepal" and the gist of it is "There is no noticable Jewish history in Nepal". Tourists and diplomatic staff do not make "history". This way I could write an article "Dutch history in Nepal", too. This is ludicrous. Kleuske (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I was reminded of WP:Articles for deletion/Railway stations in Burundi. Thincat (talk) 15:50, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To user Kleuske: Why is the article "weird"? because you find Jews in Nepal as a topic "weird"? What is your definition of Jewish history? You think one needs drama, blood and gore, to make history? How would you write such an article? This is not just about "tourists and diplomatic" staff. If you want to write a "Dutch history in Nepal" there is nothing stopping you because WP:NOTPAPER, go ahead and find the sources. To user Thincat, are you comparing Jews to "railway stations" or "railway cars"? and if the same number and type of Jews went to Burundi or anywhere else then it would get its article, and many do, see Category:Jewish history by country. Please note, that WP articles do not need to start out at the heights of academia to be acceptable, they must be written in good English, meet WP:V & WP:RS (see the over 45 reliable citations and sources in History of the Jews in Nepal#References that prove that!), it has WP:NOTABLE information and fully abides by WP:NPOV -- all of these criteria are fully met in this case and an AfD confirmed that, so making a mockery of a good article and ignoring the facts does not befit a sensible discussion. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 15:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • The article is weird for the reasons stated. There simply is no appreciable Jewish history in Nepal. Kleuske (talk) 08:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@IZAK: No, not at all. Rather it was "Jews" made me think of Burundi[9] (I expect the article is being worked on right now) and "Nepal" made me think of railway stations, as well it might (Railway stations in Nepal). Thincat (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. This article does pass the test of notability. Efforts are underway to improve it. It should not be summarily deleted. -- Dauster (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Close as Keep . I do not see any reason to overturn the decision of the closing admin.Smeat75 (talk) 21:58, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Close as Keep. Fully support closing admin's rationale. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:45, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@SW3 5DL: What "rationale" would that be? --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Ubikwit: This rationale: The result was keep. The article as nominated appears to have garnered sufficient "keep" policy-based discussion. Attempts to fix any issues brought it even more "keep", and attempts by the nominator to remove positive additions has been disruptive overall. Clear policy-based "keep. That last bit about a disruptive nominator would be about you. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:50, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 19:17, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note that there continues to be issues arising in relation to material being added to the article and the related sourcing, as being discussion in these threads Talk:History_of_the_Jews_in_Nepal#Spikenard
    User_talk:Pharos#Repeated_addition_of_material_apparently_failing_WP:V.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 08:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Close as Keep The closing administrator was rather clear in addressing the strength of the arguments, and in weighing consensus properly. Epeefleche (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

arbitrary break

• Reverse the keep decision. The article is a patent disgrace, unencyclopedia. It's frankly unbelievable that a pastiche of recent tourist connections and religious proseylisation in Nepal be an excuse for the title of an article which, everywhere else on wikipedia History of the Jews in Jamaica;History of the Jews in the United States; History of the Jews in India; History of the Jews in Greece; History of the Jews in Norway ;History of the Jews in Australia and dozens of others, the fundamental premise is that there are centuries-old historic links, and these are well documented in scholarship on the history of Jewish communities. Here there is no such thing, the article is a sui generis piece of WP:OR, with both the title, and the fudged and fabricated 'Ancient History' section trying to pull that over people's eyes by citing extreme WP:Fringe website material that is frankly, off the planet. Secondly, there is good reason to suspect that this is part of an outreach programme by a specific group, since they are mentioned frequently. The closing judgement shows oversight perhaps, but not insight into the POV-shenanigans at work in pushing an unencyclopedic tidbit about hippie tourists from Israel and a religious group catering to their treks through the country. I write as someone who became an orientalist after a marvellous sojourn in Israel during which I decided to become a Tibetan Buddhist monk, training in Nepal, a project defeated by circumstances, leaving me just an orientalist with, as my editing shows, a fair knowledge of the Tibetan world. Nishidani (talk) 10:48, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating Nishidani, that while you shamelessly accuse others of fantasies such as "there is good reason to suspect that this is part of an outreach programme by a specific group, since they are mentioned frequently" in flagrant violation of WP:AGF based on no knowledge of who and what current contributors such as User Pharos (talk · contribs) and myself are, and neither of us has any attachment to Chabad as far as I know, in fact, I single-handedly took Chabad on WP to task in an ArbCom case in 2010, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Chabad movement and I have accordingly cut down to size the mention of Chabad in the article in question, so please quit with the false accusations and insinuations, yet you have no problem in violating WP:COI about your own personal life and outlook: "I write as someone who became an orientalist after a marvellous sojourn in Israel during which I decided to become a Tibetan Buddhist monk, training in Nepal, a project defeated by circumstances, leaving me just an orientalist with, as my editing shows, a fair knowledge of the Tibetan world" -- Who cares?! Unless you want to convince us that you have POVs of your own that you cannot control?! So, let's face it, it would be best for you stay out of this discussion of you cannot control that. Now this may come as a shock to you Nishidani, no one knows who you in real life, and no one cares either, since no one can know what is real and what is pure fabrication. Anyone can claim to be anything on WP, even the "Wizard of Oz" and no one really cares, because on WP we judge editors by their productivity, skills, their ability to abide by WP policies and to behave. On WP it is required to write in clear English, provide WP:V & WP:RS and stick with WP:NPOV and all that is more than met in this article. There is no exaggeration in it, and just because there are no huge tomes in academia about it (yet) still and all the article has over 45 WP:V & WP:RS from media, universities and a variety of good sources, see History of the Jews in Nepal#References. Few articles like that can boast even a quarter such refs. Your recourse to hyperbole, baseless insinuations and unverifiable private anecdotes does not befit a serious WP editor. Feel free to put all that personal stuff onto your own user page but please spare us at serious DRVs and AfDs such as these. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 06:17, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Gee whiz! Sieving this I find one tidbit. Your deduction I am getting at you. At AN/1 I showed the article's attempt to make any historical connection was a false synthesis from weirdo websites, and linked to an eccentric rabbi's personal convictionbs. I noted that the article was left only with (a) the existence of a Chabad House of Kathmandu catering to trekkers (b) facts about Israeli trekkers visiting Katmandu and environs. There's nothing else there. But what did editors do? They fudged, fabricated, invented a pseudo-history out of two-bit religious websites to assert a historical connection. It's like making an article about History of the Greeks in Nepal, or even History of the Scottish in Nepal. Notes 1-7 and the section constructed from them are all egregiously WP:OR. The fact that the great orientalist Sylvain Lévi was Jewish and wrote on Nepal has nothing to do with 'History of the Jews in Nepal,' any more than the great Maxime Rodinson being Jewish and writing on Ethiopian culture and dialects would justify insertion in an article History of the Jews in Ethiopia as a fact bearing on the subject.

Christianity in Nepal or Roman Catholicism in Nepal make some marginal sense because Kathmandu has a Church of the Assumption and historical missionary work exists and local communities exist so if the title had Judaism in Nepal, by analogy, I'd have no objection. As it is it should be History of Contacts between Israel and Nepal. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The sections 'Historic trade routes' are WP:OR since no sources there make the connections, and Notable Jews and Nepal has nothing to do with the title i.e. Jews in Nepal. Nishidani (talk) 09:26, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References are not measured by the pound, yard or cubic meter.The "referencing" in this particular article is less than reliable. Example: The article states "Spikenard is a class of aromatic oil used in many ancient cultures that may represent either lavender, lemongrass, or the modern definition, Nardostachys jatamansi (the latter a spice originating primarily in Nepal and also in neighboring countries),[1][2] and that was a component of the Temple in Jerusalem's incense offering." The two references both refer to the spice, which is a real spice, but the bit that actually needs referencing ("This spice was used in the temple and it came from Nepal") is not. IOW, two bogus references. I very much suspect the rest isn't much better. Kleuske (talk) 08:27, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That whole section is bogus WP:OR as I said on the other page (AN/1) all the sources from 1-7 don't connect Jews to Nepal.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nishidani. There doesn't have to be a "centuries-old" Jewish history. The fact that Jewish history begins in the 1960s in Nepal is in my opinion actually an argument to "Keep" the article. A curious reader may want to know the extent of Jewish history in Nepal. This article with a reasonable degree of accuracy presents that, including the fact that a serious influx of Jews only begins in the 1960s. As an encyclopedia, we examine countries for their Jewish history, because this is of some interest to some readers. Should we eliminate from our examination the country of Nepal due to lack of significant extent of history? Supported by 3 sources we have a sentence in the article reading: "Birnbaum estimated that each year the number of Israeli tourists to Nepal is approximately 20,000, and many of them stay for long periods, such that the Hebrew language is spoken in many streets of Kathmandu and elsewhere; in that sense, there is a vibrant Jewish tourist community in Nepal.[14][15][16]" Why would our encyclopedia eliminate an article that speaks to a hypothetical reader who might be curious about this? That reader may very well be an English-speaking person residing in or visiting Nepal. Wouldn't it be better to improve the article by inserting a sentence in the lead that emphatically stated that there is little evidence for a Jewish history in Nepal prior to the 1960s? Bus stop (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the article Israel and Nepal. The only substance here concerns the establishment of ties and tourism between Israel, Israelis and Nepal. I suppose by analogy we will have a History of Scots in Nepal, History of New Zealanders in Nepal: every modern society has hoards of kids going to Nepal. In Kathmandu you can hear every major world language. So what. This is an encyclopedia not a touristic brochure.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nishidani—it is a safe bet that a sizable number of the Israelis in Nepal are Jewish. There are three Chabad houses in Nepal. This article simply follows a workable pattern of listing Jewish history by country. I think that pattern probably makes for easy navigation by a reader. Should we break that pattern because in this case an argument can be made that the history is limited and/or shallow, and that the majority of Jews in question may in fact be Israeli? Your points are valid, but the content of the article still roughly fits the title of the article as well as the series of articles on Jewish history by country. Furthermore the lead can clearly articulate that there is little evidence of Jewish presence in Nepal prior to the 1960s. This is a more constructive remedy than deletion of the entire article. Bus stop (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is an inadmissible argument for several reasons, the first of which is the claim that because Wikipedia has a series of articles on a given topic that the series can be arbitrarily expanded without RS support simply because "Wikipedia has a series of articles". --Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 14:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What is this arbitrary expansion you are referring to? How is this article an arbitrary expansion on the basic outline applicable to similar articles in this series? Bus stop (talk) 15:58, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no appreciable history to which the title of the article purports to point the reader. So the "arbitrary expansion" to which I referred was a reference to the "series of articles. The fact that there is a "series of articles" that is legitimate in relation to a given topic is not a justification for extending the series beyond the scope that is supported by RS.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 18:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse the keep decision and delete. The article is a mishmash of WP:OR. - Cwobeel (talk) 23:24, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwobeel. Can you please provide some examples of the original research you see? Bus stop (talk) 08:10, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sylvain Levy is WP:OR. The fact that an orientalist was Jewish and briefly visited Nepal, and wrote a book on it, does not establish a fact for a 'History of Jews in Nepal). Maxime Rodinson was Jewish, a superb scholar like Levy, he wrote extensively on Ethiopia's languages and history, but not for that would his passion for the subject qualify as an item in a History of the Jews in Ethiopia. The Levy/Kadourie stuff is barrel-scraping and grasping at straws to try and fudge up a substitute for the lost pre-1948 history of Jews in Nepal.Nishidani (talk) 09:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Great to see you are in such great form! Hey, it is always easier to tear things apart than to build. You can keep on going and do this to hundreds of thousands of articles on WP, if you need help I will find them for you and we can destroy half of WP that way quite quickly. I have no doubt that if you happened to like this topic you could easily put up just as strong an argument for building it up and not tearing it down to the ground. Say what you want, very few articles of this nature have what counts on WP, namely the over 45 WP:V & WP:RS, see History of the Jews in Nepal#References, it also entirely written in WP:NPOV to back it up and build it up, and that is all that counts to keep it on WP. There is no "rule" anywhere (except as you make it up as you go along) that says there is a "residency requirement" of any length of time to connect any Jew or anyone or anything with any phenomenon that may visit or live or that exists to make that "notable". If Neal Armstrong stepped on the moon for a day he is connected with the subject of the Moon and Lunar exploration forever, you can object as much as you like that "humans do not live on the moon, and Armstrong was a human". I dunno, but as I read this article again and again now as it exists I just don't see how a phantom "rabbi" bogeyman is shaping its agenda in any way shape or form. On the contrary the article is actually central to why tens of thousands of young Israelis are coming in droves each year since at least 1960 (proportionately that's like millions of US college students) searching for meaning in Hinduism and Buddhism in Nepal, yes Nepal, something they do not find in Israel and Judaism. Your focus on the Chabad thing actually hinders the real issues going on here. It is not about some kids climbing the Himalayas for fun and you know that from your own experiences as you have admitted to doing this very thing yourself and surely that was something very notable and significant to you, as you have openly admitted above: "I write as someone who became an orientalist after a marvellous [sic] sojourn in Israel during which I decided to become a Tibetan Buddhist monk, training in Nepal, a project defeated by circumstances, leaving me just an orientalist" -- your words about yourself, not mine! Do you even realize what you write?! Take it easy, IZAK (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Nishidani, I also love the way you attempt to marginalize Horace Kadoorie who was awarded the Order of Gorkha Dakshina Bahu (First Class) the highest honor of that country by the King of Nepal himself, and no doubt it was for something very, very significant, or do you dispute that, maybe he got if for "mountain climbing" too or going to a Chabad house for Passover? Note what is says, that "The Most Puissant Order of the Gorkha Dakshina Bahu (Order of the Gurkha Right Arm or Hand) is an order of knighthood of the Nepal. It is one of the highest honors given traditionally by the king and now the president. It can be awarded to both the military and civilians, including foreign nationals, for the distinguished contribution to the country in the field of arts, literature, sports, science, and social service." No small change and certainly WP:N! So your frenzied arguments based merely on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT just do not hold water. IZAK (talk) 16:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wild assertions, all wrong, all personal, and you have the hide to complain of Ubikwit? This is a logical exercise in article construction.

Perhaps indeed Horace Kadoorie, a very great man, could go into an article on Nepal. But logically, if we need this special article, then we create 'History of New Zealanders in Nepal', with Edmund Hillary (who received the same medal), statistics on the considerable number of Kiwis who hike there every year, and mention of the churches they attend in Katmandu, plus consular exchanges. Through in the Kiwi clothing company whose name I can't remember, active there.

Kadoorie's philanthropy extended to helping Jewish refugees in Shanghai, not for that do we add his name to History of the Jews in China. He always was awarded the French Legion of Honour, but not for that do we have him registered in History of the Jews in France. People who have this ethnic fixation, who can't look at anything without trying to find a badge of their identity stamped on the subject, are a nuisance socially and on wikipedia. I just think this is nationalist/religious POV pushing. Just as I won't tolerate antisemitism, I dislike its positive mirror, ethnic obsessiveness about Jewish connections in every subject - it smacks of the same malady, the inability to enjoy anything unless it is, in this case, part of us as opposed to them. And it is odd that this occurs in Jewish articles. Anyone who is Jewish has such an extraordinarily rich global and historical heritage that trumpeting it is like yelling to monkeys 'I'm different'!!! recognize it!!! 'Quite pointless. Jews are Jews, they are also philosophers, mathematicians, politicians, German, Icelanders, metal smiths, hollywood stars, ballerinas, and cowboys, and this obsession people have with jumping on the Jewishness to the exclusion of their individual human gifts is as dangerous as antisemites, who see Jewishness everywhere and in everything.Nishidani (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: Let's get this straight, this is a DRV discussion about a valid topic relevant to Jewish history not much diffrent to the myriad topics in Category:Jewish history by country. Are you saying that any topic related to Jewish history should "not be 'Jewish'" like saying a topic about the history of the Arab people should "not be about 'Arabs'"? That is very illogical and irrational. Please stop pontification your personal POVs about Jews, Jews, Jews, (or about anything else that's not directly relevant for that matter) since nobody is interested! Either contribute and edit the article as Ubikwit is trying to do, but please stop serving as his oversize "wingman" in this DRV. In addition, I quote you verbatim speaking about yourself (naturally, as that seems one of your favorite ploys) so since when is quoting someone's own words a problem? You need to tone down your emotional oversize reactions, stop speaking about yourself (since no one cares about your personal history or self-declared claims to fame that no one can prove) and stick to the cold facts alone in a calm manner please, and please avoid filthy language as I have requested above. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 14:31, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you some problem with me? You think my replies are 'emotional' outbursts? I'm deeply amused by inanity, wherever I find it. This is just one example. I guess a wry smile may be 'emotional' but when I happened on this, that is all my emotions expressed.

Are you saying that any topic related to Jewish history should "not be 'Jewish'"

Nope, and that's a bizarre reading. I am saying, quite commonsensically, that for a topic to be related to Jewish history, it must have a Jewish component, and be historical. Jei9sh history is too rich to be triviliazed by far-fetched fantasies and nonsense of the kind which blotted the editorial history of the article in question.

this is a DRV discussion about a valid topic relevant to Jewish history

Um, read the text

According to the 2011 Census of Nepal, there is no Jewish community of native Nepalese people

Some days back it had

As of 2014, the permanent Jewish community in Nepal is very small and consists largely of Israeli diplomatic officials and Chabad staff.

There is no 'history of the Jews in Nepal. The article, after successive eliminations of all the bogus history confectioned up to give the appearance of historical depth, is left with noting touristic visits. It's a silly article. It began as an attempt to fudge up a 'history' and then had to admit there was none, and then had to alter the lead to note that there is no history, only trekker visits, a religious house catering to them, and diplomatic staff. I can't wait to watch the next exciting developments in the series:

(a)History of the Jews in Ladakh (if you go to Leh you'll see a Habayit HaYehudi there): (b) History of the Jews in Bhutan; (c) History of the Jews in Tibet (the late lamented translator of the Gesar epic Robin Kornman), (d) History of the Jews in Mongolia (Mikhail Izrailovich Tubyansky, murdered in Stalin's purges), etc.etc. These are all technically feasible also because Aurel Stein travelled there, as did and have many other scholars of Jewish descent (Melvyn Goldstein).

Look, I don't care either way, whether this is accepted or not.It's simply that no one has given a reason for the inclusion of this nonsense into wikipedia, and the editors constructing the article have made consistently silly contributions. But stranger things happen.Nishidani (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: You are a master of taking snippets from here and there and quoting them totally out of context to prove your POV. Nice try, no cigar. Not the first time it's done. You know you sadden me, you talk as if WP is supposed to be some sort of pluperfect production of sublime knowledge which it is not. As we all know, WP is still only in its relative infancy gathering, welcoming and building up articles. Many articles do not exist yet and many articles do not cross-reference each other. If you want to go and do that, don't talk about it as some kind of "tragedy", just go and take care of it. I am sure neither the hospital Kadoori was born in nor the synagogue he had his barmitzvah in do not mention his name either, so what? All it means is that an editor has not gotten around to it yet (it may take years, but WP has time). You are wrong about there "not" being Jews in Nepal, they are there and have been coming to Nepal for decades, they are there in droves right now as we speak, many works talk about it, they are coming for the Buddhism and Hinduism they find there. I have now added more about this with WP:RS to the article. I am really sorry that you cannot tolerate people studying, talking and writing about Jews and Judaism and Jewish history etc (do you also say that to Christians, Muslim, Hindu and all editors who may have an interest in ANY religions and ethnic groups, as you know the Jews are both a religious group and and ethnic group??) it makes it sound as if you wish that Jews and Judaism and Jewish history would disappear. It is also very alarming when you compare Jews to antisemites!!!! as you put it in your own words: "this obsession people have with jumping on the Jewishness to the exclusion of their individual human gifts is as dangerous as antisemites, who see Jewishness everywhere and in everything" really now ??!! can you back that up with some WP:V & WP:RS???? (what the heck is "Jewishness" in any case???) but I suspect it is just you, yet again spouting your own very prejudiced POV (against "Jewishness" at any rate by your own words) in your own words to your detriment (naturally) that is totally irrational, illogical, insulting and sorry to say it unacceptable or worse, don't you see you are harming yourself with that kind of talk as well as offending Jewish editors with that kind of spiteful hate-filled speech?! Do you not like people who study Jews and Judaism in colleges, universities, schools, or write books, and journals and newspapers about that subject, too many to count??!! Should they all "go away" and then you and Ubikwit will be "happy"??!! As I said, no one is forcing you or anyone to edit articles in any field, and if editors wish to contribute of their free time and expertise in any area, WP welcomes that and as far as I can tell you do not speak for WP, or am I missing something? Take it easy, maybe it is time for you to have a WP:WIKIBREAK. IZAK (talk) 18:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK. I've been raising analytic, logic, analogical and technical problems with the article in several posts, and your replies consist of these personal attacks, impressions, remarks and innuendoes' (it's not hard to read between the lines:Nishidani is not one of us, and if he comments on a topic that interests me he has a problem with Jews). Let me list the innuendoes, insults and personalized pulpit thumping.

• you shamelessly accuse others of fantasies (I noted the sources were fantasies)
• you have no problem in violating WP:COI about your own personal life and outlook (?)
• Your recourse to hyperbole, baseless insinuations and unverifiable private anecdotes does not befit a serious WP editor
• your attempt to marginalize Horace Kadoorie (I didn't. I showed use of his award was improper for the article)
• your frenzied arguments based merely on WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT just do not hold water
• Please stop pontification(about) your personal POVs about Jews, Jews, Jews. (= I am obsessed with Jews, i.e., am antisemitic)
• please stop serving as his oversize "wingman" (is a pilot who supports another in a potentially dangerous flying environment) in this DRV (WP:Tagteam)
• You need to tone down your emotional oversize reaction
• stop speaking about yourself (I made an aside once, and IZAK, you repeat it several times, suggesting I stop speaking about myself. I.e. you should stop speaking about me)
• self-declared claims to fame that no one can prove) and stick to the cold facts alone in a calm manner. (I made no such claim, and have adduced cold facts)
• please avoid filthy language (turpiloquy in calling a spade a spade?)
• You are a master of taking snippets from here and there and quoting them totally out of context to prove your POV.(WP:Point/editwarriordom etc.)
• You know you sadden me, you talk as if WP is supposed to be some sort of pluperfect production of sublime knowledge which it is not. (ie. I want to write an encyclopedia, not muddle through)
• I am really sorry that you cannot tolerate people studying, talking and writing about Jews and Judaism and Jewish history (Really? I've written several fairly good articles on the subject. See my page)
• it makes it sound 'as if you wish that Jews and Judaism and Jewish history would disappear (oh, echoes of the proverbial holocaust redivivus mentality)
• It is also very alarming when you compare Jews to antisemites!!!! (I didn't. I had in mind an anecdote you often hear in Israel (most recently by Uri Avnery(the original in the 1920s, by the way, did not speak of Jews. It spoke of Poles. I don't believe in collective descriptions. I don't believe in 'nations' or ethnic groups of any type. I demand that each person/editor take responsibility for what he says, writes, does, without playing the ethnic/antiethnic card by spinning everything as based on 'racial' antipathies)

• UNESCO invites representatives of different countries to a conference on elephants and the following pagers are given The Englishman gives his paper on "Elephant hunting in Colonial India." The Russian reads "the Superiority of the Russian elephant." The Italian reads "Elephants and the Renaissance." The Frenchman offers "The love life of the Elephant." The American reads "How to Raise Bigger and Better Elephants." A Nigerian offers "Elephants and Racism." The Czechs offer "Why the Soviet Elephant is Our Idol." An Israeli offers "Elephants and the Jewish Question." Arthur Asa Berger,Blind Men and Elephants: Perspectives on Humor, Transaction Publishers 1995 p.100

• I suspect it is just you, yet again spouting your own POV in your own words to your detriment (naturally) that is totally irrational, illogical, insulting and sorry to say it unacceptable or worse, don't you see you are harming yourself with that kind of talk as well as offending Jewish editors with that kind of spiteful hate-filled speech?!
• Do you not like people who study Jews and Judaism in colleges, universities, schools, or write books, and journals and newspapers about that subject, too many to count??!! Should they all "go away" and then you and Ubikwit will be "happy"??!! (I.e. a lousy article is held hostage because objectors to it are antisemites and my dissatisfaction with a pathetic article must be rooted in antisemitic distaste for Jews.

Apart from repeatedly violating WP:AGF and sidestepping the specific wiki-based objections I raised, you are employing throughout these personal tirades of vilification by innuendo a hackneyed piece of quarter-baked rhetoric, whose propositional form is. 'Someone disagrees with me (b) I happen to be Jewish (c) the objection must be grounded in antisemitic enmity.

Try, dear chap, to focus on the objections, and avoid these farcical attempts to denigrate and personalize them.Nishidani (talk) 19:40, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani: So now you are trivializing this subject yet again, if anyone wants to write what UNESCO thinks about anything, let them go ahead, as far as I know, Wikipedia is not UNESCO while WP is an international collaborative effort to write an online encyclopedia about everything, that has also added policy guidelines that require WP:V & WP:RS that articles should be written in good English in a WP:NPOV manner which the article in question more than satisfies as was confirmed and affirmed by an AFD and certified by the closing admin. But User Ubikwit (talk · contribs) cannot accept the WP:CONSENSUS of that and he then resorts to all sorts of WP:BATTLEGROUND tactics to attempt another destruction of the article now through this DRV. In the interim the article is undergoing considerable improvement (like every article can) and most users have had their say and have had enough of this headache that is really not worth this type of discussion. Yet you and Ubikwit keep on writing reams of comments and critiques that you self-label as "raising analytic, logic, analogic [sic] and technical problems with the article" (that only you think is so, after all, no one says that, and self-praise is no recommendation) that others see as just another guy's POV. Then you claim that there is some kind of "us versus them" conspiracy going on here of: "Nishidani is not one of us, and if he comments on a topic that interests me he has a problem with Jews" -- when I just cite your own words that seems to surprise you. As for comments that are full of innuendos and aspersions on others, your posts seems to indicate an irrational fear of some sort of "conspiracy theory" and cynical put-downs such as when you allege 1 "Secondly, there is good reason to suspect that this is part of an outreach programme by a specific group, since they are mentioned frequently." (Your "conspiracy theory" not anyone else's.) 2 "POV-shenanigans at work in pushing an unencyclopedic tidbit about hippie tourists from Israel and a religious group catering to their treks." (You may not like them, but they are there doing things, like it or not, and WP can describe and try to explain it.) 3 "the article's attempt to make any historical connection was a false synthesis from weirdo websites, and linked to an eccentric rabbi's personal convictionbs." (Again, who is this mysterious "rabbi" who is behind the "conspiracy theory"?) 4 "But what did editors do? They fudged, fabricated, invented a pseudo-history out of two-bit religious websites to assert a historical connection." (Go ahead insult fellow editors and excoriate anyone else as if you own WP, which you don't.) 5 "I just think this is nationalist/religious POV pushing. Just as I won't tolerate antisemitism, I dislike its positive mirror, ethnic obsessiveness about Jewish connections in every subject - it smacks of the same malady, the inability to enjoy anything unless it is, in this case, part of us as opposed to them." (Just your POV, and another "conspiracy theory" -- because if editors have an interest in a subject, any subject, WP welcomes them to contribute, you are not running the show here AFAIK.) 6 "Anyone who is Jewish has such an extraordinarily rich global and historical heritage that trumpeting it is like yelling to monkeys 'I'm different'!!! recognize it!!! 'Quite pointless. Jews are Jews." (What are you talking about? Do you now want to remake all of Judaism and change all the Jews, go ahead, we can only deal with the reality of what is, not what you would like to be.) 7 "this obsession people have with jumping on the Jewishness to the exclusion of their individual human gifts is as dangerous as antisemites, who see Jewishness everywhere and in everything" ("interest in 'Jewishness'" = "antisemites" -- what a sick conclusion!) 8 "Jei9sh [sic] history is too rich to be triviliazed by far-fetched fantasies and nonsense of the kind which blotted the editorial history of the article in question." (What "fantasies" are in this article? Pray tell. Why does it deserve such harsh language? Do you do that every time you don't like any article?) 9 "no one has given a reason for the inclusion of this nonsense into wikipedia, and the editors constructing the article have made consistently silly contributions" (Sorry, but I am one of those people who has worked hard, for no pay, as a labor of love, to improve the article with better information, clearer focus and reliable sources.) 10 "remarks and innuendoes' it's not hard to read between the lines:Nishidani is not one of us, and if he comments on a topic that interests me he has a problem with Jews. (There is no "us versus them" here, most editors here are probably not even Jewish, so why are you throwing this in, as if you are the main focus, and if not, you will make yourself the main focus, when no one is interested in your personal history or your personal POV views, just stick to the topic at hand.) 11 "Uri Avnery the original in the 1920s, by the way, did not speak of Jews. It spoke of Poles. I don't believe in collective descriptions. I don't believe in 'nations' of any type." (Okay, so you don't like nations or ethnic groups or religions, who cares? WP has a commitment to accept and write about everything -- nations, ethnic groups and religions included.) 12 "I demand that each person/editor take responsibility for what he says, writes, does, without playing the ethnic/antiethnic card)." (Who are you to "demand" anything here, do you own WP the way you talk to others?) 13 "'Someone disagrees with me (b) I happen to be Jewish (c) the objection must be grounded in antisemitic enmity." (Now you are really making things up because no one ever said that or meant that. Just take responsibility for your own words about Jews, how interest in "Jewishness" is somehow like "antisemitism" and now you are playing the "victim" card when it is you who is verbally beating up anyone who comes in your path.) Bottom line, A you constantly violate WP:AGF all the time, B you are most certainly NOT WP:CIVIL to editors who do not share your POV or are not submissive to you. CYou violate WP:NPA when anyone stands in your way and you dislike the topic enough, which does not take much. D You act as if you WP:OWN not just this article but the entire scope of WP policies and its purpose. E You violate WP:BATTLEGROUND via your use outrageous language and insult those who differ with you, and you see "conspiracy theories" emanating from "rabbis" and "religious groups" that is just unreal and just plain scary. F You obviously cannot see when you are busy with WP:POINT all the time via unsolicited and unwelcome "personal anecdotes and comments" and a holier than thou lecturing tone to impose what you think should be WP's agenda, the hell with the fact that the world is not just made up of yourself or of "me, myself and I" as they say. Then you have the audacity to say that hey look at IZAK, he is actually talking back to me and calling me on all this. That is the height of chutzpah. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 20:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Nishidani (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Nishidani:, too bad, you would learn something positive. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 21:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. All I've learnt here is that people talk past problems and don't read books, and edit subjects without an ability to spot errors or sheer nonsense. Just looking at the article pains me. After all, whoever edited it is so magnificently erudite that (s)he had mangled the very first citations, and I've checked everyday to see if the obvious blooper will be sighted by the geniuses working the page. I.e. There is a comical confusion re one of the greatest sociologists of all time Marcel Mauss. Someone editing this junk thinks that he was a 'mouse' (Germ.Maus). Which reminds me I once recommended to a wikipedian, who asked me for some advice, that he read Mauss's masterly Essai sur le don. I guess he's no longer around, certainly not watching this article.

And of course whoever misread the source to state that Sylvain Lévi 'was the first to take a comparative approach to Hinduism and Judaism,' hasn't the foggiest notion of Indology. The comparison was made 2 centuries before Lévi's floruit, by La Crequinière in his Conformité des Coutumes des Indiens Orientaux avec celles des Juifs et des autres Peuples de I'Antiquité, Brusselles, chez George de Backer, (1704), and became a meme long before Aryanist racism infected Orientalism. But of course, I've been reminded I know nothing of Jewish history or culture, and am faking it when saying I have some knowledge of the Orient. Cheers Nishidani (talk) 21:36, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Close As Keep. I agree with Alansohn that the closing administrator was quite clear in supporting the arguments of the Keep !votes, rather than just tallying up those who voted Keep. I'm aware that AFDs can be brought to DRV for re-review, but I am shocked by the number of new editors who are suddenly weighing in for the first time, as if this were an AFD discussion. Regarding Ubikwit's effort to revert the close, he is simply repeating the same arguments that lost him the AFD the first time around. The only salient solution I can see here – which is not for a DRV, but for the talk page of the article – is to ask for consensus on renaming the page Jews in Nepal or Judaism in Nepal. I think that a rename would go far to unruffle the feathers of those who fervently insist that "history" must be centuries old and not decades old. (By the way, the history of the Jewish diaspora is exactly that: settlement and exodus, settlement and exodus, whereby Jewish communities that once thrived in certain countries are completely extinct today, while newer communities now thrive in places that never before saw a Jew. Your epiphany while visiting Israel is commendable, Nishidani, but you know nothing about Jewish history and culture.) The article as it stands today has 47 reliable sources, making it clearly notable and verifiable. It could use some copyediting to smooth it out and not make it sound like a series of sentences strung together, but that's no reason to delete it. Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your epiphany while visiting Israel is commendable, Nishidani, but you know nothing about Jewish history and culture

Again, as per IZAK, the personal insults. I would yawn except for the fact that you misuse the word 'epiphany'. I mentioned no such experience (as you get correctly employed for example in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man. You alsp ignore the fact that the first 7 RS are not RS for this topic, since none of them connect the dots in the WP:SYNTH argument made there. You also ignore the point about Kadoorie. You also ignore the fact that this is the only 'History of the Jews in . .(name a country) that uses the word history of events in the last three or four decades. As for not knowing about Jewish culture and history, you may be right. But then, to judge from the state of articles on these topics, I am in very good company, since no one seems to roll up their sleeves and correct the numerous confusions between hearsay, legend and scholarly determined facts which make a large number of them an eyesore. I don't look at them anymore, to save myself the trouble of having to spend hours fixing them, like I did this morning with just one egregious piece of source misreportage in the little I read in History of the Jews in India. I do wish we had editors who are thoroughly familiar with Jewish history and culture. I've only seen a handful at work in several years, and this absence is rather shameful for a community where eruditeness is commonplace. But then again, smart people don't often waste their time on wikipedia. Nishidani (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Alansohn: @Yoninah: I have made it clear that I disagree with the closing admins so-called rationale, with respect to which he declined to reply to multiple queries seeking clarification.

If you two are so confident about this article and its notability, then why don't you simply try to improve it by adding some RS-sourced content? No can do?

Well then, I've just deleted a bogus section after User:Pharos failed to reply to queries on his user talk page as well as the article talk page regarding some information of dubious sourcing. Anyway, let's see what you have to say about that. Either start editing the article, or stop trying to defend it on the basis of recourse to unsubstantiated ideological hubris over and against specific faults with it vis-a-vis WP policy, such as WP:RS WP:V and WP:N.--Ubikwit ^連絡 _{見学/迷惑} 21:21, 6 July 2014; 00:50, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Brummell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not consider that the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly. Four editors opined to keep against three to delete. Brummell has been the ambassador of a major country (the United Kingdom) to four other postings (successively Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan & Kyrgyzstan, Barbados & Eastern Caribbean, and Romania). I recognise that ambassadors are not considered inherently notable, although I and others consider they should be, but that does not mean they cannot be notable. Brummell has an entry in Who's Who. Maybe the sourcing isn't great, but I believe it is sufficient for an article to exist about him. As we all know, Afd is not about a simple count of keep and delete votes, but in this instance, given the voting, this should at least have been closed as no consensus and not delete. Instead the closer appears to have completely discounted any keep opinions and gone with his own opinion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:36, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse only one of the keep !voters actually attempted to find sources. The other keep !voters did not bother to establish sources nor point to any guideline that gives ambassadors inherent notability. if there was such a guideline maybe this DRV would have merit. LibStar (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - as 3 keepers were of the "it is inherently notable" bent, which is not at all true. The consensus of those making cogent arguments was quite clear. Tarc (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really. The keep arguments were actually of a "these positions are senior enough to make one notable" bent. The delete arguments were of a "these positions are not senior enough to make one notable" bent. Not really much in either apart from opinion. I would argue that keeping an article on a senior government official is common sense and benefits the project. Why is that not a cogent, policy-based argument, given that WP:IAR (a policy) says "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it"? -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • so we should ignore notability criteria in this case? WP:IAR is not intended to give a free pass to non-inherently notable items. LibStar (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's only your opinion that they're non-inherently notable. Others disagree with you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes really. People just can't up and declare that all ambassadors are inherently notable, vote keep, and expect anyone to take them seriously. Make a proposal at the appropriate page, e.g. WP:POLITICIAN, and proceed from there. Tarc (talk) 13:41, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • So tell me what you think afd is actually for? Is it not to achieve consensus over things like this? If not, why don't we just give admins the power to delete articles at will if they don't meet set-in-stone criteria? Why is there not a policy that states: "All articles on ambassadors can be deleted out of hand because there is no policy that says they're inherently notable"? Answer: because afd is about expressing an opinion and forming a consensus! No argument in an afd that makes a sensible point (e.g. that certain people are senior enough to be seen as inherently notable and articles on them benefit Wikipedia) should be dismissed out of hand as you and the closer have done, especially when it has been expressed by several different editors. This is very far from being WP:ILIKEIT and snide assertions that they should not be taken seriously are not helpful. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • XfDs are for determining consensus, yes, but editors' input has to be based on established project policy and guidelines, otherwise it'd be just a vote. Many people can (and do) show up to deletion discussions about YouTube personalities, where they then vote on "he/she gets lots of YouTube views" criteria, which is expressly disallowed by our notability guidelines. If 10 fanboys say "keep it it has a million hits!" and 2 vote "delete since the subject fails the WP:GNG", the article will be deleted. Tarc (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm sure I addressed that above. They're ILIKEIT arguments. As I specifically said, these are not. They're logical arguments. Just as we have a consensus that all members of national and sub-national legislatures should be kept at WP:POLITICIAN and a de facto consensus that all general officers should be kept at WP:SOLDIER, it is possible to obtain a consensus on other categories of senior individuals. I believe that is what we should have here. And I am clearly not alone. Afd is a perfectly reasonable place to put forward such arguments. Dismissing them out of hand and claiming they should not be taken seriously is not productive. Wikipedia policies and guidelines are fluid, not set in stone. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the fact some ambassador articles have been deleted demonstrates no inherent notability, if they are kept they would have met WP:BIO or WP:POLITICIAN, saying repeatedly they are inherently notable in the absence of a guideline convinces no closing admin, nor does it turn it into inherently notable , as Tarc says if you're so convinced set up a proposal to establish a notability guideline.LibStar (talk) 15:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

not really, it indicate no more than our inconsistency. Some articles of every possible type have been deleted if not adequately defended. This is not an inclusionist argument particularly: occasional articles of no particular merit have been kept despite the deletion of most almost identical articles with equivalent sourcing. I think our error is 10% in either direction, which means there is a 1 in 4 odds that any particular afd decision is wrong by our own principles. (this apparently dismal record is actually an improvement: when I came here, it was 20% improper deletions, not 10%.) DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

regardless, if something is deleted when it clearly meets a notability criterion, it would be overturned in a deletion review, or even recreated at a later date. In this case there is no inherent notability in ambassadors. LibStar (talk) 15:22, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can they meet WP:POLITICIAN when most of them are not and never have been politicians? -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some have been politicians, otherwise they would meet WP:BIO if they were kept. In any case, keep !voters are strongly advised to produce sources to establish notability, not say inherent notability when there is clearly no inherent notability. LibStar (talk)

Some have been. Most, however, are career diplomats. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have always considered Ambassadors, at least of major powers, to be intrinsically notable. The rank is the top of their profession,and we normally regard the top rank of any profession notable. The position s at least equal in prestige and dignity than a member of a national legislature, and we regard not just all members of national legislatures notable, but all members of state legislatures. Nobody who know WP expects it to be consistent, we we should aim at some degree of equivalence between major professions. I regard this as one element of the general bias of WPedians, who don't tend to realize the importance of the serious parts of the real world. The consensus has not supported me in this so far , but as we evolve from a society of people primarily interested in various hobbies, I expect that it will. DGG ( talk ) 15:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• What the debate should have focused on is the fact that he has a Who's Who entry and a profile on .gov.uk, and those are pretty bloody clear evidence that we ought to have an article on this person. Instead, editors chose to spend a week wrangling about WP:POLITICIAN, which is a symptom of how specific notability guidelines have come to dominate the AfD process in recent years. On the basis of SNGs, we routinely keep biographies of bit part Star Trek actors and pseudonymous porn performers, but we've got delete the one on an actual ambassador, and I think this is stupid. The way that we're told, apparently in all seriousness, that we need to get consensus to amend WP:POLITICIAN before we can overturn the result of that discussion is even more so. Relist for a better debate so that we can reach a proper conclusion that's about the sources rather than wikilawyering about SNGs.—S Marshall T/C 20:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well said. Some editors would clearly like to turn Wikipedia into a monolithic bureaucracy where everything is governed by virtually immutable "rules". That is not the project I joined, it is not the project I want, and I do not believe it is the project that the world needs. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:39, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus. Despite the AFD's closing rationale, so far as I know the only policy on notability is that there is no such policy. Instead we are invited to consider the guidelines and then decide whether an article is justified. If a coherent argument is put forward for why someone is notable even though the notability criteria have not been met (or vice versa) this should be given full weight. In this AFD the nomination and all the delete !votes were coherently based on the notability guidelines. My reading of the keep !votes is that they argued that the person should be notable according to appropriate guidelines. To me there is no sign that anyone was confused into thinking the guidelines had been met and so they were required (reluctantly) to !vote keep. So, I see no reason for discounting any of the !votes and on this basis there was no consensus. The guidelines are based on our opinions and not the other way round. Thincat (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for reasons given above by Necrothesp, DGG, S Marshall and Thincat. Stanning (talk) 08:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to be clear that I did not say "overturn". I said "relist". I think the discussion rather than the closer was at fault.—S Marshall T/C 09:14, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Apologies, so you did. (But I agree totally with what you said.) Stanning (talk) 09:50, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. The finding of a rough consensus to "delete", on the basis of the discussion, is a stretch too far. AfD is free to reject the guidelines; the guidelines are support to document practice, not prescribe practice, and the guidelines can be defective. I think the closer crossed the WP:Supervote line, and that it would have been far better for him to have !voted. I haven't seen the article, but I see that the subject has numerous weak sources, and that he is certainly not a private individual. In the AfD, some editors assert a notion of inherent notability. This is a dubious concept in the theory of WP:N, but then the theory of WP:N is dubious. I feel that a lot more discussion is needed, and that in the meantime, it is better to be inclusive, where the subject are not private individuals. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:40, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus, discussion showed a slight consensus on keeping the article based not just on the subject's figure and position but also on a number of sources. Necrothesp provided the Who's who source, Pburka cited several sources, Flaming Ferrari voted keep on the basis of the sources (I believe that there are sufficient third party sources to justify notability for this individual). While a GNG level of coverage was probably not established, I think this is however a good case of WP:BASIC, where the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial but multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability. We have no guideline considering ambassadors inherently notable, but we also have no "policy" (as stated in the close) that prescribe articles about ambassadors should be judged without exception only on GNG ground and have to be deleted in spite of sources and consensus. Cavarrone 06:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to Keep - sufficient sources were presented to make a decent argument for WP:N, and the headcount was decidedly that way. The delete position make only one attempt to address the sources, and ignored most, weakening it significantly. WilyD 09:07, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I don't think Spartaz made the wrong call but after factoring in the discussion here as well as reassessing the delete !votes, I am inclined to side with the overturn arguments. The delete camp spent most of their time largely on "not inherently notable" rather than taking the time to assess whether GNG had been met in the sources provided. Only Bearcat made a compelling argument but I still think there were enough in the sources and what I found in a WP:BEFORE check for this individual to warrant their own article. Do they knock GNG out of the park? No, but there has always been an allowable threshold which I believe has been passed. Mkdw^talk 20:18, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

John Michael Owen Snodgrass (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not consider that the closing admin interpreted the consensus correctly. Four editors opined to keep against three to delete. Snodgrass was the ambassador of a major country (the United Kingdom) to two other countries (successively Zaire and Bulgaria). I recognise that ambassadors are not considered inherently notable, although I and others consider they should be, but that does not mean they cannot be notable. However, the most salient factor is that Snodgrass was appointed Companion of the Order of St Michael and St George (CMG). This clearly meets the criteria of WP:ANYBIO #1, in that is a "well-known and significant award or honor". We have held a number of times that Commander of the Order of the British Empire (CBE) is a notable enough honour to meet this criterion. See, for instance:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diana Babar
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vernon Stewart Laurie
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Gordon Matthew
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/C. K. Rhodes
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frank Ongley Darvall

CMG is in fact an equal grade to CBE in a more senior order (these grades, incidentally, are directly below the grade of knighthood - they are not lightly given). It would therefore be ridiculous to suggest that a CBE made an individual notable, but a CMG did not. However, the closing admin stated that "policy based arguments are to delete". This is clearly not true. When I raised this on his talkpage, he stated that he considered the argument that all recipients of a CMG were notable was "just ridiculous". This is also clearly not true. As we all know, Afd is not about a simple count of keep and delete votes, but in this instance the discussion clearly should have been closed as keep given the precedent to keep those with significant British honours and given the fact that the subject, while substantial sourcing may not yet have been found, has an entry in Who Was Who and held a senior government position. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As above. DGG ( talk ) 15:20, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. In my view the best close would have been no consensus although I think keep would just about have been within discretion. The actual close was inappropriate for the same reasons as above but in this case there was a greater preponderance of keep !votes. As an aside: WP:Verifiability is an important policy. If after unverifiable material has been removed from an article nothing substantial is left, the article may properly be deleted however important the individual (provided no redirect or merge is available). Thincat (talk) 22:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, but since his entry in Who Was Who confirms all the salient details this is not relevant in this case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, yes. Since I probably seem to be taking a soft line on notability I wanted to be clear I take a hard line on verifiability. It is good that for living people the verifiability policy is very widely accepted. Thincat (talk) 12:17, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn for reasons given above by Necrothesp, DGG and Thincat. The CMG is a minor point, though a point in favour of keep; the main points towards keep are the same as stated for Paul Brummell above. Stanning (talk) 08:55, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The closing admin seems to have supervoted rather than interpret consensus. Bishonen | talk 10:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn. WP:Supervote. I think the information is suitable for Wikipedia, but that the dearth of secondary source content means that a stand alone article was not justified. Why was there no consideration of merging with other similar diplomats with similarly thin coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Closer would have done better to vote rather than closing the discussion. Here several sources were provided and ignored in the close, an argument about ANYBIO was raised and ignored in the close, the last of the delete votes comes from a SPA account (born and dead the same day) and I assume also this fact was also ignored. There was no consensus for deletion and some good arguments for keeping the article were raised, this close does not reflect the discussion. Cavarrone 06:46, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to no consensus - sources are weak, but not so weak as to make it farcical to be okay with them, heads are divided. Marginal policy, marginal head => no consensus. (Additionally, invoking BLP in a wholly non-negative article about a dead guy is extremely dodgy). WilyD 09:04, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MICE industry in Thailand (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

MICE in Thailand, a recreation of the article, was speedily deleted under CSD#G4. However, the original author had posted a message contesting the deletion on the talk page. I'm assuming s/he wishes to contest the outcome of the previous deletion discussion, so I am bringing it up here at the (presumably) proper venue. A copy of the original author's message follows. Paul_012 (talk) 09:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This page should not be speedily deleted because...

• the topic has coverage in reliable media (The Wall Street Journal, Thai media etc.)
• it is an important economic branch (over 1 million visitors, $2,5 billion)
• it has specific features that already gathered the attention of the media and public (like the Indian weddings with over 1500 guests)
• it is not related to the previous articles reminded in the previous deletion discussion, even at that discussion it was pointed out that "this new article is better-sourced and non-promotional". My editing work should not be put in the same basket with the issues of other users' previous work. In February I spent some hours to create this page and I didn't like seeing it deleted because of that association. The path of my interest in this topic is rather like Jimmy Wales and Mzoli's, which I understand that it is all right.
• I did not participate in the previous deletion discussion, I edit on Wikipedia once in a few months, when I have free time

--Yarikata (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Yarikata is being disingenuous. The original version of the article was similar to other, deleted, promotional articles on much the same subject, written in much the same style and apparently by paid-for editors. Yarikata tried to place promotional material in other articles as well. I tried to fix this one but gave up after reading some cogent arguments at AfD. andy (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are talking about something I cannot factually refute because I don't know how those previous articles looked like (and I have to say that I'm getting curious about this). Probably they should be restored too for a while to understand what is going on. You have to prove somehow if you are calling me disingenuous. I said they are not related because, as for me, I know I have no connection with them. Yarikata (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporariiy restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I should remind that a few days ago I recreated the page with the raw wiki text I found on a mirror website and I also added new information and media coverage. The above arguments against speedy deletion refer to this recent version, I created these arguments from the point of view of this version (the February version which was just restored does not include the recent media coverage, like The Wall Street Journal or the Indian weddings). In case the recent version does not fit in the scope of a deletion review, I should also say that it was not my idea to bring it here. I was also planning when I would have enough time to review and where applicable expand the text with other media coverage available online, like [10][11][12][13][14][15][16] (just to point out there is more media coverage than in the version created a few days ago). Yarikata (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Book-case application of CSD#G4. Article deleted after an extended discussion (from 12 March to 7 April) with no keep arguments and after a previous number of recreations-after-deletions under slightly changed titles (usually accompanied by an aggressive campaign of addition of promotional material in other articles) by well-known paid editors. As pointed in the deletion discussion MICE is already covered in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau, any good-faith editor could easily add the relevant material in that article, a similar article has no other purpose than promotion, we don't need another advertisement booklet about MICE events. Furthermore the article, especially before the cleanup, included a bunch of material related to Tourism in Thailand but completely unrelated to MICE (eg. "Chiang Mai is the largest and most culturally significant city in northern Thailand, voted as the Best Destination for Culture Experience in the Lonely Planet Traveler Destination Awards 2013" or "Khon Kaen is the major commercial and educational center of Isan, Thailand’s northeastern region. It is a popular destination for tourists interested in the traditional Thai way of life, also in the local historical and archaeological sites") in attempt of giving an illusion of notability and appearing more in depth. Cavarrone 08:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is beyond me why the topic of this article should be included in Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau. That one is an organization, this article is about an economic branch with specific information about it. This proposal sounds ridiculous, like requesting to merge Music of Thailand into Ministry of Culture (Thailand). Plus that there are other governmental organizations covering this topic, like Tourism Authority of Thailand or Trade Exhibition Association. And I did not consider that material unrelated, it explains the backdrop of MICE boom in those cities, putting it in the context. It is a normal and self-explanatory procedure that I saw in the other Wikipedia articles. I also notice that you give an endorsement, but you fail to answer any of my objections, you just repeat the same thing you wrote in the deletion discussion. Yarikata (talk) 09:28, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lol, "ridicoulous"? It "is beyond you" to understand...? The two things are so obviously related that virtually all the sources refer to MICE in conjuction with Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau aka TCEB (including all the sources you cited above). And your justification for adding material unrelated to MICE is very poor, what "normal and self-explanatory procedure" are you referring? There is nothing normal and self-explanatory in mentioning a Lonely Planet Traveler Destination Award for Chiang Mai or a Travel + Leisure Award for Bagkok in an article about MICE, except conveying the impression that they got these awards thanks to MICE, a tendentious speculation unsupported by the cited reliable sources (they do not even mention the word MICE). Cleaned up of promotional material, puffery and unrelated material what remains of the article is at best a couple of lines that could be easily added to Thailand Convention and Exhibition Bureau or Tourism in Thailand, definitely not enough to sustain a stand-alone article. Cavarrone 10:40, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The material explained the backdrop of MICE boom, not viceversa, as you insinuate. As for the other contentious point, here is in conjunction with Tourism Authority of Thailand, here with IBM and probably there are others too if I'll search more. Yarikata (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It's trivial to endorse the AfD close because of the unanimous consensus at the AfD. What's more interesting is the question of whether Yarikata should be allowed to create a new article with this title; personally, I'm open-minded but I have yet to be convinced that it's a good idea. The content of the deleted article, after cleanup, was very brief and it doesn't really justify a separate title. Of course, Wikipedia's full of very brief stubs, but generally we only like stubs if there's some reason to think they might be expandable. Otherwise, it's best lumped in with another topic. So I'd recommend permitting this article if and only if we were presented with sources that had something new and substantial to say.—S Marshall T/C 11:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone who has access to the deleted history of MICE in Thailand paste the text onto my draft page? I want to continue writing on it. Yarikata (talk) 12:55, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've temporarily restore it also DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Yarikata (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD close and overturn the WP:CSD#G4 speedy. A prerequisite for the speedy is that the two articles are "substantially identical". So far as I can see the recreated article included [17][18][19][20][21][22] as new references. The last two, although relevant references, do not contribute much to notability. (Forgive me if I have made any mistake, the topic is utterly uninteresting to me). The recreated version was not close to being substantially identical and should only have been deleted after discussion. In addition I am dubious about the seeming "merge and delete" suggestions and the suggestion of merging to the bureau article. If anything, the merge should be the other way round. Hence any new AFD discussion has the opportunity to have real issues to deal with. Thincat (talk) 08:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this DRV, as I overlooked Paul 012's link to it on my talk page. As the person who speedied MICE in Thailand, I maintain that that article was indeed a substantially identical re-creation, in that it did not address the problems noted in the deletion discussion for MICE industry in Thailand. The inclusion of a handful of new sentences and phrases, some of them mere statistics that did nothing to bolster the topic's case for notability, some of them apparently irrelevant—the wedding stuff covered in your second and third links, for instance, doesn't appear to be directly related to MICE, since the Travel Daily article refers to "incentive groups" (i.e., MICE groups) and "wedding groups" as two different things—and at least one unsourced, does not change the fact that the articles were essentially the same. Deor (talk) 11:09, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't know anything about "Monsoon Weddings and Incentives" or even "MICE" so you may well be right. I just think it should be discussed rather than decided by two people. It is extraordinary what different meanings can be taken from the phrase "substantially identical" but that is a situation DRV regulars are very well used to. Thincat (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Current draft. It seems that the article deleted a few days ago was a borderline case concerning CSD#G4. Anyway, in the meantime I further developed the text, which now does not fall into this speedy deletion criterion and I think it makes obvious the notability of the topic. I think the title of the article should be MICE in Thailand. Industry is superfluous, where possible we should keep the titles as short as permitted. We don't have Tourism industry in Thailand, plus that MICE industry in Thailand is not an established phrase. There are other phrases used, like MICE sector in Thailand. MICE industry in Thailand should be turned into a redirect. Yarikata (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Diffs provided for readers' convenience:
    • AfD → recreation
    • recreation → G4
    • G4 → draft (no change)
    • recent draft expansion

The page history is spread across MICE industry in Thailand, MICE in Thailand, and User:Yarikata/Draft, which should be history merged together. Flatscan (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Those diffs are very helpful. Thank you. It is deplorable that the article has been created under two different names. So far as I can see I was comparing the version (8 refs) that was AFD-deleted with this version (12 refs, mostly different from the previous 8) which was CSD-deleted. Here is the diff of the comparison. I wasn't concerned with the state of the article when it was recreated but only at the time it was G4-tagged (and deleted). If the draft has been improved I wasn't taking that into account. Thincat (talk) 07:57, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Symphonic Library (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

While I don't recall the original page since it was deleted a long time ago, I remember it being a fully constructed article (not a stub). Even if it had any copyright issues on it (link to pirate download), I don't think it was a reason for a G12. I also wonder why nobody has restarted the article since it's about a company whose products have a fairly large usage in professional digital music composition. Oh, and the admin who deleted it retired Wikipedia a long ago. CyberTigerrr (talk) 02:49, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Canberra_MRT_Station (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I regularly maintain wikipedia pages pertaining to Singapore transport system. From the history of the page, the administrator locked the it because it has been repeatedly created by people based on speculative terms. However, the speculation is gone as the governing authority in Singapore have confirmed the news and the name of the entity and I request the page to be undeleted. Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/new-mrt-station-to-be/1213422.html Hope this request goes through. The administrator who locked the page have been inactive since 2013, hence I have directly requested here. Lee480 (talk) 05:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment DRV for an 8 year old deletion? No. The standard practice is to a) draft a new article that meet Wikipedia's requirements in either your sandbox, or use WP:AFC, followed by b) go to WP:RFUP to request unsalting of the title. The "article" that was deleted last has no business being undeleted in its last format. Lee, please do not abuse DRV in this manner the panda ₯’ 15:26, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Done. I've removed the page protection. I'd say you're free to create a new article at this point; looking through the history the March 2009 version might be worth restoring but it's probably better to start from scratch. Mackensen (talk) 16:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. It's quite shocking that DangerousPanda made an assertion that I'm abusing the DVR system. 1) When I tried to create an article regarding to this entity, an error was shown - clearly directing me to the admin who locked the page and to the DVR page to ask for an admin to unlock the page. None of the instructions stated that I've to create a draft article for your liking. 2) The guidelines by you (whether self-declared or not) is contradictory from the auto generated message stated in the page. Perhaps as an admin, you do not see it. Fret not, I have attached an image for your reference.

  

  .Perhaps, pls practice a little self-restraint. Whether you're an admin or just a normal user, we are volunteers, and I didn't come here to be labelled as an "abuser".

New River, Nanjing (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The article was poorly sourced before deleted.In AFD debate, JohnBlackburne regarded its topic as not-notable while Philg88 thought its content couldn't be verified.(see en:Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/New_River,_Nanjing)However,I've already found that there are serveral books describing the topic.For example [23][24][25][26][27]So it may meet WP:GNG.Actually,the town mentioned in the article used to be a populated, legally-recognized place,according to the first source.It can remain notable according to WP:NTEMP and WP:GEOLAND .So I don't think the deletion is appropriate. 180.155.69.97 (talk) 10:05, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note from closer: The editor here, 180.155.69.97, hadn't discussed the close before bringing it here. I don't read Chinese, simplified or otherwise, but my inclination is to restore based on those sources, automated translation, our inclination toward geographic places, and good faith. Still, we are here, and if someone with some literacy in Chinese wants to take a look, a second opinion wouldn't hurt. The AfD is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/New River, Nanjing. --j⚛e decker^talk 14:29, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame these references weren't presented during the discussion, as they do seem to support keeping the article better than the sources used in it (visible in CaroleHenson's user space at User:CaroleHenson/New_River). They still don't seem enough for notability: the best source seems to be the first but it has very little information which would better support a paragraph in another article, say, than a whole article. But others with better Chinese facility than me would probably be better able to evaluate them. I would suggest userfying it, or recreating it as a draft, so the new sources can be added and used to improve it.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 15:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, with the caveat that I'm not familiar with Chinese municipal administrative structure. Looking at the sources (machine translated English and Traditional Chinese) I don't believe this can be considered legally recognized, as Phil outlined at the AfD, and the sources in all honesty seem to be passing mentions, not meeting WP:SIGCOV. Besides, the existing draft is not that great for an article about a place anyways. If someone could review the above sources and those at Wang Hanzhou residence just to be sure, though, that would be great. Ansh666 15:38, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: The first source and the third source describe the town's location and history in detail.And this book[28],written by a commissioner of Chinese Academy of Sciences,discusses the relationship between the town's geography and the style of the residents' life in almost four pages.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 02:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close As I recall, the article had no verifiable content beyond it's purported location and settlement status - the rest was based on an unreliable source (Baidu). In the original AfD, I commented that it wasn't verifiable as an official subdivision of the Jianye District (which it isn't), while both Google Maps and Open Street Map have no mention of it. It also doesn't appear in the official Chinese settlement statistics. However, this was one of four closely related articles put up for AfD, of which only one was kept (Wang Hanzhou, now Wang Hanzhou residence). In the case of the latter, I was able to confirm that Wang lived in the New River District. The new sources now indicate that this was a town, not an area outside of Nanjing's old West River Gate. Whether it was then a town rather than an area is a moot point and it may have been invented later for the convenience of pidgeonholing it as a type of settlement. So in my view there was nothing out of place with the original delete close.

Moving forward, based on reading these new Chinese sources, it seems that there is enough material to create a new article with the title "Shangxinhe, Nanjing" (上新河镇) per the Chinese naming convention guidelines about the historic district. It wouldn't be much more than a stub but it will be verifiable and notable based on the coverage across five sources.  Philg88 ^♦talk 17:31, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• 'history temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn Decision contrary to established guidelines. There is no reason to think Baidu unreliable for Chinese geography, and, unlike WP, its articles are reviewed professionally before publication (perhaps the reviews are primarily for political purposes, but it is indeed edited) .(see Baidu Baike). We do include articles on all verified populated places, and the map references are verification. It is the role of a closing administrator to ignore irrelevant arguments. I would apply this to the other similarly deleted articles also. DGG ( talk ) 18:52, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information regarding Baidu's reviewing, which is contrary to the easily-found guidance at RSN, e.g., Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_159#Are_these_reliable_sources_for_Cantonese_NDA.3F. I will look into that question further. As you know, I'm sure, WP:GEOLAND is limited to legally-recognized places, and Philg88's opinion appeared to me to address that specific question of fact. (As for restoration, I think I've indicated my opinion above, once something like this is verified, there is a strong and appropriate presumption toward inclusion, and I think it is likely, as weak as my translation skills are, that the sources above meet it, so no opposition to restoration.) --j⚛e decker^talk 20:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Reviewed professionally"? Baidu is crowd sourced, just like Wikipedia. The only review mechanism is the removal of material deemed detrimental to the great and good of a certain monolithic party. As for the geography, as I've said previously, neither Google maps or OpenStreetMap have any mention of such a town. It's historic as now confirmed by new sources. The article needs to be moved to the correct title if it is to be restored, and the history that isn't in the new sources will somehow need to be referenced.  Philg88 ^♦talk 20:30, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)Baidu is a tertiary, rather than secondary source. Even if its articles are reviewed, which I too think probably happens primarily for political reasons, i.e. to censor it as much media is censored in China, it's still a user-written encyclopaedia. And it's no longer a legally recognised place; this was raised and checked in the deletion discussion, but it's been legally and literally removed from the map. If you search now at maps.baidu.com (this might work: [29]) you find only a few businesses, a school, etc. in that area which still use the name but 上新河 seems to have been replaced by tower blocks and a highway leading up to a bridge.

It clearly is notable if at all only as a historic location, per Philg88, which the sources at the top of the page also indicate (being fairly old themselves). It could really do with some more contemporary sources, both to verify its historic nature and put it in a modern context.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:54, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the old article is restored, 'New River', as a literal translation (or 'Upper New River' for 上新河), is not an appropriate title. You don't see 'southern capital', the literal translation of Nanjing/南京, prevail in colloquial, published, or official usage, period. Better is 'Xinhe' or 'Shangxinhe'. TLA 3x ♭ → ♮ 05:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Comment:"Shangxinhe, Nanjing" might be the appropriate title.By the way,the title was once "On New River",which was roughly translated from Chinese.--180.155.69.97 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, which shows that trying to translate Chinese place names is a bad idea and is why we stick to pinyin. The "shang" (上) here does not mean upper, it means "on" as in Shanghai (on the sea). The "new" refers to the canalized side channel of the Yangtze created sometime in the Ming dynasty. A remarkable achievement that allowed the timber merchants to prosper through the construction of wharves in less turbulent water, it is still visible on maps today.  Philg88 ^♦talk 06:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Saleem Technologies (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Decide whether to allow re-creation by moving Draft:Saleem (Company) into the main encyclopedia. If re-creation is allowed decide if it is better to leave the deleted article deleted, merge the history with the new draft, or undelete the article and decline the draft as a duplicate of an existing submission. If the answer is "do not allow re-creation based on the existing draft" then specify if any future re-creation needs to go through DRV or if going through a formal review process such as AFC is sufficient. Consider this request a procedural one not a recommendation for or against overturning the previous decision nor is this a claim that the current draft would be acceptable at AFC in its current state. To facilitate decision-making, I am requesting temporary undeletion to Draft:Saleem (Company) (deleted version). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

require review either at DR or AFC. As the reviewer has already indicated that they would like to take it through the AFC system (over the same IRC discussion when he asked me to move it to draft), this seems a good solution that will be followed. Personally, a histmerge will be appropriate. --Mdann52talk to me! 07:06, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This looks like a cookie cutter spam article, and the sourcing is rather thin with at best a single mainstream source focused on this company. As such, I don't think that this would survive a speedy deletion nomination, much less a proper AfC process. I note that the editor behind this AfC has been producing similar cookie cutter spam articles, so it's likely that this is some form of undisclosed paid editing. Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but Permit Recreation via AFC. Clearly no problem with the deletion (disclosure: it was my preferred outcome). That said, if a suitable article can be presented at AFC illustrating the company's notability and absent of unduly promotional language, I see no reason why it can't be taken care of through that process. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:14, 25 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Question - Should Draft:Saleem (Company) be deleted as an attempted recreation of a previously deleted article - or should it be reviewed at AFC? It was "put in limbo" pending this process but I'm not seeing any definitive guidance here. (Please ping me when replying to this question.) Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:CSD#G4 mentions that it doesn't apply to content that was "moved to userspace" to be improved. Although the precise wording has not be updated since the introduction of Draft-space, I strongly feel the spirit of the criterion applies to content moved or recreated to Draftspace for improvement. I would not G4 a Draft. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion and Allow drafting + AfC review, and allow recreation if approved at AfC. ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• History-merge deleted page into current draft so that content from older "versions" can be easily content-merged into the current draft. Deleted page is already a history-merge of two non-overlapping versions by different authors. Disallow (re-)creation of any article-space page on this topic unless it goes through an AFC or a similar formal review process, but allow it after an AFC review without returning to deletion-review. Make entries in deletion logs to point to this discussion. Note: I opened this DRV. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:43, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Mailtor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

When the Mailtor article was recently created, the editor who created it also added it to Comparison of webmail providers. It was nominated for deletion [by me] shortly after creation as not notable. Through the discussion, no reliable sources whatsoever were found. I'm having trouble seeing consensus for anything other than delete. Joe Decker closed it as redirect to Comparison of webmail providers since Mailtor is listed there.

This seems problematic. This means if I create a page about my company/product/self and add it to a bunch of lists, even if the article is soon deleted via AfD, I will get to keep the redirect because I also added it to lists (rather than, as would be the norm in my experience, removing it from those lists because consensus was to delete it).

In the discussion at Joe Decker's usertalk, he explained that while there was no consensus to redirect there also was no consensus not to redirect. I can appreciate Joe's inclination to redirect, and probably err on the side of too many redirects sometimes myself, but this seems to cause problems with the already complicated relationship between articles, lists, and notability as well as extending the closer's prerogative too far beyond interpretation of consensus. I looked and didn't find anything that explicitly forbid or encouraged such a close, and indeed Joe has been helpful/candid in his explanations (and [sort of] encouraged me to take it here), but it doesn't seem in line with the general principles laid out in the deletion/closing process, and so could at the very least use some clarification (or maybe I'm just missing something :) ). — Rhododendrites ^talk |  23:10, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Uncle G/On notability#Dealing_with_non-notable_things says it better than I could. That whole essay bears close reading.—S Marshall T/C 23:21, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you look at the sources of the article/subject in question? If I created a Blogspot blog right now and listed Mailtor among 20 email providers, it would be roughly equivalent to what was found. It's a good example of why that essay doesn't make sense given the basic principles/pillars of Wikipedia. That essay says that coverage outside Wikipedia should be the same as in Wikipedia, or to take a line directly: "That the subject only has a single line in an election results table outside of Wikipedia implies that the subject should only have a single line in an election results table inside Wikipedia." If we applied that kind of non-encyclopedic standard to topics with the sourcing level of Mailtor, Wikipedia would become everything it's WP:NOT. ...I digress. This is going off on a tangent about notability in general, and the essay doesn't address afd closes at all, as far as I can tell. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  00:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I didn't look at the sources. This is deletion review, not AfD round 2. What I did was read the debate that Joe Decker closed, and I considered whether his close was reasonable in the circumstances. I think that given the closing statement, it's best understood in two parts: firstly a close as "no consensus", and then secondly Joe Decker's decision to redirect. The decision to redirect doesn't come from the debate. It's something Joe Decker has decided on his own, which makes the redirect an editorial action rather than an administrative one. It's a perfectly reasonable editorial action in the circumstances, but it doesn't have the weight of consensus behind it and it's subject to the normal WP:BRD cycle. You could revert it if you wanted. I'm trying to convince you that's a bad idea, though. There are good reasons why individual items on a list don't have to be notable.—S Marshall T/C 07:39, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not accurate at all. It was closed AS redirect, not as no consensus, which would have been strange indeed given the content of the discussion combined with a complete void of reliable sources. Only after I raised the issue on his talk page did he post the clarification, and even then it's a clarification of a closing rationale to redirect, not to close as no consensus and then separately redirect in some other capacity. From his talk page: "I agree with you there is consensus that Mailtor is not notable, but as long as it's listed at the Comparison table, I think there's a strong presumption that the redirect should stay." --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  08:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's perfectly accurate that I think the close is best understood as "no consensus", with the redirect as a subsequent editorial action on Joe Decker's part.—S Marshall T/C 10:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How Colbertian. It may be accurate you think it should be understood that way, but it's a fictional narrative. It was explicitly closed as redirect (see link above), and the closer explicitly said there was consensus it was not notable (see link above). --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  15:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - if this redirect didn't exist, it would have to be created. The redirect could be taken to Redirects for Discussion, but I don't believe there's any possibility that they wouldn't keep it. If there's content in the encyclopaedia on a subject, we want readers to be able to find it. WilyD 08:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why would it have to be created? The only reason it exists on the list is because the person who created the article added it. So you're saying that if there's mention of a topic on Wikipedia, anywhere on Wikipedia, even something someone just made up or even if it was added by someone with a personal interest in it existing in Wikipedia, an AfD cannot be closed as delete regardless of consensus? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia - it's a reference work that organises information for readers to look up. It's only a meaningful exercise to write the encyclopaedia if people can successful look up the information; otherwise it's entirely pointless. So where information exists on a subject, search terms for that subject need to be redirect to the location of the information so readers can find it. Of course, any outcome of a discussion is possible (if only by IAR), but you'd need an extremely compelling discussion to take an action that flies in the face of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. If information isn't verifiable (or is a problem for UNDUE, or whatever), then it can be removed, and the redirect can be discussed (well, "discussed" - RfD won't keep redirects where the subject isn't discussed at the target). WilyD 17:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Here's how I read the close: as long as the subject if covered in the list at all, this should be a redirect. The AfD close explicitly says nothing about if it needs be in the list (that's important, because a merge outcome can indicate that the material should at least have a brief mention). So basically, if you want the redirect deleted, you need to gain local consensus to remove the topic from the target article. Once such a consensus exists and the topic is removed I suspect the closer will happily delete the redirect on request. In any case, that was the correct close--as long as there is a reasonable redirect target where the subject is mentioned, there should be a redirect... Hobit (talk) 10:20, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised by these comments. So the answer is yes, if I want my product/software/something I just made up (as, indeed, there's scant evidence Mailtor even exists) to have a presence on Wikipedia, all I have to do is add it to a bunch of lists, then there's nothing anybody can do about the redirect without first making sure it's gone from all the lists and then going through RfD? --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  14:42, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure what solution you want here, but DRV seems the wrong forum to raise this issue. The fact that the AFD closer created the redirect is essentially beside the point as anyone can create one. And there's not an applicable speedy deletion criteria for a redirect to a nonnotable list item even if that item is removed from that list... So yes, such a redirect would have to be taken to RFD, unless you want to argue that it then qualifies for WP:CSD#G6 maintenance speedy deletion once the page it points to no longer refers to it, but I don't think that interpretation would have a lot of support. postdlf (talk) 17:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Just remove it from the list (which, like many such lists, forbids entries without separate Wikipedia articles), wait a couple days to prove the local consensus for that, and take the redirect to RFD. —Cryptic 19:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok. Well, while of course I don't agree with all of the above, I can appreciate pragmatism -- as well as the fact that this may not be the best venue for the discussion I want to have. I suppose I sometimes see closures as having a significance similar to judgments in case law -- that a close that seems to improperly interprets consensus or policy may have a direct impact on future closes. But given that I've been to hundreds of AfDs without seeing such a close before, that there are so many thousands of these in the first place, and that arguing by pointing to other specific afd closes doesn't actually work all that well in practice, I'm likely overreacting. With nobody else arguing for any action here, feel free to close this thread. Thanks for your time. --— Rhododendrites ^talk |  03:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I support this close although initially the closing statement was insufficient. However the later discussion and amended closing statement were, I think, helpful. I think S Marshall is absolutely right in distinguishing between the administrative decision and the editorial initiative in creating the redirect. Even if everyone had !voted strong delete that would only have meant that the article should not exist – it would still be perfectly proper to include information on the topic in other articles and to have any likely search terms supported with redirects. Thincat (talk) 09:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, you are absolutely correct about the original closing statement.--j⚛e decker^talk 21:49, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as I criticised the closing statement, I perhaps should emphasise more strongly that I support the actual closing action. All too often AFD discussions are polarised as keep and delete (this one was not so) and it is excellent when a more nuanced close can be made. Also, since too many people see delete as meaning that all mention of the topic must be removed from WP, it can help to have the closer lead things forward. Thincat (talk) 07:40, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Along the lines of Cryptic's comment, all entries in Comparison of webmail providers have blue links. Assuming that none of them are redirects, that fits WP:Manual of Style/Stand-alone lists#Common selection criteria #1, "Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own non-redirect article in the English Wikipedia." The {{stand-alone list}} on the talk page combined with the mention of "individual products' articles" in the lead imply this. I think that the list selection criteria are a decent argument against merging or redirecting – that may yet prevail at WP:Redirects for discussion – but no one raised it at the AfD. Flatscan (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was referring specifically to the "Please do not add new entries to this table unless there is a Wikipedia article about the product. Thank you." html comments at the start of each section, which have survived unchallenged for nearly a year. —Cryptic 14:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I created an article under the name of IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century, we can see an example of this page in my draft page here. However the user GiantSnowman proposed that it be deleted and merged with the article IFFHS, we can see the deletion debate here. So after the sudden removal of the page, I was surprise but I respected the decision and I decided as agreed to merge (add) what it was removed in the IFFHS page. But I was surprise for the second time because the same user GiantSnowman removed it !!, we can see his act here. IFFHS is a notable organisation and it contributions are agreed by all the international institutions so what this notable organisation published about IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century is normally agreed in Wikipedia. We can see the second debate about this deletion in the IFFHS article's talk page here. Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 17:26, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The AfD outcome was clear - delete. There were no !votes to merge, only a suggestion which was only supported by Faycal.09. Number 57 17:31, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also worth noting that Faycal.09 has left a rather non-neutral request for input at WT:FOOTY#IFFHS best clubs of the 20th century (request), so probably needs to be made aware of WP:CANVASS. Number 57 17:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion - my AFD nomination stated (obviously not clearly enough for some...) that deletion was my preferred option, with a merge as a last resort; nobody supported a merge, only deletion. The AFD close was valid and the topic should stay deleted as it is non-notable because it has not received significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources. GiantSnowman 17:32, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore The deletion request of the user GiantSnowman is not logical because simply, the IFFHS is a notable organisation. His deletion request was very speedy done. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As you have already been told but continue to fail to understand - nobody is doubting that the IFFHS is a notable organization; however we are questioning the notability of this specific award which just happens to be awarded by the organization. Two separate articles, two separate things! GiantSnowman 17:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't worry I understand very well cause simply i'm not a new contributer. I think that as a contributer I can have an opinion and for me, the article is logicaly notable same as FIFA Club of the Century or many others. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As a contributor you can have an opinion, what you can't do is ignore the consensus of other contributions which are contrary to your opinion and impose it as some how being worth more than that consensus. That's effectively what you are doing here, the consensus from the AFD was that it wasn't notable and so it got deleted, so those others disagreed that logically it's notable same as ... --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• On the contrary, I respect all opinions, however this removing request was done very quickly, only five contrbuters have voted. Generaly I always contribute and it's the first time that I put a request. Hope only that we take decision slowly and after good thinking. This article is about football club and I saw that it disturb and I don't know why. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not on the contrary at all, you are still saying "I thought it was too quick, so I put my view point ahead of anyone elses". If you had a concern regarding the speed of the deletion etc. discussing it rather than ignoring it was the right course. FWIW a deletion discussion is expected to run for 7 days, this ran for around 12, so it wasn't that quick. A deletion discussion isn't a vote and there isn't a quorum, so five people is adequate to form a consensus. If at the end of this review the current trend continues are you also going to decide this was too quick and ignore the outcome here too? Or if this results in some sort of overturn of the deletion would you expect someone else here to do likewise and ignore this? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close - I don't see any procedural error or action that is counter to discussion itself. This isn't the place to debate merging or anything else that is unrelated to the close of the AFD itself. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment as closer I gave slightly stronger weight to the argument that WP:NOTSTATS, a policy, had some application here. I gave weak weight to arguments which relied on the notability of the IFFHS as an organization, because I the question of the notability of the organization and the notability of this particular list to be different questions.

A merge of all the information would seem to me to be opposed by NOTSTATS, and as such, I believe consensus precludes a full merge.

As for outcomes in-between, such as a redirect? AfD is a poor, blunt instrument, and should give deference to the normal editing process, doubly so when the discussion being closed lacks nuanced discussions of those options. --j⚛e decker^talk 19:00, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore IFFHS is receiving official support from FIFA and Uefa and we are talking about top clubs (fully professional) so the list is notable--Lglukgl (talk) 19:45, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That has nothing to do with WP:DRV. We aren't here to replay the AFD, review is only to see if the closing admin did something wrong, misread consensus, or made some procedural error. If you think he misread the consensus or made some other mistake, then by all means, explain. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:21, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion The AfD outcome said "delete". And also, Faycal.09 is "recruiting" users that share his own opinion (case of Lglukgl, which his argument can't be considered, in my opinion, because everybody knows that these clubs are fully-pro, this isn't an excuse). I think this "recruitment" isn't valid for a healthy discussion. MYS77 ^✉ 00:18, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is clearly violating WP:CANVASS by selectively contacting people that did not take part in the original discussion. [30], [31] and [32]. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 00:29, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endose Deletion - Initial concerns that whilst the organisation may be notable, this award is not. concerned about the Canvassing as well. Fenix down (talk) 07:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Recruiting, violating ???...!!! Are we in a war ??...!! If I want that you don't know I can send only an email. What I do evryone can do. You were contacted by the user GiantSnowman too [33], [34], [35]. Stop these stupidities please. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 09:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You need to calm down.—S Marshall T/C 11:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Using a neutral message, I contacted all editors who participated in the AFD, including an editor who !voted to keep the article. Faycal's accusations of improper conduct are becoming increasingly tiresome - he has also recently accused me of abusing my position as an administrator. GiantSnowman 11:24, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Some users were contacted before the 1st debate, and I had not accuse you because for me sending message for any debate's participation is normal. Now please I hope to change discuss because the real debate is about the article here, we don't need false problems such as who contact who. Normaly all notable wikipedia contributers can participate. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What do you mean that "Some users were contacted before the 1st debate"? GiantSnowman 11:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I mean simply you contacted the admin to participate in the debate [36] and for me this act is normal because you are right and free to invite notable users. And normaly me too i'm free to invite too "notable" users to participate. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As already stated, I invited I contacted all editors who participated in the AFD, and yes that includes the closing admin. They have an interest in this subsequent discussion - whereas your notification to Lglukgl (who did not participate in the original AFD) is nothing but suspicious. GiantSnowman 12:13, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As you see in my message to the user Lglukgl, I invited him to only participate, he is free to gives his opinion positive or negative. I don't have bad intention for doing that really. We are here in Wikipedia to serve knowledge to humanity, sometimes we can see injust article or act and we try to correct, sometimes we create articles. And finally we need to work together and that's my thinking. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But why did you choose that particular user? It's getting increasingly hard to AGF here, especially since you have since seemed to agree to do something in return for their participation here... GiantSnowman 12:37, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To GiantSnowman, no the reason is because I worked with him to perform or create many articles and because he participate in the former debate, you invited users to participate, I invited too users to participate. For me it was a normal act.

To Dennis Brown, I invited a user Lglukgl right, however I also invited a closer admin j⚛e decker [37], I add invitation in the WikiProject Football [38]. I used terms "notable" mean good users, "discuss" mean debate. There is problem because this? --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:07, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• To answer about the notoriety of the article. These are some official links about these awards fifa, conmebol, al-hilal, goal. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 13:14, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No, Lglukgl did NOT participate in the AFD - so why did you invite them? Other than the fact, that you admit, that you worked together in the past and you were hoping he would be sympathetic to your position (oh and big surprise he has expressed the same opinion as you!). GiantSnowman 14:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• GiantSnowman I will not repeat and explain again and again, I work with the user Lglukgl same as many others, he is not my freind, I had invited neutral users, you must stop your acting, we are here to debate about the article not about me. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 14:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But Lglukgl, a user you work with, is not neutral - and who else did you invite? Yes we are here to discuss the merits of the deletion, but that is harder to do if you are attempting to sway the discussion in your favour. GiantSnowman 15:05, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Faycal, whether you understand it or not, I've blocked editors for doing what you did. Policy says you can't do that. I've voted here, so involved, but what you did is a clear violation of policy. Period. You don't call in your buddies to pad the vote. Read WP:CANVASS, I've already linked it enough times. Likely, it won't matter because votes by people you canvass will be thrown out by whoever closes the discussion, so you didn't help yourself. I do find it troubling that you don't even understand why that is offensive. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 15:09, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Dennis Brown why you said my buddies. You disagree a vote of the user Lglukgl and your free in your thinking and we can close this debate. For me I do a correct procedure, I made a request (in this page), I made a warring in the IFFHS talk page, I invite the closer admin, I add an invitation in the Wikiproject Football. You will not blame me because I contact one user. Now you had put your comment about that ok. Now I hope that we continue constructively to debate about the problem page.

Now about the page each one (you or me) can have his opinion and we must respect it. You said that the article is not notable, I respect your decision but we need a proof by adding a link for exemple. I said that the article is notable and I gives you some official links. If the users who participate in this debate vote that is not notable that's allright, let say their opinions. --Fayçal.09 (talk) 15:36, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the deletion: I read all the diffs. Faycal.09 has laid out a coherent case. It appears from his view, and the view of the other editors on the target article talk page, that the deletion does not preclude use of the deleted material. My understanding of WP policy is that if it's deleted, we don't turn around and recreate exactly the same article the community just ivoted to delete. It is permitted to make another article, but it cannot be a reproduction of the one just deleted.

I ivoted to delete and not merge that material because of WP:NOTSTATS. That's the problem with the material. It is all stats and no narrative summary that would be found in an encyclopedia. My feeling at the time, though I did not mention it, was that an external link could be inserted to what would have been the target article if merger had been the outcome. I still feel that all this material is too much. I also don't feel GiantSnowman has abused his admin privileges. He's sticking by the outcome of the AfD and that says to me he's protecting the project. My ivote here is to endorse the deletion. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the AFD close (the keeps were based on a misunderstanding of the notability guidelines) but other matters have arisen here that I shall comment on. There has clearly been a lot of misunderstandings at this DRV on both sides of the discussion. WP:CANVASS does not necessarily forbid approaching individual users on their talk pages. It is the wording and motivation that counts. Amongst the four examples of acceptable notifications are "Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)" and "Editors known for expertise in the field". I do know know whether there was any justification in this case but there might have been. Secondly, although the AFD nominator was, as any editor would be, wholly entitled to remove the material from International Federation of Football History & Statistics here, one of the reasons given in the edit summary ("topic of 'continental clubs' has been determined to be non-notable at AFD, and 'Sporcle' is not a RS") was inappropriate. The AFD determined that there should not be an article on this subject but information on "non-notable" topics may indeed be included within other articles. However, lack of reliable sources, copyright infringement, or plain editorial judgement are all perfectly valid reasons for removing material. Thincat (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, clear consensus that this was not a notable topic and very weak and confused arguments in opposition (the comment that the organization is one "capable of producing notable materials" is just pure nonsense). On the question that's actually irrelevant to this forum, though the AFD result does not preclude this list or award of the IFFHS from being covered in another article, only from it being a standalone article, I share the concerns that duplicating the list in full may raise copyright concerns as it does not appear to be merely factual. And in any event it's up to ordinary editing and discussion to determine whether it even merits a mention anywhere else, so deal with it on the article talk page. postdlf (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

The Law of One (Ra material) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original article was already deleted for unreliable sources but this copy was not properly nominated. I nominated the copy but it seems the result was mistakenly "keep." I highly encourage a review of the deletion discussions to see this article is properly reviewed, removed of its unreliable sources and deleted until reliable sources are found. Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion with the closing admin was purposefully not done as I believe his judgement is very firm. The goal here is to receive a wider consensus for this article's reliability. --Immanuel Thoughtmaker (talk) 20:39, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please don't make assumptions about me, it is rude. As I told you on my talk page, I generally avoid reviews of my actions in all things, as the community is capable of deciding if my actions were valid without my interference. If they have questions, they will ask. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 21:34, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Burn it with fire, if not nuke the site from orbit - If it's notable as a result of being described in RELIABLE sources (academic journals, books from university presses, newspapers, not WP:FRINGE crap), then the article can be remade. But in it's current form? Not notable, not neutral, not reliable, at all. I could see a case for the Influence section being the basis for notability, except that it's WP:OR, making arguments from primary sources that the primary sources do not explicitly state or do not demonstrate is noteworthy, instead of going with secondary sources that directly support article content. The article is currently on par with the sort of mess that'd exist if we wrote the Christianity article citing only the Bible, www.demonbuster.com , The Two Babylons, Michelle Remembers, the writings of Charles Manson, and The Da Vinci Code. The article does not handle its material the way Christianity or 9/11 conspiracy theories handle theirs, it just takes for granted that any book must be a reliable source because it's published. The article is a collective brown stain on the drawers of every editor on this site.

And if someone does find RSs in that mess, that one has to scour the page to find them demonstrates major problems with undue weight.

I'm wondering why anyone bothered to listen to Logos5557 and Yossarianpedia after the personal attacks they made. There's also the claim that this part of an Arbcom decision justifies this article's inclusion. That arbcom ruling says that we shouldn't delete articles on fringe subjects just because they're fringe subjects, but it does not in any way overturn WP:FRINGE's requirement to cite reliable, academic, and unaffiliated secondary sources when discussing such topics (instead of more fringe material). Bringing up that Arbcom decision like that is not even a matter of 'letter of the law vs spirit of the law,' but taking an out of context comma and claiming it trumps the whole of policy.

I've added the page to my watchlist, and will be mass deleting and CN tagging large portions of it if this discussion ends without deletion. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:35, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete. I disagree entirely with the admin's judgment of the consensus on this particular discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Law_of_One_(Ra_material). It seems very clear that there is an almost complete lack of independent sources that would be necessary to source this article. As such, the article cannot be appropriately curated under current Wikipedia sourcing and editorial guidelines/policies. I see this argument outlined in many of the delete votes and that the closing admin didn't recognize this is at least a grave oversight. jps (talk) 22:45, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please delete this article! - This is truly terrible. It's terrible because it's sources are an assembly of pure fringy nonsense. There's not one scholarly article in the list of citations. One reference even links to the amazon.com shopping page. I do appreciate that it's hard to make articles about subjects in spiritualism because it seems to be a somewhat anti-academic movement. --Salimfadhley (talk) 08:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - I get that people don't like the books, because they make a bunch of factual claims that are wrong. But that's really beside the point. The delete position relies on personal attacks, general statements of ill will, and assertions that if fails WP:N, without any detail - the latter argument would be okay if everyone just agreed, but when keep is making a case on specific sources, why they're useful for notability, and the delete position is just an assertion that it's not-notable without any details or arguments, the delete position is weaker. Bundled with the even-ish headcount, it's a consensus to keep (even if the article needs a fair bit of work). WilyD 12:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@WilyD:: Please provide links (or at least quotes) to the supposed WP:IDLI arguments by the delete side, personal attacks that occurred by the delete side (I've done so for the keep site), and point out for us the reliable sources forming the basis for the article (which is the real crux of the delete argument instead of your strawman "they don't like it"). And note that WP:RS and WP:FRINGE do not say "just use anything that's on-topic," but that we need to use academic, unaffiliated, secondary sources to describe fringe topics -- so "The Tao of Mermaids" doesn't count. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:15, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

DRV is not AfD round 2. In determining the consensus of a discussion, an admin cannot peer into the future for arguments that might one day be made. Beyond that, misrepresenting what I've written looks particularly bad when what I've written is right above it. WilyD 13:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You said "people don't like the books, [...] But that's really beside the point" -- Unless you're making a completely irrelevant statement, how is that not an implication that the motivation of the delete side is really a case of WP:IDLI?

You said "The delete position relies on personal attacks" -- I asked for links to or quotes of such. That is not misrepresentation.

You said "the delete position is just an assertion that it's not-notable without any details or arguments" -- And yet multiple users on the delete side (not simply here but there), if actually read, repeatedly raised the problematic lack of reliable sources.

Please explain how I've misrepresented what you've written, or where I discussed future arguments. And I'm still waiting on evidence for your claims of personal attacks, and evidence of any reliable sources in the article (which is something the deletion side has been bringing up from the get-go, but hasn't been properly addressed). Going for a head count while ignoring the policy and guideline based argument regarding RSs goes against WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian.thomson We are not discussing about a fringe theory -let's say- on electron that was inserted in electron article, so that "academic" sources are to be needed to justify inclusion. Notability criterion for books, whether fringe or not, does not need "academic" sources. Nevertheless, there is an academic source about the concepts covered in the law of one books: Stephen Tyman A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution ISBN 978-0761833567. Tyman uses the very same concepts in his book like "matrix of mind", "potentiator of mind" etc. as the law of one books. Actually, the book is about the archetypes discussed in law of one books; that means we have a very extensive coverage. Apart from that, I can't imagine how many wikipedia policies and guidelines were violated by "And I'm still waiting.." statement of yours. Logos5557 (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As the books deal with channeling extraterrestrials and deals with chakra energy, the subject is inherently fringe. Read Wikipedia:FRINGE#Notability, you are absolutely wrong that fringe subjects don't need academic sources to demonstrate notability -- it must be discussed in sources "independent of their promulgators and popularizers." You can misrepresent that arbcom decision all you want, but it does not overturn WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, or WP:DUE, it only means that Wikipedia will not refuse to cover topics like Creation science or Alien abduction just because those claims have no veracity or legitimate evidence. Does Tyman actually discuss the Ra-focused Law of One stuff, or just "similar concepts"? Because "similar concepts" without overt discussion, direct citation, or explicit mention is WP:OR. Searching for "law of one" produces no results. And if there's only a single RS, it still only merits an entry in the List of modern channelled texts per WP:GNG and WP:DUE.

And if you want to claim I'm violating policy, please cite the actual policy instead of just imagining such a policy. Claiming there are relevant policies without ever actually citing them only comes off as really bad wikilawyering. Asking a user to present evidence when they accuse others of misbehavior is not against site policy -- making claims about other users without evidence amounts to a personal attack.

Maybe you should just stay out of this and let people who know anything about policy handle it. Ian.thomson (talk) 21:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the ones commenting here, who can see that your "interpretations" about the WP policies & guidelines are false and/or twisted; if you're let alone here, noone would be willing to clear the mess. May be I should emphasize one more time, for you to be able to understand that, the article is about the law of one books; therefore you should look at the notability criterion for books. As an example, you are mentioning widely known and notable cultural artifacts such as "extraterrestrials", "chakra energy" and "alien abduction", but focusing only on the fringe nature of them; it seems that you may never get the difference/nuance. Even if there isn't any single "academic" source on "chakra energy", it is a notable fringe cultural artifact, it's notability has already been established -long before you started editing in wikipedia-. I'm not misrepresenting that arbcom ruling; on the contrary it's quite obvious but you seem not ready to align yourself with it, yet. Tyman's book can't be seen as a "promulgator" or "popularizer"; who would pay 43$ for a "popularizer". If you are ready to accept it as an academic source, it would be weird to classify it as popularizer also. You better not count on "search" feature of google books, there is direct citation in intro and in references. Your request from another user to present evidences is not problematic, but your wording and tone is. Logos5557 (talk) 08:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Articles on other books covering fringe topics are held to the notability standards for fringe topics (see The Urantia Book). Nothing in the arbcom decision says that we hold all books on fringe topics to the standards for books instead of fringe topics. The third point, through the lens of WP:FRINGE, and in the light of the other parts of the ruling, means that we do cover fringe topics, their advocates, and their sources when there are reliable, secondary, and unaffiliated sources. ...Unless you want us to treat it the way we handle the Harry Potter books and mark it off as fiction.

Um, the Chakra article cites Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism, (Cambridge); Bucknell and Stuart-Fox's Twilight Language (from a Routledge imprint); Apte's Practical Sanskrit Dictionary, (Motilal Banarsidass); Edgerton's Buddhist Hybrid Sanskrit Grammar and Dictionary, (Motilal Banarsidass); Monier-Williams's Sanskrit-English Dictionary (Motilal Banarsidass); Banerji'sTantra in Bengal, (Manohar)... It has several undeniably academic sources that directly address the topic. That's why the Chakra article isn't merely a section in the Yoga and Tantra articles. And what does the length of time an editor has been here matter? (If it does, I've been here two years longer than you, for the record).

And you misunderstand what I wrote: my citation of WP:FRINGE regarding "promulgators and popularizers" was about the majority of the sources in the article, stuff like like The Tao of Mermaids. My specific problem with Tyman is that you've yet to provide a quote (or even a citation that wouldn't result in a paper failing in any college course) indicating that it mentions the Law of One (avoiding WP:OR).

The citation for Tyman is just "Tyman, Stephen. A Fool's Phenomenology: Archetypes of Spiritual Evolution" and the ISBN. No page numbers, no quotes. That's not direct at all. Why is it that you started off saying "Tyman uses the very same concepts in his book like "matrix of mind", "potentiator of mind" etc. as the law of one books" and are now avoiding directly answering my question about whether "Tyman actually discusses the Ra-focused Law of One stuff, or just "similar concepts"?" How is it not hypocritical that I'm to trust your tangential Google books search results, but neither of us are to trust my direct search in the same book? Even when I use the .tr version you used, nothing comes up for "law of one". Heck, "ra material" or even just ra fails to turn up anything either.

That certain users refuse to present evidence for their claims is problematic. Any issues with my supposed tone (pretending there's an assumption of good faith by you toward me) are a result of no one honestly answering questions they need to answer if they don't want to retract statements. Ian.thomson (talk) 12:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The mess is unfolding itself onto different levels and various layers; I'll try my best though. Take Oahspe: A New Bible, The Michael Teachings, Conversations with God, Cosmic Tradition as examples to fringe books (chanelled texts), which do not have any academic coverage/source. Arbcom ruling emphasizes "verifiability" and points to "cultural artifact" concept; and you are right that "it does not say that we hold all books on fringe topics to the standards for books instead of fringe topics" but WP:NBOOK does.

We can't accept dictionaries as "academic". It would be safe to consider a publication as "academic" if 2 of the following 3 criterions are met: 1-Author is academic, 2-Subject is academic, 3- Publishing house is academic (university press). By presenting academic references "Flood's An Introduction to Hinduism" and "Banerji's Tantra in Bengal", you yourself proved that chakra is not a fringe but a "mainstream" topic in budhism. And you misunderstand what I wrote: I didn't imply the wikipedia editors' "seniority"; when you think about the age of "chakra" concept, you will get the point.

Tyman is an academic in philosophy, and discusses Ra-focused law of one stuff in his book (not all of the stuff but the stuff related to archetypes). See these links: ra, tyman.matrix, tyman.significator, tyman.potentiator, tyman.catalyst, tyman.transformation, tyman.experience. There is direct citation of law of one books and authors (elkins, rueckert, mccarthy) in intro and references. "Search" feature of google books do not bring all of the stuff for all books, see the reason here. If you still do not trust, you may purchase the book and see for yourself. I hope the case is now clear enough. Logos5557 (talk) 19:57, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment To address the question of whether Tyman's book is based on the Law of One material: in my view, it is. The terms and phrases like "matrix of the mind", "potentiator of mind", "significator of mind", etc. that were introduced by the Law of One material are really only used in that material and in works based on it. Example: General google search for significator of the mind; Search for significator within Tyman's book. In addition to working with the same concepts, he uses similar language. Example from the Law of one: "There is no experience which is not purchased by effort of some kind, no act of service to self or others which does not bear a price, to the entity manifesting, commensurate with its purity." Tyman's version: "...purchased at price directly proportional to purity of polarity." Further, the book is dedicated to Don Elkins, Carla Rueckert, and Jim McCarty (the authors of the Law of One books). If you think about Tyman's position as a professor of philosophy at a U.S. state university you may understand why he doesn't want to come out and directly quote channeled aliens. Nonetheless, his book is an extended meditation on the concept of the Archetypical Mind as given in the Law of One books. Bathmiaios (talk) 13:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Does it cite or mention the books, though? And where so? If the argument is that the notability is for the books (which is the general argument for not fully applying WP:FRINGE's standards of notability), the books must be mentioned or else it's just as much OR as claiming a connection between the Tao Te Ching and the Emerald Tablet on the grounds of their shared dialectic monism using celestial and gender-based imagery. If we're going with the same ideas, then the article should be on the ideas rather than the books, which leaves no defense for the idea that we should not apply WP:FRINGE in full. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the "Archetypal Template" from Tyman's book: [39]. If you compare it to the Archetypal Mind discussions in the Law of One material, you can see that it's not just similar ideas; Tyman's template derives directly from the Law of One material. To answer your question, though -- no, he didn't cite it. There are no citations in the book; it's a metaphysical meditation rather than a scholarly analysis. (Plus, there's the whole "channeled aliens" thing.) Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Tyman book is an example of the influence and, hence, the notability of the Law of One books. Bathmiaios (talk) 20:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete An article that has to put massive weight on unreliable sources (at nearly a 40 to 1 ratio) in order to be fleshed out as a stand alone article isn't ready for prime time. With only one or two independent sources available, a redirect to List of modern channelled texts may be warranted, but not a separate article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse I'd have gone with "NC" as I think there is a pretty good argument that this topic doesn't have the coverage we'd like on a fringe topic. But keep is quite reasonable as the keep arguments were basically "there are valid sources" and those trying to claim the sources didn't count toward WP:RS acknowledged there are some valid sources. Looking at the article, there may be a WP:NUKE argument for deletion, but... Hobit (talk) 17:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A correct reading of the discussion, but No-consensus would have been equally appropriate. The closer commented quite correctly about some of the arguments used, including "The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better." The sources are appropriate ones for the subject, and adequately support the article. That they tend to come from the same general school of thought does not prevent them from being sufficiently independent. That the entire subject is inherently a little absurd is entirely besides the point.

The arguments for overturn above amount to IDONTLIKEIT and nothing more. They should be ignored as contrary to policy. I too think this portional of the intellectual universe entirely disreputable, but WP covers such things also.

The argument above that arbcom requires academic or even non-fringe sources for fringe subjects is not supported by the decision. such a statement cannot be found in the decision, and very rightly so. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It is pretty insulting, DGG, for you to claim "the arguments for overturn above amount to IDONTLIKEIT and nothing more". How do you get that out of my comment? jps (talk) 12:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reading, my view stands, at least for arguments such as the one I mentioned or that because it only has a few RSs it should be deleted. Policy, of course, is that some RSs are enough. If false rationales such as these are used, it can only be from prejudice against the topic. And resorting to rhetoric such as "blast it from orbit" does indicate either bias or over-involvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:15, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You say you re-read, but you do not quote my comments or even obliquely reference them. Since your comment says, "the arguments for overturn amount to..." without qualification, you should be able to explain how my comment is doing what you are claiming. Or you could change your wording. jps (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@DGG. You read at least one discussion comment wrong. The user Yossarianpedia who wrote "The more wikipedia articles that are deleted, the better" made that comment and voted delete as a strange, WP:POINTY protest against what they believed were unfair attitudes towards using New Age and Occult sources [40]. - LuckyLouie (talk) 13:25, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to delete per Ian.thomson - Cwobeel (talk) 05:22, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closer - I usually try to avoid reviews of my actions out of respect for those reviewing, but felt dragged here by at least one comment. As closer, I have to put aside my personal feelings about the topic and article, and make a determination using only the arguments presented. To put blinders on, but not be blind to common sense. This is what I did. I can see why some say that NC or Keep would have been equally valid in this case, and I debated this for some time before ending up with a keep decision. It would have been easier to just say no consensus and move on, but in my mind it would have been a less accurate reading of the discussion. Much of the discussion was discounted due to incorrect assumptions and rationales that fall outside the boundaries of policy. Closing as "no consensus" shouldn't be done to avoid controversy, it should be done only when there really is no consensus on how policy applies in that case. If I were counting votes, I might have closed as NC, but I was weighing arguments and policy, which is why a Keep made sense. I will fully respect whatever the community decides, but I've read the discussion here and at this time, I have to stand behind my original assessment of the discussion. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 18:17, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• burn Sometimes delete just isn't enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, yuck, what a horrid discussion to have to close. I'd have gone NC as well, but given the passion displayed by some editors there was no way this wasn't coming to DRV, no matter what the outcome. "Keep" seems reasonable given what the closing admin was given to work with. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:25, 22 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse. Like others, I'm putting my personal feelings about the subject itself aside in endorsing the close (as NC at the minimum, which defaults as keep). The "Law of One" itself is clearly a steaming pile of woo-woo bilge, but if woo-woo bilge gets sufficient attention from reliable sources then Wikipedia gets to cover it, and an article *about* it is fine. The article as it stands is badly written, but I think there were good enough arguments in the AfD that there are at least a couple of decent sources to support an article. Having said all that, the article badly needs to be improved. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This though is woo-woo bilge, written about by more woo-woo bilge and supported by supposed RS that are themselves no better than woo-woo bilge. There's just no foundation to it. Did anyone, who is not themselves as mad as a box of frogs, pay it the slightest heed more than "Generalised crazy stuff exists". We don't even have a good sane critique of "Ra as a recurrent theme within woo-woo bilge" or similar meta-analysis. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; not because the subject is a torrent of bilge (although it is), but because we lack coverage by independent sources that allow us to present it neutrally. This is a common problem where WP:FRINGE beliefs intersect with low notability, and such pages generally get deleted. We have articles on plenty of other hoaxes and fantasies - where they are notable enough that we have independent sources, allowing us to present a mainstream view, rather than presenting the beliefs at face value, without context. bobrayner (talk) 14:58, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse; as per several of my comments above. Logos5557 (talk) 16:42, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to delete per taking into account arguments made in these past deletion discussions: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Law of One (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ra (channeled entity) (2nd nomination) and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Logos5557/Ra (channeled entity). This is just forked copy of something that has been deleted before. jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 17:08, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point of information. This is the original article, not a fork. That makes it all the more important not to decide based on the other deletion discussions, which would amount to the inverse of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This deletion discussion referenced the notability of the topic of this article - not of derived articles. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:54, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The version that was in place when the deletion discussion was closed is here. Two or more editors have now deleted large amounts of the article. Yngvadottir (talk) 04:23, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletion in Wikipedia is based on consensus, all of it, so these old discussions that were building consensus are very relevant and must not be omitted here. I haven't analyzed in detail, how exactly we got in current situation, but had this version of the "Ra-cluster" of new-age pages been included in one of the earlier nominations, it would very likely be gone by now. It seems that this avoided CSD G4 by technicality only, or avoided deletion by error made by nominator and DRV does not usually give much weight on technicalities. "referenced the notability of the topic of this article - not of derived articles"; If the whole concept cannot be verified from independent reliable sources, what difference there is left between this article and its content forks? jni ^(delete)_{...just not interested} 10:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • In that case, it's probably worth pointing out the previous no consensus afd, as well as the fact that the afd for the deleted fork was based on a heavily pruned version of the article, which the closing admin recognized belatedly. Bathmiaios (talk) 11:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I strongly disagree. In general, the old discussions have little to do with a current discussion. The article may not be the same, it may have been deleted and completely rewritten or significantly changed since those discussion, or consensus may have changed. It is helpful to look at the old AFDs to see if there is some "silver bullet" policy based rationale that puts things into perspectives, but every vote at a prior AFD isn't automatically transferred to the next AFD. That would violate the concept of "consensus can change" and isn't supported by policy. With few exceptions, you don't get two bites of the apple unless you show up. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 12:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Appropriate closes were keep or no consensus. Keep seems fine to me. It was not part of the closer's job to assess the validity of the article's references – the people taking part in the discussion were the right people to be doing that. Also, it is not our role at DRV to give opinions on the quality of the article or its references. Sometimes DRV endorses a close of keep but considers that the AFD discussion was so unsatisfactory that the matter ought to be reconsidered. In those cases the result is not overturned here but a new AFD discussion is held. In this case I do not think DRV should be requiring a further AFD discussion. Thincat (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as entirely within the closing admin's discretion. Based on the discussion at the AfD, keep and no consensus would have been entirely appropriate outcomes. If someone has a more cogent argument they may wish to renominate this at some point. This could have been relisted. As to other arguments being made here, it is important to keep in mind that DRV is not AfD round two. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:33, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Barnett (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see that the conclusion reached was delete, yet I can't see that any action was taken. Is this correct or should the page have been deleted? Also, I'm unsure if this page is the correct place to bring this issue; if not, apologies, please inform me of the appropriate location. Thanks! ChaseAm (talk)

Why do you think it should be deleted? All I can see is an AfD from 2011 and a recreation, with significant sourcing, in 2014. Given the subject matter, 3 years is a long time.

It's possible that this article should still be deleted, but you'd need a new, or at least recent, AfD to justify that. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I should have given the edit history a closer look; apologies for that. That being said, I believe the problem still resides in the article. Some legitimate points are made on the talk page, especially the section entitled "slang". It does not seem that any content significantly different has be brought about the page that gives credence to its current existence, especially given the guidelines drawn in the AfD. I may start a new AfD with these points. The response is much appreciated ChaseAm (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another AfD could be done, but there's nothing for DRV to do here. A lot of the DRV delete positions were based on the assertion that sources on him were flash in the pan human interest stories, which the current article's sources demonstrate is false. I would guess there was heavy canvassing? Either way, G4 is inapplicable, so we can't enforce that old, out-of-date, suspect judgement. If you think the article should be deleted, consider WP:AFD, but it's unclear how that would go. WilyD 08:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Close with no action: The requester here might wish to start a new AfD if he or she believes this article at present fails our inclusion criteria. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:35, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Langill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Eric Langill is now a bullpen catcher of the New York Mets, which makes him notable. RekishiEJ (talk) 12:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There is little doubt he meets the GNG (partly due to a DUI). However, are all assistant coaches on a professional baseball team considered notable? That's what a bullpen catcher is, and I've grave doubts that meets a SNG, but I've been wrong before. Hobit (talk) 20:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: the AfD close was correct given the situation at that time (back in 2007). A DRV is not needed to review the article now. I would endorse restoring the deleted article to draft space to allow RekishiEJ to craft and submit an article, however, if he or she believes Langill now meets WP:NBASEBALL. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:37, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

aReputation (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

<The organization aReputation is notable as per the specifications (WP:CORP) of Wikipedia as it has been a subject of coverage in reliable media sources, the links of which had also been mentioned in the content that was added to the aReputation Wikipedia page. Moreover, media releases could be seen about the company after its first deletion. Hence, this is a valid subject for a separate Wikipedia article.> — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art2edit (talk • contribs) 11:44, 19 June 2014‎

• Could you provide sources that meet WP:RS and WP:N? Basically third-party coverage (newspaper, TV, books, etc.) that isn't a press release or based mostly on one. Hobit (talk) 21:01, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • temp. restored for discussion DGG ( talk ) 04:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• endorse In the article, only the Yahoo article feels like something other than a recycled PR piece. And that's not got enough information. Nothing reliable coming up on searches. I don't see any reason to overturn the AfD or the speedy at this time. Hobit (talk) 05:08, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Not notable and promotional, with unreliable sources. DGG ( talk ) 01:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, unless more and better sources can be found. The ones in the article look like marketing fluff to me and I'm somewhat dubious about their independence from the subject. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:27, 22 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse as an appropriate reading of the consensus in 2013. G4 was appropriate as there was no substantial change to the article such as to demonstrate the requisite notability. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:41, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The company areputation has appearance in eminent, credible and reliable media sources which include Times of India, Business Standard, Financial Express, Indian Express, PTI News and several others which identifies the company “Notable” in the field of “Online Reputation Management”. Being aware of the wikipidea policies as well as its criteria WP:RS and WP:N regarding the reliable sources and notability respectively, the sources that have been cited are appropriate to the level that is desired in wikipedia. Below mentioned are few more third party sources, one of which is PTI (largest news agency in India), to be considered for restoring the aReputation Wikipedia article: http://www.ptinews.com/news/4844137_-Online-reputation-management--nbsp-to-nbsp-ebb-nbsp-web-rumours-.html http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/kyodo-news-international/130812/online-reputation-management-new-buzzword-indias-corpo http://www.financialexpress.com/news/fixing-search-results-through-online-reputation-management/1226474/2 http://epaper.mydigitalfc.com/articledetailpage.aspx?id=596113# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art2edit (talk • contribs) 08:02, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fredcopeman.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

The subject is an obscure NFC portrait for a political figure of the 1930s. This appears to be one of the many cases where a minor paperwork irregularity in the FUR has been used as an excuse to practice yet more deletionist bureaucracy rather than simply fixing whatever the issue was. I looked at this file recently, I didn't see an obvious issue with it. NFC portraits in biographies are not a complex case for FUR anyway.

Raising this with the deleting admin User_talk:TLSuda#File:Fredcopeman.jpg, I was given a fairly rapid brush-off. Apparently I should have seen the speedy deletion notice (assuming there was one) and fixed the problem then. Now that it's deleted, it's too late to change it. Yet another deletionist admin who sees finding an excuse to delete something as more important than working to improve the encyclopedia.

There is no reason why this image can't be restored and, even if it has to be written from scratch, the obvious FUR provided. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Andy, you can stop slinging mud since that won't get you anywhere. You've been warned previously about personal attacks, you need to stop. Second, I find it very surprising that you notice the deletion immediately but did not see a deletion notice. Finally, you never asked me to restore the image for you, only accused and complained about what I didn't do. Had you asked, and told me what an acceptable FUR would be, I would have restored it with the FUR. Also, as you frequently find yourself complaining about me, you should know by now, that I have absolutely no problem with any admin undoing my action. There is no point in this DRV, except for you to attempt to make a fool of me. Good luck with that. I'd recommend you find any reasonable admin, give them an acceptable FUR (which it was completely missing) and it will be magically restored for you in less time than it took you to turn your complaining into a whiny DRV. TLSuda (talk) 02:26, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If something's proposed for deletion based on an easily-fixable issue then DRV would expect any reasonable sysop to refuse to delete. If this really was easily-fixable then TLSuda owes Andy Dingley an apology. If it wasn't easily-fixable then Andy Dingley owes TLSuda an apology. Both of you need to dial down the attitude. It isn't TLSuda's job to fix the FUR, and it isn't Andy Dingley's job. It's everyone's job, whether or not they're a sysop. Could we see this "unacceptable" FUR please?—S Marshall T/C 08:25, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The image description page at the time of deletion was:

    {{di-disputed fair use rationale|date=11 June 2014|concern=Invalid FUR: the header mentions two articles, so it is not clear which one of them the FUR refers to.}}
    
    ==Summary [[Invergordon Mutiny]] [[Fred Copeman]]==
    This is one of the very few Fred Copeman images available. It appears as the standard image in all articles deriving from the following: http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/SPcopeman.htm and http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/article.php?article_id=9795
    
    The image is also used - very much larger - as part of the publicity blurb of his autobiography - published in London in 1948 - and is used full page within. The Wikipedia article is based on this book so use of the image is highly relevant. It seems to me that this photograph was intended for dessemination.
    
    See [[Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 October 27#File:Fredcopeman.jpg]] for a bit more information on the copyright history.
    
    ==License==
    {{Non-free historic image|image has rationale=yes}}
    
    [[Category:People of the Spanish Civil War|Copeman, Fred]]

    It's essentially unchanged from what it was at the time of the ffd; in particular, both articles were already linked in the section header. I can't imagine what else the tagger expected to be done. —Cryptic 19:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • For non-free content all of WP:NFCC must be met, including having this information in the FUR. The source and links to articles was there, but we expect different FURs for multiple articles as they will usually not have the same exact reason/purpose for use (WP:NFCC#8). There is no explaination as to how its not replaceable, (WP:NFCC#1) which is important given that the subject was an adult and served in the military pre-1923 (which there possibly would be a copyright free image somewhere). There is no information about minimal use (WP:NFCC#3) or about respect for commercial opportunities (WP:NFCC#2). TLSuda (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Okay, so if I saw the FUR Cryptic has linked, I'd see that there had been a previous FfD which came to a consensus to "keep". I'd think "I know why an image of a bloke who died 31 years ago isn't replaceable." The pre-1923 copyright exemption business is true, but would lead to a picture of him when he was under 16. A school photograph in short trousers would probably be the best we could hope for, and I wouldn't see that as a viable substitute. I'd see the clear indication that this is a smaller, reduced resolution version of the image that satisfies our guidelines about minimal use and respect for commercial opportunities. I'm with Cryptic. Anyone concerned about the FUR could have completed it with five minutes' thought. I wouldn't normally expect a sysop to delete that.—S Marshall T/C 22:40, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As it stands, an incomplete FUR is a reason to speedy delete with 7 days notice. Assuming the image was tagged for 7 days with subst:Dfu before deletion, the admin acted within the rules. If not, then we've got a real problem. In any case, I can't say that I'm in favor of such deletion when A) an admin 1 year ago apparently saw nothing wrong (see deletion log where it was reduced and replaced) and B) most of the issues needed in the FUR were already there. But fine, it's within the rules.

At the moment we've mainly got a behavioral problem. A non-admin who acted like a jerk from the get-go and an admin who acted like a jerk in response. Apparently they have a history. Could you two please just do the right thing (get the image restored and write a FUR) without all the drama? And treat each other a bit more politely. Andy, would you please write a FUR and let TLSuda restore the image with said FUR? That's how this should have gone from the start. Sorry to rant, but you both are experienced enough that this shouldn't be happening. Hobit (talk) 20:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• • Overturn; fix rationale and restore. The overall policy for deletion of anything is that easily fixable things should be fixed. Recent practice with images has ignored it, but the general policy for deletion is the basic policy and nust be followed: we delete what cannot be kept, but only what cannot be kept. Doing things like this leads to the reckless loss of content. I don't usually work with image deletion because of the difficulty of masking headway against the people who would harm the WP by needlessly removing material that can conform to FUR policy, but it's time for the people who want a proper encyclopedia based on content, not wikilawering, to speak up against such practices. Anything which can be given a FUR that conforms to our FUR policy should be kept, and failure of one person to do it right should simply be fixed. NOT BURO. DGG ( talk ) 04:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I largely agree with you, but I can understand someone not wanting to claim that "no free version can be found or is likely available" without doing some serious looking first. I'm not sure it's fair to expect a passing admin to do that. Otherwise I agree with everything you say. Hobit (talk) 05:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• ?? What question has yet been raised as to whether there is an alternative image available? The justification given for deletion was that the FUR paperwork was wrong. "the subject was an adult and served in the military pre-1923" is just inventing policy on the hoof to make excuses. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• If he'd have filled out the FUR, he'd need to claim no free image was available. I know I'm not good enough with image searches to be willing to make that claim without spending a fair bit of time on it... Hobit (talk) 17:51, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There already was a FUR, with a credible and AGF claim in it that there are not only no free images available but even that there are no other non-free images available. There has still been no challenge to this and the image was not deleted on the basis that there were any.

I could just as easily tag every non-free portrait FUR as "But there might be a free image, we just haven't found it yet" and then delete the lot. Although I can hear a few of the NFCR regulars salvating at the prospect already, we don't extend reasonable attention quite that far! Andy Dingley (talk) 17:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't read the existing FUR as saying "I made a reasonable search and could find no free image". Out of curiosity, do we know who tagged this and when? A passing admin is taking a reasonable (though I'd say sub-optimal) action if deleting something tagged as a speedy that qualifies as a speedy (which is debatable, but let's go) even if he _suspects_ it's fixable. I'm assuming that was the situation. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The function of administrators is to administrate, not to improve an encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Improving the encyclopaedia is everyone's job.—S Marshall T/C 13:39, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The image wasn't even used in the second article, and hadn't been since November 2011. —Cryptic 14:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Request--could someone either do a temp restore (we all agree this is fair use, just needs a statement so I think that's a reasonable request) or cut-and-paste the history of this image (who created it the first time, where it was used, who and when it was tagged and when it was deleted. To some extent a fair bit of the DRV turns on those things. If the speedy wasn't there for 7 days that's a problem. I'd also like to know if the deleting admin is the one that tagged it. Hobit (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I would be willing to do this, and as I've said before any admin can do this, with our without this discussion. My offer still stands if someone provides me a valid FUR (which could be done without the image being restored), drops a note on my talk page, I will drop whatever I am doing in real life and restore the image ASAP. If we restore it, even temporarily, and it never gets fixed, then we have an issue per policy, or it gets deleted again and we are back here for another discussion. There is a reason we put time limits on speedy noms, otherwise they would sit perpetually unfixed and in violation. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 15:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Then could you please answer my questions? Who tagged it, when was it tagged and who created it? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Roger Davies originally uploaded the file in April 2007 and Delusion23 uploaded the crop in February 2013. They are the two major contributors to the image history. Stefan2 tagged it for deletion this month. Until November 2011, it was used on Invergordon Mutiny and obviously Fred Copeman. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse as technically within the rules, but also lets just restore the image, fix the FUR, and be done with the drama? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:33, 22 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Endorse All non-free files need valid FURs. That said, if someone provides a valid FUR, and the image otherwise satisfies WP:NFCC, then it can be restored. If a deletion rationale (e.g. no source, no licence or no FUR) can be invalidated by merely providing extra information, it is in my opinion enough to request undeletion at WP:REFUND, provided that the required information is provided in the undeletion request. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'll provide a FUR sometime in the next 50 hours. (Busy IRL at the moment and I want to do some searches before claiming no free equiv. exists). Hobit (talk) 10:55, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• @Hobit: Just let me know and I will restore it for you. Talkpage emails me, so that's my fastest way to find out. Cheers, TLSuda (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and fix FUR: while the delete was consistent with policy, it's something that can be fixed easily enough, and someone seems willing to do so. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Complected Man (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Plenty of sources exist,[41] debate had low participation and revolved around false points (There is no proper noun entitled "Dark Complected Man" in any reliable sources). I discussed with closing admin[42] — goethean 19:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Not a very well attended AfD, so I'm not adverse to relisting, especially if new sources come to light. That said, your link to a books search isn't hugely helpful--many of those are self-published sources (WP:SPS). Could you list the reliable sources which use this phrase? Without new and solid sourcing, DRV will almost certainly endorse this close. Hobit (talk) 20:05, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

W.W. Norton,[43] Univ. of Tennessee Press,[44] Counterpoint Press,[45] Open Court Publishing[46]. — goethean 20:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That's not a lot to hang an article on and the general objections of the AfD don't seem to be overcome. And given that a Google search of the term only has a JFK-related link in 2 of the first 10, I don't even see how a redirect is warranted here (generally a pretty low bar). Hobit (talk) 20:31, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I search on the exact phrase, I get lots of related hits.[47] — goethean 21:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GOOGLEHITS can turn up reams of conspiracy material. That doesn't mean those sources are reliable, or that something is notable enough for a stand alone article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 00:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you look above my comment to the comment that I replied to, you will find that I was not making an argument based on Google hits, but that I was replying to a claim made by User:Hobit (And given that a Google search of the term only has a JFK-related link in 2 of the first 10, I don't even see how a redirect is warranted here). — goethean 00:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, well, it's unclear what this article, if kept, would contain. The sources above mention that someone named Carr testified he saw a dark complected man somewhere. That's really not enough for a stand alone article, unless we deem conspiracy books and webpages trustworthy or reliable, and little chance we're going to do that. - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, I guess I just didn't use quotes. Thanks! Hobit (talk) 10:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have temporarily restored the article for review. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 23:26, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The few sources that are not self-published give only trivial mention to the "dark complected man". Furthermore, three of the sources briefly refer to a guy driving a Nash Rambler on November 22, 1963 while the other one refers to a guy in a 57 Chevy seven and a half months earlier. The only way to connect these accounts is through WP:SYNTH. Pointing out that there is no proper noun entitled "Dark Complected Man" is a valid point because it refutes the idea that one can take trivial descriptions from less than a handful of reliable sources and make them seem as though they are talking about one particular person. "Oswald Look Alike" gets tons more hits, but that one would meet the same fate. Location (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

comment. The article was about "one particular person": the person sitting next to the Umbrella Man. The content seems to have been spun off from the Umbrella Man article, and could be reintegrated into it. Paul B (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Looks like a reasonable close to me. Dougweller (talk) 09:38, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse though a redirect is probably appropriate given that the phrase is largely associated with the JFK assassination. Redirects are cheap. Hobit (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I think the analysis was thorough enough to determine that Wikipedia is simply not equipped to delve into this particular idea with a separate article. jps (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Having looked at the Ghits I don't think there is anything sufficiently substantial as RS to justify a stand-alone page. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Geographic reference (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see no policy rationale that required a speedy keep for that discussion. There was a single participant which merely asked to examine the template as used. The proper remedy would have been to remove the TfD tag to the noinclude section (which I would be fine with as well), not to shut down discussion. I find the comment disingenuous at best: I am in no way, shape or form advocating the wholesale removal of tens of thousands of citation. In fact, one of the reasons I listed the template is because it has been criticized for violating WP:BURDEN in its current form. I just want to discuss this template for ten different citations. Further, the most likely argument is for splitting the template, which would have zero effect on the citation universe. This template used to just be a link to Wikipedia:Geographic references and there is no reason I should have to wait until there are 24 or more citations locked into a single template. I've started an RFC as requested nevertheless. I doubt that's the best way to conduct this. If there is a WP:SNOW consensus to keep the template, its current name and its current format in full, fine, I'll drop the issue but I highly doubt it. Ricky81682 (talk) 17:21, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I explained my rationale to the closing administrator but his views remains that he doesn't want to allow the discussion because he thinks it doesn't belong there. I'm not advocating an ounce of a policy change, I'm asking for a review of a singular template, one that ultimately boils down to being a specialized version of numerous citation formats in a singular location. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Hmmmmmmmm. This is a high-risk template; any edit affecting the template we're considering would have an impact on a colossal number of pages. I do think the discussion should be widely-advertised to ensure it's fully thought through.

  Was Nyttend right to close the debate so early? Well, to an extent I can see his point. Our rules do allow for some pages to be fully immune from deletion. For example, editors aren't allowed to MFD established policy pages. (Amusingly, this is actually written down on WP:MFD. I can only presume some genius tried it.) And common sense says you wouldn't be allowed to AFD the main page. Do high-risk templates also enjoy this immunity from our deletion processes? If so then Nyttend is right and we should endorse, but I'd be interested to hear Nyttend's reasoning.—S Marshall T/C 20:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is the risk to the template, then the better approach would be to include the notice in the noinclude section? I'd add that it's not like this is something that's been repeatedly discussed. It was up for deletion years ago and only kept in a very limited fashion after a lot of discussions. This isn't a policy though; it's a template that's used for a series of sources. I'm not disputing the sources, I'm not even questioning the actual policy, I'm questing the actual implementation of the template. If we chose to rename it (like they did from GR to Geographic reference), that would have no substantive change to the policies. Even choosing to split it would have the same effect. I mean, yes, you could compare it to trying to TfD the main citation templates but it's not like Template:infobox artist didn't at least give a chance for people to WP:SNOW it. I asked Nyttend to post the RfC notice in the various Wikiprojects, I have no clue who actually uses this and I'd be more than willing to notice all the various projects because it should be a huge discussion. I'd be willing to relist it, using noinclude so it doesn't disrupt the template's usage and if there's a snowball against me, I'll withdraw it myself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Also, I note that it seems to me like Nyttend misunderstood my intent with this request. I was not requesting that every single use of this template be wiped off so we have tens of thousands of unsourced material, I'm asking if, at a bare minimum, we could split the ten various sources into ten separate templates, i.e. create ten new templates and then gradually each reference over time as part of the clean up bots or whatever. I don't think that should be fully immune from discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:36, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a longish discussion on the nominator's talk page which is relevant to the DRV because it explains the closer's thought processes. I think that Ricky81682 is correct when he says that Nyttend misunderstood the intent behind the nomination. I think what we have here is a communication failure. These often lead to conflict, but in this case I'm pleased to see that both participants have handled it with class. Or at least, without descending to ad homs.

  I think that the correct outcome was a widely-advertised discussion about what to do with the template, and that's the outcome that we have. What do we want DRV to do here? Give guidance about how to handle TFDs of high-risk templates? Or is it proposed that we re-open the TFD while the RFC is still in process?—S Marshall T/C 08:21, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, wouldn't a communication failure be a reason to overturn the speedy keep? I think it's clear that what he's accusing me is incorrect, only he thinks this would violate WP:V and even that is based on a miscommunication so I don't get why his close should stand then. Isn't DRV saying essentially that a sole administrator can unilaterally close any discussion with no other rationale than his views on the affects on policy (and if he is right, then he should justify it, not close it and stop anyone else from telling me off if that's appropriate). He hasn't even commented at the RfC he was so demanding. The infobox artist page is on more than twice as many pages and that at least had a discussion that made a consensus. I'd rather have it at TfD because the seven day limit at least moves it somewhere; if he's right, in about a day, it'll be closed anyways. In 2008, it was fair to list it but now it's not? I'll wait out the RfC but I still haven't got a clue who else to notify. If he refuses to explain himself and refuses to define who should be involved, I'll just list it again. Consensus doesn't work as a moving target that no one can catch. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:06, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Good points well made. I'm struggling with this because procedurally, you're right, but I can see why Nyttend did it in all the circumstances. I do hope some of my DRV colleagues will chime in with some different views to consider.

  In case they don't, I should try to come up with something helpful to say to the DRV closer. I suppose I'd have to go back to WP:DRVPURPOSE and say, it's our role to make sure the procedure is correctly followed, so we'd have to relist at TfD for a 168-hour discussion. I say this with no great enthusiasm. Actually a good thing to talk about at the RFC would be to begin a community-wide discussion on how to handle high-risk templates in general... by the way, I would like to participate in the RFC but I haven't as yet because I haven't been able to decide what to say.—S Marshall T/C 08:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn. Bad close. Nothing at Wikipedia:Speedy keep applies. WP:Supervote applies. "Wrong forum" is a dubious assertion. The TfD tag can be put in a noinclude section to prevent technical disruption. WP:SK should be narrowly read because to allow admin closers to arbitarily SK close amounts to discussion-censorship by admins. The mere perception of this is bad for the project. Far better is to let the discussion proceed, let opinions be stated and rebutted, and to let an uninvolved closer close. With this "overturn", the nominator should be allowed to immediately renominate, but this is not at all my recommendation to him. Template_talk:Geographic_reference#RfC:_Should_Template:Geographic_reference_be_split_into_separate_templates_for_each_source.3F is a much better idea. I don't think there is any chance of this template, currently transcluded on thousands of pages, being deleted. Even if it is to be replaced by other templates, its current high use means that it should be kept as historical (deleting previously well used templates stuffs up readability of past versions of articles). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Geoff Collinson (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the AfD has only had one participant besides myself the nominator. It was relisted at 10.03, 16 June 2014 (UTC), yet 3 hours later the admin appears to apply a super vote and close the AfD as keep with no reason when there is low participation (a reason is then given when I questioned the admin). Proper process should follow and It should be allowed to run the 7 days to gain more participation. LibStar (talk) 14:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the closing admin's explanation for closing as keep (and not providing any reason on the actual AfD page) and not letting a RELIST run 7 days is here. User_talk:David_Gerard#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FGeoff_Collinson_.282nd_nomination.29. I would have expected an admin to give more explanation in the closing statement at the AfD so there would be no misunderstandings. LibStar (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse Although "no consensus" might have been preferable, the keep seemed to me to have a better rationale than the nomination for deletion. So, the close was within discretion. Also, we are here to build an encyclopedia, not to take a pot-shot at anything that twitches. What is "notable" is what people think we should have an article about, not what meets a precise concoction of rules. The matter has been raised here before, quite recently, about closing an AFD shortly after it has been relisted (I don't have a diff), and it was thought to be OK to do this. Thincat (talk) 14:53, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from closer: I'm not worried either way, but I'm baffled as to what actual difference this is supposed to make in effects in the world. I asked Libstar three times on my talk page and got evasions. Libstar made both this deletion nomination and the previous deletion nomination, and appears unduly wedded to the notion of the death of this article. Note that the nominator needed subject-area jargon explained to them in the second time through - David Gerard (talk) 15:00, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

David has refused to answer my legitimate question "So why did you not explain your keep conclusion when it appeared no clear consensus for keep especially due to lack of participants" you would think under WP:ADMINACCT I would get a reply to this... LibStar (talk) 15:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"keep" is not a close that needs an admin, but basically what Thincat said, and you literally not understanding subject-area jargon before nominating - David Gerard (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am not wedded to deletion, I was seeking clear consensus, if it was many people with a consensus for keep I wouldn't be here , David's explanations seem very flippant and concerning for an admin, why was "you literally not understanding subject-area jargon before nominating" (maybe in a less condescending manner) not explained in the closing statement? LibStar (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I might've closed as no consensus, but a keep isn't crazy given the appearance of meeting sub-notability guidelines, and the difference between the two is rather academic. Endlessly relisting articles where nobody's showing up isn't a particular virtue, if nobody wants a say, give 'em what they want. WilyD 15:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The debate had run for more than 168 hours and was therefore eligible to be closed. A problem that arises from our editor retention issues on Wikipedia is low participation at AfD, and increasingly, some nominations are just getting ignored. This is going to get worse as time goes on, and it's a problem that'll need wiser heads than mine to solve. But I don't really approve of the recent fashion for constantly relisting low-participation debates, because all it does is spam the AfD page with nominations nobody's interested in. I think it's better to bring debates to a timely conclusion. It could be argued that when one admin has relisted, another shouldn't close the debate without further participation, but I'm not aware of any rule or guideline that says so, so I conclude that the close was procedurally sound.

  I raised an eyebrow to see the closer say "the consensus was keep"; I certainly don't see a "keep" consensus there. But DRV won't normally overturn a "keep" to a "no consensus", so I think the right outcome for this DRV would be an endorse by default.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• No consensus (or letting it run a bit longer) would have been a better reading of the discussion(s). But given that there is no good reason to bring this back to AfD anytime soon, weak endorse sounds right. Hobit (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - I'm not sure why this was closed only a few hours after it was re-listed. Re-listing seems like the sensible option and that was implemented at 10:00am. 3 hours later it was closed as keep without further contribution. I understand that some admins will see consensus where other re-listers have not and that's fine. But I can't see how a 1:1 discussion is harmed by a little extra time on the logs. It had certainly run more than 7 days so I can't find fault with the closing admin's actions per se. I just can't see the harm in allowing the relist to do it's job. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn (to "no consensus"), I suppose. There was certainly no consensus to delete. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. Please put more effort into nomination statements; the nomination in this AfD was very poor. Nominations are not for calling the attention of other editors to consider the page, but for the nominator to state a case for why the page page should be deleted. "dont think he meets WP:MUSICBIO. all i could find is 1 line mentions of him" doesn't cut it. Make up your mind whether it meets MUSICBIO or not. Tell us how hard you looked for sources, do not leave it to others to assume things about your source-searching ability. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the purpose of a deletion review is not to review nomination statements but how an AfD was closed. LibStar (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proper process was followed. The discussion was not headed toward deletion. The close might better have been "no consensus". We review everything here in the deletion process. The biggest fault in this exercise of the process was the low effort that went into the nomination. Asking for the discussion to be held open for weeks, without a respectable nomination, is unreasonable, to do so is to unreasonably burden AfD. This sort of thing is a actual problem burdening AfD. I oppose a relist, if this page is sent to AfD again, it should have a better nomination statement. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slaveholders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Please note that this request is explicitly non-political in nature -- this is a simple matter of treating people-by-status categories on the same logical basis for both sides of the slavery equation. The previous discussion was 7 years ago. when circumstances were different: this deserves re-examination.

See the DRV below for an example of one use: a corresponding subcategory Category:Fictional slaveholders (corresponding to Category:Fictional slaves), or a hypothetical List of slaveholders article (corresponding to List of slaves) would be another. The Anome (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist or permit recreation or something. The nomination was extraordinary to me ("in the past it was as common, natural, and trivial as owning a TV set today.") but what was even more odd was the number of people who seemed to agree with this. Anyway, I think the 2007 CfD can reasonably be challenged. Thincat (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Our decisions here historically have been very inconsistent. I see that our List of slave owners has existed since 2005. I'd go further than Thincat and say the 2007 CfD doesn't need to be challenged. It wasn't a strong consensus and it was all a very long time ago. I think it's simply expired through the passage of time. I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to create this category. But I think you've got the wrong name for it: it should be Category:Slave owners. Calling it "slave holders" creates quite the wrong mental image...—S Marshall T/C 23:57, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The choice of the word "slaveholders" as opposed to "slave owners" is deliberate, since people are not property, as a matter of international law: see the 1926 Slavery Convention. People can be (and, alas, still are) forced into slavery, but their enslavers' claims of ownership rights are invalid. This was not always always considered to be so, but we should use a present-day perspective when we name things. There are also other forms of slavery other than chattel slavery: the term "slaveholders" includes this case. -- The Anome (talk) 13:24, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Slave ownership is illegal, and so's murder. We still call a murderer a murderer. We still call a rapist a rapist. The fact that something's illegal doesn't mean we have to resort to euphemism. But the exact name is a side issue that should be subject to the usual discussion and consensus in due course. On the main point of whether it's reasonable to have a category for this purpose, you and I are entirely in agreement.—S Marshall T/C 14:00, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion. This is simply WP:OC - a very large number of past people would fall under this; it isn't WP:DEFINING. Arguing it shouldn't be deleted because an article exists is not relevant - we have plenty of things, and lists, for which there are articles where categories are inappropriate (and vice versa). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 05:56, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google and Bing searches for "was a slaveholder" and "was a slave owner" suggest that this category name satisfies WP:DEFINING's requirements. For a plantation owner in the pre-civil-war southern U.S., for example, it would typically be their principal activity in life: without the activity of the slaves, the plantation was merely a piece of land. -- The Anome (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• endorse Consensus was pretty strong on the main category and I'm not seeing a good policy reason to dispute that. Mangoe (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse (too long ago to reconsider). Note that the discussion contained only a weak consensus. This is the wrong place to discuss the merits of re-creation. I suggest continuing this discussion at Talk:Slavery or Category talk:Slavery, cross-posting a notice at the other. Or just create it, if you're organised enough to defend a CfD nomination. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American slaveholders (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Similar categories would also be created for all other countries for which they are relevant, as sub-categories of a container category Category:Slaveholders by nationality‎, which would in turn be a subcategory of Category:Slaveholders --the exact same schema as used for Category:Slaves and its subcategories.

Yes, a large number of historical biographical articles would end up getting added to this category (and the equivalents for other nations), but I think that is an argument for, not against, creating the category.

Please note that this request is explicitly non-political in nature -- this is a simple matter of treating people-by-status categories on the same logical basis for both sides of the slavery equation. The previous discussion was 7 years ago. when circumstances were different: this deserves re-examination. The Anome (talk) 20:23, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment If the Category:Slaveholders is recreated it would be best to proceed by consensus with any subcategories. This one shouldn't be recreated without the parent. Thincat (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• overturn American, endorse others The other by-country categories fell into the overall consensus. Strong arguments were made for the American category, however, and they were dismissed out of hand in a highly not-neutral fashion. Abolition in the US is a major aspect of our history and the owning of slaves placed people in categories which were significant with respect to antebellum politics. Mangoe (talk) 21:59, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Defer to the outcome of discussions on re-creating Category:Slaveholders. Endorse the 2007 Cfd, it was a descent rough consensus. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:27, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

We would like to work with Wikipedia to resolve the issues through conduct of the following:

• removing the Authority logo;
• paraphrasing original source material in another fashion and adding/retaining the referenced sources (i.e., not quoted verbatim from external sources);
• verifying that the page avoids a promotional tone, as that is not our intent, and;
• emphasizing the multiple, independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage.

I respectfully request that you restore the page so we can work to meet Wikipedia standards. The editor who speedily deleted the page had redirected me to use this forum. Pennsylvania Patient Safety Authority (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Please note the nominator has a non-corp username but has signed the nomination thus and I have added the relevant links to allow discussion. Please amend as appropriate. St★lwart¹¹¹ 07:52, 13 June 2014 (UTC) [reply]

• You don't need permission to do any of that. The article was speedy deleted as a copyright infringement (the source URL for the copied text is in the deletion log). That doesn't bar anyone from posting a new article under the same title, so long as the new version is also not a copyright infringement. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

if you are authorized to do so, it is also possible for you to st explicitly license the rights to the material according to our licensing using the CC-BY-SA and the GNU licenses, as explained in WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:Donating copyrighted materials ; these give everyone in the world an irrevocable license to reuse and alter the material, even for commercial purposes. However, this is NOT recommended, because the material is totally unsuitable: it was written to promote the services of your agency, and such a orientation is not suitable for an encyclopedia. You need to rewrite it totally and completely in an objective manner. DGG ( talk ) 20:49, 14 June 2014 (UTC),[reply]

Since no policy decision is required to allow the creation of a new non-promotional, copyvio-free, and WP:RS'd article under this title, I've done so. -- The Anome (talk) 11:28, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Heathcote-Drummond-Willoughby, 28th Baroness Willoughby de Eresby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A7 deletion, the title is an indication of importance. Peter James (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Looking at the German Wikipedia, I suspect she's notable too. overturn speedy and list if anyone cares to. Hobit (talk) 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn speedy. At worst, this should have been redirected to the article on the peerage (which is also enough to show A7 was inappropriate). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:04, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. While it should be noted that the mere assertion of a title of nobility does not overcome the A7 bar if it is spurious or absurd, a credible claim to be an English peeress with Burkes Peerage as a claimed sourced is clearly sufficient to require discussion as to whether to keep the article or redirect it to an appropriate umbrella topic. Eluchil404 (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - indefensible deletion, beyond perhaps "I am serious, and don't call me Shirley". WilyD 07:23, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. The article had existed since 2005. As a member of the hereditary nobility prior to the House of Lords Act 1999 she was a member of national legislature, and she continued to sit in the House of Lords as a crossbencher. I see this was raised with Anthony Bradbury on his talk page but I don't see a response. I'd very much like to hear his thoughts. Mackensen (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and do not waste time listing at AFD; clearly incorrectly deleted, and as a member of the House of Lords passes WP:POLITICIAN even if nothing else. Easily verifiable information, and it even had a specific page cite to Burke's Peerage, so I think we can only write this up as a mistake on the part of the deleting admin. postdlf (talk) 19:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Naveen Jaihind (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore) AFD1

With no consensus/biased opinion we can not delete page even in first discussion result was Keep. So in second deletion review we may have wide opinions instead of two weak. So request to administrators to please open Articles for deletion/Naveen Jaihind (3rd nomination) or proceed to restoration of page. GKCH (talk) 05:21, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither was a great discussion, though the delete arguments in the second seemed more clueful. I'll suggest that we relist the discussion anew and notify all (6?) participants from the two previous discussions. So endorse but relist is what I'm thinking here. Depending on the article and its source (which I can't see) a pure endorse might also be appropriate. Hobit (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 21:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the underlying reason for deletion was correct, and I see no possibility that the article will be kept. Being a member of the executive committee of a party has never been considered sufficient notability at WP. DGG ( talk ) 21:37, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse- There is no way the debate could have been closed any other way. The nomination and delete votes were well thought out and grounded in common sense and policy. Reyk _YO! 04:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including the unanimous keep from the first AfD, I think there were other ways to close it. That said, now that the article has been restored and I've read it, I think deletion is likely the right outcome. Hobit (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn/Relist, if anyone google/ explore more about person, definitely notable. Yes article need to be cleanup, I agree. He is a National leader of a Aam Aadmi Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.75.30 (talk) 07:43, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• There is no doubt that Naveen Jaihind is notable as most of the leading reliable sources has written about his. I would like to request that please keep article for some time to improve/cleanup the page.GKCH (talk) 08:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• For the record, the bold word "keep" here has a different meaning than the bolded "keep" in the nom.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse/Comment - there's no way to close that discussion other than how it was closed. The article might be userfied, fixed up, then sent to the mainspace, but as it is, another AfD would result in the same outcome, so relisting would be a waste of time and effort. WilyD 10:03, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment  The first AfD mentions a speedy deletion.  This may be [48]. 

• 2013-12-16 Oldest diff in the edit history, article has zero references, diff.
• 2014-01-19 The first AfD closes as keep.
• 2014-03-19 The article has 25 references, diff.
• 2014-03-24T08:30 This edit begins 21 consecutive edits that each removed text, up through
• 2014-03-24T08:51, with the article taken to AfD at
• 2014-03-24T09:08 with 3 references, diff. [49] shows that the article was deleted at
• 2014-03-31T06:13

Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Userfy  I am concerned to see editors removing references, in this case 22 references, and then taking an article to AfD.  I checked one of the removed references, [50], and it seems legit.  The analysis of 22 references, the editing to remove them, a WP:BEFORE, and the preparation of a deletion nomination, took place in 38 minutes.  Since the AfD was closed early, the entire process from the beginning of the removals to the deletion of the article was less than seven days.  One clue that the closing admin should have seen is that this was a 2nd nomination barely two months after a "keep" result, when normally six months should elapse.  I have not seen any comments from the closing administrator, which is normal for a Deletion Review.  Unscintillating (talk) 23:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• TLDR. This seems more like a criticism of me than a review. You may not understand what was going on. I'd posted stuff at, for example, WP:AN about the spamming etc that was going on in the run-up to the recent Indian elections and that we needed more eyes on India-related political articles in general (I'm not Indian and I had no horse in the race). The specific concerns regarding AAP-related articles was that this new-ish party was attaining an almost messianic status among a group of people and they were quite clearly, in my opinion, making use of every outlet available to promote their candidates etc, despite WP:NPOL. WP:GNG is broader in scope but, for example, a candidate in an election always gets press coverage - if we accept that as sufficient then we may as well bin NPOL because it would be pretty much pointless, at least in the context of most democracies. There had been a shedload of semi-protections etc across a swathe of AAP-related articles as a consequence of those tribal, fervent feelings and I'll challenge anyone who suggests that I have done anything other than follow policies regarding neutrality etc.

If a source is poor, for whatever reason, then it should go and you'll likely find that I do that many tens of times every day here. It is extremely rare that someone of good standing challenges an edit that I make. But, sure, I'm not infallible. The 38 minutes thing is a red herring and I suggest that perhaps you review how I edit generally. If you can't see that the original keep was poor then there is nothing I can do about that: it is well-known that regulars on WP shy away from anything to do with India-related subjects, leaving the minefield intact. A minefield that, incidentally, includes a vast number of socks, meats and threats of violence etc. Sometimes you have to go with your gut instinct & I can pretty much guarantee you that my gut is right on this sort of stuff, although obviously I do the research also: the one leads to the other. When it comes to an awful lot of Indian politics and social material, I'm at worst the "one-eyed king". If people think that shows signs of arrogance or whatever then so be it but there are many who would agree with the gist. The topic area is plagued with problems and I'd be more than happy to see you and others take a greater interest in it. I'm not claiming to be perfect.

I have no opinion regarding the close. Yes, it went the way that I expected to do but I think I've only ever challenged a close once and I really don't usually care that much. I'm on record somewhere as saying that I find this particular noticeboard to be an absolute pain and I'm only here because the comment following this pinged me. - Sitush (talk) 00:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I recall your name, but it has been a long time.  You say you have no opinion about the close, state "TLDR" to launch a rant that has nothing to do with my Userfy !vote, and egotistically claim that you are the center of attention.  But this is not a noticeboard and I did not mention your name.  Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment  As per User_talk:Hahc21#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Naveen Jaihind (2nd nomination) review., the closing administrator states, "...I'm not willing to review my close as of now."  Unscintillating (talk) 23:27, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is troubling to me. Looking at the AfD in question, I agree that it's a clear Delete consensus, and thus I can't but Endorse that close. But, it's unsetting that we had a overwhelming Keep consensus at the first AfD, followed by an overwhelming Delete consensus at a second AfD just a couple of months later. Yes, I know that consensus can change, but this radically, and this quickly? The scientist in me says this has to be measurement error, i.e. we're not seeing a true change in community consensus, all we're seeing is the random effects of different people participating in the two AfDs. I'm also a little concerned that the closing admin blew off a request to review their close. It's one thing to review it and stand by your decision, but to just say, "Nope, I'm not going to review"? That's bogus. I also agree with Unscintillating that Sitush making major edits to the article and then immediately proposing it for deletion was kind of bogus too. Anyway, assuming you've read this far, I think we should Userfy the latest draft, give Gokulchandola a chance to address the issues raised in the second AfD, and then resubmit the draft to main article space. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I struck out my jab at Sitush; that was peripheral. The main point I was trying to make was that with two AfDs so close together in time, each getting minimal participation, and resulting in dramatically different results, it's likely that neither accurately measured the consensus of the community. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Judicious editing, including the removal of sources, is fine, even if preceding an AfD. Sometimes it's pruning that leads one to realize that AfD is the way to go. I just spend a fair amount of time looking at the first nine sources found in the pre-Sitush version. They are all bogus: they don't verify in the slightest what the article text had. I don't know what to call it since I haven't looked further into the history, but it's a complete scam. So lay off Sitush, who, from what I can tell, did what should have been done a long time ago. Having looked at the previous version I see no reason to not endorse the close of the AfD. Drmies (talk) 01:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• What about source #1, which states, "Jaihind, a PhD scholar at the Maharshi Dayanand University in Rohtak, has been associated with the agitation from the beginning."  This was the reference immediately following the material "...Naveen is a Phd. Scholar"  The material was removed here with the edit comment "(not in the sources)".  This was again a sample of one, but it is sufficient to disprove your conclusions that "they don't verify in the slighest" and "complete scam".  Unscintillating (talk) 05:37, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse AfD2 was brief, but the "fails WP:NPOL" argument is correct, as was the delete decision. Johnuniq (talk) 01:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse are per Johnuniq. Dougweller (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion of article. Would also suggest salting. Next versions of the article should go through WP:AFC passing WP:GNG as I see no chance in near future of the subject passing WP:NPOL. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 05:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Naveen Jaihind lost in the election for the Lok Sabha. Despite high hope, AAP fails to make impact in Haryana "In Rohtak, AAP candidate Naveen Jaihind, ... managed just 46,759 votes and ended up at the fourth spot." Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:27, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

2greendollars (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria. notable music producer and thousands of refs on google, bing etc. just search for "2greendollars" I have an article as a stub to submit as a start class, pls advise on post into protected space Alvin M. (talk) 15:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• The deletion seems to have been based on G4 as a recreation of previous material, this seems to relate to the 3 AFDs of Anthony Chidiac, all of which ended in delete. Assuming there aren't other versions out there at other titles, then the speedy was 3 years ago, if your stub overcomes the reasons for deletion then it could be put in place, no need to come here. However, I assume your stub is this one - User:Xmusica1/2GreenDollars. Looking at it I don't think the references are up to much, so would probably end up being deleted again fairly quickly. The first with ISBN 9786136849829, is a book extracted from online content, i.e. wikipedia, it's likely to be an extract of the previous wikipedia article and completely unusable. The next two are CNN iReports, although CNN sounds good both have at the top "NOT VETTED BY CNN" and the about for iReports is pretty clear, it's user submitted stuff and "The stories here are not edited fact-checked or screened before they post. ". So they fail as reliable sources. The fourth is a Press Release, so isn't usable. The fifth is a trivial mention. The 6th is a dead link for me. The 7th as a youtube video doesn't mention the subject, the text lists their name but no more, so is also trivial. Assuming you included the best in the article, I haven't waded through the list of other stuff at the end. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looked again and for the references 4 and 5, the text in your article is in no way supported by the Press Release and trivial mention anyway. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 23:45, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• The key additional reference seems to be CNN: [51]. To what extent it is sufficient I leave others to judge. But I think we have never had the practice of trying to duplicate Guiness Book of World Records. DGG ( talk ) 15:15, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That As above, that isn't CNN per se, it's CNN iReports which are user submitted content which CNN disclaim any fact checking etc. The contributor of that particular one is 2gdteam and is there only contribution. The name suggests that they aren't independent, but it's largely irrelevant as user submitted content. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:56, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Paco Ahlgren (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria Jonpatterns (talk) 16:07, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - A book the subject authored with two cited reviews sounds like a claim of significance. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:24, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn the article said that the subject had won two awards (with citations) and linked to several reviews of their work. I think that's enough to get past A7. The deleting admin said that this doesn't make the subject notable, but that's beside the point, as A7 is supposed to be a lower bar than notability. Hut 8.5 20:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I will almost certainly !vote to delete, but it should have its chance. However, I typically do not regard self-published books as a plausible claim to significance, and I agree with AB that these awards are not evidence of notability, so I'm not sure how wrong the speedy was. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, being the recipient of an award for a book (complete with citation) is most certainly a claim of importance. A7 is for articles with no plausible claim of importance, not for articles that an admin thinks won't survive an AFD. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn. Article included a sufficiently plausible claim of significance, which is a lower standard than notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - while I'm not sure it'd survive an AfD, the included sources and awards are sufficient to establish that it's plausible to believe further searching would uncover more sources. WilyD 09:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Earl (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

OK, now that Justin Knapp is not considered one event, I'm trying with Earl again. Justin Knapp made a million edits, got coverage for a brief time, considered notable. Henry Earl gets arrested a lot, gets coverage spanning several years, and isn't??? Ridiculous I say. What do you think? Beerest 2 Talk page 16:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I think the close represented a reasonable reading of consensus in the discussion. I probably would !voted to keep in the discussion, but this is not AfD 2. --j⚛e decker^talk 16:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think another AFD should be had again. Mostly because I think the vote-soliciting from Wikipediocracy kinda mucked it up a bit. Beerest 2 Talk page 18:33, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I rather doubt that it clarifies things to compare really dissimilar articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This should have been overturned last time it was at DRV. Unfortunately we allow canvassing on Wikipediocracy to influence debates here, so I'm sure we'll soon see some block-voting to protect poor defenceless Mr Earl from the nasty Wikipedians who want to write an article about him.—S Marshall T/C 01:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Just because a bunch of navel-gazers are flooding the Knapp AfD doesn't have the slightest bit to do with this situation. Being infamous for the totality of arrests is the only thing this poor individual is known for, that was the consensus at the Earl AfD. It doesn't matter who talked about the AfD at what off-site location; if editors in good standing made policy/guideline-based arguments at the discussion, that is all that matters. WP:CANVASS is the one of the tools most abused by some around here to silence their critics when all else fails. I've rarely seen such a bad-faith DRV nomination as this one. Tarc (talk) 01:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, more or less per Tarc. Earl is a living person, and does not need to have his name further smeared by being the subject of ridicule in a Wikipedia article. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• endorse the requester is basing a WP:OTHERCRAP argument. they are not valid in AfDs, nor do they carry any weight in DRV-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 05:25, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Should have been overturned last time for a number of reasons (BLP1E doesn't apply, WP:CANVASS violations). But it wasn't. Until there is significant new coverage or a lot more time has passed there is no point in bringing this back. Hobit (talk) 13:01, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per previous DRV. Not a reasonable analogy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:13, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse WP:OTHERCRAP is not a valid argument. Hipocrite (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- since the deletion has previously been upheld, it's necessary to show something has changed in the meantime. Reyk _YO! 04:49, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse basically an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument. While I agree with the nom that Justin Knapp is a pretty silly encyclopedia article topic, two wrongs definitely don't make a right. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:18, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

File:XTC_energy_drink_-_from_Commons.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

PD. 1. Useful objects are not copyrightable. 2. Threshold of originality not met. 2.1. PD-Textlogo. {{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 04:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please undelete the image for the duration of the discussion. I'm going by [52]. --{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 04:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Why do you think useful objects aren't copyrightable?—S Marshall T/C 07:46, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why do I think Useful objects are not copyrightable? Because I know copyright law. If you're going to be involved in Deletion Review, you should be aware of it too. Please read Copyright_law_of_the_United_States, particularly https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Useful_articles . You could have just searched this very website for "Useful objects are not copyrightable" and found the answer yourself, in search result #1.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• As someone who knows copyright law, perhaps you could answer this. If you put a logo on a useful object, does the logo lose its copyright?—S Marshall T/C 19:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• S Marshall, reproduction of copyrighted artwork, including a copyrighted logo, on a useful object or anywhere else, does not invalidate the copyright. Finding a citation for that would probably be difficult, because it's a bizarre idea. --Agyle (talk) 06:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you, that's exactly the point I wanted to make.—S Marshall T/C 12:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Point being? You claiming {{PD-Textlogo}} does not apply to the XTC logo? It seems the point made is off topic, as this logo is not copyrightable, and the point is about a copyrightable logo.--{{U|Elvey}} ^(t•c) 07:11, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• You opened your nomination by saying that "useful objects are not copyrightable". That was the first point you raised, and I thought it was obviously flawed. I don't understand how it's "off-topic" to discuss this. In fact, as Agyle rightly says, a picture of a useful object with a logo on it is copyrightable, so to the extent that the nomination was on that basis, it fails. However, I see a clear consensus below that the nomination succeeds on other grounds, because although most logos are copyrightable, it's credible to claim that this particular logo is not. I think it likely that the image will be restored accordingly and I do not object to this.—S Marshall T/C 10:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and List. The reason for speedy deletion is valid, no fault with the deleting administrator there. I think that point #1 here is invalid, but having viewed the image, point #2 (that it is merely a text logo). It's worth giving the community a closer look, and there isn't much in the Commons deletion discussion to go by. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:52, 6 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
• Restore and list. I'd probably say it's PD-ineligible, but best to have a community discussion on this. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:10, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm guessing this was deleted after seven days on the technical grounds that the image was being stated to be being used under "non-free use" but no rationale had been provided. This would not require assessment of any copyright issue. The discussion at Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:XTC energy drink.jpg led here where this image was discussed in a broader context. Stefan4 (User:Stefan2 here) says he tagged it here as {{PD-ineligible}} which means he considered it to be Public Domain (the name of the template is counterintuitive). Was this tag ignored? It looks as if the image will probably be kept on Commons. The image may again become speedy-deletable here (WP:CSD#F8) if kept on Commons but if it is deleted there it could still be valid here under "non-free use" (or a different assessment of WP:TOO). Thincat (talk) 10:17, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:File:XTC energy drink.jpg has been kept on Commons.[53] Thincat (talk) 07:53, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Restore and list I'd guess the logo, being just a font, isn't original enough to qualify for copyright. But I'm no expert, so off to FfD we go. Hobit (talk) 13:18, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and list. I commented above. The keep on Commons is based on a possibly wrong analysis. I think it is deletable on Commons but (probably) not on WP (copyright in source country but not US?). Hence we should discuss the image here with a view to {{Do not move to Commons}} if it is kept. Thincat (talk) 07:39, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lewis Katz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

famous philanthropist and businessman recently deceased — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.133.234 (talk)

• It's not clear from the deletion discussion if it's the same person or not (they were apparently a politician?), but I doubt there is much to be had in a nearly 8 year old deleted article. Why not just start a new one? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:50, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• They do not appear to be the same person. DGG ( talk ) 21:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Well if the name were to be undeleted I could clean-up and add to the article. I posted this on articles for creation request but there is a pretty big backlog.I'm just not sure how to go about this exactly?24.0.133.234 (talk) 22:16, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Close Someone has by now created a new brief article on the businessman which looks good to me and meets the notability criteria. It will be fine to go ahead and improve this article. It would have been perfectly within guidelines for anyone to have created such an article (use of AFC is not mandatory) but, I believe, an anonymous user such as 24.0.133.234 would need to create a user name and log in to it first. Thincat (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bioregulatory medicine (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I would like to present deletion review of article as it is prematurely deleted without giving an opportunity to achieve wider scrutiny. Furthermore, the article was corroborated by citation that seems to be of notable character. The confusion may be due to nature of the article that is supporting interdisciplinary approach in medicine (combining alternative and allopathic), and that may have created impression of artificial synthesis that provoked quite a steer, but bottom line is that concept is based on system biology and as such it is using multi platform foundations and as such, in my opinion should be reviewed once again to prevent unfair deletion. I tend to believe in consensus so would be more comfortable to allow other editors to make their views rather then small number involved in the AfD in order to create real consensus about the topic. The article was prematurely deleted by strength of few editors without giving opportunity for wider consensus and since there some personal accusations during AfD feel that some editor may have also been highly charged or even biased, deleting some references, and claiming sock puppetry for valid KEEP comments, thus affecting final judgement of administrator who then did not have choice but to delete article. I feel the whole issue need to be reassessed and give article fair chance to face wider audience for editing and its final destiny. Bogorodica (talk)

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review _ DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - I believe in consensus provides it goes the way I want it to, is not a valid reason to consider the consensus formed was invalid. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• It wasn't prematurely deleted, it was deleted after a full discussion. There was nothing unfair. This is how we always do things. In the nomination statement you imply that Wikipedians didn't understand the article, but I don't think editors are as confused as you suggest. I think editors are well aware of interdisciplinary approaches in medicine. I don't think allopathic medicine or alternative medicine have anything to do with proper medical practice. They're fringe pseudoscience of the sort that Wikipedians are well-accustomed to dealing with. The extent to which they actually work as therapies is limited to the placebo effect. Our systems for getting rid of pseudoscience with the minimum amount of fuss are robust and efficient, and I'm pleased to see how well they're working. Endorse.—S Marshall T/C 07:54, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the bar for things near/at WP:FRINGE is fairly high and consensus was this didn't make it to that bar. Reading the article, I can't disagree. All the socking provides some degree of confirmation that deletion was the right path. Hobit (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Considering the discussion at the AfD , and the nature of the article, no other decision would have been possible. This is clearly an advertisement for non-notable fringe. DGG ( talk ) 00:46, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse per the AFD discussion. Bogorodica's claim that it was "prematurely deleted" is incorrect, AFD proceeded to completion and Bogorodica had the chance to give their opinion in several comments before the debate closed. So did a number of, uh, new accounts that popped up to offer viewpoints ranging from the nonsensical ("knowledge like this needs to be shared!") to the really nonsensical ("DOCTORS HAS TO HAVE SPHERICAL APPROACH TO MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE"). To put it as gently as possible, these arguments failed to carry the debate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User:DVMt/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I lost 70 new citations that are not currently part of the main article page. I was going to gradually add the sections contained therein at the talk page. The editor who requested the deletion has a long standing issues ownership [54] The current version suffers badly in readability [55] as well and QuackGuru misrepresented the deletion proposal. It also stated I was indef blocked, which is not the case. I had done work to the page this year, negating concerns of staledraft, and the copyvio allegation was resolved by changing a few words. Regardless, I put in dozens of hours compiling additional references and they're gone. Also, I did not have a chance to address the comments that were posted because I was blocked and didn't feel I had the chance to address the concerns raised. Thank you for your consideration. DVMt (talk) 16:20, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - to be fair, you were indefinitely blocked, but that was later reviewed and you were unblocked after a fairly lengthy discussion on your talk page. That's fine (that's the way it should work) but the block wasn't misrepresented. The concerns raised (and the consensus that subsequently developed after Anne Delong's comment about half way through the discussion) related to WP:FAKEARTICLE. You continued to address QuackGuru's claims and comments but didn't really address Anne's which is what other editors then came to agree with. The sandbox was deleted on the basis that it functioned as a WP:FAKEARTICLE which is what the closing admin noted was the consensus that had developed. That didn't actually have anything to do with the nomination which didn't mention that guideline at all. The purpose of DRV is to review closes and deletions more than it is to review nominations for deletion. It seems like a fairly solid consensus and I can't really see any reason why the admin's close shouldn't be endorsed. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Quackguru certainly had a lot to say during that AfD. It may be possible for a sysop to email you a copy of the deleted page so that your 70 citations are not lost; would that be a satisfactory resolution for you, DVMt?—S Marshall T/C 07:38, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the light of DVMt's reply below perhaps a sysop could email him a copy of the deleted page and close the deletion review? We can achieve what the nominator wants without having to disturb the close, so I suggest we do that.—S Marshall T/C 01:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - DVMt was indefinitely blocked by User:Kww when I made my comment at the time. After a long discussion User:Adjwilley unblocked DVMt. I didn't see any new 70 citations but I did see a lot of MEDRS violations. The sandbox was largely an old version from a previously resolved content dispute. There is a {{db-copyvio}} in the newly created sandbox. It looks like a cut and paste from the website Quackwatch. QuackGuru (talk) 22:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• QuackGuru is making an allegation without any evidentiary support. You made the claim, so prove it. What are the MEDRS violations? What is the copyvio on the sandbox? QW is a reliable site and we see that Barrett is making a good distinction between scientific and non-scientific chiropractors. He is a notable skeptic. Quackguru, you've been warned about harassing me before. Stop trying to censor everything I'm working on to add to the scientific literature of manual and manipulative therapies. If you continue trying to own the articles, my work space and the topic itself my not assuming any good faith in me or my contributions, I will take this up with User:John so we can talk about your disruptive behaviour. I did lose all those citations and that would be agreeable User:S Marshall. DVMt (talk) 19:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously impossible to provide evidence of things when the evidence has been deleted. You are continuing to argue with QuackGuru but it wasn't his rationale that saw the content deleted. Arguing with him is unlikely to see your content restored given it's not his arguments you're actually seeking to overturn. S Marshall has made a good suggestion and you've accepted it. I strongly suggest you move on from there while being particularly careful about copyvio in any newly created content. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse continued deletion of the material, but no objection to a copy being sent to the author for their own use as suggested above. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:34, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Schumacher Racing Products (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Can someone please review the deletion of this page as one of it primary contributors I was surprised to see it deletion. In hindsight perhaps the timeline of the companies product could be less detailed and I am prepared to undertake this edit. However the timeline of products is important and this page was a valueable source and widely referenced. I have no connection to the company concerned and 99% percent of the products are out of production so the page was never an advert! A lot of other brands have this kind of page and thinking of other hobbiest type products have detailed pages including product details taking camera as an example. Unfortunately the moderator Mark Arsten is no longer active so can't review the page deletion.Yachty4000 (talk) 13:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Can't see the article, but given the sparse attendance, I'm fine with a relist (reopening of the discussion) so that Yachty4000 can make his case and perhaps a few others might get involved. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I can see the article, I want to note that the catalog part of the article isn't going to stand even if the article is kept. Yachty4000--I'd urge you to find some other host for this material. I've no doubt it's useful (I often user RC cars as a part of my job), but it's not really appropriate for a Wikipedia article... Do keep in mind, reliable sources are going to be needed to meet our inclusion guidelines or the whole article will be deleted. You might want to start looking (probably in hobbyist magazines) for sources. Hobit (talk) 11:20, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist - agree, it seems to have been closed as (effectively) an uncontested PROD. If there is now a good-faith request that the discussion be reopened for further consideration, I can't see any harm in that. The original nominator and one other participant should be notified if that happens, though. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:52, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 05:42, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Clearly I am going to say Relist I am prepared once restored to reduce the pages content interms of details on each product and also I am not sure what they are distributors for is relevant. The aim is to provide a timeline of products and company history for the hobbiest interest. I was a bit surprised by the speed the content was deleted without notifying the main contributors thanks for looking into this. (talk) 9:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)
• Relist (AfD nominator). It didn't get much interest at AfD so I'm happy to see more discussion of it, but it's an oversized product catalogue of an article on a supplier that just hasn't demonstrated notability of the core company itself, based on independent sources. There are two problems here: it is far from clear if the supplier reaches notability and most obviously, the transient parts catalogue aspect just isn't what WP is here to cover. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• To answer some of the questions the supplier does have notability having won the World Championships been one of the main brands for the top of the sport and invented a number of technological advances. Other similar pages exist on wikipedia see the Category:Radio-controlled_car_manufacturers unless all brands are removed picking on this one for speedy deletion seems strange. This isn't a fringe hobby but one with worldwide appeal. As I said thankyou for looking into this all. I will read some more wikipedia guideline on referencing so it doesn't just rely on the manufacturer website. Yachty4000 (talk) 15:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Looks like I am having one of those days can someone hide my IP address on this page as it logged out. I am truely sorry to be a pain. Yachty4000 (talk) 16:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - although I'm not opposed to a relist per se, it seems unlikely to change the result. If the article can be fixed up, the smart thing to do is ask for it to be userfied, add some good, independent sources, then move it back to the mainspace, rather than run another AfD that probably won't turn out differently. WilyD 09:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if desired, but I agree with the comments above that it will be inevitably deleted unless drastically and immediately improved. My advice is that it would be much safer to do it in user space or draft space, DGG ( talk ) 00:50, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I have done an edit in my sandbox that dramatically cuts the length of the article down and makes it less of an advert! I have added a few more references. If the page can be relisted then I will update it. I see other similar pages like RC10. Thanks for sorting out my IP issue Yachty4000 (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist, I guess, with no great enthusiasm. The AFD was very low-participation so it should technically get another look, but if this version is the best we can do I think it's likely headed for the rubbish pile again. Mostly self-sourced and reads like a catalog/flyer (complete with SKU numbers and prices!) Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:02, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenie Carys de Silva (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Out of process closure. This deletion was made after less than two days being open, due to the closing administrator incorrectly arguing that the result was irrecoverably tainted by sock puppetry. The existence of sock puppetry and meat puppetry is not uncommon at AfD; it is the job of closing administrators to weigh the legitimacy of all comments there. Sock puppetry does not mean that an article should be auto-deleted out of process to prevent theoretical future sock puppetry in the same debate. Moreover, whether one thinks of this as deletion-worthy or not, the fact is that this was not an uncontroversial ("snow") deletion, as the closing administrator intimated when I asked him to revert his action. I don't ask for anything more than a relisting here so that the AfD process may work itself through in the normal manner. It is an arguable deletion challenge; what should be unarguable is that this speedy closure was out of process and should not be allowed to stand. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist - as nominator. Carrite (talk) 16:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist I certainly understand why the admin might have thought the article an obvious delete. But the discussion having started, using " closing early due to disruptive input" to close in favor of what is obviously one's own opinion when the disruption is merely a few obvious sockpuppets making arguments, not engaging in abuse, isn't really a good use of discretion. Even if the sockpuppettry were more extensive, to the extent of confusing the issue, closing as a relist to start over is usually a better choice. DGG ( talk ) 18:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my own opinion, it is my reading of the debate. I have no opinion, other than the view of the debate that this is WP:BLP1E. I do have a view on the advisability of allowing AfDs to play out in the case of BLP articles, when the likely comments are going to be along the line of "not notable". I have seen enough emails from article subjects to understand how hurtful this is. Most of them never wanted an article in the first place. Guy (Help!) 07:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I can understand the argument for a snow close in this case. I'm concerned about the closing statement that it was an early close "due to disruptive behaviour". Because if we allow quick closes due to disruptive behaviour, then we're creating an incentive for future disruptive behaviour when someone wants a discussion closed quick. At the very least, the closing statement should be struck out and amended to a straight "snow close", but if there's plurality support for a relist then I don't object to that either.—S Marshall T/C 18:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I closed this because there were strong arguments for delete, and evidence of off-site solicitation that was already leading to WP:SPA input. The only valid !vote for keep, was Carrite. This had already received more delete !votes than many uncontroversially deleted articles, including one switch from keep to delete. This is a WP:BLP of a minor child, and the article does not establish notability other than for the single event of graduating while still a minor. In normal Wikipedia practice, the article would be merged to a list of youngest graduates (and a redirect there would be fine right now), but spinning out an acrimonious sock-riddled deletion debate on a living person does not seem to me to be the best idea we ever had. That is the limit of my caring about this particular article, so I'm done here. Guy (Help!) 20:11, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The creator also opined in favor of keeping; even if it were 6-2 or whatever this early in a debate, that's not snow. Potential acrimony is present in every AfD debate and there are sock-strewn debates almost every single day. We need to be consistent with our process to keep things grounded in group consensus and policy rather than the randomness of individual action. As a betting man I would agree this will probably end in deletion; the process is important, however. There should remain a window for the article's defenders to muster sources, improve the piece, and to mount a successful policy-based defense. Carrite (talk) 20:34, 2 June 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• relist and semi protect There were other solutions to socking that should have been tried first. I think it is likely this will end up deleted, but I don't see a SNOW case here. Hobit (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse One misguided inclusionist and a pile of someone else's socks shouldn't prolong what is a rather straight-forward "news of the day" wonderkid. WP:NOTBURO. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But nor should it require early closure... Hobit (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It doesn't require it, no, but it isn't out-of-bounds to do so either. Admin discretion, I'm fine with that. Tarc (talk) 16:08, 4 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist. Substandard behavior on both sides -- the AFD nom's principal rationale, "no independent reporting", is plainly incorrect, and indicates a failure to meet WP:BEFORE; the COI and possible puppetry issues aren't anywhere near enough to justify summary closure and deletion. I'm cautious about BLPs of minors who don't place themselves squarely in the public arena, but this doesn't appear to have been inappropriate or intrusive in terms of content. Her family is (justifiably) proud of here, and may have committed minor sins in terms of Wikipedia editing, but nowhere near so severely as to justify out-of-process deletion. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 00:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist. Out of process closes can sometimes be justified on BLP or other unusual grounds, but I see absolutely no compelling reason here not to do this one by the book. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Pseudoscientists (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As one of the people suggesting the renaming that because the centerpiece of the outcome I hate to have to press this, but one of the elements of the decision has proven to be disruptive. The statement that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience, the replacement category, "will only serve as a holding category for subcategories" and "therefore should be empty as to articles" set off a race to strip the category from articles before anyone could create a new subcategory to contain them. We also have a discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 22#Pseudoscientific fooers to get rid of new subcategories. I agree that the new categories are problematic, but this is brought about by a fundamental flaw in the decision: it violates the policy that "Wikipedia is not censored". There are plentiful modern advocates of bogus science who are not readily lumped into some easily-named or pre-existent category, and who refuse to admit their fringiness, even though it is exceedingly easy to find authoritative voices to so classify them. Therefore their supporters here are having little difficulty protecting these articles from accurate categorization, thus censoring the categorization system.

I suggest two alternatives:

1. remove the dictum that Category:Advocates of pseudoscience be a container category only, or
2. allow "Advocates of pseudoscientific foo" subcategories of any size

I do not oppose any of the rest of the decision and would prefer that this discussion be limited to the specific issue I've brought up. Mangoe (talk) 01:17, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close by the three wise men because they were delegated to make a decision and it has not been shown to be unreasonable in itself. Close discussing question 2 here because the CFD is still open. @Mangoe: I'm puzzled by "subcategories of any size". What is the relevance of size? Thincat (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• This is unusually complicated and I'm sure it'll take some time for us to review and think about the substantive issues. But I do differ from Thincat to a certain extent: I don't think it's for Mangoe to show that the decision is unreasonable. I think the allegation that the decision is creating practical problems is sufficient for us to look at it. I see no reason why we can't give proper scrutiny to a triumvirate close. The other CfD is, at present, not within DRV's purview because there's been no close to review, so we'll need to look at that separately.

  As I said, I'll look at it but in the meantime I wanted to make a procedural suggestion. Mangoe's advice that editors are in "a race to strip the category from articles before anyone could create a new subcategory to contain them" is obviously time-sensitive, and this may continue during the course of the DRV. I wonder if we should put in a bot task request for a bot to go through identifying which articles were in this category when the CfD began.—S Marshall T/C 12:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I've now been able to review the discussion and consider it. In the light of the second paragraph of WP:LABEL, it seems clear to me that all the deletes on the basis of "BLP nightmare" should have received less weight. We have Category:Fascists and Category:Monsters which could be misapplied to create a BLP issue. The fact that they can be misapplied does not mean they should be deleted. This simply does not follow, and Elaqueate pointed this out during the debate. In the light of points 15, 16, and 17 of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience, there are times when it's appropriate to label something as pseudoscience. Misusing that label is a conduct issue that can be dealt with. Accordingly, I conclude that the closers' decision not to delete the category was appropriate and I endorse it.

  Mangoe's complaint, though, is not unreasonable and DRV should help ensure the spirit as well as the letter of the closers' decision is followed. We need to work out which articles were in the category when the CfD began, and we need to move them all into the holding category. We might need to refer this to a bot coding person to see how this can best be achieved (a python script of some kind?).—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm wary in general of categories that don't function the way their names imply, so it's a bit ironic to me that this decision resulted in the deletion of a straightforwardly-named category on the basis that it could "not be maintained as it" stood, only to be replaced with a category which was prohibited from being maintained with what it says on the tin. I didn't follow this discussion closely, so I don't have a strong opinion on the initial question; I just think we really need to be careful when making categories that will be lightning rods for error like this. (Ping me if you want to discuss this; I won't be watching here.) --BDD (talk) 17:38, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• This does look to be that a reasonable result that has unfortunately led to a biased attempt to disrupt the change into appropriate subcategories, or categories, of whatever name. I do agree the name of Supporters of foo and its subcategories is much clearer and less susceptible to misuse than the original category here. The items originally listed should be moved to a category, which could well be Supporters of Pseudoscience, until subcategories are decided, and the articles listed under the proper ones. I'm not entirely sure how this fits under the usual purpose of deletion review, but this is an administrative board with wide discretion, and a medieval legal maxim seems applicable: where there is a wrong, there should be a remedy. DGG ( talk ) 18:24, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• On behalf of the panel, we did the best we could to address a bad situation. We had no intention to initiate a mad dash to depopulate the category without introducing appropriate subcategories to the relevant articles, nor to instigate the creation of equally amorphous subcategory titles. It is well established that many existing areas of advocacy are pseudoscience (e.g., phrenology), and it should suffice that categories be used or created to specifically identify phrenologists and other adherents to specific pseudoscientific beliefs. bd2412 T 18:42, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with bd2412's response. BOZ (talk) 18:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• There was a clear consensus against the status quo in the original CFD. We, the panel, chose the most well-supported and policy-compliant alternative among those offered in the CFD. I don't think either of these conclusions is actually being disputed. This seems to be a complaint at the way the some members of the old category were re-classified, which of course was not decided by us, but by the users making those decisions. It was our intent that people be classified by the field or fields that "earned" them the pseudo-science label. Although people have asserted this is not possible for some members of the former category, I have yet to see an actually example of this - all those offered as examples to date were eitehr improperly classified to begin with (for example, scientific frauds are not practing pseudoscience, but instead belong in Category:Fraudsters, or a new Category:Scientific fraudsters/Category:People who comitted scientific fraud/whatever subcategory) or have been shown how they can be reclassified without resorting to a "psuedo-fooers" category. --ThaddeusB (talk) 19:04, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse well-reasoned, pragmatic close that accurately reflects core values while maintaining utility. It's really hard to see any better possible outcome. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]