Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January

Madison Guthrie (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Here we have a big bundle nomination of articles created by promotional sock puppets, with mostly boilerplate information, for non-notable beauty pageant contestants. After ten days of discussion, 12 of the 18 participants in the discussion argued to delete and/or redirect all of them. 3 others specified which should be kept and which should be deleted. Only 3 of the 18 participants in the AfD argued to keep all of the articles, yet it was closed as Keep all for the time being; renominate separately--they are likely to be of unequal notability. It may we worth mentioning that while raw !vote numbers don't necessarily matter at AfD, this was not a case where the majority arguments were poor and/or submitted by SPAs. This was standard AfD argumentation related to notability as well as the context of the articles' creation.

Based on the thread at closing admin DGG's talk page, it sounds to me that the close was based on a sense that with so many nominated, some must be unequal, basing the close on personal principles of best practices for AfD (or the arguments presented which most closely match them) rather than consensus of the discussion. That's not to say it was a bad faith close, of course, but that it should be called what it is: something I'd probably describe as an WP:IAR or WP:COMMONSENSE close based on the view that too many articles were nominated. But if that were the case, it should have happened early on rather than after ten days of discussion.

I don't like bundle AfDs as a general rule. I think they usually do more harm than good. But we do allow them. Although the number here is high, the grouping is of a kind specifically allowed and in fact suggested for bundling: articles which contain standardized/boilerplate content, articles created by sock puppets for promotional reasons, all of the same subject type, etc. DGG did not disagree with this premise, as far as I can tell, but found the number nominated objectionable, instructing participants to nominate 5-10 instead. I cannot find a numeric requirement echoed in policy (except, again, if this were a close per IAR/WP:COMMONSENSE). While, 5-10 is more manageable and speaks to why bundled AfDs can be problematic, 5-10 is also arbitrary. If this close is upheld, and maybe even if it's not, I'd like to get some feedback on how best to modify WP:BUNDLE to reflect that such an outcome is possible. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:21, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Follow-up - I just noticed the original nominator, Legacypac undid the close, was promptly reverted, and is now mass nominating/CSDing. I don't know what that does to this thread. DRV seems like a more prudent approach to me. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:26, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I followed procedure and requested that the closing admin User:DGG review his close because I think he breached policy and failed to consider consensus. I further found that he had not removed the AfD templates from any of the nominated articles except the lead one. That prevented renomination as he suggested - therefore the close was malformed. So I reverted the close and posted for another Admin to close properly. User:GBfan reverted my revert, putting much of it back to an improper close, but did strip some of the AfD templates on some of the subsidiary articles.

Along the way I was also advised that this process never results in delete after a keep. I then started to AfD the articles one at a time but found that the group AfD resulted in a redirect of each new AfD to the closed group AfD. Eventually I figured out that the redirect had to be manually deleted of each page like this one [1] in order to get the nomination to list properly. To get to these pages I have to manually construct the URL because I can't find any way to click a link there without setting up the AfD with a repost of the long closed AfD onto today's list of new AfDs.

After 10 of those I went to sleep. A few hours later I find that my deletions of the redirect text on the AfD pages are being reverted - to what effect that has I have no idea yet. To top that off I've got another Admin who was used discredited arguments on the group AfD copy pasting inappropriately vague arguments against everything I do and saying he no longer assumes good faith about my work and other unpleasant things in violation of the guidelines around AfDs.

Cleaning up vandalism by a banned sockpuppet should not take the rest of my life, but I like to finish the job so I press forward. I'll hold off on nominating any more (about 40 to go) to see if this Review gets any traction.

This all involves a MASSIVE amount of work on my part to eventually delete what appears to be a bot created list of articles. Legacypac (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Some will be notable, based on subsequent work. The only way to find out is to investigate each of them separately. The boilerplate content can ignore important other material, as is common with such low quality article creations. In a nomination such as this, the few notable individuals will get lost. I advised the nom. to renominate them individually, a few at a time, to allow for proper searching. But they've decided to renominate all of them individually at once, which I consider improper, though not prohibited. And, as Rhododendrites remarks, it doesn't really make sense for them to do it simultaneously with deletion review--we should choose one route or the other. I should note that I have no interest in this particular subject, (and I just declined a request on my talk p. to speedy-close all the individual afds, because I do not want to be that extensively involved) but I do care about deletion being done in such a way that the notability of each article can be considered. DGG ( talk ) 17:34, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I do care about deletion being done in such a way that the notability of each article can be considered But it was only in your own judgment that this was not the case with the previous one. Either nip bulk nomination in the bud when they start or assume good faith that when an editor offers a !vote that applies to all, that he or she looked into all of them. Closing as keep and discarding consensus in order to impose an arbitrary numeric limit based on your own opinion of what is reasonable, while undoubtedly based on reason and experience, is nonetheless not good practice at the end of a ten-day discussion, given the current state of AfD policy pages. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:22, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There's no way that was a discussion resulting in deletions. A more nuanced close that redirected those articles that nobody called out as needing individual attention would have been nice, but a no consensus close was the best that could be reasonably hoped for, and that's essentially what we got, what with the exhortation to renominate.

  User:Legacypac's subsequent actions here, of course, aren't helping his professed cause one bit. If there's a better way to carve an exception out of the usual inclusion criteria than mass nominations in a subject area with sneaky sockpuppets, I can't think of what it would be. Hey, it worked for high schools. —Cryptic 17:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I don't agree that that was not a discussion that could have resulted in deletions, but I wouldn't have opened this if it had been closed as no consensus rather than keep (which, although you interpret it as no consensus, is what the record shows). DGG defended the keep (rather than change to no consensus or IAR) by saying he went not by number of votes but by the strength of policy-based arguments. That suggests he was saying his close reflected consensus. I opened this case because I disagree with that reading of consensus (and because it raises procedural concerns for the future as I mentioned above). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:12, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only practical difference between closing an afd as keep and as no consensus is that folks get more upset if you quickly renominate a kept article. Anyone wikilawyering that the new nominations should be shut down solely because the previous afd was closed "keep but nominate separately" instead of "no consensus, nominate separately" can be expect his !vote to get the weight it deserves, i.e. none. (Actually relabelling them as no consensus might head off such disruption, which is why I asked DGG to do so earlier.) —Cryptic 18:38, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I should clarify that while I wouldn't have likely filed a DRV if it were closed as no consensus, I still think a no consensus close in this case would be inappropriate. The close had nothing to do with consensus. What it should've been is an IAR close or a WP:COMMONSENSE speedy keep perhaps. Policy allows for this nomination, it drew participation, spanned ten days, and an overwhelming majority of participants supported deletion or redirecting. What the close should reflect is that the AfD was not in keeping with the closing admin's sense of best practices at AfD and/or best interpretation of Wikipedia policy. That would still lead me to start a thread on at the talk page for WP:BUNDLE asking for clarity, but I wouldn't have challenged the close. The current close, whether we interpret it as keep or no consensus, is an implementation of a personal interpretation of policy and an arbitrarily quantified prescription that don't have anything to do with consensus, so it should better reflect that. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:29, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The delete !votes were pretty weak. I didn't see a lot of policy-based arguments here (unless WP:COI is now a reason for deletion). I'd have preferred if it had been closed as no consensus, but I think "keep for now" gets the notion across. Hobit (talk) 18:50, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ? WP:COI came up one single time in the AfD. I think what you mean by COI is the fact that, as was repeatedly brought up, these were created by a banned promotional/COI sock master (and even one of the examples given in WP:BUNDLE), which is certainly a reason for deletion. Other reasons given included WP:BIO, WP:GNG, WP:BLP1EVENT, WP:NMODEL, WP:ROUTINE, etc. And before someone says "yeah but CSD" with regard to the sock puppeting, not only is it still a valid reason for deletion at AfD but that they should be CSDed rather than AfDed means anything but a close as "keep all" (even if interpreted as "no consensus"). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except that that's not true: a simple review of the actual creators of the articles the nominator now has at AfD will show that few or none of them were created by this "sock farm" and the the creation varies from fairly recently to more than 4 years ago. The "sock master" accusation is pasted into every one of these new nominations. My strong assumption of good faith was strained significantly by the repeated untruth. - Dravecky (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your making an argument about this bundle by pointing to articles that weren't part of this bundle? The majority of these were created by a blocked sock. While the most prolific is blocked, it's true that not all of the article creators are blocked. That said, most produced similar style and content articles and only one article of the bunch was created by a non-SPA. Given how prolific the sock master is and how similar many of the articles are, it doesn't seem like a stretch, but yes, assuming good faith there is reason to believe a few were not created by socks. But why assume good faith there but not regarding the contributors to the AfD, suggesting that a blanket delete or blanket redirect could not possibly have been based on an evaluation per the policy the !vote cites? As I've said, I searched for sources for all of the articles that did not take the exact same barebones cookie-cutter style (including some created by the sock that had text added since their creation), and found not one of them to pass BIO. The others (the "barebones cookie-cutter" ones) were easily TNT material given the socks and also due to lack of usable content. WP:BUNDLE says to use caution because they're tricky and often messy, but the problem typically arises because participants in the discussion come to a consensus that the nomination was flawed, that they should be kept, etc. Here that was not the case. 3 out of 18 !voters made that argument. The consensus was clearly not for keeping all of them, and that's why this DRV is open. The question isn't whether you agree with the outcome of the close but whether he properly determined consensus.
        [side note: I'm feeling like I've said my peace and am starting to repeat myself now. Since so far nobody who supported deletion other than Legacypac has chimed in, I'm going to take a bludge-be-gone pill and go to sleep :) To be clear, though, I'm much less interested in these articles being deleted through this process than I am for the close to better reflect consensus (and/or to account for such a close via a clarification of WP:BUNDLE).] --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 08:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • <ec> I am referring to the deletion !votes that argued for a deletion based on COI. If these articles were all created by a user after he was banned, this could go through CSD. Otherwise, COI isn't a reason for deletion. Further, BUNDLE makes it clear one should be very careful about a bundled nomination. Given that some of these folks appear notable, it's hard to imagine any outcome other than doing them one at a time. I'm unclear why we aren't just doing that at this point. If it's the "keep" vs "NC" then A) I think the closing statement makes it clear that renoms are fine and B) I'm in favor of moving the close to NC. I just don't see how we can get a policy-based mass deletion here. Folks suggesting things like deleting them all and letting DRV sort it out, aren't making policy-based arguments.... Hobit (talk) 06:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - discussion was fundamentally broken; realistically, all of the articles should be either redirected or kept - policy cannot be invoked to argue for deletion over redirection. Although it's clear that some may merit redirection while others merit being kept, a lot of people made vast, sweeping statements without any indication they'd considered the merits of all the individual articles, which are different. Combined, we have a lot of opinions asserted that go against policy by participants who give a strong indication they did little or no evaluation of the articles before !voting; such votes must be strongly discounted, they're all noise, no signal. Now, I'd have used a called it no consensus, which is closer to the truth and historically gives one more leeway to re-nominate right away, but since the closing statement explicitly says you might consider a separate discussion for articles that might need it, one where a consensus can be achieved, there's no need to take action. WilyD 07:30, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse while "no consensus" might be a better description of that close I don't think there's any way that discussion should have ended in deletion. Several people made comments relating to only a handful of the articles, which makes determining consensus for any given article a lot harder. There were also a number of comments arguing for deletion or redirection or all the articles which made some dubious arguments. That winning a state contest doesn't confer notability doesn't mean the subject reaches notability in some other way. That the articles are badly sourced doesn't mean better sources aren't available. That the articles were created by sockpuppets isn't grounds for deletion unless they were evading a block or ban. Comments arguing that they should all be deleted unless someone can point to sources for individual articles ignore the fact that notability simply doesn't work that way. While bulk nominations are allowed they also frequently aren't a good idea, and this looks like one of those situations. Hut 8.5 11:23, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The closer reasonably (and to my mind quite accurately) concluded that the large-scale bundling of articles made it impossible to properly establish consensus on the many individual articles. Whether the outcome was styled a procedural keep or a substantive no consensus is not terribly important. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 14:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree it might have been clearer if I had called it non-consensus, but as pointed out, it comes to the same thing. Several of these articles have now been individually nominated, and that's the way forward. DGG ( talk ) 01:04, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I don't like large bundled AFDs like this, if for no other reason than it is a pain to close them by script; this one suffered from the additional issue of differential notability. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I shall say endorse while agreeing the close wasn't utterly ideal to a very high level of perfection. However the AfD nomination was also deficient, in this case very highly deficient. Had the nominator explained matters as Rhododendrites has above then maybe there might have been a more discriminating discussion. However, a nomination along Rhododendrites' lines would have only been appropriate with a much smaller bundle or with no bundle at all. People do not like being expected to take a lot of time carefully considering each member of a bundle only to find that the nomination itself seemed to have been given far less care. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Given all of the above, I'm content to Withdraw this DRV. I'm satisfied enough with the notion that the close could be recognized, given the caveat in the closing language, as something that would've been more accurately been called no consensus, IAR, or even speedy keep based on the bad nomination. I don't know why the language wouldn't just be modified to reflect that, but I'm not feeling like that's worth keeping this open. Also, WP:SNOW (I'm getting enough of that outside at the moment). --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 00:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yung Stet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Improperly speedily closed by newly (as in 2 hours previously) created account. Too soon (under 7 days), not a speedy (only one keep !vote from another account that started editing only two hours before !voting), a supervote, improperly closed (notice still on page). JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 11:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I undid the close per WP:IAR, as it was extremely obviously inappropriate. ansh666 11:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:333-blue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bots removing my own category and delete my page!!! 333-blue 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• A CfD about deleting categories for these pages can be found here, but the pages themselves have been deleted, apparently in error. Unless someone explains why the pages themselves need to go, I intend to restore them in the next couple of hours as it appears to be a simple housekeeping mistake. Eluchil404 (talk) 01:45, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored these three since I felt somewhat responsible as the nominator of the categories. I'm not sure why the bot deleted those, but clearly that was beyond the scope of the nomination. I've been discussing with User:333-blue here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:51, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:333-blue/sandbox

User:333-blue/sandbox (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bots removing my own category and delete my page!!! 333-blue 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC) User:333-blue/sandbox/2014 Sleeping Tour[reply]

User:333-blue/sandbox/2014 Sleeping Tour (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bots removing my own category and delete my page!!! 333-blue 01:09, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

1. August 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (gerontologist) closed as "no consensus".
2. November 2007: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive324#User:Ryoung122 disrupting XfD discussions
3. November 2007: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) closed as "delete"
4. November 2007: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 17#Robert Young (longevity claims researcher) closed as "deletion endorsed".
5. December 2014: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox

Even though new information has surfaced, I am taking listing this at DRV because of the article's contentious history.

Robert Young has been frequently quoted as an expert in The New York Times (link), the Los Angeles Times (link), and The Washington Post (link).

Cunard (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If the consensus is to restore, please history merge User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox and Robert Young (longevity claims researcher). Note that the sandbox had other material prior to the 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC) version. Please only merge revisions from User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox on or after 21:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC). Cunard (talk) 01:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - there are a few problems with this one. The subject area, generally, has been the subject of considerable problems, constant sock-puppetry and edit-warring and is the subject of ArbCom restriction. The subject in question was also a Wikipedia editor intent on promoting himself and blocked indefinitely for repeated sock-puppetry. The most recent suspected sock-puppet was blocked less than a year ago. Of the sources provided above, 3/5 were available when the notability of the subject was considered in 2007. Previous discussions were courtesy-blanked at the request of the subject but are enlightening, especially with regard to some of the sources available then. I acknowledge that the two remaining sources might get the subject over the line (in combination with what was available in the past) but the problematic history of the subject here (as an editor) gives me reason to pause. Do we really want to provide such a problematic editor with a long-campaign-for soapbox given his history of disruption and perhaps-marginal notability? Obviously endorse the original close (the nom isn't suggesting otherwise) but I'm not 100% we should allow this to be re-created. Perhaps if it were created under pending changes or something along those lines? St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Longevity#Discretionary sanctions rescinded (November 2014), I don't think there are any Arbcom restrictions on "Longevity" right now. You are correct that I am not challenging the seven-year-old AfD close. Instead, I am bringing this here because of the new sources.

  I don't think the subject's problematic past behavior should lead to Wikipedia's keeping his article deleted despite his being notable. I don't think the subject is marginally notable. I instead think he is notable because he has received significant coverage in high quality sources like the Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, the Wall Street Journal, and The Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

  Cunard (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well there you go - thanks for pointing that out (though the problematic behaviour still occurred while those sanctions were in place from the looks of it). No, I don't think it should really impact on the final decision to re-create or not - I just have a problem with giving trolls and disruptive promo-spammers exactly what they want. I wouldn't object to re-creation but (as above) I think we should consider some extra provisions to prevent disruption. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:03, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with adding pending changes or semi-protection if there is any further disruption. Cunard (talk) 00:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then I'd be happy to allow recreation on that basis. St★lwart¹¹¹ 11:09, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation without prejudice to a new AfD as sources appear to be above the bar and the last AfD was a long time ago.... Hobit (talk) 21:44, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation- I'm not sold on the sources but, like Hobit says, the last AfD was a very long time ago. Reyk _YO! 11:46, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation - I strongly disagreed with the original AfD spree and much of what followed, and thus obviously favor re-creation. Either Young is notable or he isn't. The nature of his interactions with other Wikipedia editors should be wholly irrelevant to that issue. Had that, and other Wikipedia standards (e.g. BLP, NOR), been adhered to in the first place I suspect there never would have been an issue. If the article is simply re-created in reasonable form without further (frankly irrelevant) denunciations of the subject here I doubt there will be any problem going forward. Sometimes people 'act out' when they are publicly insulted, accused of 'fraud', have their life's work challenged, et cetera. Go figure. So why not skip all that, instead follow actual Wikipedia procedures, and just look at the question of whether mention (and occasional in depth coverage) in virtually all major US news sources several times per year over the course of a couple decades constitutes 'notability' or not? CBD 11:21, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:NickOrnstein (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This felt more like a super-vote from the closer rather than the review of the consensus. As I stated here, the closer's statement that "Active user working in longevity-related topics" seems like more a comment, not a review of what was discussed. Again, no one questioned whether the user was active (although he hadn't edited an article and months and was mostly just working on his user page) or argued inactivity as a rationale. The keeps votes from User:SiameseTurtle, and User:Longevitydude each argue that the user had a right to whatever he wants on his page (which is true, but subject to limitations), and that making personal attacks against the nominator. Longevitydude even removed the MFD tag. In contrast, the delete votes at the very least acknowledge discuss the webhost problems, and the BLP concerns which have been entirely ignored (namely posting birthdates for relatively unknown people). I don't think the proper close would be, rather than removing the possible BLP violations, to just telling the editor about it. And it's not just blue-links that need sources so I don't think the instruction was correct either. Similar userpages where this basically preferred version of lists were deleted.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. When the edit blanks the tables and is directed to work on the actual encyclopedia (the moderate position discussed there), we keep the rest and move on. When the editor agrees to move the content to projectspace, we accept it and move on. The general consensus from the discussion follows the consensus across MFD on this topic: editors should not be keeping their preferred formatting or order of tables on their userpages as basically decorations and instead should be directed to the projects to help out there. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and relist. Closer should be evaluating the debate rather than placing his own opinion up top. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't mind DRVs, throwing around obviously false accusations like it's my opinion NickOrnstein is an editor who works on longevity related articles is uncalled for. WilyD 11:30, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the comment is that it's your opinion that it's relevant. I agree with your close, but the phrasing could be read as a supervote. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for putting my point more eloquently, Hobit. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - Wikipedia has traditionally given wide leeway to editors and how they use their userpages. I'm disappointed that we've put a user through an MfD over three tables on their userpage; this kind of pedantic behavior is why we've been losing editors since 2007. Moreover, this close was easily within the realm of admin discretion (and tangent: Wily's reasoning was not an opinion). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:03 and 21:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - that the user is actively using the information stored on their userpage is a legitimate reason for not deleting that userpage. Inactive drafts and things not maintained (and thus not relevant to current editing) are subject to deletion. On that basis, I see no technical fault in Wily's close. Users should not keep "rejected" (deleted), against-consensus versions of disputed content for the sake of maintaining an "alternate history" or some other such thing but if that is what is being suggested here, more evidence would be required. Users would do well to note that this topic area remains subject to Arb-Com sanctions. Arbs and Admins are likely to take an especially dim view of editors misusing userspace where that misuse relates to sanctioned topics (which applies equally to those abusing other processes, like disruptively removing templates during discussions). The suggestion that editors should focus their attention on collegial project work is a good one. It would be wise if the editor in question removed that which might be aWP:BLP concern from their userspace, to which that policy still applies. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:23, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- "...the user is actively using the information stored on their userpage", define "actively". Since a 9 month total break from editing in July 2013 they have, prior to the longevity-related Mfds and with one exception, edited 2 pages, their user page and the totally unrelated List of oldest dogs. For evidence that they are knowingly maintaining an "alternative history" (by using flags) see User talk:NickOrnstein#Flags and the relevant link which contains an interesting example of their attitude at that time. Examples of their current attitude can be seen here, here, here and here. And having looked back through over 4 years history of this Userpage I can find nothing that was used in any existing mainspace article. I should also point out that the user has in the past provided a considerable amount of useful material for longevity-related articles as well as some which has been less useful. DerbyCountyinNZ ^{(Talk Contribs)} 10:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's been maybe two dozen user and subpages at MFD over the last few weeks that are just tables and nothing more from users. A lot of just a simple copy and paste of the current list with a change in design and the user playing with it forever on their own. I see that Oldest_people#Oldest_people_ever doesn't have flags (or use "Ms." I guess). The biggest disappointment are the ones who blanked or deleted their pages after having sourced various material rather than work collaboratively at all but the Arbcom ruling shows that this isn't really new. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So? You don't try to delete someone's userpage because you think they're being insufficiently collaborative. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:08, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As noted above, I think the closing statement could be read as a supervote. That said, it's the right close given the issue and the discussion. endorse. Hobit (talk) 22:46, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox Cambridge college (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Poor, non-admin closure which does not address the issues raised in the discussion and appears to merely count "votes". Closer has refused my request to rectify this. Should perhaps have been re-listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pigsonthewing (talk • contribs) 12:34, January 24, 2015‎

• Endorse was a reasonable non-admin close. There was literally no support for this merger and real objections to the merger were raised (differences between Hall and College, what to name it). I don't see how else this could have been closed. It was listed for a long time already, so I don't see relist as an option. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I frown upon NACs in general, but in this case it was a reasonable judegment of the consensus of the discussion. Tarc (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse A closing rationale is generally intended to explain how the closer weighted the !votes – there is no need to comment on the underlying issues. In this case I think the closer handled things perfectly well. As for relisting, the only contribution to the discussion this year asked for someone to close the discussion. Thincat (talk) 16:54, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think the closer got the decision right. I don't see the need to re-open this. Canuck^{89 (have words with me)} 05:54, January 25, 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse - the only "argument" presented for merger was a link to a close that suggested it could be considered. It's unsurprising it convinced exactly no one and failed to carry the day (which is exactly what happened). WilyD 10:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - clearly a good close. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 21:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Hi Wiki editors/contributors/admins, This page should be speedily deleted because it has fail to meet the relevant Wikipedia Notability Policy guideline, citations are self driven not from reliable sources and it seems advertisement of an individual, its deleting in pending since 1 February 2008.-- Faizan Munawar Varya ^chat _{contributions} 00:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - the article was deleted in 2008 and was then recreated in 2009, seemingly without a subsequent DRV or AFC process. If you want to nominate if for deletion again you need to start that process at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahmed Tamjid Aijazi (2nd nomination). It has been 6 years since it was re-create and 7 since it was deleted. Enforcing a 7-year-old AFD wouldn't be a great idea. St★lwart¹¹¹ 03:15, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

A user is being disruptive and keeps removing the {{subst:rfu}} tag despite the image being an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#1. The image is still an unambiguous violation of WP:NFCC#1 and the removal of the tag should be overturned by speedily deleting the image as such. Stefan2 (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Why is this at DRV rather than FfD? And also, is there a discussion between you and the user in question? There is claimed to be something resembling permission to use this picture, I'd like to hear if he/she is willing to get proper permission. Hobit (talk) 14:49, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The permission was already discussed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files/2015 January 10#File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg where a user concluded that the permission was insufficient and decided to change the tag to non-free without bothering at all about satisfying the non-free content criteria, thereby prompting the {{subst:rfu}} tag. As the permission issue has already been dealt with, it needs no additional discussion. This is only about the user's incorrect decision to remove the speedy tag which should be overturned to speedy deletion. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Interesting, I hadn't thought of PUF as a deletion discussion. I think this needs to get deleted until/unless the license gets improved. I'd hope you'd be helpful in letting the user know what needs to be done--so far it appears you have only communicated via template (at least that's all I'm seeing on their talk page). Never mind, I thought the uploader was the one disputing things. Proper request is in the works, but it's been more than a week. I think we need to delete for now until we find permission has been granted. Hobit (talk) 15:22, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment There are several photos of the interior at commons:category:Elsinore Theatre and I've uploaded File:The Stage (4842433570).jpg from Flickr (still awaitingFlickr review successful) which may suffice at least until this one is certified. Thincat (talk) 17:23, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete until an adequate free licence has been produced. The removal of the speedy tag was wrong (and an "irreplaceable" claim would not hold water). There was still a reasonable argument that the photo is "free" and PUF was the right venue to test that. It looks to me there was consensus that the permission was not adequate and so the "keep" close at PUF should be overturned. Thincat (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably out of scope. Removal of the DFU tag should result in either it being re-added by way of reverting vandalism, or listed at FFD. Stifle (talk) 10:35, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does seem to be the right place to dispute an invalid removal of a {{subst:rfu}} tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:07, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I thought this was in scope for reviewing the keep close at PUF[2]. However, I agree the situation is murky, partly because it was retagged as non-free use[3] during the discussion which WP:PUF accepts as a legitimate action. I have just seen the file is (was?) also being discussed at WP:NFCR#File:Elsinore Theatre.jpg. Thincat (talk) 12:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:NFCR is not the best forum for situations like this. --Stefan2 (talk) 12:06, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • NFCR is not much of a good forum for anything, given that stuff just sits there indefinitely. Stifle (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also, I tried reverting the user who vandalised the file information page by restoring the {{subst:rfu}} tag, but the user complained about edit warring, so I thought that this was the proper place to overturn the incorrect removal of the tag. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Misee Harris (actress) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

(Hi Wiki editors, please re-check the notability of this article again. I think this article is notable & should not be deleted from wiki) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Khocon (talk • contribs) 05:21, 22 January 2015‎ (UTC)[reply]

• To be clear, this is about my G4 redeletion at the Misee Harris (actress) title; the article was originally at Misee Harris (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore). The reasoning that Khocon gave on my talk page, while it failed to convince me, is more in line with what's expected at DRV than the above. —Cryptic 05:35, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn G4 - comparing histories, new sources include [4] [5] [6] [7] [8], meaning the old AfD can't be applied. Quite frankly, reading the old AfD compels me to wikilink Wikipedia:Systemic bias and remind people that "aimed at a black audience" is not a good reason to dismiss a source as unreputable/unreliable. That audience is far less niche than, e.g., members of the Royal Astronomical Society, but we'd (rightly) laugh is people used that to discredt Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society as a source. WilyD 09:36, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Hmm, I think it's a bit of a stretch to compare those sources with the Royal Astronomical Society. There are good reasons why Wikipedia values scholarly/academic sources higher than newspapers. But with that said, I don't see any real harm in having a proper AfD about this content and I suggest we do, in the interests of FairProcess. I think it's fairly likely that the AfD would delete the content, but the point is to show that we're giving a fair chance and removing the material after a full discussion rather than summarily and arbitrarily.—S Marshall T/C 10:08, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't mean to suggest that things written in MNRAS are as likely to be wrong as things written in Nature or anything (except the spelling, which is an atrocious, haphazardly assembled cornucopia of the worst features of British and American spelling ... but I digress). Just that it has a niche/limited audience. The original AfD relies heavily on discounting sources because they're aimed at African Americans, which is a far wider demographic than astronomers - but much less well represented among our ranks, I suspect. WilyD 14:34, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• G4 appears inappropriate given new sources identified by WilyD. overturn speedy. Certainly no objections to another AfD. Hobit (talk) 04:01, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I nominated it for G4, but now I'm on the fence. I think it could have been G4ed when first recreated (and I'd appreciate it if an admin gives the creating editor, who did recreate it about a day after the deletion, a poke), but I hadn't appreciated how much additional coverage she'd gotten after the Ferguson outrage. If it were recreated now, I wouldn't AFD it without a bit of head-scratching. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:43, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply to self: as far as I can see the "(actress)" bit is entirely spurious - there isn't another notable Misee Harris - and suggest if it is recreated it should be in conjunction with a move. Pinkbeast (talk) 11:45, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I imagine such a move would be uncontroversial. WilyD 15:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Prill (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I do not dispute the consensus in the discussion that Johnny Prill was not notable. However, I would like the page's history restored under a redirect to National Grandparents Day, where Johnny Prill and his song are mentioned. Johnny Prill is a plausible search term, and National Grandparents Day is the logical redirect target.

1. From The Roanoke Times at http://www.roanoke.com/life/gratitude-for-grandparents/article_6abaa591-8d7b-51ac-bb25-efb9032651cb.html^WebCite:

   It is appropriate, then, that the official flower of Grandparents Day is the forget-me-not. “A Song for Grandma and Grandpa,” written by Johnny Prill, was named the official song of the holiday in 2004.

2. http://www.grandparents-day.com/y2006/OVjprill/OVjprill.html^WebCite says:

   Johnny Prill's CD "A Song For Grandma And Grandpa," contains the official song of National Grandparents Day. This enhanced CD allows you to print the sheet music for “A Song For Grandma And Grandpa” right from your computer. It also contains a music video of the song.

   http://www.grandparents-day.com/aboutus.htm^WebCite says:

   The National Grandparents Day Council is a non-profit corporation, established by descendants of Marian H. McQuade, Founder of National Grandparents Day.

3. Coleman, Marilyn J. (2014). The Social History of the American Family: An Encyclopedia. Sage Publications. p. 641. ISBN 1452286159. Retrieved 2015-01-21.

   The book notes:

   Since 2004, there has been an official Grandparents Day song, "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa", by Johnny Prill, a singer-songwriter in the folk-polka traditions and a lifelong volunteer performer at nursing homes.

4. Barber, Lorin (2011). 28 Tips to Become a Great Grandpa. Cedar Fort, Inc. p. 36. ISBN 1462100554. Retrieved 2015-01-21.
The book notes:

For example, the first Sunday after Labor Day is designated "Grandparents Day" in the United States. The official "Grandparents Day" has an official song, "A Song for Grandma and Grandpa," and an official flower, the forget-me-not.

These sources present a clear link between Johnny Prill and National Grandparents Day.

As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

Cunard (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent DRVs about restoring article histories under redirects: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 13#American Airlines Flight 633.

  Recent discussion: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link).

  Cunard (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The deleted page can be viewed at http://web.archive.org/web/20150120034031/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johnny_Prill. Although the article contains references to Prill's own website, many references are reliable sources. Much of the material in the deleted article can be used as the basis of a new article if new sources surface in the future. Cunard (talk) 22:44, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse as closer and per the very first phrase of this DRV nom. In addition, Cunard would do well having a look at the usual formatting standards for AfD and DRV and reduce the walls of text they are producing. --Randykitty (talk) 22:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't see why Cunard should be prevented from creating a redirect. That's an editorial decision, not an administrative one, so I don't see why it's necessary to review it in any detail here. Whether to restore the history is what should interest us.

  If any content from the deleted article is going to be used, then we do have to preserve attribution and restoring the history is the simplest way. If not then restoring the history is completely optional. Cunard's given us his reasons in favour of a restore but I don't yet understand Randykitty's reasons for refusing, so could you clarify please Randykitty?—S Marshall T/C 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• @S Marshall:I have no objection to creating a redirect de novo. However, I don't see any valid reason to restore the article history. Consensus was that Prill is not notable (as conceded even by the nom). If we follow Cunard's logic, no article would ever again be deleted (except copyvios), we would just create redirects and preserve the article history "in case the subject becomes notable in the future" or we want to merge something. If in future any evidence would turn up that Prill has become notable, the article can be undeleted if starting from scratch is not easier. --Randykitty (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, that makes sense to me. "In case the subject becomes notable in the future" doesn't really work for me either. So really at this DRV we're choosing between Cunard's "to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject" and Randykitty's "I don't see any valid reason to restore". From my perspective, neither exactly seems like a pressing, urgent issue and a compromise seems advisable. In view of the opinions expressed below, I'll go with userfy to Cunard, so that if any salvageable content is merged then Cunard can comply with WP:CWW by (for example) putting a list of contributors onto the talk page of the target article without needing permission from any administrative gatekeeper, but Randykitty can remain assured that the deleted article can't possibly be restored to mainspace unless there's a new consensus.—S Marshall T/C 10:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Cunard argued for redirection in the afd - in his typical multipage, filibustering, repetitive way that makes me want to ignore him even when he's right - and consensus was against. He's raised no new arguments here.

  On the merits, Prill's entire vanity section in the proposed redirect target should be removed as grossly undue weight, but I know better to get involved in that. —Cryptic 02:02, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse much of the arguments for keeping content hidden but blanked in some way (a redirect in this case) and reasoning presented such here such as ease of access to non-admins, are similar in effect to pure wiki deletion which the community has rejected multiple times in the past. It would take a really exceptional case before deciding to ignore that consensus. I should also be noted our license doesn't require us to have redirects if any of the deleted content is used in the destination article for two reasons - (1) It's a copyright issue, if the reused content doesn't meet the threshold of originality no copyright concern arises and (2) the license requirement is attribution, there multiple ways to meet the attribution requirement and a redirect is actually pretty weak in that regard. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:32, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - As an editor involved in the discussion, who was asked for an opinion on creating a redirect with the history preserved, allow me to express it: I believe if a deletion discussion closes as delete the page should be deleted, not redirected; however, I have no pressing issue with a simple redirect. After all, we have a section of an article to redirect it to. I do not believe the article history should be restored. The consensus in the discussion was that Prill is not notable, his National Grandparents Day contribution is from 2004. I do not believe that Prill is likely to experience a sudden rise in notability to the point that he would be eligible for a stand alone article. Aside from the notability concerns, the nomination raised concerns about promotion in the article. Looking at the page logs [9] it is apparent that this concern is not without basis. In fact, I would suggest that there is enough justification there to apply either creation protection or, if a redirect is created, full protection. The discussion on keeping histories hidden under redirects concluded that: where there are concerns about an article that went beyond notability, histories should not necessarily be preserved. I have concerns with the coverage afforded to Prill in National Grandparents Day, it's bordering on WP:UNDUE. I believe these concerns mirror the number of times this page has been deleted, or subject of a deletion discussion. It is for these reasons, and his rather historic claim of notability, that I believe there is no editorial merit in keeping the page history underneath a redirect. Bellerophon _{talk to me} 10:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. I was the afd nominator. It was major Vanispamcruftisement that should have no place in Wikipedia, not even in a history. I am also of the opinion the overly self serving promotional section in National Grandparents Day also needs to go. It gives extremely undue weight to what may be an official song of a small self created corporation that has not been deemed significant enough themselves for anyone to give their own separate mention of that promotional organization in that page. A minor part of a minor part of the day. This info has been removed by multiple different editors but keeps reappearing, bought back by SPAs dedicated to promoting Prill. Since I think that entire section should go there is no longer any need for a redirect. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, do not restore history- Consensus at the AfD was clear and, given Duffbeerforme and Bellerophon's strong arguments that covering this person elsewhere would be too promotional and undue weight, I think retaining the history would be a net negative. And I second Cryptic and Randykitty's comments regarding repetitive walls of text. Reyk _YO! 12:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Unless needed for target article's attribution, this has no merit. Tarc (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Bellerophon has argued well that a selective merge of the deleted draft would be undue weight and too promotional. I agree with S Marshall and Tarc that since there will be no merge, it is optional to restore the history. I withdraw this deletion review. Cunard (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leo Stolz (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The subject, Leo Stolz, is a soccer player. Since the prior AfD, he won the Hermann Trophy as the top college soccer player in the United States and signed a professional contract with the New York Red Bulls of Major League Soccer. Thus, if nothing else, he satisfies WP:NCOLLATH now. I am requesting that we allow re-creation based on the draft at User:Metropolitan90/Leo Stolz. (This draft was primarily created by other editors including User:Elopez76, but it's in my userspace temporarily.) I did ask the prior deleting admin if he would support restoring the article to the mainspace, but I haven't heard back from him yet. Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation - I suppose we could wait until March 6 when the regular season starts, at which point he'll likely meet the requirements of WP:NFOOTY, but why bother? He probably passes WP:GNG as it stands and it certainly looks like he meets the requirements of WP:NCOLLATH. He only needs to meet one of those. We have a sensible draft and a good-faith request from an editor in good standing. If this needs 7 days I'd be surprised. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow re-creation - substantial new sources mean the old AfD is no longer applicable, and subject appears to meet WP:N, and at least one of its crums. WilyD 09:50, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation as original closer. I was away for a couple days giving a workshop, and just saw this. More or less per Stalwart111. My apologies for not responding quickly enough to avoid the extra step here. --j⚛e decker^talk 17:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of unconfirmed exoplanets (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I see that EPE has a list of unconfirmed exoplanets. So I would have voted keep, the list is worthy as some of these planets will be confirmed eventually. Even having list of retracted planets is like having readers reading history books. PlanetStar 21:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy close as out of scope of deletion review. From the top of the deletion review page:

  Deletion Review should not be used:

  1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;
  2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first, unless there is a substantial reason not to do this and you have explained the reason in your nomination

  As such, this listing is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 09:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Weight of Chains 2 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Since the vote in late September 2014, the film sequel has been released worldwide, with premieres at the Montecasino Film Festial in Johannesburg, South Africa, the Swedish Film Institute in Stockholm, Sweden and the National Museum of Culture in Mexico City (also shown in Vancouver, Toronto, Innsbruck, Stuttgart, Berlin, etc.). I added notable references for the article which has been greatly expanded. UrbanVillager (talk) 13:06, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I closed the original AfD. I have suggested to UrbanVillager that trying to build consensus for this at Talk:The Weight of Chains would be a lighter-weight (and thus superior) process than DRV. FWIW, if events have unfolded over time which make the issues raised in the AfD no longer valid, then restoring the article may make sense, but I'll leave that to other people to decide. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The film appears to have been shown in many locations and the interviewees are known/significant people. This has also been sourced in the version that User:Urbanvillager linked to. Therefore, it seems notable enough to have its own article. Having it as a footnote to "The Weight of Chains 1" feels like an inadequate and aesthetically ugly solution. If someone then proceeded to add the proper template to the second movie as well, in that article, it would look even worse. - Anonimski (talk) 21:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, Overturn. --UrbanVillager (talk) 01:02, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Nothing to do here. Deletion discussions that end with a redirect or other non-delete decision can be amended by talk page consensus or WP:BB. Stifle (talk) 09:42, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold the earlier AfD, since there's lots of bluster but not much actual evidence of notablity. bobrayner (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Uphold the 'multiple locations' described above represent single screenings (many non-commercial, and many free ie approx. 10 audiences have seen the film, some at free showings). The two festival screenings are possibly notable, however the only source for the contents of the film are (oldish) interviews with the film maker himself (self-sourced info). No reviews appear to be available or seem likely to appear in the near future. I do not see any need for a seperate article at present as this new material can easily be incorporated into its present 'redirect' section.Pincrete (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse original AfD close and restore. The AfD close was an accurate assessment of the consensus in the discussion. RoySmith was correct in closing as redirect with the history preserved under the redirect rather than delete. This has allowed editors to work on the article after new sources surfaced without having to ask an admin to restore the article. This is a clear example of a scenario I mentioned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

  The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

  A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

  Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

  In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

  I recommend restoring the article (which has already been done) because circumstances have changed. The film has now premiered and new sources have surfaced and been added to the article:
  1. http://www.tanjug.rs/novosti/161646/premijera-dokumentarca-tezina-lanaca-2-31--januara.htm^WebCite
  2. http://www.subotica.com/vesti/intervju-boris-malagurski-id14150.html^WebCite
  3. http://baneff.com/2014/11/25/wight-of-chains-2-european-premiere-29th-november-2014-sfi-stockholm/^WebCite
  4. http://www.mexicoescultura.com/actividad/123869/El peso de las cadenas, parte 2.html^WebCite
  I am unfamiliar with the sources' publishers so do not know how reliable they are. If editors still believe the subject is not notable, then that discussion should be held at another AfD.

  Cunard (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The first source is from Tanjug, the Serbian state news agency. Subotica.com is a generalistic website of the city of Subotica. baneff.com is the official website of BaNeFF - Balkan New Film Festival. mexicoescultura.com is one of the main Mexican websites about cultural events. FkpCascais (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - per UrbanVillager and Anonimski. FkpCascais (talk) 05:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Would UrbanVillager please stop replying and challenging every comment? Stifle (talk) 14:13, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discretionary sanctions, just to point out that ALL the 'political' films of Malagurski (inc Weight of Chains), are subject to discretionary sanctions. This arose as a result of a suggestion by Ivanvector, in an ANI initiated by Ricky81682. The relevant ANI section is here:[10]. IF consensus is to restore Weight of Chains 2, it would seem prudent to extend discretionary sanctions to this page. Pincrete (talk) 21:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just elaborating/clarifying: discretionary sanctions are in effect for Balkans topics, and the maker of this film is a person who makes controversial films on apparently fringe-y Balkan topics, so I suggested that discretionary sanctions should apply to this article. The discussion Pincrete linked to seemed to confirm that. Clarifying that I did not decide that discretionary sanctions are definitely in effect - that is up to either the community or the Arbitration Committee (I think ArbCom in this case). Also pointing out that I am not an administrator because I think there might be some confusion. Ivanvector (talk) 02:32, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse close, allow restoration - There's nothing to do here. Consensus was that the article should be a redirect because the film had not yet been released. The close was proper. Now that the film has been released, the having-not-been-released reason for the original deletion discussion no longer exists, thus that consensus is moot. Nothing wrong with having recreated the article at this point. If editors here feel that there are other, non-not-being-released reasons for deletion, that is the subject for a fresh AfD. Go to. Ivanvector (talk) 23:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, beg to differ, the primary arguments for redirect (not delete), were lack of notability (not being released compounded this), and lack of sources apart from the film maker himself. These arguments are still valid. In the case of Weight of Chains 1, it has taken four years to collect three reviews (and two comments, one written by a student). There are NO reviews of this sequel and are unlikely to be any in the near future. My argument remains that the scant amount of available info and the few screenings can easily be accommodated within the present 'sequel' section of the first film. Pincrete (talk) 01:21, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're partly right. I'll point out that several of the "delete" arguments were actually arguments for redirecting to where the film is mentioned. I do think that the closer's assessment was correct, and absent a reason to overturn the close it should be endorsed. However, the situation has changed from when the AfD ran to now, since the film has been released. The close did not forbid creation of the article in the future, and from what I read there was at least a rough consensus that the article could be restored if the film were released and otherwise met notability criteria, and I don't see any reason to disagree with that. Reinstating an article over a redirect is a perfectly reasonable WP:BOLD action, and I think reasonable in this instance. If the reinstated article has not satisfied the requirements to establish notability, (and from your points it seems this is a valid concern), then bringing it to a new AfD is the proper course of action. However, my guess is that the best result will be it being redirected again, then recreated again when new sources are found, and to be honest with you it might just not be worth your effort to keep trying to delete this. Ivanvector (talk) 17:09, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My PERSONAL preference is to merge noteworthy new info with the main article, however the admin instruction at the head is that there needs to be a consensus either way. I am not 'trying to get the article deleted', just trying to ensure that an informed decision is made, knowing that few editors will take interest in the future. I don't think anyone has seriously argued that there is anything 'wrong' with wanting to get the article formally re-instated, merely that it needs to establish notability/reliability before doing so, rather than having a page as a 'right'.Pincrete (talk) 00:28, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

My friend, I am getting exasperated with the bludgeoning going on in this topic area. What you seem to want to do is academic: you want to blank this article to add the content to some other article until notability can be established, and then once that happens, move the content back again. Why? Just let it go. As for this discussion, the close was correct and there is nothing to do here. I'm taking this off my watchlist. Ivanvector (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ivanvector, I think you are probably right that a (weak-ish), consensus for re-instate will probably be the decision. Pincrete (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

One more observation: In the recent edit history of The Weight of Chains 2, there are two identical content removals (one by Pincrete and one by Bobrayner). Why have they been done? I find them suspicious since they may mislead the person that overviews the current state to close the review. - Anonimski (talk) 17:43, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Anonimski, there is a note by me on the article talk page as to why I did these edits, broadly it isn't customary to list EVERY screening of a film, simply notable screenings and a 'broad text'. Secondly, an (unreadably small) Facebook copy of the poster is not a RS as to funding. I haven't removed the info simply placed it later and attributed it to the poster. I'm sure a better source must be available, (even the film's own website ?). Pincrete (talk) 16:16, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to closer - I have refactored a number of back-and-forth sniping comments from a few editors which were not constructive to this discussion, in the interest of keeping this civil and on-topic. If you are interested in them anyway, please see this diff. Ivanvector (talk) 23:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really remove a diff showing that UrbanVillager canvassed supporters? That is unlikely to help the closer gauge the community's true position. bobrayner (talk) 00:45, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Example links for proving notability: example 1, example 2. I mentioned them in a related discussion on the noticeboard, and I'm copypasting them here too because of their relevance to this review. - Anonimski (talk) 14:13, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Young Independence (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The group is very notable and a simple google can find a number of sustained newspaper articles since 2010. The admin that deleted the page has been contacted by wikipedia in the past for being seen as conducting an 'edit war' on the main party's page. The merged article with the page UK Independence Party also is a mess as frankly if Young Independence is not notable enough to merit it's own encyclopaedia page how can a deputy county chairman leaving the group possibly be even slightly notable? Some major media references to Young Independence include ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]} and ^[5] to name but a few. The page in question clearly is notable. Sorry for the sub-par formatting of this complaint but I am new to wikipedia.Williambatesuk (talk) 15:11, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've fixed the listing a little for you. Generally speaking it's going to be seen as a very weak argument to start "attacking" the admin rather than talk about any substantive problems with a close. I also have no idea what you mean the admin has been contacted by wikipedia, wikipedia is an encylopedia, it isn't sentient and can't contact people. Do you have a conflict of interest in this matter? Looking to the five year old deletion discussion, the outcome seems pretty clear, so that should be Endorsed, as to if now the situation is different, I think that's an editorial decision not something for DRV. If someone independent wanted to create an article I can't see there would be a particular block to that, not withstanding it could of course be taken to AFD again. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• FWIW this suggests the admin who closed the discussion on this subject has never edited the UKIP article, so not sure where the claims of edit warring come from. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Struck through most of my comments now having dug a little, it appears the request for review actually relates to this recently being redirected by an editor. This editor isn't an admin, and the article hasn't been deleted. This is ultimately an editorial dispute, really there are a few options - one the WP:BRD cycle, revert the redirection and then discuss it. Or start a discussion on the talk page of the redirect target to gain any consensus to demerge and have a standalone article. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:10, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Out of scope of DRV; this is a content/redirect issue, not a deletion. Stifle (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I agree that it's out of scope, and that it's basically an editorial dispute. In an attempt to be helpful and to kickstart the WP:BRD cycle I have reversed the merger and restored the article. I think the deletion review can probably be closed without result, if an uninvolved admin happens to pass by.—S Marshall T/C 20:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

William Sullivant Vanderbilt Allen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article was discussed at AFD in October when there was no consensus for deletion. The matter then came up at a recent RfA, being cited as an example, and the page was then speedily deleted as WP:G12, "unambiguous copyright infringement". This seems improper because the copied text was contained in quotation marks, was cited to its source and was not extensive. There were subsequent non-infringing edits and so this all seems to fit the exemption described in WP:G12, "where free-content edits overlie the infringement, or where there is only partial infringement or close paraphrasing". I requested that the deleting admin either follow the protocol described in G12 or userfy the article for me, as I have found further encyclopedic sources and wish to develop the article further. The admin does not wish to do this and so has sent me here. Please can the article be userfied as this seems the simplest way forward. Andrew D. (talk) 19:26, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Andrews (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From my list of sources at the AfD:

The result was delete. Although the raw count here consists of approximately equal numbers of keeps and deletes, a number of the advocates of keeping the article have advanced rationales not based on recognized elements of WP's inclusion policies. The major problem noted by the advocates of deletion—that the sources available for writing about the topic fail to provide significant coverage independent of the person himself—does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. Deor (talk) 11:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The major problem noted by the advocates of deletion—that the sources available for writing about the topic fail to provide significant coverage independent of the person himself—does not appear to have been successfully rebutted. – the sources I provided were "significant coverage independent of the person himself".

See for example I am One of Many (talk · contribs)'s comment:

I looked at the sources listed by Cunard and Andrews has received coverage in local and regional newspapers from Florida to Arizona. The newspaper articles are written by different reporters for these newspaper. They appear to be based on interviews with Andrews since they include a number of quotes. These sources also assert his notability: he is especially known by fundamentalist Christians in the southern part of the US. It appears to me that these sources establish his notability across the southern US and especially among fundamentalist Christians, and so he satisfies WP:GNG. --I am One of Many (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The other sources also provide substantial coverage of the subject. There was no consensus that the subject was not notable.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 23:14, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Many of the keepers are advocating keeps, but they present only primary sources such as news articles; Wikipedia is not a democracy, and as long as the guidelines say "secondary sources", no number of keep voters can make primary sources be secondary. The only solid arguments I'm seeing are by the deleters, especially Ritchie333's comment of 18:23, 13 January 2015: he actually checked for secondary sources, and he noted that they were completely absent. If we ignore the votes that are out of step with reality, this is overwhelmingly a delete. Nyttend (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Closer here. If anyone wants to look at the article, I've userfied it, after a request on my talk page, at User:Staceydolxx/Seth Andrews. Deor (talk) 06:28, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse- Seems a fair reading of the debate, certainly within administrator discretion. Permit recreation if some non-primary sources come to light. Reyk _YO! 07:37, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - despite Nyttend's comment, I did find a small amount of independent and reliable third-party coverage, but I don't think it was more than a few sentences. That's not enough to sustain a BLP. News articles can be secondary sources depending on context. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:47, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I feel like I'm missing something fundamental. Are people really claiming that news stories in independent, reliable, sources don't count toward WP:N because they are "primary"? That's a really weird reading of WP:N (which doesn't discuss primary sources and instead asks if they are independent). But I'm trying to wrap my mind around this before I !vote here. Could anyone help? Hobit (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N as WP:GNG when defining the meaning in more detail states ""Sources" should be secondary sources, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. " Can't say I recall that particular language but it's been there quite while, and even longer in different forms e.g. from 2007 "Availability of secondary sources covering the subject are a good test for notability". --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse delete. Most of those citations are mentions of speaking engagements (minor ones at that), such as would be listed for a speaking engagement of any self-published author (and two are from the exact same source). These do not equate to significant coverage in sources independent of the subject. One of them is simply the local Tulsa Christian radio station's blurb on his broadcasting, before he even became an atheist! Not to mention they are all local. The fact that the articles discuss or quote Andrews is simply because he's speaking there, and this makes them more or less equivalent to press releases. No offense, and no WP:SYSTEMICBIAS, but if you have to dig up an article in Cantonese as one of the only six source-publications you are presenting on an American/Anglophone person, that pretty much speaks for itself. If someone wants to try to recreate the article, I would suggest avoiding any self-citations, and any citations that are announcements/mentions of speaking engagements or that are connected to speaking engagements, or anything from his The Thinking Atheist YouTube channel or website. If there is enough (significant-coverage, independent, reliable, and non-local) material to create and source an article that way, then best of luck. Softlavender (talk) 22:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I looked at this AFD at the time but passed by on the other side because I didn't like the look of the article. But the close here clearly misrepresented the discussion as being a consensus. The discussion was actually evenly split which is the very opposite of a consensus. The claim that one side's reasoning was overwhelmingly superior seems absurd. Several of the delete !voters just ventured WP:PERNOMs while Cunard did a good job of presenting multiple news sources which did cover the subject in detail. Deciding whether the sources did actually represent significant coverage is for the !voters to say, not the closer, and they did not agree. Note also that the whole issue seemed to turn on notability and this is a guideline, not a hard policy, and so there's plenty of discretion in its interpretation which is again a matter for the !voters, not the closer. Andrew D. (talk) 00:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think you need to re-read the closing statement, because you are misrepresenting it. This is even above and beyond that fact that at least two of the !Keep votes were from people (one an IP) who had barely edited Wikipedia before, one of which seems to have been woken from the dead merely to !vote on this AfD. Softlavender (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I'm understanding the matter just fine. Wikipedia is not owned by the experienced elite. New or occasional editors are perfectly entitled to their view on the matter — this is exactly how I got started on Wikipedia myself. If their views go against previous practice then, per WP:NOTLAW, they are entitled to overturn this. The job of the closer to record their decision, not to overrule it. Andrew D. (talk) 11:33, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, and just for the record, it was at DYK that I saw this before — I reviewed the article and found it wanting. Andrew D. (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist; the advocates of keeping don't have to show it meets the standards; the advocates of deletion have to show it does not. (I'm not making even a preliminary judgement of wether it should be deleted. DGG ( talk ) 04:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DGG, you !voted Delete on this and gave a fairly extensive reasoning [11]. I'm just mentioning this in case you did not recall that, since you have so very much on your plate. If you read the closer's statement, he stated that the advocates for keeping did not appear to have successfully rebutted the rationale for deletion put forward by others. Softlavender (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that's accurate anyway. Those wishing to delete cannot prove a negative - there aren't good sources, it's up to those wishing to keep to demonstrate that there are, further valuation of sources against standards is a two way discussion and application of a certain amount of judgement. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:45, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NRVE applies, except in the case of BLPs. There are plenty of subjects which are unsourced yet are notable or proper for inclusion anyways. In this case it would be appropriate to userify it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure how that's pertinent to my point. It's not about if the article is currently cited, that's trivially easy to show one way or the other. If the commenters believe there are sources it's trivial to show them by pointing to them, it isn't generating a requirement for them to include cites in the article immediately. On the other hand if they examine any current sources and say these aren't up to snuff, then search a lot and find no more sources which are up to snuff. (a) It's pretty difficult to show the lengths you went to in doing that search and (b) it doesn't mean the sources aren't there you just couldn't find them. This is asking someone to prove a negative which is impossible. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason why my !vote here need match that at the AfD; the questions are different. I can think that an article should be deleted, but nonetheless think the close unsatisfactory in view of other arguments or the close rationale. DGG ( talk ) 00:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify why you think the close was unsatisfactory? Do you think it is unsatisfactory because of the arguments I made in the nomination statement or for a different reason? (I'm asking this because you haven't specified why you think it is unsatisfactory.) Cunard (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think the confusion about the burden of proof sufficient for a relisting. You clarified this in the close, but perhaps not enough. I don;think you did wrong, but it was an unsatisfactory discussion. DGG ( talk ) 01:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This (the original comment) is quite wrong. The burden of proof is on those seeking to include/retain articles, not the other way around (see for example WP:V), and it's most disappointing to see an arbitrator persist in quoting a personal view as though it were policy. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - Discounting entries that are not based in Wikipedia policy or guideline is within admin discretion, and is actually an expectation. No fault found here. Tarc (talk) 19:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. We not only permit closing admins to weight comments and discount those that are non-policy compliant; we expect it. Stifle (talk) 09:45, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• weak endorse The sources provided are weak, but reach the bar of WP:N in my opinion. However, most of the keep !votes were really weak (as were some of the delete ones). I'd say a better close was NC, but delete is probably within admin discretion given that the sources are fairly weak. It's borderline. Hobit (talk) 15:03, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Troll Station (YouTube Channel) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article's continually and rapidly increasing notability (in tandem with a BBC News TV report about them) simply proves that Troll Station is a wholly valid article contribution. Wikipedia is all about informing the public about matters such as these, and with a fast-growing subscriber base and online popularity/status, there is no question that the article should be kept. Reliable sources are in abundance. Also, the deleter of the article did not wait until a concrete consensus was formed. There was an equal number of opinions with the same amount of merit, and despite the deleter protesting that he waited 3 weeks, this has since proved to have not been enough time. Edfilmsuk (talk) 20:02, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse there were plenty of keep arguments offered that were basically irrelevant: that the subject is popular, has lots of hits or subscribers, it is likely that they will become notable in the future, that the subject is up-and-coming, etc, etc. There were a number of sources presented, however those advocating deletion pointed out that most of them related to a single pitch invasion incident and that the rest were merely reposts of funny videos with little or no coverage of the group itself. These are pretty strong arguments. The source the OP is mentioning [12] is a two minute local BBC News clip reporting on the pitch invasion, I don't think it would have made any difference. The AfD was open for three weeks, which is a very long time for an AfD - they can be closed after one week and almost never last longer than four. Hut 8.5 23:12, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Sources provided were weak or felt to fall under ONE EVENT. Closer could have gone with NC, but I think delete is a better reading of the discussion in terms of strength of argument. Hobit (talk) 21:18, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn There was no consensus to delete as the Keeps outnumbered the Deletes and the closer didn't make any attempt to justify the close going against the majority opinion. It was therefore quite contrary to WP:DGFA which states, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants. ... When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew D. (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have not counted the nominator, the keeps and deletes were equal in number. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are not closed based on majority vote. Hut 8.5 11:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What we had here was a blatant supervote. Andrew D. (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse non-arguments put forward by the keep side per WP:DGFA taking a look at one sentence as advocated by the previous commenter states "Consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy (if any).". --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:50, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn: YouTube? That's very important.--333-blue 10:47, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse: following notablity. I've said wrong, not important enough.--333-blue 10:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• There seems to be nothing new for the 'Endorse' argument to say. May I interject with this: what is the purpose of Wikipedia if not to inform people about topics such as these? It wouldn't take long to find Wikipedia pages much less (I may go insane if this word pops up any more) "notable" than the one I am trying to contribute. I am trying to make Wikipedia a better place, and this is being impeded by fairly uptight users who desire to do every single thing 'by the book' as it were. This linear approach is not going to help Wikipedia progress into modern times. There needs to be some leeway. Edfilmsuk (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Wikipedia defines it's own purpose to be an encyclopaedia, in things like WP:NOT such as not a collection of indiscriminate information, notbility is an implementation of distinguishing what to include. So no wikipedia's purpose is not merely to inform people of any old stuff you want. Wikipedia has millions of articles so your argument that it's struggling somehow is way off the mark. As to the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, please follow the link. To you other stuff might be less notable. maybe it is and at some point may well get deleted, or perhaps it is simply more notable by wikipedia's definition. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, as "keep because lots of people like it" votes were rightly discounted. The consensus was that the coverage was weak, so, we're done here. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I guarantee you that Troll Station will have an article eventually. Perhaps I tried to jump on the bandwagon a bit early. WP:TOOSOON Edfilmsuk (talk) 19:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for now, but I expect it'll be back. Stifle (talk) 09:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment as closer I consider myself properly called out here for not having provided a rationale in what was clearly a less obvious close. That was an error on my part. I felt that many of the keep arguments reflected arguments not grounded in an understanding of Wikipedia policy and guidelines, and I felt appropriately downweighted them. Best, --j⚛e decker^talk 19:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - charges of a "supervote" don't seem sensible. I suspect Edfilmsuk is right that this was WP:TOOSOON and that it will likely be back. I think, then, that the closer got it right but I'm sure well be back here eventually to consider a new draft and a request for permission to recreate it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 05:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Sibanda (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe that with the passing of time a page for Mr. Sibanda should be created. He appears to be on a steady roll in the science fiction world and is now notable as the only one doing what he is doing. The deleting editors had insisted that Mr. sibanda is not notable. He passes Wikipedia Notability requirements as a contributor and pioneer in the field. a neutral panel and not the same editors should look into matter. Also editor flatternutter should be banned from comments on page as she was part of deleting panel when this first came under review. She has systematically abused Wikipedia editing privilege ( including the use of a sock account) to delete Ken sibanda page. See here where without a discussion flatternutter blocked editor seeking to create page:

Please look at "Draft Ken Sibanda" to see her abusive comments, which includes undoing the work of other editors. 150.108.60.10 (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither IMDB nor Amazon are reliable sources for a BLP; you don't appear to be presenting any new or substantive evidence of notability here. If there are actual reliable sources that would provide notability now, this is the place to show them to us and make a case other than "he's notable because he does stuff". Incidentally, I do wish you would stop with the personal attacks, if only because they make it painfully obvious that you're the same banned editor who has been at this for years. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 19:16, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• IP, your conspiracy theories are unconvincing. Fluffernutter closed this discussion back in 2011. He didn't nominate it for deletion (nor did he close the discussion) here, though he did contribute and opined for deletion like most of the others there. For those playing at home, this is enlightening. Your draft, quite rightly, has now been deleted as the creation of a site-banned editor. The only way this is going to be resurrected, as far as I can see, is if a long-term editor in good standing (not connected to you or your sock-puppets) presents a solid case here for re-creation. For all of your (4) years of sock-puppetry, abuse, personal attacks, conspiracy theories and anger, you've avoided doing the one thing that might actually prompt neutral, uninvolved editors to seek to create the article in question - going out and securing some significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. St★lwart¹¹¹ 22:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse mere disagreement with the outcome is not a valid DRV reason. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 09:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Rafferty (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this page was deleted hastily without proper discussion into reliable sources which have now been provided. After following NorthAmerica1000 advice to bring the case to a deletion review there has been new information and references that has been brought to light which would justify re-enlistement of the page in question. Under Wikipedias terms for notability, many published works and reliable third party references already exist for Rafferty. Entries including official music chart success and listings on official BBC chart pages. This information had been provided to NorthAmerica1000 admin. Furthermore, new information relating to the publishing labels Rafferty has been signed with will also be coming available in the next few weeks which will be more reliable references to improve the article. When the page was originally created, it's originator had explained that it was published too early without reliable sources of information. This has now been rectified so enlistment of the page would be ok under Wikipedia's terms. If there is any more information we can provide please let us know. Thank you for your assistance with this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffobeast (talk • contribs) 04:25, 15 January 2015‎

• Comment - Raffobeast, you should probably focus your efforts on creating a new article at Draft:Ryan Rafferty which can then be reviewed and accepted. If he really has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources then you'll likely be given permission to recreate the article. Otherwise, you'll need to provide actual links to significant coverage here if you're suggesting such sources weren't considered during the deletion discussion. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Stalwart111 - Thanks for your reply. I thought it was possible if a decision has been made to reinstate the page that this was done on your end? Rather than resubmitting the whole article again? If this is the case then no problem we will do it.

Also regarding links of third party websites , this information was already sent to NorthAmerica1000:

Thanks. Raffobeast (talk) 07:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with those links is that they're unlikely to be considered "significant coverage". There are passing mentions, track listings and self-published blog-type material but nothing we would consider "reliable sources". The one that might qualify says, "Ryan Rafferty, one of Irelands fastest rising DJ talents". "Up-and-coming" and "rising star" type people haven't often not been the subject of the sort of coverage we require. That's why they are described that way. And that single line wouldn't be considered "significant coverage". In my personal opinion, we would need much better sources to justify a new article. But you're free to start a draft and give it a shot. It's just not a particularly good use of your time if you haven't sorted that first. And to be clear, the decision to delete it can be "overturned" here ("at this end") but that would generally require us to find the original decision to delete it was somehow faulty or not compliant with policy. I don't think that's going to happen but you're welcome to make a case. St★lwart¹¹¹ 09:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:Stalwart111 - Thanks but the evidence that was provided in the original article did show the topic had gained significant independent coverage and recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor is it the result of any promotional activity/publicity. The decision to speedily delete the article when it's creator hadn't yet completed it was done too quickly and more information is still being gathered. In the meantime is there any way you could reinstate the article and set a deadline for another review on it in due course? Thanks. Raffobeast (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the article looks to have been deleted as a result of this discussion though that looks to have been speedily closed based on speedy deletion criteria and consensus there. Whatever was in the original article, it wasn't enough to convince four different editors. If the material there was the same as that provided above, that's no surprise. You're free to start a draft at the link provided above (Draft:Ryan Rafferty) and it can be reviewed (here at DRV) thereafter. Things need to be notable before articles are created here. We don't create articles and wait for them to become notable. St★lwart¹¹¹ 01:53, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a Name (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was an inappropriate non-admin closure. First, one editor arguing keep isn't appropriate grounds for a speedy keep. Further, WP:BEFORE isn't a policy requirement and definitely not a reason to keep an article. "Having no reliable sources isn't a valid deletion arguement" is a bizarre argument as having no reliable sources is precisely the biggest reason to delete an article. I didn't find that adequate sources appear to exist (the sole source I could find is this trivial mention) so it's proper to actually list it for deletion. A single editor's argument that the festival existed for five years and speculation that sources exist isn't a substitution for sources. Ask for it to be re-listed. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Striked the speedy keep comment. I had no idea why I thought that came into play, it was there for weeks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

From where I was sat it hadn't looked like you looked at all (I apologize if I assumed wrong), Also after it being listed for 2 weeks with only one !vote It seemed imo pointless relisting as I don't think it would've gained any more !votes so whether it was closed a week early or a week later I think the outcome would've been the same, Lastly my talkpage states and I quote "If you feel I've made an error & want it relisted please let me know" - I would've been more than happy to relist it, Anyway I don't have any issues with it being relisted (We're all human and at times we all make mistakes). Cheers, –Davey2010^Talk 00:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment that "I have no issues anyone renominating this providing they follow BEFORE first" implies that we would have had the same issue arguing about WP:BEFORE had it been relisted. As to whether it should have been relisted, I think that requires an administrator to consider but if I'm wrong on that policy ground, that's fine with me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We wouldn't of done, 9 times of 10 if someone asks for relisting I'm always happy to do it and I honestly would've been more than happy to relist yours seeing as I basically closed on one !vote which I guess isn't the brightest of closures, If I close a discussion I personally Ignore all rules and relist if asked (and if in a certain time period) as that way we all avoid coming here and waiting for an outcome but that's just my take on it all, Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 00:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Just got back to this after the holidays and didn't feel like arguing about BEFORE as a policy or not. I've seen some people argue it voraciously. Again, I don't think the number of comments was the issue so much as the lack of any policy support for it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:46, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. Require "speedy keep" closes to cite the specific application point from WP:Speedy keep, especially in WP:NACs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC) What "speedy keep"? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Striked that. I don't know why I thought that, it was there for weeks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist- The nominator allegedly failing to follow WP:BEFORE is not, and never has been, grounds to close a discussion. Reyk _YO! 07:40, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• With all respect more than once a discussion's been kept per BEFORE but as I said above in this case above I was wrong to close it. –Davey2010^Talk 17:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn It can sometimes be helpful when a closer offers advice but it should be kept separate from the reason for the close being the way it is. A weak nomination is not justification for closing keep. Had the closer assessed the strengths of the arguments and separately remarked on "BEFORE" then keep might just about have been within discretion. Even so, no consensus or relist would have been preferable. I have found references in the Google news archive but whether these are reliable, significant, etc. is a matter for AFD. Thincat (talk) 09:39, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• NC would have been a better summary of the discussion. Hobit (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse No-one's looking too good here as sources are, in fact, quite easy to find (e.g. NME and MTV England). Given that the discussion was open for two weeks and only attracted one Keep, then the close was fair enough. WP:DGFA states emphatically "When in doubt, don't delete." and so these things shouldn't be dragged out, hoping for some delete !votes to turn up eventually. Andrew D. (talk) 01:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist for two reasons: 1) WP:BEFORE is not, has never been, and will never be mandatory, and 2) non-admin closures are limited to completely unambiguous cases. Stifle (talk) 09:48, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow relist/immediate renomination - frankly, I don't see the need to automatically relist discussions where clearly few if any people actually care, so I'm reluctant to say the close was bad, per se, but allowing relisting where it's significantly wanted and participation was minimal ain't bad. WilyD 18:31, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

American Airlines Flight 633 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I believe this should be revived for two reasons, one sort of in my opinion. 1) This article should be a redirect because if someone happens to search on Wikipedia 'American Airlines Flight 633', they should be led to the information. Not stumble across a blank page. 2) I really want to see the revision history. I've forgotten the page's layout and I want to look at it one last time, but the revision history was deleted with the page. Sahibdeep Nann (talk) 23:58, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I've created the redirect as it is reasonable and the AfD gave leave to do so. I'd suggest someone mail the nom the deleted article or userfy (if they think the topic has a chance) as it's a reasonable request. Then this could be closed. Hobit (talk) 01:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore article as redirect. Hobit had the right idea, but wrong implementation. Redirects are cheap. Unless there's some specific reason to hide the contents (WP:BLP or copyright concerns, for example), and there's a reasonable redirect target, its a no brainer to redirect instead of delete. The problem is, the current redirect hides the article history. It should be deleted, the original history restored, and then redirected. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm 100% fine with that. Hobit (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore the article's history under the redirect. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

  The only benefit of keeping the edit history deleted that I can see would be to prevent users from undoing the redirect and restoring the deleted content. But this is easily remedied by reverting the restoration and fully protecting the redirect.

  A benefit of restoring the article's history would be to allow non-admins to see what the encyclopedia once said about the subject.

  Using the deleted content for a merge is not the only benefit. Another example is that in the future if sources surface that demonstrate notability, the deleted content can be easily reviewed. Without needing to ask an admin, a non-admin could determine whether the deleted content could be used as the basis of a newly recreated article with the new sources. Deletion would hinder this.

  In sum, the benefits of restoring the deleted content outweigh the negligible negatives, so the article's history should be restored under the redirect.

  Cunard (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Recent DRVs about restoring article histories under redirects: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro.

  Recent discussion: Wikipedia talk:Deletion review#History undeletion underneath redirect (permanent link).

  Cunard (talk) 23:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Fialho (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

• She is the fitting model for lingerie brand Victoria's Secret and walked for their Victoria's Secret Fashion Show every year since 2012.
• According to her Models.com profile :
  • She also walked for several designers including Antonio Berardi, Custo Dalmau, Givenchy, House of Holland, Jeremy Scott, Naeem Khan, Oscar de la Renta, Ralph Rucci, Temperley and the event Fashion Rocks.
  • She advertised brands such as El Palacio de Hierro, Levi's, Macy's, Meskita, Ugg and Urban Decay.
  • She posed for magazines such as Carine Roitfeld's CR Fashion Book, Dossier, Elle, GQ, Harper's Bazaar, Marie Claire, Vulture and W.
  • She is signed in some of the best modeling agencies as IMG Models in Paris and Sydney.
• I found these sources : Glamour, GQ South Africa, CR Fashion Book, GQ Mexico, Glamurama, Glamurama, Glamurama, Glamurama, Glamurama, Glamurama, Glamurama, all her articles at Fashion Gone Rogue, Design Scene, Design Scene, Design Scene, Caras, biography at Caras, Noticias 24, Treats!, Treats!, Treats!, all her posts at madeinbrazilblog.com
• Here are some uninteresting ones but they show her notoriety : GQ South Africa, GQ South Africa, Daily Mail, Daily Mail, Fashionista, Fashionista, Hollywood Life, casting for Sports Illustrated, USA Today, 10 Magazine, HJi MirandaKeurr (talk) 23:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Allow recreation - the AFD was closed properly (and you don't seem to be suggesting otherwise) but even the participants there foresaw this eventuality. Many (if not most) of the sources you have provided seem to have been created since that AFD and so couldn't have been considered. So new sources are available rendering the outcome of the AFD moot and (in my view) substantiating notability without too much trouble and we have a good-faith request from an editor in good standing with a background of content creation in this particular subject area. Go for it. St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Allow recreation. There are many articles about the subject that did not exist when Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Fialho took place in June 2013. There is a strong argument that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  I recommend restoring the deleted article to mainspace or MirandaKeurr's userspace. Cunard (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Bădoi (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Article "Alexandra Bădoi" was speedily deleted by User:Anthony Bradbury as A7 [13]. I reviewed it previously, so I had it in my watch list. The article was nominated for speedy deletion (twice, without informing the author) by User:Biruitorul. Soon after that, I objected to deletion both at Biruitorul's talk page [14] and at the article's talk page. I received no answer, and the article was deleted by Anthony Bradbury. The reason I objected to deletion is this: although the article did not contain any claim of significance, the person (subject of the article) was obviously notable. Google News search returns more than 17.000 hits [15] and Romanian Wikipedia has a well sourced article about the same person [16]. WP:CSD allows administrators to delete articles with no discussion in certain cases, but it does not say that the article has to be deleted if it meets one of the criteria. In this particular case, it was obvious that the article may be improved and referenced easily. I've been doing a new pages patrol for some time, and I participated in hundreds of WP:AFDs. In cases when a simple Google News search returns many reliable sources, the article is always kept. So, I can guarantee that this article would survive an AFD discussion. I tried to resolve the issue with deleting administrator (User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury#Alexandra Bădoi), but with no result. Vanjagenije (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• It was a stub-stub, but I'd say being a TV anchor is a claim of notability. And the topic pretty clearly meets WP:N. restore. [17] is a reasonable source as far as I can tell with Google translate. There are many others. Hobit (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd have speedied it too; the only prose in the article was "Alexandra Bădoi (born December 6, 1988) is a Romanian singer, model and TV anchor." I can't think of any profession that's an assertion of notability by itself other than astronaut. Even if the article subject merits an article, there's good reason to speedy articles that don't show why they do; Wikipedia is not a repository of external links to Facebook. In cases like this, the path of least resistance is usually just to write a new article that asserts notability more clearly. —Cryptic 23:24, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Cryptic: Would you delete it although I contested the deletion on the talk page and pointed out that the person might be notable? Vanjagenije (talk) 00:09, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd do nothing for an hour or so, to see whether you (or someone else) did anything to improve the article. If not, I'd then move it to either draftspace or your userspace, depending on the wording of your objection. —Cryptic 00:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse for two reasons:
  • 1) The article, as it stood, did not provide a credible claim to notability. Merely being a singer or a model does not make one notable; neither does presenting the meteorology segment on the nightly news (which is what Bădoi does).
  • 2) Although we are assured repeatedly above that the subject is "obviously" or "pretty clearly" notable, that is in fact not so obvious at all. This, far from being any kind of credible source, is a puff piece in Libertatea, a tabloid. (And no, I don't mean the page size, I mean it's a scandal rag on a par with the Daily Mirror or the National Enquirer.) As to the rest of that "well-sourced" ro.wiki article (written, I might add, by a PR flack), we have: Bădoi appears in sexy poses on Ibiza; a post on a tabloid-y blog; a puff-piece/blog post hosted by a site whose owner is sitting in jail; and the incredible news, from the same dubious source, that Bădoi has launched a new video clip. (Crucially, the last two sources are written by her employer, Antena 1, so they hardly count as independent coverage.)
• In other words, the subject is fit for the tabloids, but not fit for an encyclopedia. I hope this stays deleted, but if not, I will promptly take it to AfD. - Biruitorul ^Talk 23:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - I think it's clear A7 was applicable. I can't speak Romanian, so I can't comment on the Romanian sources. Certainly it's true that there appear to be a lot of possible sources; the content "could" be userfied if someone wanted to make a proper go of it (seems unnecessary with basically no content). WilyD 11:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment whether or not the subject may be seen as notable, notability was not averred in the article. Hence it seemed to me that A7 applied without argument.--Anthony Bradbury^"talk" 22:32, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and send to AFD, A7 is for clearcut cases. The article does not have to stress notability, only "importance", and a few seconds of verification would have shown that there is enough out there that this is not an obvious or clearcut case. It may still be deleted at AFD, but CSD A7 is not a shortcut to delete articles that might not survive a deletion discussion. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 09:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn TV anchor is an adequate claim of importance for A7, which has a low threshold. The claim above that you have to be an astronaut for such a claim is absurd. We have numerous professions which are considered notable — professional sportsmen; politicians; professors — and TV anchor seems a reasonable fit with entertainer. I'm not convinced that astronauts count for much now, actually. Andrew D. (talk) 01:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of course, Andrew D., this statement is rendered somewhat hollow if you read through my statement above, which I shall restate more clearly: she is, well, not an anchor at all. To quote the tabloid rag Click! (about the most prestigious level of coverage Bădoi has managed to garner): "in 2007 she was selected, following a casting call, to present the weather on Antena 1". If you've ever watched the evening news, you'll know that the anchor and the weather presenter fill two different roles — the first hosts the entire programme, while the second points at a screen for five minutes near the end of the show. - Biruitorul ^Talk 07:15, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We seem to be here to review the A7 speedy deletion, not the merits of the topic. I am not sufficiently familiar with Romania to have an opinion about that. Andrew D. (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Indeed, we are here for that, and part of that review entails verifying the assertions made in the original "article". Had the "article" asserted the subject was, say, an Olympic athlete or a member of parliament, would you have agreed she fills WP:ATHLETE or WP:POLITICIAN without any verification? What she does is amply verified by the, shall we say, source I presented above: "în 2007 a fost aleasă, în urma unui casting, să prezinte vremea la Antena 1" ("in 2007 she was selected, following a casting call, to present the weather on Antena 1"). In other words, she's not an anchor but a weather presenter, and it's illogical to base a vote to overturn on the idea that she's an anchor when, clearly, she isn't. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Tarek Najm (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am here to request a restoration of Tarek Najm's page on Wikipedia. The page was deleted on November by the administrator : Secret who has left Wikipedia last month. The deletion reason was irrelevant references been added on this page. First, adCenter and adLab Tarek Najm run in the Microsoft were add as references since these department pages include direct link to Tarke Najm's page. It's useful to also include these departments page's link in Tarek' page if audiences want to go back. 2. I made some changes for Tarek's profile since I found out some information were not true. He already left Microsoft in 2013 but the page claimed he was the manager of Microsoft of adCenter. I updated his current status and occupations in order to provide more accuracy information, not because of I know him. Tarek Najm' page was in wikipedia for 4-5 5 years. Consider his great contribution to Microsoft and big influence in the digital ads industry (the father of Micorsoft adCenter), plesae reconsider your decision and get his page active again in Wikipedia. Thank you. Faylinesong (talk) 18:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion If it's OK for a non-admin to post here, t [T]he deletion discussion found essentially that there was no evidence of notability as generally understood at Wikipedia. Faylinesong appeals based on Najm's great contribution and big influence but, just so, we couldn't find substantial, independent evidence of it. Faylinesong has identified himself/herself as Najm's assistant, and stated in this appeal on Secret's talk page that "Tarek wants me to contact you to restore his page which is very important for his reputation and business". If there's one thing that isn't a justification for creating a biographical article here, it's to meet the career needs of its subject. The existence of WP:AUTOBIO and WP:COI attest to that. This isn't LinkedIn or any other sort of networking website. —Largo Plazo (talk) 01:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is okay for you to comment here. You can add "endorse" or oppose "overturn" with regard to the DRV nomination in order to make your opinion clearer - see other DRV discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 02:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Endorse - when everyone argues deletion, there ain't much to be done. Article had some sources, but nothing useful for the usual inclusion criterion that I could see. Barring new sources being uncovered, I don't see how anything could be done differently. WilyD 12:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Endorse - when I updated the page, I simply want to provide more accurate information about Tarek Najm. I used to work for him. Now he is no more my boss. I ask for the restoration not because of his request. Because I think you made a wrong decision. I didn't input any single piece of fault or wrong information on this page. The departments were he created in Microsoft. The patents were belongs to him. I was unfamiliar about Wikipedia's policy, I should got reminder or educated. However, it is not fair to delete this page. If you check ad:Center Microsoft adCenter Labs page on Wikepedia, Tarek Najm's name in there with a active link but dead page. If he is not important in the industry, why his page on Wikipedia for 5 years? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Faylinesong (talk • contribs) 00:05, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed your bolded text. You seem to be endorsing your own DRV nomination. "Endorse" means to endorse the closure and deletion which doesn't seem to be your aim. The other option would be to "overturn" but you've suggested as much in your nomination so there isn't any point re-stating that. St★lwart¹¹¹ 06:44, 15 January 2015 (UTC) [reply]

• Unfortunately, when you say you think we made a wrong decision, you aren't indicating what was wrong with it in terms that are relevant to how notability is established on Wikipedia. We don't go by whether a contributor to the article thinks the subject is notable, or whether we can see understand how the subject might be notable, but by whether substantial note has been taken in independent sources. I don't see how fairness comes into it, since no entitlement is being denied. His page was probably here for five years because it eluded previous examination. —Largo Plazo (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

This template was deleted on the grounds that it was redundant with {{section link}}. This is incorrect, and the closer admitted not knowing much about these templates. On a page such as Talk:John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (person), one could type {{sectionlink|Early life}} in a discussion to link to the non-talkpage section John Jacob Jingleheimer Schmidt (person)#Early life. The only other way to make this link is [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Early life]] (which I think this template used, also making it move-proof). To the best of my knowledge, {{section link}} or any other template does not have this functionality. 174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As the closer, let me ask you: why do you believe that my close incorrectly reflected consensus? My job when closing is solely to interpret the discussion at hand, unless there's some overarching policy that would overrule the discussion. How could the discussion be interpreted otherwise than "delete", or if there's some overarching policy that would overrule it, what's the policy? My non-knowledge of the template's workings would be relevant if I'd participated in the discussion (I shouldn't offer an opinion if I don't know how it works), but knowledge of the subject isn't needed when closing a routine discussion like this one. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the consensus was incorrect, as I described. It was “redundant” with a template that didn’t have the same functionality? I didn’t mean to imply that your close was improper, and I apologize if I did. The arguments for deletion were simply wrong. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 14:57, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • No offense taken. If I closed it properly, there's no reason for a DRV, which is intended to dispute a misinterpretation of XFD consensus, to dispute a misuse of speedy deletion, to overturn an old XFD that's no longer applicable, to fix a mangled deletion (i.e. it's not clear what got deleted), or to overturn something with a major procedural error. You say that I interpreted XFD consensus correctly, it's obviously not a speedy deletion, it's not old (you're objecting to the original decision, not saying that there's new information), what I did appears to be clear to you (if I'm wrong, tell me what needs to be explained better), and procedural errors are situations where people didn't get informed, where there's been votestacking, or where the thing got closed extremely early, e.g. with partisan timing to exclude one side. I think you're much better off helping to make a decision at WP:VPT in the discussion where you're already participating. Nyttend (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • “Deletion Review may be used … if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page.” I’m providing new information that was not offered in the XfD discussion. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:14, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • [edit conflict with your modification of your comment] I'm referring to the parts of WP:DRVPURPOSE, of which the relevant point says "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". This is for pages where the original discussion was correct but wouldn't be if repeated, e.g. an average junior footballer who makes it to the Premier League after AFD and now passes WP:ATHLETE, or a two-link navbox is deleted per WP:NENAN but then someone finds a bunch of additional articles that would fit in the template. Nyttend (talk) 15:20, 10 January 2015 (UTC) Do you write your comments in Microsoft Word and copy/paste them here? I don't remember ever seeing someone write with curly quotes in a discussion before.[reply]
          • No, I just like using curly quotes, ellipses (as opposed to periods), em dashes, etc. And… that’s not what that says. What’s the appropriate course of action when a deletion discussion didn’t include all arguments and was closed based on misinformation? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • In my experience, that's how we normally interpret if significant new information..., and to me, this request looked more like the Deletion Review should not be used point one, because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment. If a discussion results in people agreeing that the old template's functionality needs to be available, I'd probably be willing to undelete, since the fact that people want the template would be significant new information. Part of the issue in this situation is that others look like they're disagreeing with your opinion at WP:VPT; I don't see it as particularly likely that people will start wanting the template again. And I'm impressed — an mdash is easy to type because I remember the alt code for it and I don't use it much, but I don't know the codes for the other things, and copy/pasting them everywhere (or even typing the alt codes everywhere) would take way too much time for my liking. Nyttend (talk) 15:47, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • I have a disagreement with some fallacious arguments leading to the outcome, and I do fault the closer’s judgement in accepting them as fact. Fair? If the consensus to delete holds without those arguments, then fine, but that needs to be clear. (And I don’t use alt codes; I use Mac key combinations. Option-hyphen for an en dash, for instance. Sorry to disappoint ) —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• The claim "This template was deleted on the grounds that it was redundant with {{section link}}" is false, the deletion rationale was "Redundant to simple Wiki markup". However, there is redundancy to the named template, since the same effect can be achieved with {{section link||Early life}} (note double pipe). Furthermore, {{sectionlink}} has already been made a redirect to {{section link}}, so {{sectionlink||Early life}} will also work. The OP has already been told, elsewhere, earlier today, that [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Early life]] is not necessary. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you read my original post here? {{section link||Section}} on a Talk page links to #Section on the Talk page. Try it yourself; I have. What “simple wiki markup” achieves the effect of [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Section|Section}} as concisely as {{sectionlink|Section}}? That’s not exactly simple wiki markup. And there were a few claims of redundancy with {{section link}} (as you just made) with no one correcting them. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Wikimarkup for the same effect would be [[Example#Foo|Foo]]. Alternatively, use one of:

• [[{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}#Foo|Foo]].
• {{section link|Example|Foo}}
• {{section link|{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}|Foo}}

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All of which are a good deal longer than {{sectionlink|Foo}}, especially with long names, and not moveproof unless you use the magic word. And I’d argue that magic words don’t count as “simple” markup. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:03, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Actually, I also realized 174.141.182.82's point when I was helping Nyttend, doing the transclusions. The absolute equivalent of § {{sectionlink|Early life}} is {{section link|{{ARTICLEPAGENAME}}|Early life|nopage=y}}. Still, reviving {{section link}} and with its problematic name is unwise. We can quickly fashion a {{article section}} with the code I specified above to reproduce what 174.141.182.82 wants. That is... if no one disagrees. How about it?

Best regards,

Codename Lisa (talk) 19:45, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed something along those lines on VPT. I see no problem with that. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 20:27, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your concerns make sense and your solution sounds right; that name honestly makes a lot more sense for this purpose than sectionlink. Thanks! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 20:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

OK, you can test it out: {{Article section}}. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 12:40, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it at Talk:Cuban missile crisis#“Primary sources”?. It works exactly as advertised. Thanks! Since a suitable replacement for the deleted template now exists, how do I de-list this? —174.141.182.82 (talk) 05:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can post a "withdraw" note or just let it run its course. -- [[User:Edokter]] {{talk}} 10:38, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse the close because the closer was doing his duty and create a new template along the lines Lisa suggests. A lot of this DRV discussion has been more than my brain can cope with these days but I hope there is a good way forward. Remarking that a template is redundant to simple wiki markup is not a good way to start a TFD nomination and the discussion was confused by different people addressing different aspects of the nomination. I also suspect that some people had misunderstood the template and the consequences of deleting it. Thincat (talk) 11:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. The close looks like a valid interpretation of the consensus in the discussion to me. There's also nothing to stop anyone from creating a new template, as has been suggested elsewhere in this thread. I think we should be moving away from relying on simple formatting templates like this, however, as it makes it unnecessarily difficult for people using Visual Editor. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 12:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. With the template that I suggested now created by Edokter, there is no practical points (WP:IAR) stopping me from endorsing the closure. The closing admin was doing his duty and doing it well. Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 15:31, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw. I started the review because there was no alternative to this template. Now there is. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 21:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox academic division (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Poor non-admin closure, with no explanation of the reasons for reaching the declared conclusion; appears to simply count !votes rather than weigh up arguments. The editor concerned was requested to reconsider, but - after having to be prompted - has refused. This should at least have been "no consensus", if not relisted for further discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to whatever the first passing admin re-closes as. Agree with the nomination. The discussion on the closer's talk page is below standard for a closer. The closer is an experienced Wikipedian, but I guess he lacks experience in closing contested discussions. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn or just relist. Not a suitable discussion for closure by a non-admin, not a suitable non-admin closure and not a suitable response when the closure was queried. Experience is one thing, judgement is another and that response demonstrates a lack of the sort of judgement required to determine consensus and close discussions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 04:46, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn and relist, inappropriate non-admin closure. Stifle (talk) 10:11, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby Delauter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Referenced to BBC and Washington Post (among others). Deleted (and salted) "per IAR" by admin to prevent discussion of how to handle it. At a minimum, should be a redirect to the article on the county where he is a councillor (though with more and more and more sources continuing to appear, it remains to be seen whether a full article is merited. WilyD 15:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note from deleting admin: This is, IMHO, a textbook example of WP:BLP1E. Speedying it was an application of WP:IAR, rather than having a policy-violating article lying around for 7 days while an AFD is undertaken. This was not a WP:CSD#G10 deletion, it's just an attempt to apply common sense and BLP. Just because social media has latched onto this guy as the patsy du jour, and there are lots of editorials floating around out there about the editorial that started all this, it still clearly meets all three criteria of BLP1E.

It is simply an unfair smear to say I did this to prevent discussion; I made it clear to WilyD and another editor on my talk page that a DRV would be a reasonable way to approach this if WilyD disagreed, or he could undelete the article and I'd file an AFD. I've suggested to someone on my talk page that Talk:Kirby Delauter would be a reasonable place to have a discussion on whether it should be a redirect to the applicable government article, or WilyD could do that himself.

I'll happily respond further to anyone who asks a question (please ping me), but I think I've had enough of accusations of "bullying", "admin abuse", and "attempt to prevent discussion", so I won't be responding to WilyD anymore. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't wish to be accused of abusing your tools, in the future, don't abuse your tools. Frankly, I would've rather avoided the whole thing, but was probably the only user who could've challenged your abuse of your admin tools without being indefinitely blocked by you. Frankly, I probably would've argued for redirect to Frederick County, Maryland#Charter government, but dealing with admin abuse is more pressing. WilyD 12:04, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse, no true notability established in article. As above, textbook case of meeting all three conditions of BLP1E. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. What we have here is a very minor local official saying something incredibly stupid on Facebook, getting (rightfully) reamed by the full power of the Internet, then apologizing for the stupid thing and skulking away. It's the very definition of WP:BLP1E. There are plenty of websites around who will never let the guy forget his moment of stupidity; Wikipedia is not (or at least should not be) in that business. I realize that saying so might be more germane in an AfD than a DRV, but frankly DRV is one of our saner processes, and has been generally quite good about ensuring that process-for-process's-sake doesn't trump what we as an encyclopedia are about: I hope it stays that way. 28bytes (talk) 17:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Also deleted and salted at Kirby delauter (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore). I can't help thinking that protecting a redirect or two would be preferable, so we can know which article to watch and revert instead of playing guess-the-title. —Cryptic 17:35, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Good call by Floquenbeam. There's no continuing notability here. He said a dumb thing, the Internet took notice, and he recanted. There's no continuing notability here. This is exactly what BLP1E is for. Mackensen (talk) 00:56, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. List at AfD and discuss properly. Taking administrative shortcuts in the name of sensitivity is self-defeating. BLP1E is not even, per se, a reason for deletion. In this case, a merge and redirect to Streisand effect might be in order, supported by at least one source.[18]. WP:CSD is way overdue in documenting when BLP concerns justify speedy deletion, but I don't think this is the sort of case to make the cut. There are no real privacy concerns, his name and actions are already fully exposed. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:42, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Other !voters here appear to be casting AfD-style !votes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:48, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

History merge with Draft:Kirby Delauter. The new version was written after reading the deleted version (found here), and attribution of the authors of the deleted version is required, explained at WP:Copyrights. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. Stifle (talk) 10:10, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, process is important, but not important enough to overturn this correct end outcome. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Snowballs chance, but overturn I spent far too much time thinking about this. I too agree this should be deleted. But there isn't a pressing enough reason to do so in this way. If this was a person without wide coverage doing something stupid as a BLP1E, I'd endorse the speedy as the harm to the person could be significant. But the coverage is so broad, I don't think we'll be adding to the problems by having this for a week. Further, it's quite possible the coverage is broad enough we should have an article on the event. I think it's a NOTNEWS case, but that's not utterly clear at this time. Are we going to speedy thatarticle too? Just a bad precedent. And while we aren't a bureaucracy, we also aren't an "adminocrasy". Content (and deletion is a content call) shouldn't be being made by a single admin. IAR is a core policy, but it should be used sparingly when it involves the tools. Hobit (talk) 16:52, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Frederick News-Post, which will probably win some sort of award for this, and semi-protect or apply pending changes to that article. Yngvadottir (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse deletion and Floq's actions in this case as a perfectly acceptable invocation of WP:IAR due to valid WP:BLP1E concerns.--Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 18:49, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you suggesting that all BLP1E concerns should result in IAR deletion? If not, could you explain why this case is special? Hobit (talk) 20:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. If I were reasonably sure the deletion was meant as a parody of Delauter's own behaviour I could have gone along with it as "within discretion". However, I'm not sure so I'll take things at face value. No assertion has been made that the article met any of the criteria for speedy deletion so the deletion must be overturned. Thincat (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  *points upward to where I asserted that it easily met all three of them* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You mentioned above blp1e criteria. These are not CSD criteria. They are not even deletion criteria where there is a viable merge option. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:44, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  You are correct, I misread what you were saying. However, I would argue that the article did not have a credible claim of significance, thus meeting A7. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Sources which meet WP:N are a credible claim of significance. In fact, an extremely strong claim. A7 is meant to be a considerably lower bar than WP:N. Something that meets our notability requirements can't be an A7. Hobit (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, no, CSD#A7 explicitly separates these. An article about a real person... that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.... This is distinct from verifiability and reliability of sources Can you say that Delauter is important for shooting his mouth off and then apologizing? Hardly. Is it significant that a politician got bad press for a poorly-thought-out statement? More like an everyday occurence. There is no "depth of coverage" to meet WP:N.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:51, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Actually, yes. "This ... is a lower standard than notability". So the requirements to meet A7 must be lower than WP:N. And since WP:N purely about sources, sources are an assertion of notability. This has been discussed a number of times at CSD and the feeling was it was pretty plain as written that reliable, independent, sources in the article are an assertion of importance and so there was no need to clarify. We can have that discussion again if you feel it's unclear as written. That said, the litteral words make it clear that an article that meets WP:N isn't an A7 candidate. Hobit (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:N is not purely about sources -- it's about significant coverage in sources. My argument is that he hasn't received that significant coverage -- neither has his one-time remark. All of it has been "I can't believe he said that" sort of coverage. That should not count as significant for the purposes of a BLP. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:38, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  First of all, A7 shouldn't be having to worry if a source is "significant" or not. The bar is lower than WP:N. Secondly, how the heck is [19] not significant coverage? Hobit (talk) 15:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Easily. It's an op-ed about a questionable decision by the county Ethics Commission. Op-Eds aren't reliable sources for anything but the paper's opinion. Yes, the decision affected Delauter, but he's not the focus of the story. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It's an editorial by the paper, not an op-ed. It is certainly reliable as far as facts stated go. Eh, I'll start a discussion on CSD to get A7 clarified. Last time it got shot down because it was argued it was obvious reliable independent sources are an assertion of notability. Sounds like you disagree, so we should probably clarify. Hobit (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Clarification would be good, yes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - wrong function, right result. That's kind of the point of WP:IAR. It is acknowledged that such an action is "against the rules" but that breaking said rule produces a result that is in the best interests of the project. So we ignore the "rule-breaking" to implement the result. But it's been speedy-deleted and hasn't been deleted as a result of a discussion, so G4 basically won't apply if someone wants to re-create it for the sole purpose of having it listed at AFD (and probably deleted again). But that seems overly bureaucratic and not what OP is suggesting (unless I've misread something). St★lwart¹¹¹ 00:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

(I !voted above). Yes, yes, I entirely agree the encyclopedia is improved by not having an article on this topic. However, the environment for maintaining WP is not improved by rather flagrantly ignoring the criteria when performing speedy deletions for non-urgent reasons. Thincat (talk) 11:04, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not improved, but probably not irreparably damaged either. I think the deleting admin has accepted that the criteria were ignored, in favour of a less tangible (but obviously agreed-with) concern with regard to BLP. I don't think that recreating this article could properly be described as "maintenance" and I can't see any other legitimate maintenance being impacted by this case. The benefit of IAR is that such decisions are seen as outside the "norm"; anomalies that shouldn't be relied upon or referenced as a precedent for other actions. St★lwart¹¹¹ 15:26, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But what makes this case different than other BLP1E cases? If nothing, shouldn't they all be IAR deleted? And if something, what is it? Hobit (talk) 03:59, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's no significant difference I suppose. I have no particular problem with the article being moved to draft space so that it can be listed at AFD (beyond the original BLP concerns) but I think its a bit of a waste of time. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Relist. I will ask for the article to be deleted, but I think there's enough noise here that it requires a proper discussion. This sort of case is why I feel that taking shortcuts with the deletion process under the banner of IAR is almost never worth it; if we'd just gone by the book we'd be a lot closer to having this conclusively deleted quietly, rather than creating a Streisand effect and bringing all of the Wikilawyers out of the woodwork. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 01:39, 10 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]

• Move Draft:Kirby Delauter to Kirby Delauter and list at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kirby Delauter.

  Floquenbeam's speedy deletion was in good faith, as is WilyD's DRV nomination. The deleted version of the article (which I viewed through Google cache) contained only information about this event. WP:BLP1E seemed to apply, and there were BLP issues because the article contained primarily negative information related to the "Use my name again unauthorized and you'll be paying for an Attorney" incident.

  On the one hand, BLP1E is not a speedy deletion criterion. On the other, the biographical article about a living person contained only information about an event that cast the subject in a very negative light. I won't vote to endorse or overturn the speedy deletion. Instead, I have created a draft that hopefully addresses these issues.

  The subject has received coverage in three aspects of his life: (1) as president of the construction company W.F. Delauter & Son, (2) as a member of Frederick Board of County Commissioners, and (3) as a member of the Frederick County Council.

  WP:BLP1E's first point says the policy applies "[i]f reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event." Delauter has received significant coverage prior to this event; here is a small sample:

  1. "Setting boundaries in Frederick". The Baltimore Sun. 2012-05-14. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  2. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-10-21). "Delauter says he will bid on county contracts if elected commissioner". The Gazette. Retrieved 2015-01-11. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= (help)
  3. Marshall, Ryan (2012-05-23). "Delauter defends comment on moving business". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  4. Greenfield, Sherry (2010-07-29). "Delauter wants to bring changes to county board". The Gazette. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  5. Rodgers, Bethany (2014-12-26). "Political Notes: Delauter says he reimbursed county for inauguration". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  6. Gill, Thomas (2014-10-28). "It pays to be a county commissioner". Frederick News-Post. Archived from the original on 2015-01-11. Retrieved 2015-01-11.
  Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians, says:

  Just being an elected local official, or an unelected candidate for political office, does not guarantee notability, although such people can still be notable if they meet the primary notability criterion of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject of the article".

  The Baltimore Sun is a major newspaper, the largest circulation newspaper in the state of Maryland. It cannot be dismissed as being a "small, local newspaper". Prior to this incident, Delauter arguably passed Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Politicians. After this incident, he clearly does.

  I have created a draft article at Draft:Kirby Delauter to discuss the three aspects of his life. I included the incident in the "Frederick County Council" section because it happened while he was (and still is) a county council member.. Because the event takes up a small part of the article, I do not believe the draft violates Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balancing aspects.

  There might be BLP issues in the future if disproportionate information about the incident is added to the article. If that happens, semi-protecting (or full-protecting) the article will solve the problem.

  Cunard (talk) 06:04, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• And this folks is why we have discussions about notability rather than process. Which is what would have happened had process been followed. Learn from it. I'm not saying we should have the article, I'm saying that it turns out there is a solid case that we should. And bypassing AfD is just not helpful in figuring that out. Hobit (talk) 11:26, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• (note: I !voted above), I'm fine with moving this draft to article space. If someone wants to bring it to AfD, they can. But it's written quite well, meets WP:N on the face of it, and doesn't have a WP:UNDUE problem. I think at this point a BLP1E argument would likely fail. If undue issues start creeping in, semi or full protection can be used. Hobit (talk) 15:25, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn at least in part Salting a politician's biography, where the politician has made national and international news is not what speedy is for - even, if speedy was fine for whatever that article was, users should be able to attempt to make a BLP and N compliant article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I think that Cunard said it best. He is notable in his own right and deserved a page before his remarks. Surely, the comments do not make him less notable. The draft is a balanced article that does not give undue weight to the incident. Hopefully this will spur the creation of articles for other members of the Frederick County Council (which needs a page itself, as the body was inaugurated in 2014). Bangabandhu (talk) 16:03, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I guess there' no need for me to repeat what has already been stated (the deletion was too hasty, Dealuter made headlines all over the place, etc.). He's more than worthy of inclusion on this website, if only as a further example of politicians attempting to silence media critics and reporters. Constablequackers (talk) 10:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the original IAR close, but Allow new draft. Cunard's new draft appears to nicely settle the outstanding BLP1E concerns. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Mamou-Mani (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Request relist of this AFD that was closed as no consensus; perhaps the admin did not realize that one of two Keep !votes was from the SPA/COI creator of the article. The closing admin has not responded to a request for clarification. Vrac (talk) 00:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion wasn't really an option here. There was no consensus to do so in the AfD and the sources in the article (including one solely about him and a number that discuss his work) would appear to meet the GNG, so there is no overriding BLP or related reason to force a delete. Hobit (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse - headcount is a bit small, there's perhaps an argument to overturn to keep given the relative unambiguity of meeting WP:N, but it's a difference without a distinction, so I don't see why you'd bother. WilyD 09:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, after three relists, you're really just wasting everyone's time asking for a fourth. Participation was only modest, but clearly you can't get a consensus to delete out of that discussion, and the admin can only work with what they're given. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• I apologise to the OP as I forgot to respond to their request. I would, in any case, have suggested bringing the issue to DRV, as I don't really see what else I could do with this AfD. Black Kite (talk) 22:39, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. A delete outcome would not have been reasonable. Stifle (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

List of bus routes in Singapore (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The closing admin seems to have given too little weight to policy based argument.

At the admin's talk page reversion was declined with the comment "There were arguments from the sources, and potential sources, in the keep camp, as well as them being in the majority, so yes, I did give due weight to policy based argument."

There were 5 !Votes to delete, nominator included. There were 5 !Votes to keep. There was 1 !Vote to keep/merge which seemed to argue for merging rather than keeping.

That is not much of a majority even before considering that two keep voters only gave vague reasoning when prompted to do so and one vaguely referred to reasons given above without specifying which. User:Notforlackofeffort has since been indefinitely blocked. All of those wanting to delete gave policy-based arguments but on the other side no evidence has been produced of how the subject of the list meets WP:GNG. The closest to a secondary source that has been suggested is a bus route guide which just reproduces primary source information without any analysis of the article subject. Reasons given for keeping consist mainly of "other stuff exists" together with irrelevant stuff about editors' other work.

Given the weakness of argument on the keep side of the discussion I believe there is a consensus to delete. Charles (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn and Delete - The nom's spot on - 3 of the Keep !votes were "per X" (which IMHO there was no weight to as none were expanded on that), the other by an indef'd editor who only based his !vote on making a point to the world, Personally I think there was more of a consensus to Delete than anything. –Davey2010 ^{Merry Xmas / Happy New Year} 03:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak endorse, start RfC I think the delete arguments were stronger, but the close was probably within admin discretion. The argument for WP:NOT I found to be pretty effectively countered by the fact we have, and keep, similar articles for other places. But for me, the key issue is a lack of independent sources. Now I'm nearly certain that there will be solid independent sources for this--I've read at least 5 articles discussing my much smaller city's bus routes in the last year due to a millage vote. I can't imagine a place this large wouldn't have similar sources--at least about certain routes or groups of routes. But the article doesn't have much in the way of independent sources and no one seemed to provide much of anything. FWIW, I would have endorsed a delete outcome too given that discussion.

Now, all that said, I think the right venue is an RfC on articles like this. IMO either these fall under WP:NOT or, for larger cities, we should have them. I'm nearly certain one could meet WP:N for basically any town or city with non-trivial bus service in the US, and I'd guess the same is true elsewhere. I get the sense that at least some of the delete !voters would prefer we delete them all and picked on this (surprisingly) weak one. Instead of doing that, let's discuss the issue and (hopefully) find consensus. Hobit (talk) 06:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse - both deletion arguments are obvious bunk - there's no original research (as least, that I can find, or that anyone identified). This isn't a directory (in particular, it's both not useful as a directory, and contains historical routes which a directory wouldn't). Balanced head count, policy entirely favours keep, should be a keep, but this is a content organisation issue, in which headcount should carry some weight, unless it can be shown to be fraudulent. WilyD 09:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse, but relist, about the only argument worth a damn there is the one by User:slakr, but it's not enough to base a delete decision on. Otherwise, there wasn't much to either side's arguments that was strongly based in policy. It was reasonable for the admin to close given the poor quality of argument they were given to work with, but at the same time relisting may produce a more decisive result the second time around. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:14, 8 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• Overturn and delete. The closer failed to give appropriate weight to the various contributions, such as Andrew D who partially addressed the OR concerns but not the NOTDIR, and Nha Trang who raised the "other stuff exists" canard. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's true that there are a number of articles like this, some of which have made it through AfD. So I don't think it's a "an unfounded rumor or story" that they exist. Nor do I think it's a poor argument when it comes to WP:NOT. What is and isn't a directory is determined by the community. There is some sense of the community that this type of listing doesn't fall under WP:NOT which I think is quite relevant. WP:NOT is necessarily vague and previous precedents are helpful. Hobit (talk) 17:37, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes similar articles do exist and many have also been deleted including those for large cities such as Manchester in England. There is no generic precedent for keeping or deleting.Charles (talk) 19:00, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I never said anything about "an unfounded rumour or story". Stifle (talk) 16:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, you used the word "canard" in a way I didn't recognize, so I looked it up. That's the definition most everywhere. I assumed you were indicating that "other stuff exists" in this case wasn't true. Sorry if I misunderstood. Hobit (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Martin (boxer) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Request to all: please don't repeat the whole AfD discussion here... I am going to stick to the close. Anybody disagreeing is welcome to start a discussion at WP:DRV (but please read closely the instructions on how to do that, just repeating the AfD will not get you anywhere at DRV). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 14:42, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Subjects that do not meet the sport-specific criteria outlined in this guideline may still be notable if they meet the General Notability Guideline or another subject specific notability guideline.

This principle has been upheld at numerous AfDs and DRVs. Two sports–related DRVs upheld it: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 9#Matt Kassel and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 December 20#Zach Collier.

The closing admin did not address Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline in his close and declined to discuss it on his talk page. There was no consensus in the AfD that the subject failed GNG because only three editors discussed the sources I listed. One supported deletion and two supported retention. The closer erred in disregarding the GNG arguments.

Cunard (talk) 00:08, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to point out that the editor C.dunkin you note above as established has only edited for about a month, and the overwhelming body of edits (using that account) have been to establish and prevent this article being deleted, due to what was described at irc as their personal involvement with the subject of the article. I think you are on your own with this one. --_nonsense ferret 00:41, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see C.dunkin as a good faith new editor, a boxing enthusiast who has become entangled in Wikipedia's byzantine deletion processes. Many new editors have unpleasant first experiences with Wikipedia when their articles are nominated for deletion. Too many are chased away.

C.dunkin, I hope this experience doesn't WP:BITE you away from Wikipedia. Your contributions to Wikipedia's boxing articles are invaluable. Cunard (talk) 01:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cunard thank you for noticing my attempted contributions to Wikipedia's boxing articles. C.dunkin (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ provides an instructive read on how subject specific notability guidelines like WP:NBOX (a subsection of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)) are meant to complement—not replace—Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn to NC - a little over-zealous in trying to discount new/inexperienced users, I think. Perhaps fails NBOX#4, but is at least marginal for WP:N, and a balanced headcount (with the votes swinging towards more "keeps" as more sources were presented/discussed - particularly after Cunard's listing of sources, only one user still argues delete (and thinks the article is falling just short of WP:N, not miles short of it). WilyD 09:47, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Contrary to what may seem to be implied above, I did NOT collapse comments HERE. The above DRV nom is copied wholesale from my talk page, where I asked people not to re-play the AfD. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC- I notified user:mdtemp (AFD creator) and user:Randykitty (closer) because I felt the sources weren't discussed at AFD. Hence, asking them about reconsidering their move/close. I did't get too far... Thankfully, an experienced editor in the wiki community was able to notice this; I felt defeated beforehand. In good faith users can see the Subject should meet WP:N through WP:V and WP:RS.C.dunkin (talk) 19:15, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse I think the decision was a correct one. I think there was agreement he didn't meet WP:NBOX which leaves WP:GNG. Repeated articles in the local (Chattanooga) paper seem like local sports coverage and insufficient to meet GNG and I believe that mentions on boxing websites (which were pointed out as being of uncertain reliability) of being a top prospect are unconvincing since prospects, by definition, are not yet at the peak of their profession. I think the closing admin's decision was justified by the existing arguments. I have no objections to the article being userfied and reintroduced in the future. Papaursa (talk) 21:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The flaw in this reasoning is that none of the AfD participants expressed an opinion at the AfD that "Repeated articles in the local (Chattanooga) paper seem like local sports coverage and insufficient to meet GNG". The sources I posted were discussed by only three established editors (as well as several new accounts). Although I disagree with this position, I will not argue that here because DRV is not the place to make novel arguments not made in the AfD. If the closer relied on arguments not made in the AfD, that would be a substantial error. Cunard (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn- The afd was about 7-6 so really no consensus was reached. We should over turn it and then put it on AFD again if you are so inclined to delete it. Are we going to arbitrarily and selectively going to delete articles now just because we ourselves do not know the subject? Antonio The Knuckle Sandwich Martin (dime) 02:07, 8 January, 2015 (UTC)
• Endorse as closer. The argument given just above is invalid: WP:NOTAVOTE. It's policy-based arguments that count, not numbers of !votes. If that were true, we could just have a bot close these debates. --Randykitty (talk) 06:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn to NC I agree that the SPAs needed to be discounted. But there was reasonable disagreement about how NBOX#4 applies among established editors. And the GNG argument wasn't really addressed by the delete !voters. Hobit (talk) 06:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse As per closer and Papaursa. It is a bit much to expect every contributer to try and counter every argument made by a single expansive editor - I reject the idea that which editor discussed what during the AfD has any relevance. Although I personally did not add further comments beyond WP:NBOX it is incorrect to say the GNG argument was not discussed by the Delete voters.Peter Rehse (talk) 12:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First, are you saying there was consensus on WP:NBOX#4? I really don't see that, but I'd be curious why you see it that way. Secondly, could you point out any reasonable argument in the discussion that he doesn't meet the GNG? As I read it, we've got reliable independent sources, which cover him in detail, and no one really addressed those sources (though they did address other ones like twitter and a PR release). It should be pretty hard to delete an article that meets a literal reading of the GNG and I don't see any of those arguments coming close to being strong enough to do so. But obviously at least a few people disagree with me, and I'd like to understand why. Hobit (talk) 15:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was only addressing the DRV issue. What my opinion is regarding WP:NBOX or GNG, or whether consensus on either was reached I don't think is important to this discussion so I did not mention it. What I was agreeing with was the common statements between the two that I mentioned decision was justified by the existing arguments (perhaps I should have been clearer).Peter Rehse (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • What my opinion is regarding WP:NBOX or GNG, or whether consensus on either was reached I don't think is important to this discussion so I did not mention it. – whether there was consensus on GNG is at the heart of this DRV nomination. If no consensus was reached on GNG (because the sources were discussed by three editors only), then a "delete" close is indefensible. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • From my perspective, there was consensus on NBOX, because none of the editors who claimed it was met addressed the presented argument that is long established by precedent that junior competitions do not qualify in the same way as senior competitions. You could only give weight to an argument on NBOX if it addressed this key question: what precedent is there for the guideline to be used in this way? This question was asked several times in the dicussion and received no answer. --_nonsense ferret 18:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse the closer presented a clear and sensible appraisal of the strengths of the various arguments presented. There is a clear consensus that this boxer as yet is not notable. We have all seen many times before, for example with the footballer Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hólmbert_Aron_Friðjónsson even where there are numerous examples of routine coverage of a sportsman, and in that case it was relatively detailed national newspaper and flagship national news program coverage, this is rarely sufficient to render them notable per WP:GNG notwithstanding that they fail the sports specific guidelines, so a very strong argument acknowledging relevant precendents, in this respect would have been required and no such argument was forthcoming. There was no need to raise this point at the original discussion as it is already widely known and accepted. I would also alternatively support a relist due to the significant new evidence arising from the sockpuppet investigation currently ongoing at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/C.dunkin which may be considered to have significantly tainted the progress of the discussion due to the conntection that has been drawn between the two most emphatic posters arguing for notability in this case. There may be a clearer picture at the conclusion of that case. --_nonsense ferret 18:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with your relist suggestion but for an additional reason: The sources I posted were discussed by only three editors.

  Had I seen Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hólmbert Aron Friðjónsson, I would have supported retention. The sources you provided clearly established notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. It is disappointing that most of the participants there (as in this case) ignored the sources. I would take the AfD to DRV now since I think it was closed incorrectly, but the article has been recreated so it's now moot.

  There was no need to raise this point at the original discussion as it is already widely known and accepted. – it not acceptable not to raise a point at an AfD because in your opinion it is "already widely known and accepted" and expect this unraised point to form the basis of an AfD close.

  Had you raised that point, I would have directed you to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ. In fact the closing admin of Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline wrote (my bolding):

  Echoing many of the participants' concerns though, consensus can not be considered in favor unless the new guideline clarifies that it does not replace WP:GNG but supplements it and that articles that do not meet this guideline may still be included if they satisfy WP:GNG.

  The GNG question was not thoroughly discussed at the AfD.

  Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• As it happens, although it is really a digression from the discussion here I now agree with the result of the Friðjónsson deletion debate. In the event the player never did set foot on the football field for the team he was signed for. I think it was reasonable and wise to interpret those sources as being routine coverage of a non notable sportsperson, and therefore insufficient to establish GNG. It was clear that this person was not well known as a footballer according to well established rules, and it is pointless in building an encyclopedia to make an argument that the junior footballer was known for something else (ie. being signed for a team), merely because that fact was reported in the press. There are of course many things that are reported in the press in this 24-7 live media blogathon world that should not make their way to an encyclopedia. --_nonsense ferret 01:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The position that Wikipedia:Notability (sports) supersedes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for athletes is against the closing admin's assessment of consensus at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)/Archive 4#RfC: Promote Notability (sports) to a guideline, which is recorded at Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ.

  Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ says:

  Q6: What constitutes "non-routine" secondary coverage for sports?

  A6: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information.

  Whether there is "significant coverage directly related to the subject" determines whether the coverage is "routine" or not. Not other criteria.

  If a source merely reports a junior footballer being signed for a team, that is routine coverage. But if the source goes further and provides "significant coverage directly related to the subject" (significant biographical information), then that cannot be considered routine coverage under Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ.

  Cunard (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• The position you present is not one that I have ever seen argued for, neither here nor in the deletion discussions, so it is a straw man. The specific sports guidelines are something which can be used to help interpret what is required by the general notability guideline. A too narrow interpretation of what constitutes 'routine coverage' would render it a pointless clause, since nothing ever written would be covered by it. There is a lot of coverage of sports games and player movements, but most of it is entirely routine and certainly doesn't indicate anything of encyclopedic value. --_nonsense ferret 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• To interpret "routine coverage" so broadly such that the subject specific notability guidelines "help interpret what is required by the general notability guideline" in effect neuters the general notability guideline for athletes. Nowhere in Wikipedia:Notability (sports), Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ, and Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline supports such a broad interpretation.

  Q6 of Wikipedia:Notability (sports)/FAQ would be written more broadly if the community consensus supported your broad interpretation. Instead, it requires only "significant coverage directly related to the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I honestly don't find your detailed arguments so far in any way convincing. To my mind "significant" is a critical modifier in this context. --_nonsense ferret 13:03, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Significant coverage is defined in Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which says:

  "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material.

  If that is what you define "significant" as, then that would be consistent with the guideline.

  Cunard (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

•  Administrator note C.dunkin and Boxexpo2015, accounts which participated in this AfD, were confirmed by checkuser to be related. Please see the SPI case for more information. Mike V • Talk 20:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for your post here, Mike V.

  The checkuser results are disappointing but they do not affect my analysis in the DRV nomination since I already discounted Boxexpo2015 and the other new accounts. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Wikipedia:Deletion review#Closing reviews says:

  If the administrator finds that there is no consensus in the deletion review, then in most cases this has the same effect as endorsing the decision being appealed. However, in some cases, it may be more appropriate to treat a finding of "no consensus" as equivalent to a "relist"; admins may use their discretion to determine which outcome is more appropriate.

  If the result of this DRV is "no consensus", I urge the closing admin to relist. The sources I listed at the AfD were discussed by three out of the thirteen established editors. A fresh AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Martin (boxer) (2nd nomination) will be free of the sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry and allow for a discussion about the sources. Cunard (talk) 00:15, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The AfD discussion went on for 3 weeks. I would have thought that was long enough for anyone swayed by the sources to change their vote, so I'm not sure what would be gained by a relist. Most of those advocating to keep the article were either involved in the aforementioned SPI or claimed his junior title was enough to show notability (an argument that has been soundly rejected in the past). Papaursa (talk) 05:35, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That the sources were not discussed is the basis for a relist. The sources cannot be discounted implicitly through editors declining to discuss them. Cunard (talk) 03:31, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Neither are editors required to explicitly respond to every argument they find unpersuasive. I believe editors will vote as they determine best and do not think they need to keep rejustifying their votes, although they can if they want. In addition, it seems presumptuous that you claim a new listing will be free of meat and sock puppetry. However, I'm now finished with this discussion. Papaursa (talk) 08:17, 10 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• If significant new information (like new sources) appears, it is reasonable to expect editors to address it and rejustify their votes.

  If sockuppetry or meatpuppetry becomes an issue again, the AfD could be semi-protected. Cunard (talk) 06:13, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not entirely sure about this. Looking into the matter further, I have a strong suspicion that the editor in question has been adding articles at least as early as 2012, which is longer than me! So perhaps agf newbie is not entirely appropriate. --_nonsense ferret 17:38, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the accounts confirmed as sockpuppets at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/C.dunkin/Archive had edits before December 2014. Which account are you referring to? Cunard (talk) 05:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Since it is a stale account and thus not directly relevant to this review, and there is a reasonable likelihood of being considered some form of outing, I will not be specific, however, if it is in some way of interest to you, then I am confident a mins intellient research could find compelling similarities in style, approach to other editors, naming and subject matter. --_nonsense ferret 12:56, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• There is no need to mention the account here if it is not relevant to this review. If the account's behavior violates Wikipedia:Sock puppetry#Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts and the account's information is sensitive, then I recommend contacting a check user to look into whether the evidence supports the users being the same. If the account's behavior does not violate Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, I recommend taking no action. Cunard (talk) 01:51, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Chulbul Pandey (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Consensus wasn't determined. Plus the discussion was indicating to keep the article. So re-opening this discussion to get a clean and final consensus. Derevation^{Give Me Five} 16:36, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I've fixed the listing for you. I am having a little difficulty working out just what your request is. The article has never been deleted. The only deletion discussion here resulted in no-consensus, defaulting to keep, but that was 6 months ago. So just what are you asking for here? The content was merged as a result of this discussion though it wasn't very heavily attended. As this is an editorial decision not a deletion decision, the way to discuss unmerging would be to conduct a discussion on that talk page and see if a consensus can be reached. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 19:19, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a merge "discussion" here Talk:Dabangg#Proposed_merge_with_Chulbul_Pandey, which is what I believe they're objecting to. WilyD 09:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy close. I have restored the article for review at Talk:Dabangg#Proposed merge with Chulbul Pandey, where I have started an RfC and notified the AfD participants to hopefully attract wider participation. Cunard (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Oakman (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

unjustifiably deleted. Admin decided to take it into his/her own hands to decide who's notable or not. There were numerous sources provided in the article, that suggest an AFD would be the more logical move than to just flat out delete. Yankees10 03:37, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn - Certainly doesn't qualify as an A7. Multiple sources and media coverage, particularly in the last couple days. Should go through AfD if there is the desire to delete it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 07:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Participants should read the deleting admin Nyttend's rationale at WP:REFUND#Shawn Oakman before discussing overturning here. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:16, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Also see my extended rationale at Yankees10's talk page; Yankees10 refuses or is unable to understand that there are no secondary sources, insisting (like SuperHamster) that news articles about the guy are secondary sources. Please read primary source and secondary source, and you'll see why news articles about the guy's recent activities are primary sources, and why simply being a college football player is no indication of importance. Nyttend (talk) 13:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Putting all the other reasons why you are wrong, since i'm not repeating them again, I am gong to repeat this one: Just because the sources you were looking for were not in the article or were not found by me, does not mean they do not exist. An AFD would would allow others a chance to find these sources. But you took it upon yourself to make this decision. This is not how Wikipedia works.--Yankees10 18:13, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Thanks for the links to the discussions - though I never insisted anything about the sources, other than that sources exist (which I've only glanced at, because notability isn't the question here). What I would like to insist on is that there is the presence of even a bit of importance (the mention and coverage of college football + meme shenanigans), and that this whole debate about sources and notability should have been going on at an AfD discussion, not after a speedy deletion. The fact that there is any debate in the first place indicates that this is not an uncontroversial deletion, as any speedy deletion should be. I'm not saying that your rationale for deletion is necessarily wrong, Nyttend - but I see this as a case where A7 does not apply, and that an AfD discussion where all these issues could have been discussed has been circumvented. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Nyttend, you are mistaken in what primary and secondary sources mean in the sense used by Wikipedia to assess notability. Wikipedia:No original research provides a different definition of primary and secondary sources than the standard non-Wikipedia definitions given in the articles primary source and secondary source. Specifically, WP:OR defines a primary source as one made by a participant or direct witness in a event, and a secondary source as one made by someone at least one level removed from an event. This is in keeping with the fact that Wikipedia uses the terms primary and secondary sources in the context of original research. The idea is that if someone writes about something they did themselves, then what they say about it isn't necessarily trustworthy, and also it doesn't show any interest from the world at large about that subject. However, if someone writes about something they weren't involved in, then they are more likely to give an unbiased account, and it also shows interest from the world at large. This is different from how primary sources and secondary sources are used in the study of history, where a primary source is generally one from the time of the event providing information from the writer's own experience, and a secondary source is something written at a later time based on primary sources (in historical study, primary sources would often be preferred to secondary sources). It is also different than the context used in medical research or such, where a primary source is an original research paper and a secondary source is a review or meta-analysis of many such papers (secondary sources in that sense are preferred for certain types of Wikipedia articles as stated in places like Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) since they represent the best scientific information on a subject, but that sense isn't used outside of articles on scientific subjects). In the sense used by Wikipedia for showing notability, news articles would generally be secondary sources, provided that the author is reporting on an event they didn't participate in. Furthermore, news articles are routinely taken to show notability in AFD discussions, and articles are routinely kept based on news coverage if the coverage is of sufficient duration to pass guidelines like WP:LASTING and WP:BIO1E (which might not be the case here, but that is an issue for AFD to decide). Calathan (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• What User:Calathan says about WP:NOR providing novel definitions of primary and secondary sources is substantially wrong. Please read WP:NOR more carefully. Note that it explicitly references the mainspace articles. A secondary source is not defined as a written by second hand accounts. The difference is whether there is transformation of the information from primary source sourced facts to commentary, analysis or opinion. Mere repetition does not convert primary source information to secondary source information. Whether "news articles" are primary or secondary is usually right on the line, and often determined by usage. If it is the facts, it is primary. If it confers information derived from the author's commentary, analysis or opinion, then this information is secondary source content. Generally, "reports" will be primary, and "stories" will be secondary. "Articles" could be either. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• While WP:NOR does describe secondary sources as including analysis, the main point is the separation from the event. I guess what comes off as the main point is a little different if you focus on WP:NOR's version of "primary sources", which focuses more on what I'm talking about, or on "secondary sources", which is more in line with what you are saying. However, I think my interpretation makes more sense in the context of the whole page (and is also more consistent with how AFD discussions use news sources). Again, you have to consider that those definitions are given in a page titled "No original research". A news outlet with a reputation for fact checking can be assumed have only included verified facts, and to be providing a non-biased account. A news outlet writing about an event also shows interest from the world at large. Thus, they are not providing original research, and can be used as a good source for information about a subject and to show notability of the subject. The reason those passages refer to the main definitions of primary and secondary sources is that they are similar to those definitions, and those definitions provide additional context, yet the differences with Wikipedia's own definitions are still essential to their use. Calathan (talk) 15:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Overturn A7. The deleting admin's rationale, that recent news stories are primary sources, is dubious on its face, and even a cursory review of GNews results in this case turns up multiple secondary sources. Even if the nature of such sources were debatable, that would require a standard, not speedy, deletion process, because they raise issues of notability, not the lower standard of significance. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Regardless of whether the article would survive an AfD on notability grounds, the multiple news sources provide an assertion of importance, which is enough to make A7 non-applicable. Speedy deletion isn't supposed to circumvent a discussion of notability, especially when the deleting admin is using a somewhat questionable definition of what constitutes a secondary source; news articles can and often do include synthesis and analysis of a topic. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 20:32, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn I can't see the article and haven't previously heard of the subject, but if there was news coverage of the subject then that is a claim to notability sufficient to prevent an A7 speedy deletion and require an AFD. Calathan (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn. Even if the secondary sources were inadequate before, the subject has received a bunch of coverage in the last few days. For example: Dallas Morning News, NBC Sports, Fox Sports, Deadspin, Bleacher Report, Delaware County Daily Times. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn - doesn't remotely qualify for A7, and deleting admin offers only jibberish in response to questions. WilyD 09:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn Speedy and List at AfD, contested speedy deletions belong at AfD; No comment on the merits of the article as DRV is NOT AfD. — xaosflux ^Talk 15:35, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• List at AfD, as should be done for any reasonable contest of a WP:CSD#A7 deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• List because of a reasonable request. I do not find the "primary" line of thought utterly compelling but anyway that would be a matter for AFD. However, I have more sympathy for the "no indication of importance" speedy than most people here. Going from memory the article and its sources only explained to me what Oakman hadn't done, which left me wondering what it was that he had done to support any claim to importance. But you have to be a celebrity for the press to report what you haven't done. However, Google now tells me Oakman is an internet meme and I find that a fully satisfying explanation for this whole situation. Thincat (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Overturn, a terrible A7. The fact that multiple news stories exist, regardless of whether they're considered primary or secondary, is a clear indication of importance, which disqualifies the article from A7. A7 is intended for slam dunk cases, and this isn't a slam dunk case. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC).[reply]
• American football defensive end for the Baylor Bears :: deleted as not notable, but in https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:West.andrew.g/Popular_redlinks&oldid=641983262 it got 43,426 attempted views in a week. -Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cassandra Saturn (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I want to Contest the Speedy Deletion of Cassandra Saturn Article. I vote Allow recreation. because it was unfairly deleted for not good reason. and I was one that writed the Article. I wroted out the Reason for it before it was deleted. so I'm bringing this to the Deletion Review board. CassandraSaturn (talk) 23:31, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@CassandraSaturn: Please read WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:33, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am article writer, I also write biographies. I have done so in many wikia sites before thinking about expanding that biography to Wikipedia. I have problems with Wikipedia Staff for not clearly understanding or even ask before deletion. I'd recommend that you please see my sandbox which contains an biography of Cassandra Saturn and it is my biography I want to share within Wikipedia, the editors are free to edit it as an accurate respresentation of an celebrity on IMVU. so I wish this discussion of an Article to be talked about in due time. CassandraSaturn (talk) 16:55, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete other editors comments as you did here, I've now restored my endorsement of the deletion. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is not wikia, this is wikipedia an attempt to write a free npov encyclopaedia. This project has various inclusion standards. You bio was deleted as a user page back in September via a discussion. What makes you think things would have changed between then and now so it would be acceptable? I'll also note you deleted a load of messages from you user talk page a few days ago here, the last of which would have been very relevant did you read and understand any of it? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse if the cached version is anything to go by, would appear to meet a variety of speedy deletion criteria and would stand a hope of passing xFD. A few searches in the normal places don't turn up any usable sources. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  Also seems to be same as users sandbox --86.2.216.5 (talk) 10:34, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse deletion The copy in CassandraSaturn's sandbox is largely promotional and has no sources to show notability. CassandraSaturn, I suggest you use the Article wizard to draft the article and get it reviewed by experienced volunteers. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

sources? here are sources, the external links are links to social media pages, but I don't know how to list an link for my personal website as my official source, but like I said, it's not promotional. it's not finished by long run. I have very much more to add so they are added before I published it. as seeing the article was deleted for small reason like "promotional" when it's not. even Article Wizard might probably not help at all. I supposed I should take to just sandbox page then. I guess too much history might not be good for article like mine. CassandraSaturn (talk) 17:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

See reliable sources for wht is meant by sources. Your own pages are at best self published primary sources and so not of use for us to base an article on. If you want to just have said what you say about yourself, then that would make the encyclopedia article little more than a personal vanity piece. What we need is what third parties who have a reputation for fact checking have written about you. Are there any of those? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 17:17, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Links to your social media pages are not independent sources and do not show notability. And text like "...sex appeal, wonderful and nice personality, taking Cosplay work seriously, committed to her own outfit designs of cosplay" is exactly why WP:AUTO exists. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. I'm not sure that G11 was the best rationale, as this seems curably puffish to me, but without any reliable third party references, and no reason to infer that any might exist, this looks like a clearcut A7. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse and salt - the community or an admin (on behalf of the community) should now be required to approve a draft before it is moved to article space. The draft is promotional because it makes self-aggrandising claims without a single secondary source to verify those claims. We need significant coverage in multiple reliable sources independent of the subject. Coverage by the subject's own Facebook account don't count. St★lwart¹¹¹ 23:02, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse-ish - Wolfowitz is exactly right here; it requires a mild-moderate rewrite, not a fundamental rewrite, so G11 is not really applicable. But it would qualify for A7 deletion (doubly so once the promotional language bits are removed), so restoring it makes no sense. WilyD 11:03, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Caraway Group (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the closing admin treated AfD as a horse-race or "vote," saying 2 deletes to 1 keep in blatant violation of WP's NOTABILITY criterion. the article had two references to the New York Times and the Washington Post which are newspapers of record for the United States and highly legitimate, official sources. AfD is not repeat not a vote. It not a horse race.The Caraway Group -Augustabreeze (talk) 13:12, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse. Close reflected the afd, which came to the right conclusion. The only third party coverage of the article subject was this (archive). —Cryptic 15:00, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse. Editor voted in the AfD three times often accusing other editors of popularity contests, etc. even though the discussion was focused on acceptable deletion rationale. Looking at other AfDs they have participated in[20] they seem to be on some kind of campaign for "AfD is not a vote". CorporateM (Talk) 15:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I do not generally take a stand on Deletion Reviews that are on articles that I have deleted. To assist other !voters here, I've restored here a copy of the article as it was just before deletion. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 16:07, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse American newspapers have no 'official' endorsement of anything per the First Amendment (the only reason for their NoR status is solely their audience reach, not anything bestowed by any authority) and can say whatever they want, and your mention doesn't tell us what the stories the NYT and WaPo reported on; were they fluff pieces, mentions on passing of this group, hard news, or just an ad placed by the group in order to abuse the halo effect of having been 'mentioned' in those papers? Without evidence of what this group's notability is and why it stands out, I agree with the deletion made in the discussion. Nate • (chatter) 06:12, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse much noise, little substance. The two specified references to the Washington Post and New York Times, are (a) Trivial and (b) Not about the subject of this article. For WP:GNG requirement of "Significant coverage" - "addresses the topic directly and in detail" it's a fail on both counts. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 11:59, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I suppose it's worth pointing out that the primary author of the article self-identified, but failed to mention that he was a "social media intern" for the Caraway Group. Which shouldn't be surprising, given the obscenely promotional nature of the article. —Cryptic 14:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse . Almost as blatantly promotional as an article masquerading as an encyclopedia entry can get. Fails GNG and ORG. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Endorse Discussion was limited, but the delete !voters had the stronger case. WP:N just isn't met. Hobit (talk) 06:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jeung Lai Chuen (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As I noted on the closing admin's talk page I don't see how a single !vote to keep makes a consensus to keep. The reply refers to the closing rationale but that is essentially a supervote, even with it there's no consensus to keep, and otherwise the close makes no sense – there is no way the consensus is for what's described as "the correct action". JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 14:22, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This also surprised me for the same reason. The closing summary did not seem to reflect the discussion. (1 Keep vs 4 Delete/Redirect votes) The Deletion votes were not focused on the lack of references per se but that notability was not supported by the references. I changed my vote from Deletion to Redirect on the found references but they were still not enough WP:GNG. Not thrilled that my explanation was deleted by the closing administrator (looked like it was made simultaneous - I am sure it was before - with the close) I think the discussion should be allowed to continue.Peter Rehse (talk) 14:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator said she had searched for sources but could not find any (but notes there may be sources in Chinese). Everyone else said essentially "you're right, there are no sources establishing notability". Then Cunard comes along with some sources. Seems like case closed to me. If you want to challenge Cunard's sources, then fine reopen the debate. But if you just want to reopen the debate because vote counting comes to a different answer that would just be wasting everyone's time. SpinningSpark 15:39, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Reopen it seems to me that Cunard found some sources and if the above is true, it was closed a few hours later on that basis. Hardly enough time for anyone to discuss those sources further and reach a consensus. As it stands it sounds like actually one source was found, the other as a passing mention. As to if this reaches the bar for WP:GNG is something AFD should have been given the chance to debate further not merely have it shutdown since the closer deemed the sources good enough. This seems a poor close. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 16:57, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Relist if anyone actually believes this shouldn't be kept I can understanding closing it as keep as one could argue that the objections have been answered. But the sources aren't so overwhelmingly strong that there could be no reasonable objections to the sourcing. I just want to hear at least one person say "I believe this should be deleted/redirected" before it gets relisted. I've no such objection and will likely !vote to keep in the discussion. Hobit (talk) 17:03, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fine I'll say what I originally said in the AfD - it should be Redirected (even though that is not the reason I think the close was premature).Peter Rehse (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect/delete The discussion did not support close as keep, although more time might have done. I was very surprised to see it closed as keep. Boleyn (talk) 19:50, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• At this stage, I will support relisting whereupon I will make a better case for keeping rather than closing the debate. SpinningSpark 19:58, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  In which case why don't you just undo your close and add your comment? No need to wait here a full 7 days and I'd expect a reopen to only need a day or two of additional comments for a firm consensus to form. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 21:42, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  It should be close by an uninvolved admin I think. There's no particular hurry so I'm happy to wait. It's also supposed to run for seven days unless someone wants to invoke a snowball clause as there seems to be no-one supporting the keep outcome now.--JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 21:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  The original closing admin is always at liberty to reopen the debate or otherwise reconsider their close, this is part of the reason for suggesting that discussions with the closing admin is normally the best thing to do to start with. --86.2.216.5 (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Endorse but speedy relist. I endorse the close as an accurate assessment of the discussion. Once sources were provided, the votes that relied on no sources being provided were correctly given less weight, as explained by SpinningSpark.

  Speedy relist since the closing admin agrees with relisting the AfD and editors want to discuss the sources. Cunard (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. I have relisted at AFD. SpinningSpark 09:30, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Yes, the close was rather too quick and relisting has been, I think, the right thing. If someone less experienced than Cunard had actually added the references to the article and the AFD had been closed as delete (effectively overlooking the additions) then even more references might have been required to overcome a WP:CSD#G4. However, in this case there seems to be goodwill all round. Thincat (talk) 18:57, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]