Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 2013 Deletion review archives March 2013 >

28 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
User:Nunnsofunky/Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust was deleted after more than one editor worked on the page and the creator did substantial work improving the article including uploading original artwork and image to the project. The page was linked to many other pages which now causes a bad redirect.

24.0.133.234 (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I've fixed the listing here for you. Unfortunately the case you present here is little to do with this process, which merely considers if the deletion process was followed correctly or not. The arguments you present also have little to do with the inclusion standards of wikipedia, the amount of work done by an individual does not create an obligation for wikipedia to host it. On the many page linked, I could only see one article on wikipedia and I've fixed that since it was a completely unreferenced claim. Links external to wikipedia are of little interest since wikipedia is not a free webhost, advertising etc.. That said the article has been userfied so perhaps someone will find the appropriate sourcing etc. and it may be restored in the future when that happens. Beyond that the inclusion standards etc. seem to have been described in the deletion discussion so not much further can be added. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added a link-set above to the userified version, to make it easier to find for anyone wanting to chime in on this DRV. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse userfication close. I think perhaps the nominator here has misunderstood the outcome - the article, consensus determined, did not meet our inclusion guidelines but there was a feeling among editors that it might with some work. So it has been moved away from regular article space to allow those improvements to be made. If it can be fixed, it can then be moved back into article space. So the title has been deleted but the article itself is waiting at User:Nunnsofunky/Folly Wildlife Rescue Trust for improvement. Stalwart111 21:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The two userfy !votes after the most recent relist make the consensus clear, as the closing admin interpreted it. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse When the notability guidelines are interpreted as hard rules, worthwhile articles can sometimes be deleted. However, consensus is required to go against guidelines and in this case there was indeed a rough consensus to userfy rather than keep (but not to delete). Reference [1] helps towards a rule-based notability quota but the additional [2] is not quite enough to clear the rather arbitrary hurdle. Thincat (talk) 08:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have temporarily restored this for the purposes of DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 13:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I did a bit of research around this because I ran into it at WP:REFUND. The rationale at the AFD was correct. To address the nominator's point, the article was previously transcluded in a few articles due to a template, but the link has now been removed. There are no significant backlinks to this title anymore, and there weren't before. §FreeRangeFrogcroak 20:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - this is an example of power abuse on Wikipedia. I wish that JW or someone who understands what the project is supposed to be would please take a look at this.Obviously, the article should not be deleted.24.0.133.234 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But it hasn't been deleted. It doesn't currently meet guidelines and so it has been userfied - moved into draft space - so you can work on it and substantiate notability. Stalwart111 23:59, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, and in this case I think that the closing admin handled the situation well. With a bit of work the userified version of the article will hopefully find its way back to the mainspace soon. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 February 2013[edit]

26 February 2013[edit]

  • Dănuț Marcu – Overturned to Keep. Further relisting/discussion at editorial discretion. Given the nature of this BLP I see no reason why anyone who wants to initiation a further discussion should wait. – Spartaz Humbug! 01:10, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dănuț Marcu (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Bad close of a contentious and approximately evenly-split AfD; should have been no consensus or relist. The closer of an AfD is supposed to discern the consensus of the existing (policy-based) arguments, not to choose sides. The close opinion glibly dismissed as "tenuous" a set of sources consisting of 17 independent and reliably published reviews of Marcu's papers, stating that they were plagiarized: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]; 5 editorials published in academic journals recounting Marcu's history of plagiarism as the reason for banning him: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]; and 6 sources not previously listed in the article but brought up in the AfD mentioning him as a famous plagiarist [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30]. As a cheap rhetorical trick, the closer noted some bad arguments on the keep side but failed to note some equally ridiculous arguments on the delete side (e.g. that 17 separate incidents of plagiarism constitute "one event", that a review of a paper is the paper itself and therefore not a source, or that sources that happen to mention Wikipedia are tainted and cannot be used to source anything). This would all have been perfectly acceptable as a new opinion on the AfD, but is not a valid policy- and consensus-based close. Discussion on closer's talk page failed to yield any more clarification or change of opinion, so here we are. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to no consensus, which is what the debate clearly showed, with seven editors wanting it kept and six wanting it deleted. The closing admin made a key error in interpreting the debate and the relevant policy: "Some argue that he passes WP:PROF because he has published many papers" -- in fact, publishing many papers would never mean passing WP:PROF, and instead what some people argued is that he passed WP:PROF#C1 because his work was highly cited, with one paper cited almost 1,900 times (an extremely rare threshold). I also showed that this paper has not been retracted on account of plagiarism -- and as it was co-authored it is extremely unlikely it was plagiarized. One should not close an AfD on the strength/weakness of the argument when it is clear that one has misunderstood the argument. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 05:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Btw, talking about numbers, it was 7 editors supporting deletion, not 6.--Staberinde (talk) 11:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - BLP that is practically fully negative of the subject should require very strong arguments for keeping. This persons notability was borderline at best, which makes deletion completely appropriate.--Staberinde (talk) 07:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to be clear, BLP policy is about removing unsourced negative information about living people. This doesn't mean "delete articles about living people". It also doesn't mean "remove well-sourced negative information about living people". And it certainly doesn't mean "protect people who're well-shown to be academic plagiarists from negative publicity". I see neither policy basis nor consensus to support the deletion. This wasn't one of Scottywong's finest moments.—S Marshall T/C 12:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per nomination and per arguments by Nomoskedasticity and S Marshall, who raised good points about the function of BLP. I don't a have problem per se with closing against numbers and I've done it a number of times myself, but you need a more thorough close than this. Mackensen (talk) 13:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article history restored for this DRV. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closing admin - On the subject of this person being a notable plagiarist, I found Yworo's arguments in the AfD quite convincing. In my opinion, he successfully argued that the multitude of sources (including the ones given above in this DRV) are not secondary sources, and therefore cannot be used to establish notability. This is why I described the available sources to establish his notability as "tenuous", and primarily why I believe the arguments to delete to be significantly stronger than the arguments to keep, despite the voting numbers being approximately equal. ‑Scottywong| confer _ 14:52, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, since you based your close on Yworo's comments, but made no detailed analysis of these comments, let me summarize Yworo's contributions to the debate for you:
      1. Claims that the article is an attack article, and a single event, without addressing sourcing
      2. Assertion that the subject "cannot meet WP:PROF if the papers aren't his", without addressing sourcing, and immediately refuted by Nomoskedasticity's comment that the high-citation paper does not appear to have been plagiarised
      3. Claims that plagiarism reports are not independent because they do not discuss the subject's biography
      4. Claims that sources that mention Wikipedia (a description that applies to one of the editorials) are circular and unusable even when the things they are used as a source for are not what they in turn cite Wikipedia for
      5. Repeated claims that the highly-cited work wasn't by the subject despite Nomoskedasticity's prior refutation
      6. Claims that published third-party reviews of papers, and journal editorials, are primary sources, and are self-published; the reasoning for the editorials appears to be an all-or-nothing approach in which a source that says a single word about what the source's author did (we are banning this author from this journal) is tainted and cannot be used as a secondary source for anything else it describes (the history of plagiarism), while I see no reasoning at all for asserting that the reviews are primary
      7. Claims that independent sources must be written by people who are not related to the publisher of the source (so, e.g., by this standard newspaper articles by professional journalists could not be reliable sources; again, this reasoning appears to apply only to the journal editorials) and dismissal of arguments against these claims as being irrelevant meta-discussions
      8. Absolutely no comments regarding the six sources turned up during the AfD that are neither paper reviews nor journal editorials
    To me, this does not look like the sort of contribution that is sufficiently well-reasoned and policy-based to override so many other opinions in the debate. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You're misrepresenting and misunderstanding many of Yworo's arguments, just like you did at the AfD. Since I'm confident that any discussion with you will end up as an IDHT black hole, I won't waste anyone's time by trying to refute the points you've posted above. Suffice it to say, I don't agree with you, and all of the arguments necessary to refute and/or correct the above points can be found in the AfD.
In summary, I don't believe that someone who was co-author on a single highly cited paper is likely to be notable. And, I don't believe that the available sourcing establishes Marcu's notability as a plagiarist. That's all I really have to say on the subject. ‑Scottywong| verbalize _ 19:11, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I take your comment as an implicit admission that you got it wrong in saying that the argument made to keep per PROF is that he "published many papers". If you're now going to consider it in terms of being highly cited (which is what the guideline actually says), then you'll have to look beyond the single paper. My point about the single paper was that it shows that he didn't plagiarise everything, so it's not sensible to dismiss the thousands of citations on the basis that he plagiarised a few things. If you now have a better understanding of PROF, then you'd need to admit that you got the arguments wrong in these terms. If you're not prepared to do so (as your comment seems to indicate), then others should be. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:30, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there was no implied admission that I "got it wrong". ‑Scottywong| communicate _ 19:50, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Who is supposed to have claimed that who else admitted what? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a response to me. He is now doubling down on his misunderstanding of PROF. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 19:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks. I've reordered the comments to make it clearer what he was responding to. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:59, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since you didn't like my detailed summary, let me put it to you more briefly. The point of the AfD is not "is Marcu a plagiarist" (that's well established) and should not be "does my interpretation of our technical rules on sourcing disallow this particular source" (missing the forest for the trees); it should have been "is Marcu *famous* for being a plagiarist". The six sources in question directly address this question. Yworo never did. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any views on whether the administrator properly interpreted WP:CONSENSUS? Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I know of no surer sign that the close is wrong than the closing administrator choosing to re-fight the AfD during DRV. Further, if we're going to talk about tenuous positions, then I'd say arguing that articles in peer-reviewed journals discussing the subject but not written by the subject are probably not primary sources. Even if they are (for the sake of the argument), WP:PRIMARY states quite clearly that primary sources may be used "to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge." I would have expected a close which turned in part on this question to make at least some reference to policy. Mackensen (talk) 22:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRIMARY also states that "extra caution" should be used in case of BLPs. But more importantly, primary sources simply cannot be used for establishing notability (its actually even mentioned in leading paragraph of that same section).--Staberinde (talk) 11:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep per nomination and David Eppstein's thorough itemized response to Yworo's arguments. Mhym (talk) 22:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus close or a possible relist. It is clear that the closer picked a side, rather than evaluating the informed opinion of editors (many very longstanding) on the page. FWIW, I still don't know how I think this one should have gone down, but it's pretty clear that there was nothing like a consensus among the editors on the page. RayTalk 15:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep as per Eppstein's well-founded arguments. There is a technical problem with this Deletion Review. Although I had contributed to the AfD I only found out about this DR by accident. I suggest that notice of a DR should be put on the AfD, which will be on the watch list of all participants. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
    • There is a notice there, and had been for almost two days prior to your comment. [31]74.74.150.139 (talk) 03:40, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for info. I don't understand why I missed it. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:51, 1 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to keep Bad close; Looking at it charitably, the closers desire to remove an article about someone where there is negative material prevented him from realizing that the necessities for such sourcing in BLP policy were fully met here: the sources are multiple RSs and the negative matter pertains directly to his field of importance. There was also a total misunderstanding about secondary sources. Articles in peer-reviewed journals are good secondary sources for the subject being discussed, and the work of others than the author. (They are not themselves good sources for the importance of the work of the author, but that's more a question of self-published than of being primary. The references in other papers to the work of the subject are excellent secondary sources, and taking account of their number is a much more objective standard than we have in most fields. DGG ( talk ) 02:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Eppstein's and DGG's sound analyses. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 16:59, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I'm struggling with the combination of WP:PROF and WP:NOTTEMP. The argument made seems to be that he no longer passes PROF because he has since been found to have cheated. So, does Lance Armstrong no longer pass WP:ATHLETE because he cheated? Had he not cheated, he would possibly never have attained the results that made him notable, nor the associated coverage for that matter. My point is that, on the basis his work, he did (once) pass PROF and was notable. I get that his notability was a direct result of dishonesty, but doesn't that just make him notably dishonest? Stalwart111 23:08, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:10, 4 March 2013 (UTC).[reply]
WP:PROF: "This guideline, sometimes referred to as the professor test, is meant to reflect consensus about the notability of academics as measured by their academic achievements."
Should plagiarism be regarded as "academic achievement"? I personally disagree, although I guess its arguable point. Also WP:NOTTEMP is an essay.--Staberinde (talk) 09:59, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, that's true, but it expands on WP:N#TEMP; a policy. I suppose my thinking is that it was considered an academic achievement, though the achievement is now tainted by his cheating. Stalwart111 10:35, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 February 2013[edit]

  • Ravi Singh – Clear consensus that this close was defective due to the double cvote. I'm exercising my closer's discretion to relist this. – Spartaz Humbug! 01:26, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion is here.

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ravi Singh (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I am writing concerning the recent deletion of article Ravi Singh following a deletion discussion which can be found here. There were a total of 3 delete votes and 3 keep votes that were part of the discussion thread. However, I believe that there was an error as 1 of the delete votes was from the nominator (the editor nominated and also voted delete separately), the other 2 delete votes were from the same person (editor DGG). In all, that would be a total of 1 delete vote from DGG. The keep votes were all from unique users, including myself. The article as written is a substantial improvement from a previous article which was prodded and deleted without discussion. The original article was very promotional and read like an advertisement about his company. If you pull up the old article you can see what I am talking about. I was attempting to fix the article before it was deleted. I brought the article back and thought that it was written better, but I see that the nominator and DGG disagree. However, I am not sure that deleting the article because it has promotional content is a good thing to do. I feel that the topic meets general notability guidelines and would request a review of the deletion as well as either reinstating the article or placing it back to a deletion discussion. Thank you. Also, it appears that someone else has already messaged the administrator about this matter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ironholds#Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion.2FRavi_Singh) without a resolution.Plainscallops (talk) 22:08, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

History restored for this DRV debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did ask the closing admin about this shortly after the close, though for a different reason. It probably would be useful to inform him of this review if you would like a personal explanation. Funny Pika! 00:04, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn and relist. I can understand how sheer horror at the article could unphase DGG into voting twice. The unsatisfactoriness of the discussion means a "delete" close cannot be sustained Thincat (talk) 10:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist  Ignoring the duplicate !vote shows ill-preparation, and the disrespect for article creator's in the explanation ("Well, you'll note that one of the keep votes came from the article creator :). ") shows prejudice.  (1) Strike each part of the repeated !vote without prejudice to the editor providing a new !vote; (2) move the closing to the participant's area as a delete !vote; and (3) continue the discussion.  (4) Finally, advise the closer that the current practice is to bold the result of a closing so that Snottywong's deletion tool can parse the closing result.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:07, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep - AfD isn't cleanup, and a closing admin can't reasonably upweight "I don't feel like he should be notable" and downweight "Meets WP:N" to the extent that was done here. That's exactly backwards. WilyD 09:50, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus, which is the only reasonable closure bearing in mind the double-vote, without prejudice to renomination. I am also quite surprised at the debate and its outcome, given DGG's usual staunch inclusionist status. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. The rationale for this DRV is convincing: there really weren't enough distinct delete !votes to close, especially in conjunction with the policy-based keeps that were also present. But participation was light enough that I think a relist is the right outcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I apologize for double voting. I think I have done that about once a year before (and other people have done so also); I will try to be more careful, but previously someone has thought to tell me, and I fix it. @Stifle, I am not longer willing to be tolerant of promotional articles. A few articles with borderline notability don't greatly harm the encyclopedia, but promotionalism is a real and increasing threat to our basic principle of NPOV. I suggest that prior to the relist someone not previously involved try to improve the article as much as possible & then it will be possible to more fairly judge notability. I note some negative BLP that needs better sourcing. DGG ( talk ) 20:32, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Persecution of Serbs and other non-Albanians in Kosovo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

As far as i can see, result of this per simple !Vote was 16 to keep and 13 to delete. I want to ask the community should this be regarded as keep, no consensus to delete, or delete, also per arguments raised, as this does not looks like delete to me at all. WhiteWriterspeaks 21:57, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closing admin. First, it would have been helpful if WhiteWriter had followed the instructions here at DRV: "Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first". Meanwhile, we've already had this relisted multiple times (it was open for over a month), so a no-consensus close was inappropriate. Most of the delete votes said "this content is hopelessly POV", and most of the keeps said "there are reliable sources for this content". My close reflected both of them: the page was deleted because consensus seemed to hold that the contents were hopelessly and unfixably POV, and I specifically reminded editors that the page was open to NPOV recreation. Nyttend (talk) 22:14, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, what? "We've already had this relisted multiple times so a no-consensus close was inappropriate"? Could you explain how this follows, please.—S Marshall T/C 22:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) I don't much care that this article was deleted, but "we've already had this relisted multiple times (it was open for over a month), so a no-consensus close was inappropriate" is simply wrong. Just because is was relisted 3 times does not magically mean there is consensus. -Nathan Johnson (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consensus established that it was an appropriate topic for an article but that the contents were inappropriate. Normally that would mean a relist, but here that wouldn't be helpful. A policy-compliant page cannot functionally be written on this topic, as I understand the discussion, without a complete rewrite of the contents; if people advocating keeping because of notability would simply start rewriting a neutral article, we'd be done here. Nyttend (talk) 22:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you elaborate a little more, please? This close does not appear at first glance to comply with Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If you'd found that there was a consensus that this is an appropriate topic for an article, then the first paragraph of WP:ATD should prevail. Shouldn't it?

    (I'm not saying we should overturn to keep. I certainly wouldn't !vote to keep this content because I think the title's overly narrow and specific and I think the ideal outcome of the AfD should be some form of merge to Anti-Serb sentiment or a similar article. But that's not a matter for DRV. In DRV terms what I'm saying is that the close needs to comply with consensus and policy, and I've yet to be convinced it complies with either.)—S Marshall T/C 22:58, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If I'd closed as "get rid of POV content and keep" and then gotten rid of the content that consensus saw as problematic, we would have ended up with a blank article. This is basically a WP:TNT close; as I read it, consensus objected to essentially everything on the current page, and there's no point in keeping a blank page whose history has been judged inappropriate for mainspace. That's your policy discussion; in what ways are you not convinced that the close reflects the consensus at the discussion? Nyttend (talk) 00:13, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see a consensus in that discussion. It seems that you (and the many other users below) are aware of some policy basis for giving extra weight to the delete !votes, and I'm struggling to follow it. I think what's giving me the most trouble is the idea that WP:TNT should prevail over the actual deletion policy. WP:TNT is an essay, and essays aren't allowed to override policy. If WP:TNT has community support then that should be demonstrated by a proper, community-wide RFC that converts it to policy.

    Shall I tell you what I suspect? I see that a lot of users are finding reasons to support the deletion but it smells to me as if the real motivation is to cut through tendentious editing in the topic area. I think we're putting a fig-leaf over the unpleasant fact that conduct is influencing content. I don't really approve.—S Marshall T/C 12:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, thanks for your response. I need to be really busy today and don't have the time to give you a proper reply; I'll see if I can give one tomorrow. Nyttend (talk) 13:22, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • S Marshall, if you look through my history of AfD contributions you will find that I am not in the habit of calling for deletion lightly, even in "difficult" areas, such as those where editors with firmly entrenched views about inter-ethnic conflicts dominate discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:29, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with that for a moment, Phil Bridger. You're no deletionist, and there's a clear consensus below to support the deletion. I still don't understand or approve.—S Marshall T/C 21:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Consensus established that it was an appropriate topic for an article but that the contents were inappropriate. Normally that would mean a relist". WTF? Do you actually think about what you type before doing so, or are you just that stupid? -Nathan Johnson (talk) 17:57, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{subst:uw-npa1}} Apparently almost everyone here is very stupid, since the close is getting endorsed by most people. Let me explain it to you again. Consensus established that none of the contents belonged, but that we could have a valid article on the topic. Which do you prefer: a completely blank page with a firm prohibition of restoring the contents in the history, or a deleted page with a rationale that welcomes someone writing a new article about it? A check through VFD logs will show you that since our earliest days we've permitted suggestions of "this is unfixable, delete and start all over". Nyttend (talk) 18:23, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus established that it was a CFORK and much of its content fell under NOTNEWS. Maybe Nyttend should have mentioned NOTNEWS as it was a major argument, but given the original discussions and their reiterations his closing comment was certainly far from your label.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 19:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Its quite obvious that human rights in Kosovo, including treatment of minorities, is a notable topic. Just nothing in old article, including its title, was usable for creating proper neutral article on this topic.--Staberinde (talk) 11:58, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
History restored for this DRV debate. - TexasAndroid (talk) 22:24, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The main argument for deletion was "Article is so hopelessly PoV there's no ammount of normal editing that can save it". The keep arguments varied across the board from pointing at notability, pointing at references, pointing at everything except dealing with the PoV. Reading the restored Article history (Thank you TexasAndroid), I'm able to look at the article myself. Article reads like a compiled news article (which WP:NOTNEWS covers), like a sensational editorial (which we really discourage), and like a deliberate incendiary article (which WP:POLEMIC discourages). I also not the excessive references/citations which WP:REFBOMB discourages us from using. Delete made their case, Keepers didn't. Hasteur (talk) 22:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re your edit summary — I figured that this would be highly controversial, so even before looking at the AFD, I decided to write a long rationale because it wouldn't be at all helpful to close it with a simple "Kept" or "Deleted". Nyttend (talk) 22:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Per Hasteur, as this as descended into POV-warring and disruptive editing. Alles Klar, Herr Kommisar 23:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if you take out of the !votes those editors that have established history on Balkans articles (not having access to the talk page, I'm guessing they include WhiteWriter, Bobrayner, Antidiskriminator, ZjarriRrethues, Evlekis, PRODUCER, VVVladimir, Joy, Nado158(banned), Keithstanton(blocked), Zoupan and myself, among others), then look at the opinions given by previously uninvolved editors that apparently came to the discussion through the normal AfD notifications, you will find they strongly supported 'delete' for the reasons stated by Hasteur and Der Kommisar. I think Dolescum was one of those, along with Phil Bridger and a few others? They were immediately attacked as "socks" for daring to give an opinion of 'delete'. It's worth taking a look if you are unsure. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:05, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point, but I actually don't like the idea of precluding reasoning from people who 'have established history' on any articles, not at all. The fact that someone has a history should indeed normally mean their opinion has more weight. If you want to say that someone has negative history on the matter, you should just do that - call a spade a spade. Any generalization in such a sensitive subject matter is a slippery slope and should be avoided. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I was planning on closing this as delete myself. While sources can be presented for a great many things, as the keep voters mentioned, the delete voters pointed out that this is just a political content fork and a synthesis of news articles. Reaper Eternal (talk) 00:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that I've undeleted the talk page. Nyttend (talk) 00:36, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus There was no consensus to delete this. Anything in the article that was deemed inappropriate could've been discussed on the talk page and removed. The closing statement makes no sense at all.

    The result was delete. While numerous editors made arguments that it was notable and covered by enough sources to exist as an article, the stronger arguments were made by those who argued that the current contents were unfixably non-neutral. Because sources exist on this topic, editors are welcome to create a new article on this topic, but they absolutely must be sure to avoid any appearance of bias and treat all sides equally, both in the text and in the title of the new article. — Nyttend (talk) 19:18, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

    It didn't matter that it had sources covering it, he felt the arguments by those who simply stated it was unfixable were greater. Why would you not be able to easily fix any problem that existed, by removing bad entries, and rewording anything not seen as neutral? And telling people they could create new article, which would be the same as this article, just make certain to avoid the "appearance" of bias, is rather ridiculous. If the closing administrator thought the content and subject could be done as a proper article, then why say he sided with those who said it was unfixable? Dream Focus 01:14, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please reformat your comment; it looks like you left two statements, not one, and the bit that you quote from me looks like I responded to your first statement. To answer your objection: the way I read the discussion, consensus concluded that the contents were too far gone and couldn't be fixed. There's a substantial difference between "unfixable" and "not a proper article topic"; the first means that a proper article can be written, but only by throwing out everything that you have right now, so there's no point to keeping anything. Meanwhile, what about the discussion leads you to conclude that there wasn't consensus to do anything? Nyttend (talk) 01:38, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Attempts to fix individual fragments of problematic content almost always got reverted; so it was not possible to "easily fix" these fragments, let alone fix the broader problems which were an inevitable consequence of the title. bobrayner (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse well within discretion, closing statement made it clear there is no bar to recreation of a balanced replacement. LGA talkedits 01:42, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse TNT deletion and recreation. Force some stick-dropping, clear the air and AGF that everyone can work together on a better draft. Not much harm in that IMHO. Stalwart111 01:51, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse An AFD is not an election, so a plurality of ill-reasoned KEEPs does not triumph DELETEs based on guidelines and policies. Edison (talk) 03:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Nomination is clearly using vote counting as its principal argument. It's worth noting that the nominator also did not discuss the close with an admin to receive an even more in depth explanation of the close. Arguments that do not correctly apply Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support their arguments are not weighted upon heavily or at all. Mkdwtalk 04:20, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Policy-based and rational arguments are neither equal nor comparable to vote counting. That being said, the article had been relisted many times and after the last relist only two users participated and they both argued for deletion. Btw I think that the closing statement should have been more along the lines of the one Reaper Eternal would have used as policies should have been mentioned.--— ZjarriRrethues — talk 13:19, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The deletes made a good case, and the keeps didn't address the issues brought up by the deletes. Yes, it's reliably-sourced, but that doesn't mean it's not a POV fork. Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 14:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The policy-based (WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#NEWS, WP:SYNTH) consensus in the discussion was both that the title of the article shouldn't be kept, being inherently non-neutral with its presumption that such persecution exists (maybe, for all I know, it does exist, but it shouldn't be presumed), and that none of the content should be kept because it is simply a list of news reports about crimes that happened to have non-Albanian victims. If we take away the article's title and its contents then, obviously, we are left with nothing. There's no need to appeal to any essay such as WP:TNT, and I wish people wouldn't do so because such appeals deflect attention from the fact that deletion is firmly supported by policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A difficult to explain rough consensus, but WP:NPOV is our most unnegotiable non-legal policy and the argument that the POV problem was unfixable was well made. The content can be recreated but should be recreated from scratch. I recommend copying the references to the AfD talk page. I believe that the reference list is non-creative content that does not require attribution. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:40, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, consensus was that the article as a concept irredeemably fails WP:NPOV. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Votes to delete were more strongly grounded in policy than those to vote for keep. Despite WP:NOTAVOTE, I generally don't like decisions against a majority without a good reason, but it's clear from the state of the article pre-deletion that the article was in violation of policy. That's as good a reason as any. FWIW, I didn't participate in the initial discussion. --BDD (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't examined the article in detail earlier or during the AfD, but have tried to help police the grounds under WP:ARBMAC because it's been a mess, predictably enough. From looking at the article history in the last week or so, it looks like Vladimir and Antidiskriminator (who !voted keep) had added references to secondary sources explaining the persecution, which was helpful and was a reason to at least ask them to clarify their position on WP:SYNTH in the rest of the article text. Nevertheless, they themselves seem to have failed to address that problem in the AfD and in the article. So while this was suboptimal, there's no apparent reason they can't just remake the article anew based only on those non-crap parts. I see no serious procedural problem that would warrant a reversal of the closing admin's decision. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kiwijet (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I don't think consensus was applied correctly during this NAC. In short, the delete camp gave WP:NCORP and WP:CRYSTAL arguments and the keep camp gave WP:GNG and WP:NTEMP. I did ask LlamaAl to explain his actions on his talk page, where he gave a keep rationale as his reason for closure. NACs are useful in clearing out the backlog but I don't think it should be used to close Afds based on personal opinion. I would like to see this relisted for further review. Thanks. Funny Pika! 20:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist not a good NAC close. LGA talkedits 01:45, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - I closed it and was due to self-revert my closure and relist it, but when I logged in I saw the DRV notice. --LlamaAl (talk) 02:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist - per nom and per closer. Ironically, a contribution from the closer, rather than a close, would probably have put consensus beyond doubt. But anyway... Oh mighty Spartaz, if you can hear us, do your thing! Ha ha. Stalwart111 02:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question Since the closer wants to un-close and relist it, can't we just speedy-close this DRV? Nyttend (talk) 03:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relisted and closed It seems admins are supposed to close DRV's but I want to boldly apply WP:IGNOREALLRULES to help maintain Wikipedia and save our overworked admins the trouble. Absolutely no prejudice if an admin feels this was an inappropriate measure of IAR. Mkdwtalk 04:28, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sikich LLP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

We were given two reasons for deletion: 1) List of services is advertising. That's fine - we have no problem removing those. However, many of our competitors have their services listed on their Wikipedia pages. 2) We don't have any third-party sources. This is untrue, as we do have sources for media outlets. Do these not count? Thank you. Sikichllp (talk) 14:43, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • These are not "their" Wikipedia pages. Wikipedia is not a directory or a free webhost. Who owns Wikipedia pages is a bit of a complex question but to oversimplify it, they belong to the Wikimedia Foundation, who delegate responsibility for managing them to the volunteer community. It's also important to understand that Wikipedia does not and cannot maintain a level commercial playing field. We have to consider articles one at a time, and because volunteer time is a limited resource there can be a long gap between considering one firm's page and another's; and the guidelines around firms' pages may have changed in the meantime.

    Having said that I can understand that it would be annoying to be treated differently from your competitors. Specifics will be very helpful here. Could you please list these competitors who have their services listed on the their Wikipedia articles? I would like to consider removing any such content. The sources that you mention are very important. Please list any sources you can provide that meet the relevant policy. If these are online sources then they can be linked; if only available in print, then it will be okay to specify them by ISBN or ISSN and page number. If you have several, then my advice is to give two or three of the best ("best" in this case meaning "most reliable, impartial and independent"); it's not a large number of sources, but a high quality of sources, that will have the most impact on this discussion.—S Marshall T/C 15:23, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Addendum User:Sikichllp is clearly a corporate role account. In this case it will be helpful if our administrative colleagues would kindly delay following our usual procedure for dealing with such accounts until this deletion review is concluded.—S Marshall T/C 15:26, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This appears to be about the rejection/deletion of an AFC submission at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sikich LLP, rather than a fully formed article page. There is no page in the history at the link above, but in this user's deleted contributions there is a rejected AFC request. I'll undelete that request momentarily for the sake of this DRV. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:28, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I listed this AfC for speedy deletion as G11, entirely promotional beyond the level of fixing by normal editing. Another admin deleted it by G6, routine maintenance; i think that reason rather confused the issue, it should have been g11. The content consisted of a/ statement of existence, b/ a change of name and a statement of where they were located, c/ a list of services--perfectly routine services offered by all CPA firms, d/ a statement they were the 47th ranked cpa firm , e/ a statement they were the leading one for erp, linked to a source that proved nothing of the sort, e/ and references consisting entirely of promotional material in various business publications. None of this is encyclopedic content; all of it has only the purpose of promoting the firm. It's true we have sometimes made the error of accepting such content in the past. We are doing better now. If any real sources appear so that something worth saying can be said, an article can be restarted. We are relatively tolerant in AfC as compared to article space, and rightly so, for articles need a chance to be developed. This had no indication of any such chance, so the only practical thing to do was remove it. If this is considered insufficiently clear for speedy, we could send it to MfD, where the result will undoubtedly be identical. DGG ( talk ) 16:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a weak G11. There is attempt to demonstrate notability. It fails because the sources that appear to demonstrate notability have zero secondary source content, just a ranking result. If at AfD, this would be deleted with little doubt. As a promotional page, it does not belong idle at AfC or in userspace. What we lack is a process to deal with these failed submissions. I'd be happy to see it blanked, not to be unblanked without more sourcing to meet WP:CORP. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:34, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, DGG nominating an article for deletion is a very strong indicator that deletion is appropriate. I agree it was advertising. Stifle (talk) 13:33, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have made errors before, and it is inevitable that I shall make further. A few very active editors have said they never make any--I think this most likely to indicate insufficient self-knowledge. Especially at Speedy, the annoyance of dealing with so much junk can induce a feeling of wanting to remove everything. DGG ( talk ) 20:41, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse failure to create an article from that draft, however it came about. The draft article is heavily promotional and lacking in good sources that neutrally and in depth discuss the subject. It would take major work to get from there to a usable encyclopedia article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:13, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 February 2013[edit]

  • User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion – Utterly ridiculous. There is no need to discuss this. user talk pages and archived talk pages can be undeleted by any admin willing to work out how to do it. Other user pages are deletable at the users discretion so they can remain deleted if they can be disentangled from the archives.... We don't need to discuss this for seven days but nor do we need the excessive outrage. This isn't a big deal. Deacon has been more or less inactive since Sept anyway. – Spartaz Humbug! 14:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
User:Deacon of Pndapetzim/oblivion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

As described at WP:ANI#Confusing page moves and deletions, this admin has decided to leave the project, but is moving all his usertalk page archives to the aforementioned page and then deleting them, which is out of process. Please see WP:User pages#Deletion of user pages and WP:CSD#U1. Relevant logs: [32], [33], and [34]. Rschen7754 09:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Really? And now we let this run for 7 days? what a bureaucratic nonsense... someone just undelete them... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 09:10, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed, bureaucratic nonsense. Really, is this the only way to have the pages undeleted? if so, let's move on and overturn his actions, possibly achieving a clear outcome before the standard 7-days-run. Cavarrone (talk) 09:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Someone simply needs to a) block the Deacon to stop his abuse of the admin tools and personal attacks, and b) do the undeletion/untangling. As this was a poorly-thought out undeletion with no previous process, DRV is not-needed. Consensus that Deacon had deleted inappropriately already exists (✉→BWilkins←✎) 12:20, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that there's probably no value in a DRV in this case. If this really is a sysop who's decided they don't care about the rules, then blocking them is utterly pointless. In my view the out-of-process deletions can be reverted by any administrator without prejudice to a subsequent MFD. The most important thing is to desysop this user, but of course sysops have tenure and Arbcom is the only venue in which that can be done.—S Marshall T/C
  • Don't see this as a DRV issue particularly, as above there already seems consensus that this is not "permitted" use of deletion. That said don't underestimate how difficult any undeletion will be. It's now one big mix of multiple pages with overlapping time periods, and possibly pretty big (don't know if there are undeletion limits in place as there are for deletion), it'll likely be a tedious, error prone manual effort to do so, unless the developers get involved and go to backups, though of course convincing them of the significance of doing this is another story. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 February 2013[edit]

22 February 2013[edit]

21 February 2013[edit]

  • File:MartiequNYC14.jpg – Now moot as the file got undeleted at REFUND. This was clearly going to be closed as undelete anyway so I don't see any point arguing process and we can just close this. – Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:MartiequNYC14.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

photo of statue is Public Domain, no notice formalities as required by US law. Smithsonian Inventories of American Painting and Sculpture database [35]; "Due to these requirements, statues and art installed in a place open to the general public prior to 1978 are likely in the public domain if they do not comply with copyright formalities." Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US, in addition another picture by Shankbone is in the commons. [36] 198.24.31.118 (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. The evidence presented is that the sculpture was published before 1978 and in the detailed description of the inscription no mention is made of any copyright notice. If this is the case then the argument for deletion was incorrect, the sculpture is now public domain and freedom of panorama is not relevant. So, provided the photographer has licensed the photo appropriately, the image can be restored. Thincat (talk) 00:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That seems very convincing, but if it's in the public domain then doesn't it belong on Wikimedia Commons rather than here?—S Marshall T/C 01:09, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! I see this other image did survive a deletion request on Commons.[37] Thincat (talk) 10:57, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It says that the file was deleted at PUF, but the file was later restored, so I'm not sure if "endorse" means "keep" or "delete" in this case. SIRIS usually has all inscriptions, but you can't be 100% certain without checking the statue yourself, although it is often common practice to accept that a statue has no copyright notice if SIRIS doesn't mention any. In this case, the description is very detailed, so it is unlikely that SIRIS is missing anything. It says that the statue was erected in either 1959 or 1965. If it was erected in 1959, then the statue would additionally need a copyright renewal after approximately 28 years (i.e. somewhere around 1987). I searched for "Jose Marti" at www.copyright.gov, and then I also tried searching for "Anna Hyatt Huntington", but I couldn't find any renewals. Thus, if it was erected in 1959, then it seems that the statue is in the public domain for lack of copyright renewal. Conclusion: It seems very unlikely that the statue would still be protected by copyright. --Stefan2 (talk) 18:31, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

I would argue for overturn and reinstate. Myself I was going to re-write the page only waiting for some more formal information and references that are in the pipeline. To me it is important that wikipedia have such articles as wiki is the starting point for anybody researching. The arguments for deletion did lead contributors to the article to search further for references so the content was verifiable. I would think deletion of this article goes against the very tenants that wikipedia was established on.D mentias (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)D_mentiasD mentias (talk) 02:35, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]


Murray River Curly Coated Retriever (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
  • Overturn and reinstate Species policy ignored as noted towards the end of the discussion by myself. Also had done input to overcome WP:GNG as found over a thousand newspaper articles. Discussion box even notes that PROD is not a consensus vote. Improper consensus vote was used in this species case. Came into middle of a hostile situation. Went directly to work on improving the article with referencing. Possible canvassing also by deletion supporters; certainly see no major contributions by deletion proposers. Thor Dockweiler (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment: I was the closer of this AfD. After >3 weeks at AfD there was only one editor in support of keeping, difficult to overlook that but I'm anxious to hear what others think. Procedurally speaking, Thor Dockweiler, you really should have contacted me before bringing this here, if you weren't aware of that don't worry, next time though you should contact whoever closed the discussion first. J04n(talk page) 23:08, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article was not about a species, so it was perfectly correct to ignore species policy. Phil Bridger (talk) 23:25, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (Merge to Curly Coated Retriever"no consensus"). I read a rough consensus against a stand alone article, but the GNG does not mean deletion if there is a merge option, and the merge option was not rebutted. I am assuming verifiability is met. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:21, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've spent some time reading around this, and am not comfortable. A technical reason to justify "overturn" might be that there was too little consideration of local versus global wikipedia-notability. There seems to be a clash due to overlapping name with the better known Curly Coated Retriever, itself not a very good article. I think the Murray River Curly Coated Retriever article would need to better explain the connection (or lack of) with the Curly Coated Retriever. The deleted article contains a lot of primary source data, and little secondary source data, but this is true of many dog articles, including Curly Coated Retriever. Another reason to give this another go is that the references have been changing significantly. Overall, I consider this case to be too confused to agree that there is any consensus. My bottom line would be that if this breed is verifiably a breed, then it should be covered to some extent, which does not necesarily mean a stand alone article, and failure to meet the GNG does not mandate deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been keeping an eye on this discussion throughout, but did not contribute. Recently I wondered about closing the discussion. If I had, it would have been exactly as J04n did. A merge seems doubtful as the folks at Curly Coated Retriever do not appear to want to add anything about the MRCCR. If they do add something, I would be happy making this a redirect. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The folks at the target appear to be no more than a single-account reverting without explanation. The addition was sourced. On closer reading, I see no challenge to the verifiability of the subject and I think inclusion is appropriate. Maybe this should be referred to the target article talk page. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm unsure if I'm allowed to comment here as I contributed to the AfD in favour of deletion as I felt it did not satisfy WP:GNG so I do agree with the deletion/closure. My apologies if my comment here is inappropriate as I'm not familiar with correct procedure. I also realise this review is not to go over article content etc again but I would like to comment on the merge possibility discussed here? The possibility of a merge was suggested at the AfD but as noted already, it was promptly reverted, which is surprising as The American Kennel Club page about Curly Coated Retrievers states: "They are also very popular in Australia, where they are used in the swamps and lagoons of the Murray River on duck." [38] which implies they are Curly Coats and should therefore be merged. However, the MRCCRA are stating in the article that DNA shows they are not CCRs, so perhaps this is why the attempted merge was quickly removed and may continue to be removed if re-inserted? I am just speculating about this as I have no connection with CCRs at all, although I do have knowledge of gundogs.
I fully sympathise with Thor Dockweiler, it is obvious he undertook a lot of work on the article and AfDs are often emotive. I did try to help one of the editors who was supporting retention of the article - please see the conversation on their talk page here [39] where I also pointed out a suspected copyvio after I had tried to help sort out the formatting etc, so I feel it is unfair to say deletion proposers did not try to help. Unfortunately, a lot of references are blogs, come from a primary source (the MRCCRA) or simply refer to CCR. SagaciousPhil - Chat 14:01, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 08:53, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • TD Comments in various points: In three basic parameters: (1) argument re species; (2) argument re GNG; and (3) article title/retention matters.
  • A. It appears the ones who established the article or supported it with impassioned statements just left after the hostilities and did not come back. [I actually think WP has lost about 20K editors in the last year due to this type of problem.] I came into the picture after that and began working directly on the article to improve it with referencing after running across it indirectly. I recognized the image of the type of dog but never knew its name.
  • B. As to the species rule, after now researching it even further, seems totally inadequate in handling domestic dog, cat, and probably other mammal related matters in WP as well. This seriously needs to be addressed at a higher level without creating future problems, battles, and mostly unwarranted zealous "confirmed deletionist" activities [I would rather see confirmed researcher savers]. On its face, then, the MRCCR article fails the species argument because the species rule makes no provision for subspecies or sub-subspecies as would be necessary in dog and cat cases, since the specie taxa level only recognizes the gray wolf. An inherent complete failure is inevitable [see TD cites of WP in specie at end of deletion discussion]. Truly ludicrous to me in all articles of this situation. The Collie article cited by the deletion proposer Tikuko (display acronym TKK), also then fails this test.
  • C. Ultimately then, all articles pertaining to the domestic dog and cat can only then be supported by GNG, which would properly mean tertiary sources. TKK noted in the original deletion discussion that the references should not use sources pertaining to kennels and related [because they would be primary or secondary sources which TKK did not mention]. Unfortunately, the Collie article then fails to meet GNG as it is currently referenced. In fact, almost all the dog articles I checked actually fail. I would imagine the cat articles have the same problem. I would be correct if I went along and PRODded them. That is the approach TKK is taking [in fact she signed up to a WP dog project page saying she would do this which I just discovered; probably I imagine just those that just happen to be dog-politically non American Kennel Association ones). I can imagine the howls and whines across the country if I took this step. It might even make national news (WP deletes most dog and cat articles). A really idiotic attitude from my viewpoint.
  • D. When TKK proposed the deletion she did not properly check for tertiary sources in Australia or New Zealand. A rather inadequate review since the dog in question is Australian. In essence, I would not use Timbuktu sources for finding a Russian dog. She only checked quickly for using U.S. sources no doubt by using Google. I hate to point out that a lot of what was on Google has now disappeared after a court decision against it (about 2/3rds of the material from what I can tell).
  • E. It turns out the dog can be readily found in online tertiary sources for Australia and New Zealand under its more common term of a brown curly coated retriever. I placed referencing for this into the article. In fact, there was so much available I had to actually split it around with the appropriate terminology so that it would not be overwhelming to the eye. In fact, there is a lot more referencing readily available in major newspapers.
  • F. I placed sufficient tertiary reference material that GNG was met which I noted at the end of the deletion discussion. It is readily apparent from looking at the actual article itself after all the input. It is all verifiable. From what I can tell after all the research effort on my part everything stated by the original article preparers appears to be true; it just needed referencing. The discussion closer arbiter J04n apparently failed to adequately look at the article itself and see the plentiful tertiary referencing, and then deleted the article after the deletion discussion. J04n also apparently failed to read the entire discussion, particularly the end where I noted GNG had now been met. J04n must have completed the article deletion after giving a brief review of the deletion discussion and seeing delete notations.
  • G. Now that GNG has been met, the article should be saved. In this case, though, we have a situation where I maintain that the article should be kept with the current name. The terminology of a brown curly coated retriever is what most of the referencing I found supports over time being the common vernacular of the Australian people. The geographic identifier is apparently used though in the Australian libraries and various Australian state archives. The people appear to readily identify with this identifier now, at least in the last few decades. This is supported by the cutline captions to some of the old photos of the Murray. The information must be agreed upon by the various archivists for referencing. You as the reader or I could not just place something on it if we knew. It requires one or more of the archivists to agree also and enter it. The referencing for the WP article supports this. They would use what is current and proper. That form should be kept (the Galileo approach).
  • H. There was a proposal to merge the article into curly coated retriever. I might say this would be fine but from everything I have run across this would create great division. Properly the curly coated retriever should really be called the black curly coated retriever from all of the referencing I have found. Historically, though, this dog only comes in black and the people (both in the UK and in Australia) refer to the dog with the title curly coated retriever with the automatic assumption that it is black but not part of the title. One could create a brief curly coated retriever article but you would still have to have one for the black dog and one for the brown one (Murray). They are distinctly of different size, coat properties, and leg characteristics/stance as is readily apparent in the pictures showing full adult size dogs. I think a can of worms would be opened and howls would result if done otherwise. Apparently the owners of the black curlys and brown curlys seem very defensive of the respective spheres. This is somewhat amusing historically as I found an article noting this from long ago which I placed within the WP article on the Murrays as a reference and note (for a little spice of life).
  • I. It is interesting that the DNA mentioned in the article indicates its uniqueness. Will probably have to be really put in as a (foot)note until this tidbit works its way up from the science journal point of view and can be referenced properly. I am not sure how fast that will get into the tertiary sources, but that is not necessary to sustain the article which already qualifies under GNG.
  • J. The deletion notes from the deletion discussion may have changed if more time had followed after I had already input more material. After several days of input, with status reports along the way, it is probable that my last referencing, which placed in numerous excellent tertiary newspaper references, was not seen by others in the deletion discussion as the final input occurred during many hours before the end on the last day (February 20 UTC). Apparently, the article was deleted 3 hours 18 minutes later (while I was sleeping). Probably not enough time for others to review the additional input knowing that various time zones are involved, let alone monitoring of the specific article involved at the time one accesses WP on the Earth. J04n could have retained the article after looking at it directly, or by going to it had the deletion discussion been read to its end and then going to the article. The option of relisting could also have been done in light of the additional referencing meeting GNG.
  • K. All of the deletion people and the end of the effort to keep the article, mine, appear to be U.S. individuals. A somewhat biased lot from our world view right at the start. GNG has been met and the article should be reinstated. Thus, the Aussies can be rightfully happy once again (and in celebration of their member element of man's best friend).
  • Respectfully submitted.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 03:08, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - Worldwide, the Curly coated Retriever is acknowledged as being black or brown (liver) in colour - see American Kennel Club [40], the Kennel Club (UK) [41], FCI [42], including the Australian Kennel Club [43]. So searching for brown or liver curly coated retriever will give a colossal return, but these are not specifically 'Murray River' CCRs, so do not support the MRCCR as a separate breed hence WP:GNG is not achieved. Links/references to breeder websites are routinely deleted from articles as they are not WP:RS, and are most frequently inserted when breeders have litters available WP:ADV. SagaciousPhil - Chat 09:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: - To decide whether WP:GNG is met we need to look at the sources that refer to the MRCCR, not the ones that don't. If you have examined the sources on the MRCCR page and found them to be insufficient that is GNG. abstain - I am a contributor and MRCCR owner. The Other Hound Doug 00:10, 23 Feb 2013 (UTC)
  • Response Comment re SagaciousPhil: Why on Earth one goes to the American Kennel Club for an Australian dog is clearly beyond me. Are you actually paying attention? I am beginning to wonder if there is an AKC agenda going on that I have stumbled into. I am also somewhat suspicious after reviewing the comments prior to the article's deletion whether some sock puppetry was also going on, let alone canvassing from both sides. The AKC has absolutely nothing to do with this Australian article. Timbuktu = Russia in your case. You are still arguing re the editing done by other persons prior to my entry into the situation. Prior to the article's deletion, my article references were used to Australian and New Zealand newspapers, many of them. My intensive referenced WP:RS input absolutely does not use any breeder websites, links, or references whatsoever and met GNG. I personally do not use web references because they are so ephemeral; fine one moment, gone the next - - they become useless in the long run (as they also many times are primary/secondary sources, they are not considered tertiary which is used in WP). You clearly did not see the article shortly before its deletion. As to the WP article Curly Coated Retriever, I see nothing but breeder/kennel references, what few there are; in fact, I see no referencing whatsoever. Looks like it should be deleted; also the Collie article, and many others. The MRCCR met GNG because of my input prior to its deletion. Whether it retains it's title is debateable; I argue that it's title is best kept as the photo captioning reference sources cited in the article referencing from the various Australian government/state archives say so. The MRCCR and CCR are clearly different dogs from all the research I did, they are even different photographically. I have not yet found an image of a brown curly coated retriever that is the same as a curly coated retriever (black). All the images I come up with are clearly the Australian dog. Makes me wonder if the AKC has it all wrong too on their website. I have spent thousands of hours on WP articles. I know what is required. This is the first dog article I have worked on. I seriously thought I could be of some assistance on this one since all other parties were arguing and bickering on both sides instead of doing the actual work needed. I skipped the arguing and started directly working. At the time of its deletion I had spent 53 hours on it.--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 00:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is hard for people to intelligently discuss something without being able to see the article. I see no temporary link to the actual article that was deleted. Looks like there needs to be some sort of temporary holding bin with links so that deletion reviewers can see the actual article when it is needed. Highly irregular to do this. I hope I have it all [I dropped off the category section].--Thor Dockweiler (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the article as it has already been restored while this deletion review discussion is active. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:34, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia and consider large copy/pastes carefully. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The reverted merge into Curly Coated Retriever looks like a rewritten summary, not a copy. Flatscan (talk) 05:22, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
. The article has been undeleted. Its sitting under the delrev template. Spartaz Humbug! 06:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as the clear consensus of the discussion despite a very vocal minority. The fact that species are inherently notable is irrelevant here; a dog breed is not a species. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Toby Turner – Recreation based on the sources permitted. Further AFD at editorial discretion. – Spartaz Humbug! 01:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Toby Turner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Tobuscus (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
Toby "Tobuscus" Turner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Toby Joe Turner (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Since the page has been deleted numerous times (unsurprisingly, I agree), the subject of the article has become more notable, starring in another independent film and a network television show. I have created a draft here, which is still in progress and has a lot more to add (I could do with some pointers, too, as it doesn't look great IMO), and I request for the page's creation protected to be lifted so that I can create the article. I also have an image with the right licensing to use. Thanks. Andre666 (talk) 11:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • History restored for this DRV. As a side note, the deletion history shows seven A7 deletions, one AFD, two G4 deletions, and a single A3 deletion. Not likely a record for a single article, but still way up there. - TexasAndroid (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And another eight deletions of various types at Tobuscus. This was last DRVed here. Commenters at that DRV specifically stated that a viable user space draft should be presented before it is even considered for restoration. This time we have what appears on a cursory glance to indeed be a viable user space draft. So IMHO I think that this DRV should be judged on whether (or not) the given draft does indeed meet the standards, and not have the draft be penalized by the weight of the many previous deletions. If the new draft is good, then it's good no matter what the history of the page. If it's not good, then the history again does not factor in. All IMHO of course. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:15, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt. A good faith user wants to create an article in this space, and this is a wiki.—S Marshall T/C 15:52, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Proposer here, and might I suggest that, if the article is unprotected and I am allowed to create it, it is protected to some degree from editing? I keep on top of all the articles I create to make sure no vandalism or shoddy edits happen, but given the history of this article some edit-protection might be helpful? Andre666 (talk) 16:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, we don't do pre-emptive protection, but I expect people from here will watch the article, and if there is heavy vandalism protection, or more likely semi-protection, can be requested at WP:RFPP. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt. As the salting admin, I have no objection; it looks as though notability has at last been established. For completeness of the history, there was a second AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tobuscus and five more deletions as Toby "Tobuscus" Turner. JohnCD (talk) 17:00, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At a cursory glance I doubt the draft would survive long in main space, although it's littered with references the quality of those seems to be distinctly lacking. If the nominator here is serious about getting this into mainspace, I'd suggest trying to further develop it to cut out the "junk" rather than facing an afd listing very shortly. It's got 6 cites to the IMDB bio which is fundamentally unreliable and needs to be removed. There are innumerable links to youtube videos, i.e. at best primary sources and probably not reliable sources. Together with the blog posts etc. There are other sources in there, some don't mention the subject of the article or are the most trivial of mentions. I won't claim to have reviewed all of them (I haven't). --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Some fair points made, I certainly agree that some of the references I've used are not the most appropriate or reliable. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know these things, but it's quite difficult to find decent independent references by the shedload for him, despite his clear notability. Any help on searching for these would be much appreciated. It is YouTube though, and so many of the links to videos do provide a source (particularly those on collaboration) which may not be reported externally just because there's no additional info to be added. I'm happy to continue discussing. Andre666 (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "but it's quite difficult to find decent independent references by the shedload for him, despite his clear notability" - you don't need shedloads a few would be good, if they are in there it'd probably be better to prune much of the excess so they are more apparent. This is a fairly common problem, there aren't good sources so the articles over compensate by inserting stuff so they can link yet another weak source. In many cases meaning lots of "trivia" is effectively covered which is not really of much interest for a biography. Be careful of the contradiction in your statement, notablity is defined by the world taking interest and writing in reliable sources, if you can't find the sources, then notability is not clear, quite the opposite. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:43, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Will take comments on board and improve tomorrow, thanks! :) Andre666 (talk) 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just so you are all aware, as well, the page has been deleted thrice over at Toby Joe Turner as well. The fans are determined, you've gotta give 'em that! (Ashamed) Andre666 (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt While this is hardly a policy-based argument, my kids--and their friends--know and love his work, and have for months to years. Surely there must be some RS content? This showed up among a Google News Archive search, along with a lot of foreign language references and at least one press release. It looks close enough to meeting the GNG that unsalting and allowing re-creation--and subsequent deletion discussion if desired--seems the most consistent way forward. Jclemens (talk) 06:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Does much more have to be done to this now to have it as a mainspace article? There are plenty of independent external references in there now, and I know it's not perfect but it's not going for good or featured article status! As I said I also have a photo ready to upload, so if I could put this onto the main Toby Turner page now then that'd be great. Andre666 (talk) 01:04, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I've only just seen that the deletion review has to be up for seven days at least, so ignore this last comment! Andre666 (talk) 07:30, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not all DRV discussions run for seven days, though most do. If after a period of time there are a decent number of people expressing one way, and noone expressing in opposition, it's far from unheard of for someone to invoke WP:SNOW and go ahead and implement the decision. Given the long history of this specific one, I do hope that does nto happen. Just because there has not been strong opposition so far does not mean that such might crop up. Also, while it is not normally required that closers be admins, in this case it is likely needed, as admin powers will be needed to implement any result of the DRV, given the protections of the various possible target pages.
Also note that, if this ends in an unsalting and a move of your draft to article space, I plan to create redirects at the other three past article locations pointing to the new article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good. And yeah, of course Tobuscus, Toby Joe Turner, Toby "Joe" Turner, TobyGames, and anything else you can think of should redirect to Toby Turner. Andre666 (talk) 17:46, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt This is Wikipedia. He's relatively well-known. So why not? A random person 09:37, 22 February 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by YOPbottle (talk • contribs)
    I appreciate the sentiment, but you are massively oversimplifying Wikipedia. I can see why there may not be an article on him, but done right it is definitely appropriate given some of the other articles being allowed to pass. Thanks for your input. Andre666 (talk) 10:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Any advance on whether this is going to be unsalted? Andre666 (talk) 17:46, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Cole Mullin – I think we did this already. I'm not a fan of cutting discussion short, but, honestly, this is a BLP and you need to come up with a decent draft with actual sources if you want this back. – Spartaz Humbug! 16:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cole Mullin (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Cole Mullin is an actor/comedian. He has an IMDb page and Twitter with thousands of followers for more sources. Safarisocialism (talk) 00:44, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I can't see the deleted content to see if the speedy criteria are met, but I can't imagine we'd sustain and article at an AFD given what I can find elsewhere. WP:GNG is about non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable sources. I've done a little searching online and can't find anything. IMDB is not a reliable source. Number of twitter followers is not an indication of notability (which right now seems to be about 2,500 - which really isn't that high anway) -_62.254.139.60 (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Endorse the same nominator listed this previously here where the deletion was endorsed, and nothing further is presented here. Additionally the creator of the article given edits like this (See the image name trying to be inserted) suggests that it's the subject of the article so has a COI in this. (Note the original creator and other accounts have all been blocked as socks)--62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:03, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 February 2013[edit]

18 February 2013[edit]

  • Gibraltar Open – All articles except lead undeleted due to defective listing (no AFD tags) they can be relisted at editorial discretion. (In fact I'll probably do that myself) – Spartaz Humbug! 16:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Colorado Open (darts) Spartaz Humbug! 16:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gibraltar Open (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This is massively confusing and I am unclear how to request the undeletion of a page. There are too many complicated rules and procedures. I wish the page for Gibraltar Open Darts Tournament be reinstated. I cannot find the reason why it was deleted, it was being updated every year with the winners of that years' event, and I fail to understand the purpose of its deletion. How do I get it put back? Please help, Wikipedia is massively confusing for the layman. Thank you. 178.208.193.45 (talk) 22:52, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This page was deleted as part of the group nomination of such events at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlotte Open. I have fixed the tags in this request and they should all point to the right places. Stalwart111 00:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC) [reply]
  • I can see one intelligible reason for deletion in that discussion, which is that there were said to have been no sources or references in the article at all. We should check the sources before allowing re-creation. Every other "reason for deletion" cited in that discussion, wasn't; it was a reason to edit the article and improve it. If the request had been made by a logged-in user I'd suggest userfying the article in the meantime but since it wasn't, I think we should incubate it. In my view it can be restored to the mainspace as soon as reliable sources, properly cited, are available.—S Marshall T/C 08:43, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - an AfD notice wasn't left on the article, which is enough that'd I'd support a relist given that someone has objected. The deleted article has no references, and I'm not able to find much [44] + [45] + [46]. I temporarily undeleted it so people can see it for the sake of discussion, though. WilyD 11:03, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Did any of the other articles at the AFD have notices? However, I see Wikiproject darts was notified.[47] No one mentioned Wikipedia:Notability (sports) (which doesn't help me much for national (open) championship events such as these). The AFD suggested no references in any of the listed articles and maybe only a list of results being reported. Seeing Template:WDF Tournaments I'm fearing an MMA-style bloodbath. Thincat (talk) 23:53, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Only the Charlotte Open was given notice. WilyD 09:24, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not seeing any sources in the couple of articles I looked into. What's the policy here? Presumably there has to be something before we can accept notability? But if they are not properly listed there is less chance of sources being found. Spartaz Humbug! 16:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • No-one appears to have raised this deletion with the closing admin nor have they been notified of the DRV. I have now done this. I have asked Addshore to consider reversing themselves as the deletions clearly cannot stand and the sooner we get them back at AFD, the sooner we get a valid decision. Spartaz Humbug! 16:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have reverted the deletions to the articles that did not have AFD notices on them (ie. the whole list except for the main article). These can now be correctly listed in AFD rather than DRV. ·Add§hore· Talk To Me! 16:23, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Constant Rijkenberg – The user requesting the review has just been indefinitely blocked and just got their talk page turned off, so I think we are done here. – Spartaz Humbug! 05:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Constant Rijkenberg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

An editor has stated on my Talk: page that "The rules for poker biographies have been changed, see wikiproject:poker. One EPT win or a win of over $1 million is now sufficient." I was the admin who closed the original AfD. I personally have no view on the matter. Jayjg (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That editor was me. The rules have changed and he now qualifies for an article. Please un-delete. DegenFarang (talk) 00:02, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the "rules" on poker player BLPs are available at Wikipedia:WikiProject Poker. Though the criteria may have been amended (ever so slightly) over the last few years, that section has been on the main page of that WikiProject since this edit in December 2007. Those criteria are supposed to have come from a 2007 in-project discussion about what appropriate notability guidelines for poker player BLPs might be. They don't seem to have changed substantially since. Has there been a more recent change in consensus since then? Or were those guidelines was that essay/past consensus simply not raised at AFD? Stalwart111 00:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the wikiproject does not set the notability guidelines, it's also quite clear from the page that this is the case "This section is an essay on notability. It contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more WikiProjects on how notability may be interpreted within their area of interest.". The person needs to meet WP:BIO the guide for notability on people (or [[WP:GNG|the general notablity guideline) and the relevant standards for a WP:BLP. None of those mention anything about winning certain events or amounts. What they do mention is non-trivial third party coverage in reliable sources. Winning the competition or winning large amounts may stir up interest for such sources towrite about the person, are there any new sources of this type? --62.254.139.60 (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Fetish (band) – This was deleted almost 5 years ago for lack of sourcing. You now have some so there is absolutely no reason why you can't just recreate this. If you need help to do this please leave a note on my talk page and I'll help you do that. – Spartaz Humbug! 16:24, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Fetish (band) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This band was very influential in 90's South African rock music and was only deleted due to the limited web presence a defunct 90's band in South Africa would have had! the band is now touring and have released a new album. See also http://www.rock.co.za/legends/90s/fetish_index.html or http://www.discogs.com/artist/Fetish and the Mail and Guardian, an influential South African newspaper http://mg.co.za/article/2012-10-29-fetish 196.35.246.194 (talk) 13:23, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Windows Blue (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

the following URL reveals that the software is official and not just a rumor: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/windows-blue-update-to-build-on-and-improve-windows-8-1131737 Georgia guy (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse decision to delete and redirect. This one is a no-brainer, and the title of the source above proves it: "...to build on and improve" is a future state concept for Windows. At this point, it's not the name of a product, it's an internal codename for the next development. Closing admin clearly read the policy-based arguments and made the correct decision (✉→BWilkins←✎) 13:21, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion for two reasons:
  1. The closing admin mentions that his decision to close was not purely based on WP:CRYSTAL but also based on Fleet Command's analysis of the article who showed that the article's claims do not appear in its sources.
  2. The supplied link only contains rumor. By its own admission, the source has acquired all that it reports from a POV interpretation of a job listing on the Microsoft website that is later removed. This does not sanction restoring an article that contains totally imaginary claims about features of the next version of Windows.
Codename Lisa (talk) 15:21, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • John B. Kimble – Endorsed. Votes from inexperiences users and spas are generally given less weight and the experienced editors were of one voice – Spartaz Humbug! 09:19, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John B. Kimble (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I was the closing administrator on this AfD, but I am bringing this deletion review on behalf of User:68.50.111.217 who wrote on my user talk page, "Deletion review request. Why was John B. Kimble deleted? The deletion review was not completed and mostly keep or no consensus. Please tell me how to appeal the deletion as I believe it to be improper." [48] In fact, all of the "keep" recommenders were single-purpose accounts; none of them had made any edits except to the article itself and its AfD. The article was about a person who has run for office several times but never been elected and has received little more than routine coverage of his campaigns, thus failing WP:POLITICIAN and not qualifying as notable under WP:GNG. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Undelete The John B. Kimble article had been on Wikipedia for a number of years and the subject had met the general notability guidelines and not necessarily the politician guidelines. He had been on Hard Copy, Today, BBC, Top news stories in the Dc area as well as nationwide when he had the opponent's wife as his campaign manager. He was also mentioned in the New York Times as well as many other news outlets when he volunteered to pose in Playgirl Magazine in 1996. I agree that a lot of single purpose accounts posted to his article as well as other accounts but those editors probably are very well versed in the subject matter. I do see that in many other articles and some of the so called sock puppetry may have been accidental rather than intentional. From the google news search posted on Wikipedia it does seem to show more general newsworthiness than political news worthiness. The article is used on Facebook as well as many other outlets which shows Wikipedia as a major news outlet. I believe the article should be undeleted because there was no consensus and the subject is interesting and newsworthy pursuant to the gng guidelines..I also have to comment about the single purpose accounts in that they really don't mean anything because those people would know about the subject they are writing about. Thank you. 68.50.111.217 (talk) 02:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)68.50.111.217 (talk) 08:12, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The sock/meat issues probably derailed things, however, when one looks at the policy-based arguments (as opposed to WP:ILIKEIT) the consensus was indeed to delete. Perpetual runners are often looking for publicity - Wikipedia is not publicity, and neither is this debate. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 11:06, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, per Bwilkins and my initial assessment. DRV is not another venue for the AFD arguments to play out. I see nothing improper with the close. Syrthiss (talk) 12:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, A consensus is not only a handful of editors. Even the initial proposal for deletion was not accurate. The article was not rebuilt in 2011. I see no reason the article should have been removed. The subject clearly meets general notability guidelines even though he does not meet politician guidelines. We should also look at the arguments made and decide if the 2nd nomination to delete was proper. From what I have gleaned the article should be restored because the article was not properly nominated and nominated on untrue statements. Meets notability guidelines and was not recreated in 2011.68.54.86.51 (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2013 (UTC)68.54.86.51 (talk) 22:12, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, The same arguments from 2011 are made and clearly show that there have been many news organizations such as the New York Times etc that have covered this man. The article has been on wikipedia and many editors have stated that it does meet generl notability guidelines and the article should be replaced in its place. The article in my opinion was probably removed in error and this should be remedied.Badpuppy99 (talk) 08:32, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion (I voted delete in this AFD.) Even if we are generous and ignore the fact that all the keep votes were from single purpose accounts who appear to have been canvassed from outside Wikipedia, many of the arguments were that the subject was newsworthy, but newsworthyness is not the same as notability. The result here is quite consistent with the WP:POLITICIAN guideline as the person has never held political office. There is nothing to criticize the closure for. Sjakkalle (Check!) 21:10, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 February 2013[edit]

15 February 2013[edit]

  • John Bambenek – We will only consider this when an established user brings forward a fully sourced and BLP compliant draft for discussion. Please see inside for the history – Spartaz Humbug! 09:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
John Bambenek (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It has been some time since the trolling involving this page has died off, subject has some notability in the computer security field and in politics and it's probably time to revive the subject or at least unprotect the page. CaptainChinbeard (talk) 22:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm declining to undelete this page per the history of issues with this well evidenced at [links here]. There are a vast number of DRVs raised by sockpuppets of the subject and this was on DRV perenial requests until May 2012. Relevant discussions are:
AFD1 * AFD2 and the following DRVs [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58]
We have also seen this at John C. A. Bambenek with AFD3 and an RFC.

Given the history I don't think we will entertain this until an established user brings a fully BLP compliant draft to DRV for review. Spartaz Humbug! 09:08, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Mister World – The G4 has been endorsed. There were some sources from Joe Decker that might be a decent start to an article but most of them are barely a paragraph and might not therefore count as in-depth coverage at a future AFD, I have unlocked the page if someone wants to try their hand at an article they should feel free, but they need to start from scratch and it wouldn't hurt to run the draft through AFC first for an initial source check. – Spartaz Humbug! 06:02, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Mister World (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page has to be retrieved because the article is an existing event. This is one of the most important beauty contests in the world. For such importance of the event, this article can not be deleted from Wikipedia. There are several sites around the world reporting the event, including versions of Wikipedia in other languages​​. Only the Wikipedia in english suffered the effects of elimination. I want the page to be retrieved. Reasons abound for that to happen. May you understand that. Here is the official website of the event: http://www.mrworld.tv/. Brenhunk (talk) 15:33, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have temporarily restored this article for the purposes of DRV Spartaz Humbug! 16:02, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm unable to find reliable sources that have covered this, Brenhunk, can you identify anything reliable sources (see WP:RS) that are independent of the subject and cover this in any detail? *I* am finding a lot of in-passing mentions (usually in coverage of individuals mentioning they had competed). I'll also note that we have articles on a few of the individual years for this contest (Mister World 2012 for example). Clearly we should endorse this G4 as I'm not seeing any new sources in the article. At the same time, I'm hopeful sources can be found so we can restore the article. Hobit (talk) 16:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It might make more sense to keep this article and merge in the ones on the individual competitions. DGG ( talk ) 18:07, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4, but..., yes, a valid G4 as it is, but with [59],[60], [61], [62], [63], [64] etc., I'd think sourcing this to WP:GNG would be pretty simple. A merge such as that DGG proposes might be sensible. --j⚛e deckertalk 18:14, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G4 per most of the above, but overturn salting since the creation of an acceptable article appears plausible. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 18:01, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have locked the delrev template as the article was being recreated over the top. Spartaz Humbug! 15:17, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ziron (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Deletion of the page seemed to be due to lack of refs, which after the page was originally restored the refs were added but the page was still deleted after the delete discussion, the page is accurate and has refs/citations added. 78.83.46.47 (talk) 15:32, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have temporarily restored the article for the purposes of DRV. Spartaz Humbug! 16:00, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion Based on the AFD alone, there was a nomination and 2 !votes for deletion (including mine). There were no other !votes. As such, on face, the AFD discussion was closed with the only possible close - delete. On the subject of the article itself however, the "article" failed notability overall. The sources that were added to the discussion were not either of the quality or reliability to speak to notability, and thus had no effect on the deletability of the article as a whole. As such, the decision made by the deleting admin was valid when looked at in depth as well. (✉→BWilkins←✎) 16:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It's always a little tedious getting asked to review a deletion based on an argument that there are some new sources, when in fact the new sources are just as deficient as the old ones. I just spent several minutes going back over the sources and, now, writing up the fact that nothing has changed. This is time out of my life I'll never get back. Here on WP, it takes reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Those sources didn't exist before and they don't exist now. What we have instead are 6 primary, trivial or unreliable sources, (1) an announcement of a lecture by the author, (2) a page written by the author, (3) some random blogger's post, (4) someone's forum post, (5) another forum post, this one on the publisher's website and (6) yet another announcement of a lecture by the author. These simply do not establish notability. Further, the usual Google searches still turn up nothing useful. Msnicki (talk) 16:47, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the article is read correctly, the author is an English software developer, Minchev is a Bulgarian university professor. I don't see the relation... and (4) is actually a reporter, anyway this is my last attempt to restore a useful article, I have seen many articles that were well written and were deleted and i see many useless articles on wikipedia nowadays that still exist.
Here's the translation I got from Google of the content on Minchev's page: "On 20/12/2012 at Hall 207 at Bourgas Free University from 17:00 hours meeting with the developer of a new programming language Zero (Ziron Programming Language) Colin Stuart (Colin Stewart). More information can be found in the presentation of the programming language as well as the official product website ." This appears to be an announcement of a lecture by the author, not Dr. Minchev. Msnicki (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see how the meeting of the developer has relevance to whether the source is valid.
A lecture by the author is a WP:PRIMARY source, making it unsuitable for establishing WP:Notability. The announcement does appear on Minchev's site but it lacks Minchev's own thinking, required to make it WP:SECONDARY. Msnicki (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I believe notability guidelines is to help to make sure the content of the article is factural, am i right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines from here on wikipedia "Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense." now it is pretty obvious that the article is not incorrect, and since Ziron is a programming language it is possible for pretty much anyone to download and confirm that the features and information is correct, so where is the common sense on wikipedia these days? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.46.47 (talk) 18:05, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You believe wrong. WP:Common sense is not common. This is why we have guidelines which we apply with common sense. And the guidelines are pretty clear about the need for reliable independent secondary sources to establish notability. Those sources don't exist for Ziron. This is a testable threshold not just purely a matter of personal opinion and it reflects consensus on how we decide notability and whether to have an article at all, not what the content should be. If you're asking, what does it actually take to establish notability for a software product, my rule of thumb is a couple thousand-word articles actually about the product, written by individuals with no connection to the product or the company, containing their thoughts, not just a reprint of the vendor's press release nor just an interview with the author, appearing in a publication with editorial oversight. A couple serious product reviews under editorial control (not just blog posts) would instantly do it. Other editors may accept less (and I do at times as well) but the coverage here isn't even close to clearing the bar. Msnicki (talk) 18:40, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK see its a bit stupid since it removes some of the knowledge of softwares available to people, but anyways according to your standards http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuxi_Programming_Language here and in-fact many other such pages that have no references whatsoever are still existent, but yet a language that has some background and has even been publicized in universities is removed? This seems to be like wikipedia is about hiding knowledge rather than promoting it.--78.83.46.47 (talk) 21:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is yet another argument to avoid. Fuxi doesn't appear to be notable, either, so I've just WP:PRODed it. Msnicki (talk) 00:09, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The information on wikipedia is what makes the website useful, users can check info and in return many will donate to wikipedia, but if information gradually declines, guess what? so will donations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.46.47 (talk) 17:16, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ITSUSEFUL is an argument to avoid in deletion discussions. Msnicki (talk)
I did not refer to the article being useful, i referred to Wikipedia as a whole website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.83.46.47 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but if we start having articles about every garage band, home-grown software, and non-notable neighbours of someone, the quality of the project will suffer, and the whole website will go under (✉→BWilkins←✎) 21:45, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Process Note: I've just now fully protected the page contents that were restored for this DR. If this is closed "endorse", my protection becomes moot. If this closes as any form of overturn, the closing admin is requested to change the protection level as they think is appropriate (likely just remove it entirely.) - TexasAndroid (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 February 2013[edit]

13 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Heterophobia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page faced persecution of multiple types. First all the references were removed, then people complained that there were no references then it was deleted. Also, the deletion of this page shows the extreme bias on wikipedia and the fact that both sides of the coin isn't shown. 3abos (talk) 23:42, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • As closer Happy to have this reviewed. Please note that the nominator has not attempted to discuss the matter with me prior to listing (step 1), but did notify me of the DRV. It's my view that this was a completely transparent case of SNOW. --j⚛e deckertalk 23:51, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Please let's not waste time at DRV reviewing the homophobic antics of a disruptive user. AN encyclopedia is not a platform to promote one's fringe, anti-gay points of view; we all know that, that's why this trashy article was swiftly deleted. Tarc (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As nominator and the one who directed 3abos to this board, I reiterate my point that I don't think this is the best way to go about it, and I once again encourage 3abos to avoid editing tendentiously. Nonetheless, I concur with Joe that transparency is good, and welcome a review of the AfD. To wit: The only place where I could see any grounds to object is that the two speedy deletion requests were both declined by administrators who went on to be involved otherwise: Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) declining G4 and going on to !vote for deletion, and Bbb23 (talk · contribs) declining G10 and blocking 3abos for edit warring. However, those seem to me to fall solidly under the "purely administrative role" exemption to WP:INVOLVED, and even if they didn't, I don't see how they'd matter, since in both cases one action benefited 3abos and the other did not. Therefore, I can see no grounds for procedural overturn of the AfD. — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 00:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speaking only for myself, I responded to a report at WP:ANEW. While reviewing the report, I made certain edits to the article. I redirected it and then self-reverted once I realized that part of the battle in the article was over whether it should be redirected. Then, I removed the G10 because I didn't think it applied (still don't, although I'm open to being convinced otherwise). Then, I blocked the editor based on an obvious case of edit-warring. I don't see how any of this makes me "involved"; it was just part of my administrative review of the report. I was not in a content dispute with the editor before taking any action or, for that matter, afterwards.--Bbb23 (talk) 00:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, hard to see how anyone could make a determination different than what was made. Insomesia (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. There was no way this discussion was going to have any other result - the closer fairly evaluated the consensus. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 01:21, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn or allow recreation with new content. Highly outside of process closure. The article had some valid sources that were removed at the time of nomination. In addition, I found additional sources that use the term: [65] and [66] and I think this article also covers the subject. It obviously shouldn't exist in the format 3abos left it in, but the subject is notable and deserving of an article. The section under Homophobia is a good start.--v/r - TP 03:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you explain what was out of process? Looked like a reasonable WP:SNOW to me. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • The article was butchered 10 minutes after being nominated for deletion including the removal of this source which I think actually supports the article subject. The delete !votes give no appearance that they were aware of this.--v/r - TP 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is serious, and if there was such a choppage, I would be surprised if many editors caught it. I did not. Perhaps someone should restore temporarily so we can dissect this? (You'll forgive me, I'm sure, for not pushing buttons around this article while the DRV is active.) For what it's worth, it's my view that the consensus was for deletion of the content, not the topic, most participants focusing on terms like "attack" and "unsalvagable bias". As a result, if you want to take a stab at an article there, I don't see that this close bars that. --j⚛e deckertalk 05:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • agree the article was absolutely demolished as soon as i created it. this is another source that was removed [[67]] 3abos (talk) 05:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I am the user that deleted the majority of the references. One was the blog hosted on Huffington Post mentioned above. It was used as source for a statement of fact, and as such is not a WP:RS. One other source was what appeared to be a content spam site about phobias, was used to source a statement about treatment and as such fails WP:MEDRS. The rest were as far as I can recall news articles. Most didn't even mention the word heterophobia, and none of them supported the claims that they were supposed to source (one sourced a quote, but not the assertion that the incident was heterophobic). I mentioned the lack of quality sources on the talk page but got no indication of anyone disagreeing with me. All in all, I didn't remove any references that made the article more worth keeping. Sjö (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • To save time for admin review, this was the choppage in question, which removed 8 of 10 sources, and slapped {{verify source}} tags on the two remaining ones. I cannot see how that is anything but polemical editing. I agree that the SNOW close was obvious, but the question of source removal and subsequent AfD'ing probably needs a much closer look. In particular, I find that the argument that WP:MEDRS supported the removal quite specious: just because something has "phobia" as part of the title does not mean that it is necessarily claimed to be a medical-grade phobia. Indeed, by my review, this looks like a very political, rather than medical, dispute. Jclemens (talk) 07:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • While useful for admins, links to deleted edits obviously can't be seen by the rest of the editing community who are being asked to review this (I know you understand this and noted it and I'm not suggesting any bad faith - just a point of fact). But it means we (I commented at the AFD) only have what we can recall of our own reviews of the article. Other editors who never saw it have no idea what it looked like. The editor in question has explained why he removed sources. The edit may well have been "polemical" but we mere mortals have no way of telling one way or the other. Given that what was left was horrendous and given we are asked to assume good faith, you'll appreciate non-admins are in a difficult position on this one. Stalwart111 08:17, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fixed by Spartaz. Stalwart111 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I echo what Jclemens said. I recently was in a discussion with another user over Narcissism and WP:MEDRS was brought up. It's used too often. MEDRS should only be used for medical claims. Removing social/political content because it's not supported by a medical reference doesn't make sense. Anyway, I'm not arguing 3abos's version of the article is worthy of keeping. I argue that the article subject is notable and deletion discussions are supposed to weigh the merits of the subject and not the contents of the article. The article can be improved with editing.--v/r - TP 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion SNOW applied as far as I can see. That said, if an editor in good standing wants to create an article that meets our sourcing requirements, we should let them. Hobit (talk) 04:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I do not see how this article is "anti-gay" it is not anti-gay(happy) or anti-sad it is neutral. It had valid academic sources that got removed from people with their own POVs 3abos (talk)
    You are bright enough to understand that words can have more than one meaning, yes? Why do you continue to trivialize the subject matter at hand by referring to "gay" in the "synonymous with happy" manner, rather than by the "synonymous with homosexuality" definition? Do you think you're being clever? Because trust me, bro, you ain't. Tarc (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I do this to make a point. The dictionaries define it as happy. The word "gay" was coined by the media to refer to homosexuals. The media is influential enough to make words up and change the meaning. just like the words "homophobia" was made up and more recently "heterophobia". Nevertheless the latter is become more in use day-by-day by media and journalists. Isn't it fair that there be a neutral article on wikipedia for it? 3abos (talk) 05:44, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am the user that removed the majority of the references. As far as I can recall I didn't remove any academic sources, but I tagged two sources with "verify source". The sources I removed were as I remember it a blog, a content spam site and several news articles. Sjö (talk) 06:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral I was going to say overturn per the information offered by TParis, but given the comment directly above mine, I don't trust an article written by 3abos. If it's a legitimate topic and someone else wants to write the article, let them do so. Ryan Vesey 05:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse (edit: no prejudice against controlled/protected recreation) - even if this weren't a candidate for deletion on the basis of the existence of sources (which I could accept) it was certainly a candidate for WP:TNT. If the sources available supported the sort of ridiculous diatribe that existed before it was deleted, I can't possibly see how they would be considered reliable sources. I can accept that sources might exist to justify an article (as they do in support of the section at Homophobia) written neutrally and without the bigotry, but I couldn't possibly support the un-deletion of the previous article. Stalwart111 07:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
With the history now undeleted, we can see what a mess it actually was. Redirected by consensus, the redirect was reverted by 3abos (several times it seems). The last week of this article's history is just a lesson in edit-warring with a bunch of bad faith thrown in for good measure. If there are reliable sources enough to create a stand-alone article then I have no problem with one being created under protection. But it's obvious 3abos should be topic-banned from editing it. Stalwart111 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC) Not a matter for DRV and this is already at ANI Stalwart111 12:38, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have undeleted the history under the redirect to assist non-admins in assessing the sources that were removed during the AFD. Spartaz Humbug! 10:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! Stalwart111 11:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Spartaz. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should assess this close in four parts, to mirror the four parts of Joe Decker's decision:-
  1. To close the AfD early under WP:SNOW;
  2. To delete the history;
  3. To redirect; and
  4. To protect the redirect.
On the snow close: DRV sometimes struggles with snow closes. Our role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, but a snow close is always IAR, so Joe Decker isn't pretending to have followed the procedure in this case; he's simply made a decision to snow close on his own authority as a sysop. I usually say that we should list material at AfD for a full discussion if a good faith user objects to the early close. In this case I see Joe Decker's decision to close early as appropriate and proportional, and I endorse it.

On deleting the history: Joe Decker has made no attempt to show why it was necessary to delete the history. In his place I would not have deleted it. I would welcome a discussion about this specific issue but my position in the meantime is that the history has been restored for this deletion review and it should not be re-deleted on close. Our terms of use require that our contributors receive full credit, and basic principles of transparency require that contribution histories should be retained absent a pressing reason for deletion. A decision to delete then redirect—while not totally impossible within our processes—should be made only at need and I don't see the need.

On the redirection: If the redirect had been an editorial decision by Joe Decker I would not have endorsed it. But properly understood, the redirection was an implementation of the consensus at the third AfD, so putting it in was an appropriate and proportional use of sysop's powers and I endorse it.

On the protection: The article's history is revealing and I take the view that the protection was a reasonable decision in view of the repeated recreation of this content and tendentious editing in the topic area. I therefore endorse it.

So taken together, I mostly endorse this close, and suggest that the closer of this DRV takes no action concerning it (but also doesn't re-delete the history).—S Marshall T/C 12:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No concerns about leaving the history restored. My reasons at the time notwithstanding (I can natter about them if folks wish), I think, the history deletion has proven counterproductive, particularly in view of concerns about source stripping. --j⚛e deckertalk 14:56, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't disagree with the SNOW close, but I do have one gripe: if I'm reading the logs correctly 3abos was still blocked for another when the AfD was closed; that 3abos was blocked was actually pointed out by PinkAmpersand. So they never had the opportunity to comment, and even if that commentary wouldn't have mattered (judging from the comments they made here) I still think the closer should have waited out of courtesy. Drmies (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Your point is taken, and your understanding of the timing is entirely correct. What I had "in view" at the time of close was an editor who'd created an article after a previous deletion, a creation which had generated an unprecedentedly vociferous AfD at the margins of G10 and whose creator was at that time temporarily blocked for edit warring. I'm not certain either choice (with respect to waiting for the edit warring block to expire) would have proven entirely satisfactory, but so it goes. --j⚛e deckertalk 16:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Although I understand Drmies's point, I think it's within the discretion of the closer to determine whether one has to wait for the article creator's comments. In an instance where the closer believes that nothing the creator could say would alter the outcome, the closer should be able to act. In addition, the presence of this article was arguably disruptive, which is why DC G10'd it, and there's something to be said for deleting it as quickly as possible as long as it's done within process. What if 3abos's block had been longer than 24 hours? Do we have to wait, no matter how long it is? It's a bit like a report at ANEW. Often I don't block a reported editor if they haven't been given a chance to respond to the report, but sometimes I do. It's a judgment call.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the notability of any possible article, as opposed to this specific incarnation: To quote my own words in nominating this article, I propose we revert to Sandstein's redirect to that section, and fully protect the page until and unless someone can propose an objective version that passes WP:42. I stand by this, and I think that you'd be hard-pressed to say that the AfD consensus was that there should never be an article at this title. Rather, the consensus was that this version of the article contained virtually no salvageable content, and, as such, whether or not there ever was an article, the current content would not in any way be incorporated into it. I think that if a user wants to draft a new article in their userspace and use it as the basis for an RFUP, there'd be nothing wrong with that, and it seems the majority of my fellow contributors agree with this. (As for the history deletion, I think that that was a perfectly fair interpretation of numerous "delete and redirect" !votes, but I agree that while Joe did nothing wrong in deleting it, if people are going to object to it, there's nothing inflammatory enough in it to warrant re-deletion.) — PinkAmpers&(Je vous invite à me parler) 15:45, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Assuming for the sake of argument that there is an article to be written on this subject, the nominator should not be the person to write it, and the version deleted by AfD is not it. T. Canens (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question as this article is part on a 'series on discrimination'. Would the decision be taken based on the number of votes? because usually with discrimination it is the majority who is attacking the minority and it is clear that from some of the above posts are clearly political and not Neutral. 3abos (talk) 20:35, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, that's precisely the kind of thing you shouldn't be saying if you wish to be perceived as reasonable and objective. I have tried to explain to you what is and isn't acceptable, but it seems you're not listening to me. Drmies (talk) 20:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I apologise. But it was a question. Yes, it was a question with a preposition. But nevertheless I asked a question in good faith. Sorry if i offended or made you angry. 3abos (talk) 21:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sustain close basically by IAR, because the article as it was is hopeless beyond rescue, and if a new article is written, the obvious course is to try first to expand the existing section to which the term is redirected. I would have done the same close, altho not by SNOW. It would have been better to allow time for a fuller discussion. Not allowing time for the article creator to comment was an error. If it had been done, we would very likely have come to the same conclusion, but at least the removed sources would have been indicated, and the discussion would have been definitive. (If an article is so radically unsatisfactory that removing sources will not improve it to the point of acceptability, it is usually a better idea to leave them it during an AfD discussion. It's of course different if there's some chance of showing the article as acceptable with the material removed, as with making what appears to be a hopelessly promotional article less so. ). Especially in cases like the present one it's never a good idea to try a shortcut, tempting though it may be: it's counterproductive, because all too often it just provides reason for an appeal. So altho there are good procedural grounds for reversal, this is really the equivalent of what would be said there, and we would do well to conclude the issue. DGG ( talk ) 18:29, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what is the consensus? 3abos (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It has been agreed upon on the Talk page for Homophobia that the content was sourced-well and should have its own page. I believe THIS was a neutral discussion! 3abos (talk) 00:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously? That's not at all what has been "agreed upon" - that thread is just you asking why your POV edits were reverted from Homophobia. One person has agreed that it might be better as a solo article (though he hasn't commented here), as an alternative to those page-watchers having to revert you. You dumped content into that article after a mis-reading of the AFD close. Closing an AFD as "redirect" does not mean the entire article gets cut-paste moved into another article. In fact, even a "merge" close wouldn't have that result. There's no agreement there that it should be on its own, there's no agreement that it was well-sourced (in fact the exact opposite was suggested). You need to quit it with the hysterical POV-pushing, mate. Stalwart111 01:07, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Alan O'Connor – This is the association footballer who played for Cork CIty FC so definately not your gaelic footballer - unless he has been moonlighting. If you still want ther prod undone, this can be done by a request at WP:REFUND – Spartaz Humbug! 09:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Alan O'Connor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

I'm curious if this is about the Cork Gaelic footballer who is the only red link on this team list from last year's All-Ireland Championship. It was deleted via PROD because "Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league", which does not apply to Gaelic footballers who cannot play in "a fully pro league". If it is this person he would certainly pass WP:NGAELIC. And here are some sources in case they are needed if it does prove to be this person. RTE Independent Examiner Perhaps someone could check or confirm this? 86.40.111.10 (talk) 01:01, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Wikipedia:WMF noticeboard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

While the close was well explained, I don't believe WilyD gave appropriate weight to the various arguments in coming to his decision. If we go by the rationale that we should keep this because someone "find this a better way to keep up to date on ... issues than other possibilities", then what's to stop every editors creating hundreds of new noticeboard because they personally find it better that way? KTC (talk) 15:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn to delete, one of the rare times I will do so. There is a fundamental flaw in the closer's rationale if he discarded calls to delete that noted the lack of consensus. Random Joe User just can't up and create entire noticeboards willy-nilly, why should a single user get to decide issues such as naming, scope, and so on? Things that can have an effect on the project as a whole. If 2:1 participants in good faith feel "no, this isn't the way noticeboards should be created", then that should be respected. Perhaps it isn't set-in-stone policy to mandate discussion in an appropriate venue, e.g. the Village Pump, but I think a dash of common sense and honestly a little respect for the community at large to not foist a new board upon them un-discussed is in order here. Tarc (talk) 18:25, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Random Joe User just can't up and create entire noticeboards willy-nilly... I did just that over three years ago, without any RfC and with just a handful of supporting editors. The noticeboard was never MfD'd and is still in use today. Bold actions are sometimes necessary to get through the bureaucratic nightmare of project space editing and administration. If the noticeboard fills a niche then we shouldn't need prior discussion to give it a try. ThemFromSpace 22:38, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you got lucky that it didn't get MFD'ed, more than anything else. And at least that was to handle an actual on-wiki problem, not like this dumb thing that is to be used to talk to WMF staff. It is just poorly-conceived and executed all-around. Tarc (talk) 13:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I would agree that the close reads more like a supervote of "I agree with the keep rationales better." If a user finds something is not useful and believes it should be deleted because they, individually, do not think it is useful, that is as valid a reason as someone who says they find it personally useful. In the same way, if a person believes process is important/essential and things done out of process should be deleted, that is also a valid opinion, even if other people believe the end result is what matters the most. MBisanz talk 18:33, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Any time the closing admin feels compelled to call one side of the debate "dicks" they are not a neutral party and should not be closing the debate. Obvious supervote. There is no policy on how to create a noticeboard, so nobody can claim policy is on their side, but this close would set a precedent that anyone can create entire new WP processes out of thin air and their unilateral decision to do so will be respected, since anyone who thinks that is wrong is apparently making a completely invalid argument. Not only that, but he seems to have ignored about half of the reasoning, it's not just that there was no consensus to create it, other arguments were in fact made but in the close they are all just belled up into one reason and rejected enitrely. That's not right. The close is easily twice as offesnive as trying to foist this new process ont he community without getting their input first. I personally believe I see a consensus to delete, but at the very least this should be re-opened so that an actual neutral third party can perform a proper close. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:16, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments, while I think. First, if the MfD discussion does not to show any consensus, we should not fault the closer for saying so. And surely the closer is not calling anyone "dickish", but is saying the community should not be dickish towards new ideas that are not obviously harmful. So far as I know there is no (recent) policy or guidance about how noticeboards should be created so it is not clear how a page creation or a no consensus deletion discussion should be treated. I have to say I agree very much with the other comments here that it would have been far better to discuss such things in advance, with a userspace draft to refer to. But DRV should not (normally) be considering such matters, but should be looking at whether the MfD was closed correctly. Thincat (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete- as this was clearly the consensus. WilyD was wrong to treat the delete opinions with such contempt, because they were actually strong and relevant arguments. Reyk YO! 00:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • A reasonable close, considering that several of the delete arguments said "Delete - no consensus" or amounted to that. If even the ones who want to delete admit there is no consensus, surely the closer should recognize this. I think it would have been better to seehow the boarddevelops over the next month or so, and then nominate again if it remains justified. DGG ( talk ) 04:50, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete The closer discounted two types of arguments. I'm open to the those closer's view on the first group, but looking at the second class of arguments explicitly discounted, well, the close says "The only other real delete argument I see boils down to more or less "I wouldn't find this useful, because I prefer some other forum (or fora)", which isn't much of an argument.", referring as near as I can tell roughly to the redundancy arguments of the nominator, Legoktm, Xavier, KTC, Ten Pound Hammer, Philospher, and MBianz. The problem is that I simply don't read those arguments the way the closer summarizes them. I don't see the emphasis on personal preference, I do see a pragmatic concern for redundancy (a word that's used quite a bit). Some of those opinions (check out the full back and forth of MBianz) went a fair bit deeper. Accordingly, I feel that those seven or so arguments deserve greater weight than was apparently accorded them, and that the close should be reconsidered in view of that. As that's actually a majority of the downweighted arguments, I'm left at overturn.--j⚛e deckertalk 06:07, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete that a noticeboard is redundant or inferior to other methods of doing the same thing is a perfectly valid rationale for deleting it, especially as the keep rationale was basically to assert the opposite. Hut 8.5 10:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete - Exactly what Hut 8.5 said. Additionally, the closer did not address that several of the people voting keep were voting keep only if the foundation approved. Thus far that has not happened, and at least one staffer expressed concern over IRC (although, since I don't log, I won't name who it was). Full disclosure, I was the filing party for the original deletion. Sven Manguard Wha? 14:52, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I agree with the closing statement that the delete rationales were exceedingly weak. Arguments citing no prior consensus to create the board are off the mark and discourage bold editing. Now, if there had been a consensus against creating the noticeboard before it was created, things would be different. Other delete comments suggested animosity towards the noticeboard system in general, not just this particular one. Discounting these erroneous arguments, a "no consensus" conclusion is well within administrative judgement, and in my opinion the proper close. Allowing the noticeboard to stay in a no-consensus close gives the community and the WMF more time to see if it is workable. Besides, if we decide in a few months that the board isn't necessary, another MfD can easily be created. ThemFromSpace 22:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The simple problem is that we don't, as far as I know, have policy about when to create or remove a noticeboard. As such, the closer gets a lot of leeway to determine which arguments are strong and which are weak. Even if the arguments were equal in strength a 2:1 ratio doesn't rule out an NC close. And if the closer felt the delete arguments were weaker (and I'd agree on that point) an NC close is looks quite reasonable. I'd also endorse a delete outcome had that happened (also easily within discretion given the lack of on-point policy). Hobit (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If there is no specific policy on a point, doesn't that actually give the closer less discretion to weigh arguments because there is no established standard to which they can compare the arguments? If the community has never opined on the topic and a majority of the people at a discussion feel one way, regardless of if the closer thinks their logic is strong, isn't that a good indication that they represent a stronger consensus then if the community had opined on the topic and a majority of people at a discussion opined in the opposite direction? Also, isn't this giving a de facto supervote to all closers who can say they think there is specific policy on a topic, therefore, their interpretation of strength should override a majority? I also fail to see how arguments based on WP:PII are presumed weak. MBisanz talk 13:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hard call, do we expect admins to just vote count when there is no on-point policy, or to use their best judgement? Obviously some combination of the two. And even if the votes were treated as equal in weight, an NC close isn't unreasonable given that ratio. As I said, a delete outcome would also have been reasonable here, but I can't see a basis for saying the closer clearly erred. Hobit (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • I would wonder then. The margin for deletion in this case was 2 to 1. Usually that's consensus unless something weird like SPAs or a wikiproject ignoring policy are involved. But what we have here is a case with no policy applying. What threshold would you say is sufficient to show consensus for an action that a reasonable person says is arbitrary and capricious? For example, there is no policy that requires disclosure of a person's hair color, but what if an RFC said to block a person because they refused to disclose their hair color? MBisanz talk 15:04, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you made my point? If there is a 2:1 ratio saying to block someone because they won't reveal their hair color (and let's say that there is no on-point policy here) then we would hope that the closing admin would weigh the votes using their own judgement rather than blindly following the numbers. In any case, while I would tend to agree that a 2:1 ratio of equally weighted votes is often consensus, I've seen it not be (all RfAs for example, but also more than a few RfCs). I just think we need to give closing admins a fair bit of room on an NC close like this. Hobit (talk) 15:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with giving the admin a broad remit on an NC, but I don't agree with an admin having a supervote to discard comments he personally doesn't agree with, particularly when there is no policy to provide the proper standard for commenting. I would also say that if the community decided to block someone for failing to disclose hair color (absent SPAs, group action, small sample, etc.), the closing admin should do it, regardless of how irrational he personally finds it. MBisanz talk 17:07, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Hobit (talk) 17:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I was going to stay out of this because I was mostly neutral, but liked the close; however, Hobit's argument is strong enough that I felt the need to endorse per his reasoning. Ryan Vesey 04:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete. Strawmans have great looks, but no place in a closing rationale; the closer's analogy of the arguments to delete a noticeboard to a proposal to delete "all Wikiprojects" or "all categories" because he doesn't find it useful is a gross oversimplification, and catapults this close into "dead fish" category for me. T. Canens (talk) 19:58, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to delete. I agree with Hobit, except that I don't find the delete arguments weaker. Instead, I read the "delete - no consensus" as implicitly citing a known problem of a very large number of noticeboards being to the detriment of them all. Too many noticeboards means they no longer function as noticeboards but just another local forum. I don't think the close was a supervote introducing new arguments or hiding a closers personal preference. I think the delete voters just didn't explain themselves very well. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:51, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Cham Albanians Genocide (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This was closed as delete, despite my demonstrating that both reasons given by those wanting deletion were incorrect (namely that the event is not called a genocide and that all the web hits related to a different genocide in Colombia Cambodia). I further detailed why I believe the redirect is useful, which nobody even replied to let alone rebutted. In discussion with the closing admin at user talk:Ruslik0#Cham Albanians Genocide, they have not addressed this, they have just been adding their own interpretations of the redirects usefulness with arguments that were not presented in the discussion. I believe that these additional reasons are outweighed by the usefulness of the redirect, but whether they are or are not they should have been presented in the discussion rather than as justification for a deletion. Thryduulf (talk) 15:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You confused Cambodia with Colombia. Ruslik_Zero 18:30, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, so I did. That doesn't invalidate the point though. Thryduulf (talk) 20:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Like many RfDs, there was almost no discussion, and I do not see there was a consensus to delete DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. No RfD nomination rationale. One keep. One delete challenged. No explanation from the closer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Hound Dog (Elvis Presley cover song) – DRV Cannot give you this kind of clearance as we focus on the process and there is no deletion to discuss. if you want to change the policy you need an RFC. If you want to argue a special case then this can be debated in an AFD as that is the correct venue and DRV is powerless to intervene until a deletion discussion has closed. – Spartaz Humbug! 09:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Hound Dog (Elvis Presley cover song) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Wikipedia has four million articles, but not one of them as far as I am aware is a standalone article on a cover song. As posted at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs Cover-versions and multiple-renditions, apparently Wikipedia prohibits treating cover recordings of a song in a standalone article: "A song article (as already explained to the nominator) is about the song and NOT a specific performance - it is the song that is notable, even though specific performance(s) may make it notable." I don't know exactly why over the past twelve years of Wikipedia all cover songs of a song topic have been merge into or restricted to one song topic article. Given the precedent of banning all cover songs from being treated in a standalone article, I think deletion review appropriate place for this request and would like permission to post my sourced draft (on my computer) of Hound Dog (Elvis Presley cover song) as a standalone article. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 14:17, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment don't think DRV is the right venue. The wikiproject can't prohibit it, no more than we take wikiproject notability guides to be binding in anyway. Similarly I don't believe DRV can authorise it. Simply create it, there are I guess then about three possible way forwards - (1) someone can nominate it for deletion which if the deletion rests solely on the basis of the wikiproject idea is likely to be overturned here if it meets WP:GNG, (2) Someone thinks it'll be better part of some other article (which I guess my own instinct suggest there will be many cases where that is the case), then an editorial decision can be made to merge this seems a normal merge discussion or (3) it stays as a standalone article (which again my instinct suggests there will be some cases where that's the best option, but probably (2) for the majority.) --62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatnow? I would follow the advice you were given at the MFD and/ or the advice in the above remark. This process exists solely to challenge the closing of a deletion discussion, not to propose new types of articles. Either open a proper RFC somewhere or just create the article. You have permission to do either of those things right now, so go for it. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:35, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
DPT Labs (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This article may have been deleted without a discussion of the number of sources, their depth of coverage and their availability regarding the topic.

  • The first AfD closed as keep per the sources and the second AfD was closed as delete without any source evaluation, other than from the sole keep !voter in it.
  • This topic appears to meet or pass WP:CORPDEPTH.
  • Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability and depth of coverage of reliable sources, rather than just those that may be present in an article.

Also note that there's a working version of the page, which I had userfied, located at User:Northamerica1000/DPT Labs Northamerica1000(talk) 05:10, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closing admin I referred NA1000 here because I did not feel comfortable basing an undeletion on my own, uneducated on the topic, review of his new article. MBisanz talk 18:44, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn; this is a good example of an AFD that should be closed as "No consensus, because virtually nobody cares enough to participate". I'd suggest relisting if that hadn't been tried multiple times already. Nyttend (talk) 17:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the close was perhaps reasonable (though I'd have preferred an NC close, the COI issue could have pushed it over I suppose), the sources in the article now seem to meet WP:N (though many are behind a pay wall, they appear to cover the topic in reasonable depth). Hobit (talk) 15:27, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Update - I've reworked the article; see: User:Northamerica1000/DPT Labs. Personally, I'd like to recreate the article. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Zan Perrion (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It appears that this article may have been deleted without an accurate discussion of the number of sources, their depth of coverage and their availability regarding the subject.

  • The first AfD for the article resulted in keep based upon the sources presented therein. The second AfD resulted in delete, apparently without a discussion regarding the availability of sources about the subject.
  • This subject appears to meet or pass WP:BASIC. Here are some sources that confirm this [68], [69], [70], [71]. Several are non-English; Translate.google.com may be useful to read them in English.
  • Also, per WP:NRVE, topic notability is based upon the availability and depth of coverage of reliable sources, rather than just those that may be present in an article.

Also note that there's a working version of the page, which I had userfied, located at User:Northamerica1000/Zan Perrion. Northamerica1000(talk) 14:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't care for the topic at all. That said, there now seem to be enough sources to meet WP:N. Hobit (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin I am neutral on the matter; if the community has found enough sources to pass WP:NPERSON, then that's that; if not, that's also that. - The Bushranger One ping only 10:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation The available sources appear to reach WP:BASIC. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore) (corrected name)

This is a new DRV request, posed with less explanation of background than yesterday's request for same. Please do focus on the content of the articles and the wikipedia policies. Please restore both Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) and Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio) (corrected). These have both been deleted several times, for no reason valid by any speedy deletion criteria. Editors who expressed support for restoration, in previous discussions including 2 DRVs, include Cbl62 and Mercy11 at Nyttend's talk page within this discussion, RyanVesey and AutomaticStrikeout in first DRV of January 4, 2013 and Hobit in second DRV of February 10, 2013. I see no reason that these should not be immediately restored. Please do restore them both. doncram 01:51, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have not restored the Chesterville school because its sitting at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio). Note that this hasn't been deleted but has been moved. Presumably the nom is requesting permission to move it to mainspace. There is no article at the Cohocton link and never has been so please advise which article you are referencing. Spartaz Humbug! 03:19, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, i left an S out of one name. One, partially restored but omitting valid history, is at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio), other is at User:Doncram/Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio). They have both been deleted from mainspace by move to userspace without leaving a redirect, i.e. by administrator tool use that deletes the mainspace location. Click on one of the redlinks to see: "A page with this title has previously been deleted." I believe that a non-admin editor cannot move and delete the mainspace item. Also they have both been move protected in Userspace. That constitutes deletion from mainspace. The request is indeed for the articles to be restored to mainspace, with their edit history included. --doncram 04:09, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore, These were deleted as copyvio and they do not seem to be. The original page for Chesterville which were incorrectly deleted as G12 contain a reference to the photocopied page posted from the Registry Information system, and which is US-PD. https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/64000614_text ; (I have not yet found the other). Material paraphrased from there or even quoted would be not just fair use, but proper use of free content. The full article content for one of these was not restored to docram's user space, and I do not know why that was done--apparently under the argument that it was G12. I'm therefore not restoring it immediately, pending Nyttends explantion of the copyvio, because I might be misunderstanding. It would seem at any rate that there would not be the slightest objection possible on grounds of copyvio for moving the existing content and adding the reference. DGG ( talk ) 06:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The National Registry nomination forms are not created by the Park Service, but by specialists working for the state (or local) historic preservation offices, so they're definitely not PD-US. Some may be PD, if they were work-for-hire and the state considers its work PD, but Ohio does not appear to be one of them, per the copyright notice at the bottom of http://ohsweb.ohiohistory.org/ohpo/nr/index.aspx. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may well be right, but I'm not sure about the copyright status of what is filled out on an official US government form, and I wonder if we've discussed it. In any case, the present user p. is not copyvio, and the nomination form is a reliable source for it, so that version can certainly be moved back. DGG ( talk ) 16:41, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been discussed at length. One time was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Register of Historic Places/Archive 43#Nomination forms. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as DGG notes, there is no copyvio, and there never was any copyvio. And this and most NRHP nom forms are not in the public domain, but are a great, reliable sources that I have linked from thousands of NRHP articles. --doncram 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The quoted sentence and closely paraphrased material that led to the copyvio concern (which is related to some of the deleted versions that are in the page history for Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio), not the history for the current userspace version) weren't from the NRHP nom form that is cited in the article. These items were referenced to Ohio Historic Places Dictionary, ISBN 9781878592705 (page preview available to me on Google Books at [72]). The content is on pages 1076 and 1077 of the book. In reviewing that source today, I discovered an issue that wasn't raised in connection with the page deletion, but is worth noting: The sentence that was quoted verbatim actually isn't about Union School, but rather was a description of the Old Bartlett and Goble Store described earlier on page 1076. --Orlady (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's previously been understood and discussed. As I have noted several times, there was a google-search-page garble-up in a search I ran that showed me the quote applied to this place, when the Ohio Places Dictionary preview would not show the relevant pages (the preview randomly allows vs. disallows specfic page views). Or call it an editing error on my part. Note I specifically invited Nyttend to check the article, as I believed he would own a full copy of the dictionary; he did not respond to that invitation. Since the information supplied seemed slightly off (the Dictionary called it a commercial building as I recall), rather than paraphrasing it, I explicitly quoted it (as if to say "sic", it is them not Wikipedia editor saying this). It was never a copyvio, it was a 10 word quote valid under fair use, explaining why a place was deemed NRHP notable. Again, this is all moot, since the quote is not to be restored into the mainspace article. Technically, the entire edit history should be restored, including the (incorrect) application of the quote) to showing valid history of the article per Wikipedia crediting standards. I do request the full restoration, although I don't care terribly because the quote is not to be included into the article. --doncram 04:30, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore I'm unclear if there was a valid speedy reason earlier, but there doesn't seem to be one now. So restore to mainspace without prejudice to an AfD. Hobit (talk) 01:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, there never was a valid speedy delete reason, as has been established in the previous linked discussions. Thanks. --doncram 02:47, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm less sure of that, but thankfully it doesn't matter--there being no speedy criteria met is all we need. That said, I'd urge you to keep your comments here to a minimum. DRV is a very conservative place and anything that looks like casting aspersions could get this shut down again. I realize that isn't your intent, but I'd still urge that none-the-less. The nice effect of that is that DRV is a fairly drama-free zone and the right thing almost always gets done. Hobit (talk) 04:15, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 February 2013[edit]

9 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Chess.com (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Its larger than several other chess sites that have articles. Wikipedia needs to consistently enforce its policy, either deleting all the other chess website pages, or allowing chess.com equal attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.191.210.70 (talk) 04:01, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • The policy is WP:GNG, which requires non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Note that size isn't one of those criteria, so that you believe it to be larger isn't anything to do with consistently applying policy. If there are other articles where the criteria aren't be met, the solution is to fix those, first through looking for the suitable sources and if that fails deleting the articles, this can only be done article by article, we can't fix every ill on the site overnight. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Deletion. No notable, independent, reliable, third-party sources have been produced that cover the subject in any more than a passing trivial mention. Also, the nominator's rationale is WP:OTHERSTUFF which is not valid here. OGBranniff (talk) 17:48, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion while I can't see the article, there were apparently no reliable sources cited nor can I find any. If you have some, please provide them and the deletion will likely be reversed. Hobit (talk) 21:28, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
NY Times included it here. Am not suggesting this source justifies an article; but the cupboard isn't completely bare, and the fact they decided to include it at all is some amount of prima facie for notability of Chess.com, IMO. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 07:14, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response. Uh, no. Not according to WP:GNG anyway. Passing mention in just one article isn't a prima facie case for anything. Well, perhaps it is a prima facie case of obscurity. OGBranniff (talk) 02:12, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh gosh that makes so much sense!: The NY Times writer decided to include Chess.com in his article because of its obscurity. Yes. Got it. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 10:41, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I write this, please keep in mind I generally favor keeping material over deleting it. And I'd be happy to keep this, it's just that the topic doesn't currently meet our sourcing guidelines. It's a bit of a mess _why_ we have those guidelines. Basically we've got people (like me) who would prefer to have articles like this. And we have others that only want "super serious" topics covered. The working compromise is that we use the existence of multiple, independent and reliable sources as the bar for what we have articles on. The details can be found at WP:N. It's not a great compromise, but it provides a fairly bright line for article creation. I _hate_ the fact that guideline is called "notability" because it sounds darn insulting to say "Bob X isn't notable" or "your website isn't notable". Notable in this context is really a Term of art that means that there are multiple independent sources that cover the topic in some reasonable depth. And until sources are found that do that, Wikipedia won't have an article on this site. Hobit (talk) 04:25, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I couldn't agree more about the problems that arise from our use of the word "notability". --j⚛e deckertalk 15:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There's no point restoring it for discussion, because there were no references at all to show notability. The only appropriate course of action is to first find them, and then make an article draft using them either in your user space, or with the WP:Article Wizard, and then come here and ask to permit the article in mainspace. But unless you do actually have 3rd party substantial independent references in hand, there is no point in tryingto rewrite, for we cannot accept the article without them. DGG ( talk ) 05:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • ... actually, as you pointed out to me, David, there is no particular requirement for a deleted article to pass through DRV. While I think it's an excellent step for an editor who isn't sure if they've addressed an AfD's concerns appropriately, DRV doesn't exist as prior restraint. Jclemens (talk) 06:48, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I'm not seeing WP:GNG being met here with the sources I've found or seen. Found two more passing references via some work at Highbeam, but there's still not enough to write an article from. I take Ihardlythinkso's comments as suggesting a view that WP:GNG is too stringent, and if that's true, I might recommend taking that up with the community at WT:GNG. --j⚛e deckertalk 17:26, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) – DRV is not Dispute Resolution and we have never tolerated the use of DRV as a platform to attack other users so I am ending this now. You are free to open a fresh DRV that neutrally explains why you think the deletion was wrong and that can be considered without the need to personalise the discussion. We are not here to propogate your existing dispute. – Spartaz Humbug! 18:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Old Union School (Chesterville, Ohio) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)
Also restore: Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio), also deleted by Nyttend, also a valid topic. --doncram 12:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been subject to several inappropriate administrator actions, by editors involved in contention that is somewhat being addressed in a current Arbitration. (The restoration of this article is not to be determined in the arbitration; it is a content decision for editors here, i believe.) Comments about the previous contention are not particularly needed, but the article needs to be restored. It was deleted by administrator Nyttend 2 or 3 times (by moves to userspace or outright deletions, though history has been rev-deleted and history no longer shows full actual history). The validity of the original article has been discussed at Deletion Review: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 4. It has since again deleted by administrator SarekOfVulcan.

Background: Original reason for Nyttend to delete was invalid (article did not contain copyvio, it contained a 10-word quote as to why the property was NRHP-listed, which never could reasonably be considered as a copyvio). Original article did have an error (the quote applied to a different property, the one just before it in the source, due to garbled google results I received and/or call it an editing mistake on my part) but the article simply should have been edited to remove that. The article never should have been deleted.

Nyttend closed the DRV favorably for themself. IMO, it was wrong for Nyttend to perform the close, as the original deleter and an involved party, unless the decision would have been to fully restore the article. Instead, Nyttend was petty in merely restoring the article to Userspace, and also in not fully restoring it. That was not the consensus of discussion. The prevailing consensus, by my interpretation, was that the deletions were wrong and that the article should be restored, and that Nyttend could bring it to AFD if Nyttend wished (though an AFD for an obviously valid topic would fail of course). I think that Nyttend meant simply to be petty by moving it to userspace, and did not mean to imply the topic was not valid, and expected me to restore the article to mainspace (which i later did).

Then, in the deletion review, I edited to unclose the closure, as I have observed other editors doing when a close is not satisfactory. For one thing, the Talk page needed to be restored. Second, the proper decision was restore not move to userspace. And, the restoration to the userspace was inappropriate in reflecting inappropriate use of REVDEL to delete perfectly okay-by-policy material and edit history (the original quote and later corrections, not ever a copyvio). My edits were reverted by editor SarekOfVulcan, party to arbitration and long-involved in contention, with edit summary "discussion is closed, reverting later additions". Well the discussion was not closed adequately, and deleting others' discussion, especially by a highly involved party, should not be tolerated. SarekOfVulcan has repeatedly followed me and refactored in ANI incidents and other noticeboards in ways that change the visible record.

Anyhow, the article was restored to userspace, and, being a valid topic, I moved it to mainspace. SarekOfVulcan then moved it back to userspace, asserting in edit summary that the DRV decision was to restore to userspace. And in next edit SarekOfVulcan move-protected it. These were 2 administrative actions that SarekOfVulcan, as an involved long-term contender should not engage in, and these were mis-interpretations of the DRV and the role of DRV in general.

Thus, this new request to restore the article, to reverse the previous deletions. I don't care terribly about restoring the incorrect quote, but technically a full restoration including the quote in the edit history would be proper. Per the previous discussion, please note the topic is valid and there is no acceptable reason to ever have deleted it, much less keep it deleted. doncram 19:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Is the copyvio text the only issue with the article? Based on the current userspace article, it looks really really non-notable, but there could of course be notability that isn't reflected in that version of the article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We have generally held NHRP listing to be sufficient evidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 22:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Really? There's well over a million NHRP buildings, and thousands more each year, some of which are certainly notable but quite a lot of them are literally just someone's old house. You may be thinking of World Heritage Sites, which are quite different. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:25, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There never was any copyvio. The property is individually listed on the NRHP (it is not just a contributing property in an NRHP-listed historic district). There are about 87,000 individual listings on the NRHP, and about half of them have Wikipedia articles. For each individually listed one, there exists a multiple-page NRHP nomination document that explains historic significance that has gone through multiple rounds of local, state, national review exceeeding the Wikipedia notability standard. Such documents contain bibliographies of other documents. Whether the NRHP nom doc has been obtained or not (here, not, as not available online), it exists and Wikipedia-notability is clear from the NRHP listing itself. For this article there is picture and some context already, which is a start and is of interest to some readers already, providing something rather than nothing. --doncram 12:38, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article wasn't deleted; it's in userspace. I've reviewed my comment in the previous DRV, and I believe portions of it bear repeating, so I will do so: The deleted article was a piece of s**t, containing very little meaningful content (other than the copyvio sentence) and some bad excuses for reference citations (e.g., "another book preview snippet available in Google search results"). Converting it into a halfway-decent policy-compliant stub (using non-copyvio words and citing actual references) should have taken the article creator no more than 5 minutes. --Orlady (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I strongly suspect that the right outcome is to merge this into some other article. But it's not DRV's role to make that call. As such what we've got is a highly contested set of speedy deletions and moves and all sorts of crazy things that never made it to AfD. I don't see how, at the moment, this thing meets any speedy criteria, so move to article space is the only possible outcome here. That said, I think an AfD is likely appropriate this move should be with no prejudice against a future AfD. Hobit (talk) 05:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: DRV expanded. I amend the DRV to also restore Old Union School (Coshocton, Ohio), also deleted by Nyttend, also NRHP-listed. The two articles were created by me to resolve disambiguation page issues at combo dab Union School, which I created because I came across some mistakes in treatment of a Union School in Pennsylvania (duplicate articles about one school, and page incorrectly usurping the primary topic role). I properly addressed the disambiguation need with a Requested Move because admin tools were needed to fix the situation (see Talk:Union School (Fort Washington, Pennsylvania)#Requested move). Then in the combo dab page, my creating the two articles was one perfectly valid way of fixing the otherwise-incorrect redlinking of the two items. On the Coshocton article, Nyttend made 3 inappropriate administrative actions: moving it to userspace twice with deletion of the mainspace item, and move-protecting it. "Page not ready for mainspace" is not a Speedy Deletion criteria. --doncram 12:45, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Related discussion. I gave notice of this DRV at the ongoing arbitration, at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Doncram/Workshop‎#DRV regarding 8-9 inappropriate admin actions by Nyttend and SarekOfVulcan. SarekOfVulcan asserts there, entirely erroneously, that DRV is not relevant as if a deletion by userfication is not a deletion subject to DRV. IMO that demonstrates incompetence in DRV interpretation, and is one more reason why SarekOfVulcan should not be taking administrative actions to implement S's interpretations of DRV. --doncram 14:26, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd just like to point out that WP:DRVPURPOSE states Deletion Review should not be used....to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed).--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sarek makes a point that I should have. I strongly recommend you withdraw this DRV and try again without casting blame. There may or may not be plenty of blame to throw around, but DRV isn't the place for it and your request _will_ be closed solely because of the aspirations and claims of bias. That's just how DRV has always worked. Hobit (talk) 15:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 February 2013[edit]

7 February 2013[edit]

6 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Czech Footballer of the Year (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Ok, this is my first time with a Delete Review, I'm not even the one responsible for creating the AfD, but the point is, the discussion reached a premature decision, there is a real problem with this article and the roost of articles under the theme *Country* Footballer of the Year. Even though the subject may be notable the case is, I don't see a reason why every single country should have its own list regarding the award, the same would be applicable to other awards, because per se, every single category in the Academy Awards is notable, and so is on Billboard Awards, Grammy and all the other accolades that give recognization for artists, musician, footballers, among others. The closure statement is not obvious either, the closer pointed out the rule WP:POINT, but the case is, why was it closed under this circumstances, it wasn't strong or speedy keep. Every single keep statement was weak, some pointed out to Google, some said that with a potential Czech reader it could reach Feature List Assess, but none of them cited strong arguments, such as the encyclopedic value. The readability, the accessibility, navigating and maintaining such lists is/are going to be a hell on earth, imagine that on the end of the year all these lists should be updated, when a single article could suffice. There is this issue as well WP:CFORK, the articles got established forks before a main branch. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 01:14, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Closing admin here. You obviously missed the bit about discussing with me first. We're talking about this list and this discussion, not every other list for footballers or awards. I have no problem with someone who's not disrupting Wikipedia to make a point renominating "Czech Footballer of the Year", with a proper deletion rationale (which this DRV rationale isn't) but the discussion that I closed isn't the way to do it. Endorse my own close without prejudice to renomination. BencherliteTalk 01:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The case is, you closed it, but why not adjusting the discussion with a fair rationale. Isn't renominating it a path to a snowball, I want to simplify things, and as for the other lists, I cited them because they would fall under the discussion, because it is pretty related, they are disorganized, and way too much content fork, a comprehensive list would fit way better, with year and contries and the footballers such as.
Eduemoni↑talk↓ 03:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bencherlite's close is obviously going to be endorsed because that was the consensus. What we can do here is try to help the nominator by explaining the reasons why the close was correct and what he can do now to change the outcome.

    The way Wikipedia's discussion processes work is by rough consensus. AfD closers should have confidence that if they have closed a discussion in accordance with the consensus, then Deletion Review will support them. This means that in practice, it can be impossible to delete a popular article simply because a lot of editors show up to vote to keep it—irrespective of any other policies and guidelines. I do know how you feel; I've always thought it was ludicrous that we have to keep sexuality in Star Trek, which I think is a blatantly unencyclopaedic topic containing huge sections that are totally unreferenced, but since it's popular both with editors interested in Star Trek and editors interested in LGBT themes, it's un-deletable. Sometimes you've just got to accept consensus even when you think consensus is wrong.

    What you can do in this case is go back to Talk:Czech Footballer of the Year and propose a merger into a larger-scale article. But I think it's extremely unlikely that this content will actually be deleted.—S Marshall T/C 08:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, though POINT is not a speedy keep criteria, Keep is the correct close and the rationale is within the admins discretion, especially with the participants raising WP:POINT. The possibility of a merge and redirect needs to be explored before renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:02, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - the consensus to keep was very clear. With regards to Eduemoni's suggestion, a summary page could be a good idea, but I would oppose the deletion of any of the national articles as being named a national player of the year is a notable achievement in its own right. ★ Bald Zebra ★ talk 10:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - clear consensus to keep. Also endorse Bald Zebra's opposition to merging all of these into one huge, unusable, Frankenstein article. Keresaspa (talk) 00:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 February 2013[edit]

  • Out of character – This is for RfD not DRV as the deletion isn't contested and the redirect was added as an editorial decision later. If we ran this the only outcome would be to refer to RfD so just go and nominate it now. – Spartaz Humbug! 02:25, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Out of character (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The article Out of character was deleted and later resurrected as a redirect to Breaking character. There has been previous discussion contesting this, and I agree with it. Out of character is very different from breaking character. Breaking character means an actor playing a character suddenly starts behaving as him/herself rather than the character. Out of character means the character itself is behaving in a way he/she/it should not. This is common usage in pretty much all forms of fiction - books, TV shows, movies, fanfics, without regard to who is playing the character, or indeed if the character is being played at all. JIP | Talk 20:21, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy close The AfD doesn't contain any discussion against a redirect. If you think the redirect is inappropriate, than list it at WP:RFD. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strictly speaking, Armbrust is correct that this is a matter for RFD. On a practical note, I think the nominator's right that out of character isn't the same as breaking character. I see that out sister project Wiktionary gives perfectly full and complete information at wiktionary:out of character. Would anyone object if, instead of listing at RFD, I simply removed the current redirect to breaking character and replaced it with a soft redirect to the wiktionary article?—S Marshall T/C 01:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • gwlad – We don't need a DRV to undo a 5 year salting to create a redirect. – Spartaz Humbug! 12:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
gwlad (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The original article about some Welsh rugby chatroom was non-notable and should have been deleted.

However, the word gwlad is the Welsh word for the various "kingdoms" of Wales and should be turned into a redirect towards a list of them (e.g., at Wales in the Early Middle Ages). The English word "kingdom" doesn't really do it justice since these (a) these lands were so small, (b) they considered themselves part of a unitary commonwealth of Cymry and were not foreigners to one another, (c) they considered themselves bound to the king in London, (d) they were considered less than principalities by the English (i.e., our language at this Wiki).

Further, fwiw, the finding of the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Gwlad was Delete with no bias toward recreation, not Delete and lock.

Thanks. — LlywelynII 10:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
JAMWiki (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Three "keep" and one neutral to positive comment versus one "delete" do not look like a very obvious consensus to delete. It is clear that rather than following the consensus of discussion, the administrator simply made his own judgement by overriding this consensus. The major question was not the lack of independent references but rather if these independent references are good enough. For such a boundary case, I think, the discussion consensus should be taken more into consideration. Also, if you think that "rules are rules", see WP:IAR. Audriusa (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Going to need a temp. undelete to evaluate this one. Keep in mind that lots of weak arguments don't win against a valid policy-based argument. But there do appear to be some potentially reasonable arguments about sources on the keep side, thus the need for the undelete. Hobit (talk) 13:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Temporarily undeleted for DRV Lectonar (talk) 14:18, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist thought I agree with the closer that the keep arguments were weak and didn't adequately address verifiability concerns. But it could have used a relist to get a clearer consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, there were sources in the article that weren't really discussed. Closing against numeric consensus can be reasonable when the issue is clear cut. But that isn't the case here--the quality of the sources aren't black-and-white and so isn't for the closing admin to decide. I'm fine with an overturn to NC or a relist. Hobit (talk) 13:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The delete arguments were definitely stronger, and that close might well have been within discretion. But I can also see the argument for relisting it. Call it weak endorse from me. I don't object strongly to a relist.—S Marshall T/C 00:05, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist. Except for the last one, the keeps aren't solid enough to be used. That leaves us with a single solid keep and a single solid delete, and that's really not enough participation to say consensus either way. Nyttend (talk) 04:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • As closer, I have no objection to a second relisting if it is deemed helpful.  Sandstein  08:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 February 2013[edit]

  • File:ChrisKyle.jpg – Listed at FFD. G12 doesn't apply to images so this clearly cannot stand and with a FUR, the correct venue to review this is FFD. – Spartaz Humbug! 08:31, 10 February 2013 (UTC) This discussion is here.[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:ChrisKyle.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

fair use image with rationale is not a copyright vio. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

comment this is a discussion for a deletion discussion; this not an "unambiguous copyright vio" since a "fair use" claim has been made. therefore the speedy is out of process.
how is a headshot "likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media"? the original role was to publicize his appearance in a TV show. would not the link here add to the traffic to the TV show? if you don't "like" that image, which "fair use" image would you use? are they all NFCC#2 ? have you not expanded the objection to prohibit all NF images? 198.24.31.118 (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. No reason to believe this is not replaceable; death of a public figure does not create an automatic and immediate exemption from NFCC requirements. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
there are no free images of subject [73] the way nfcc policy works, dying is an automatic reason to use "fair use", since the theoretical open photographer will have to get an exhumation, and getting someone to change a license is a pipe dream, in strict accordance with the nfcc; it is not an automatic and immediate exemption. if you want to ban all "fair use", change the policy; in the meantime stop abusing speedy deletion; stop misrepresenting what the nfcc says. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's rubbish. The actual, relevant language from WP:NFCI reads "provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely." Saying you can't find a free image on google right now is grossly insufficient to satisfy that standard. NFc policy absolutely, positively, undeniably, does not say what you're pretending it says. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 11:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could you address how this meets speedy criteria though? Hobit (talk) 15:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn first of all G12 is specifically only for text, not images, so this deletion is invalid on the face of it. That said, the image equivalent would be F9. But that specifically says it is for only "Obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use." I'm willing to be shown to be wrong, but as far as I can tell fair-use claims get discussed, not speedied by policy. What am I missing here? Hobit (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, clearly this could go to FfD after the overturn. It may way not meet WP:NFCC, but that's not a speedy deletion justification. And doing this is important. We shouldn't be endorsing speedy deletions that don't meet our criteria. Hobit (talk) 05:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 05:25, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • moot endorse The article at present features a PMG image from Commons which looks as though it is likely to be deleted there for copyright uncertainties; if it were retained then this discussion would become moot. Mangoe (talk) 15:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
since it has been deleted, why don't you help people add a "fair use" image rather than flouting policy, and biting newbies. 198.24.31.118 (talk) 21:02, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Dustin Jacoby – We seem firmly in the deletion overcome by events league here so G4 would clearly not apply. – Spartaz Humbug! 12:36, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Dustin Jacoby (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Per WP:DRVPURPOSE No. 3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page." Won major kickboxing tournament for Glory World Series on Feb. 1, 2013. Now passes WP:Kickboxing Luchuslu (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The article was userfied to User:Luchuslu/Dustin Jacoby. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore was closing admin of discussion - notability has now been established through winning fully-pro event; DRVPURPOSE #3 satisfied. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:42, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can speedily overturn yourself, if you're comfortable with that and think it's appropriate? A full deletion review seems unnecessary in the circumstances.—S Marshall T/C 00:00, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with S Marshall here. If someone disagrees they can bring it back to AfD. Hobit (talk) 02:51, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • List of redheads – Endorsed. Was possibly not a good one for a non-admin to look at but the clear consensus is that they got the outcome right. – Spartaz Humbug! 02:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
List of redheads (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

this non admin close does not fall in the realms of WP:NAC or WP:NACD. there is no clear consensus of this AfD. suggest it should be relisted or closed as non consensus by an admin. LibStar (talk) 06:44, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse Or, if you like, you could consider me as re-closing this with the same result. First of all, all four references to "indiscriminate" or WP:INDISCRIMINATE fail to align with the particulars of that policy. As such, there are zero policy-based arguments for deletion: a reference to a policy that doesn't align with that policy is no policy-based argument at all. For another example, "WP:NOTNEWS because it has a link to the Wall Street Journal" would not be a policy-based deletion argument. Secondly, there was a previous AfD less than six months ago that resulted in a clear keep. While consensus CAN change, there is absolutely no indication that it actually has in this case. For all of those reasons, this close does not fall afoul of WP:NAC or WP:NACD, since there wasn't really any question as to the outcome. Jclemens (talk) 06:52, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you mean that "the extent of IINFO is limited to summary-only descriptions of works, lyrics databases, and excessive listing of statistics", you should be more specific. Several participants disagreed (you did have the support of WP:Article Rescue Squadron regulars) with your restrictive interpretation at the "on Twitter" DRVs in July 2012 (1, 2, 3). Gobonobo's reference to WP:NOTDIR (specifically 1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics) is valid, and the deletes can be converted by swapping WP:INDISCRIMINATE with WP:NOTDIR. Gobonobo also makes a reasonable WP:Other stuff exists argument with "A comparable percentage of people have type II diabetes or green eyes." Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • People can wish it to be different all they want, but that doesn't change that the policy listing in WP:NOT is specific and exhaustive. And there's no need for a closer to "repair" defective arguments to manufacture a policy-based argument when none was effectively articulated by the commentators... in fact, if anyone did so, I daresay there would be a hue and cry. And finally... "a reasonable WP:OSE argument"? Really? I'll note that WP:WAX redirects to part of WP:ATA... Jclemens (talk) 05:33, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • WP:What Wikipedia is not#Content: "The examples under each section are not intended to be exhaustive." WT:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 44#Are the lists of examples exhaustive? Your other points overlap with Mkdw's, so my reply below is relevant. Flatscan (talk) 05:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • There are three sections under the heading of WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Even if the reverse would be true there is no commonality among the three examples (lyrics, statistics, plot-only) that would encompass redheads. INDISCRIMINATE is only the shortcut, not a license to label things "indiscriminate" and then suddenly make them ineligible for encyclopedic coverage. NOT must be strictly construed, else it becomes possible to eliminate things that are notable and verifiable, because NOT trumps those policies. That would be an inappropriate, if not downright anti-encyclopedic, result. Jclemens (talk) 06:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it would have been inappropriate as a closer to adjust people's arguments from INDISCRIMINATE to NOTDIR. There is a chance that they were not aware of NOTDIR, have not read it, or did not apply the points of that policy against the article. Which would mean I fabricated their argument if done. When looking at the merge option per NOTDIR I considered the fact that the list is not a list of every redhead, but a list of every redhead we have an article on which is significantly less than 2%. Even a 2% margin is somewhat debateable as List of American films has 100% of American films and ststistically has a worldwide market share larger than 2%. Lastly in regards to the arguments to avoid OTHERSTUFF, deleting this article so others cannot be created does not necessarily prevent that from happening nor would one article affect the inclusion criteria required on a case by case basis. Preventing other articles from being created is not the purpose of an AfD and if the delete argument is not about the article it should be discounted. Mkdwtalk 17:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as NAC Closer I offered to LibStar directly that if they "would like to overturn my decision and re-open the case [they] may do so" as per WP:NACD on my on my user talk. I'm not entirely opposed to this DRV but I cannot help but feel that it's somewhat unnecessary in addition to the AfD (and the other one) and nearing venue shopping with this third stop in 3 months. In regards to the closure itself, I listed it as a bold closure. I checked the delete arguments against WP:INDISCRIMINATE and they either did not address the policy points directly, or were WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. In addition to what I acknowledged as a bold closure, I had an administrator review the closure for a second opinion. I suppose I could have let it for an admin but at the time there was a backlog of still opened AfD's past 7 days and I had done the reading involved in the AfD. Mkdwtalk 07:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note For those reviewing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of redheads (3rd nomination). Please note that User talk:143.105.49.234 and User:H. W. Calhoun have been blocked as socks (surprisingly not of each other). Not sure if you're supposed to alter archives of AfD's to strike comments from socks. Mkdwtalk 08:01, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The previous AFD was closed as Keep just a few weeks ago by User:Scottywong, who does not seem easy to persuade in such cases. It is therefore not surprising that we should get a similar result when the discussion was rerun so soon. As the renomination was unusual, I checked out the nominator who seemed to be a malicious sock-puppet. Per WP:ROPE, I held my peace expecting that more incidents would be telling and they have not been long in coming. But who is the puppet master? I have a shrewd idea but could not possibly comment... Warden (talk) 08:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"...who does not seem easy to persuade in such cases." Sheesh. I'm not sure what to think about that comment. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was a reference to other similar discussions such as the Blue hair AFD in which User:Scottywong !voted to delete that topic. This indicates a severe approach to such topics and so a finding of Keep by this user suggests that the general consensus is well-established in this case. No aspersion was intended. Warden (talk) 12:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in mind that voting on an AfD and closing an AfD are two different things. Had I voted on an AfD for this article, it's very likely I would have voted to delete it. ‑Scottywong| converse _ 17:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mkdw emailed me, asking me to comment on my closure of the previous AfD nomination for this article, and why I was persuaded to keep it. The answer to that mystery is fairly simple: the AfD had a plurality of Keep votes; twice as many as Delete votes. In cases where there are a lot more of one type of vote than the other, a very persuasive argument must be presented in order to close the AfD against the plurality. That argument was not present. The same situation seems to have happened in the third AfD, and therefore, I would lean towards endorsing the closure. ‑Scottywong| spout _ 19:08, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Also: really? Another non-admin closure brought here by Libstar? Although you're welcome to use deletion review, Libstar, we're here to review closes. We're not here to review closers. If you're going to bring a deletion discussion here, you do need to give a reason why the close was defective.—S Marshall T/C 23:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
yep like my 3rd non admin closure brought here in over 5 years of editing, not assuming good faith are you? LibStar (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's been less than two weeks since the last one.—S Marshall T/C 08:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a rule that you can't ask for deletion review within 2 weeks? please point me to the policy. You might one to check how long I did one before the one 2 weeks ago. LibStar (talk) 08:46, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems like a somewhat crazy list (2% of all BLPs could be listed here?) but the close is fine. Hobit (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I usually do not endorse NACs of contested AfDs, but the closing statement is thoughtful, and Mkdw appears to be an experienced user. The sockpuppet follow-up is conscientious. This is almost close enough to be a "comment, don't close" case, but the best non-keep is Gobonobo's merge, which tips the balance to a consensus against deletion. Flatscan (talk) 05:07, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse seems like a pretty dumb list considering more than 100,000,000 people have red hair, but that said the close was correct (and it's pretty much just bureaucracy to change a Keep to a No Consensus anyway). Repeated renomming in a short period of time is poor form at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:15, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse correct close. Borderline NAC. Ask JClemens or any admin to affirm the NAC. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 February 2013[edit]

2 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ruth Crisp (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

A little page on Ruth Crisp (1918-2007) the noted crossword compiler was speedily deleted by User:Phantomsteve (05:38, 30 January 2013) following a prod (04:34, 30 January 2013) and then speedy request (04:38, 30 January 2013) by User:Stubbleboy . The rationale listed was (A7: Article about a real person, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject (CSDH)). I believe this was done outside of our criteria. The article claimed she was a notable compiler ("one of the Guardian's most noted compilers") and had sources to two obits published the UK national press (The Guardian and The Telegraph). I have notified both the deleting admin Phantomsteve and Stubbleboy about my concerns without repsonse. I have also discussed with the Admin User:Malik_Shabazz who deleted a couple of redirects to the page Vixen (crossword compiler) and Crispa (crossword compiler). Malik suggested I bring it here after a suitable wait. Other sources (BBC radio 4 show with an Obit and an entry in Jonathan Crowther's excellent (2007) Collins A to Z of Crosswords: Insight Into the Top Setters and Their Crosswords) are easily available if they are needed and might be regarded as "significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". PS: This is not the same person as the Ruth Crisp (NZ philanthropist who was previously deleted) Msrasnw (talk) 11:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC) PPS: I was the pages creator.[reply]

  • I agree with what Malik Shabazz said on his talk page. As with most speedies where a good faith user has honest doubt about it, we should list at AfD with a note that G4 doesn't apply because this is a different person with the same name.—S Marshall T/C 11:47, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    As the deleting admin, I have restored the article - I am convinced by the arguments presented that there is a sufficient claim of significance, enough to not meet the criteria for A7 deletion. PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 12:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 February 2013[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
[Insert of text from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 29 begins here.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)][reply]
Jessica Dykstra (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I'm not even sure if I'm doing this correctly. I've never gone to such lengths to save an article, but I believe that User:MBisanz was a bit hasty in deleting this article. The debate on her article seemed to be leaning toward a "Save." For some reason, he ignored this debate and the opinions of others, and deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2013

  • As one of the few who participated in the AfD, I can't see how the closer got it wrong, based on the discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:49, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strange. Your comment seemed to indicate a desire to keep it. It certainly wasn't a "Delete." Coupled with S. Marshall's comments and mine, I thought the debate was going in her favor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.54.247.55 (talk) 01:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I hoped it could be saved, WP:HOTTIE is not just a myth, but if I was closing the discussion, I would have to conclude the rough consensus was to delete.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:30, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment  This is a mess.  The biggest problem here is that we don't know why the article was deleted.  Remedies for this problem include (1) closing this DRV discussion due to lack of evidence of the presenter having contacted the closing administrator, (2) another admin reclosing the AfD discussion, and (3) moving the existing closing down into the AfD discussion and making it a comment and then re-opening the AfD discussion.  The last !vote doesn't so much dismiss notability as it does point to content problems.  An examination of the S Marshall opinion shows sources that reveal a high-profile individual.  So my reading of the consensus is that this is a high-profile notable topic, but that notability is established by sources that don't lend themselves well to writing an encyclopedia article (a WP:V issue) and that there are BLP content issues.  After finding a Google cache of the article, I focused on the stories about Miss World and the "big screen" debut.  Neither is properly sourced by the article, and these deficiencies are substantial.  I attempted to use Google to verify the movie connection without success.  I thought maybe the modeling agency would provide a solid base of biographical information, but the profile requires a plug in.  You'd think the modeling agency would want to make it easy for Wikipedia editors to write neutral, reliable, well-sourced articles about their talent.  In sum, I have no concern that the deletion was done in error.  Unscintillating (talk) 15:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have temporarily undeleted this for the purposes of the deletion review. Spartaz Humbug! 16:46, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert of text from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 January 29 ends here.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)][reply]
  • Endorse deletion, but without prejudice to re-creation. The existing reliable sources are limited at best. However, the subject may become more notable and additional reliable sources, in which case any editor should be allowed to re-start the page. If anyone wants the page userfied to do so, that should be allowed. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:45, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not exactly outraged about this close. I was more than half expecting a "delete" outcome. In the debate, I expressed a view, tentatively and reluctantly, that Dykstra did technically meet the exact wording of WP:N on the basis of the two sources I linked. MBisanz is normally a reliable and accurate closer, but in this particular case I'd be interested to hear a full explanation of why these were rejected. This curiosity on my part should not be mistaken for an "overturn" vote. It's a desire for clear reasoning, that's all.—S Marshall T/C 02:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think the word "outraged" would be used to describe my feelings, either. On the other hand, I created her original article that was deleted months ago, and wouldn't have recreated it if I didn't think that she had done enough to become notable since its deletion. I sorta kept a finger on the pulse of her career to see if she would indeed become notable one day, and with the Miss World controversy, the GQ Italia cover and a bit role in what appears to be a pretty major release, I thought she'd made it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the deletion - it reflects the consensus of the deletion discussion.  Frank  |  talk  17:35, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The consensus for deletion was based in concerns directly relating to policies why the comments were milling around WP:NOR but did not provide equally as strong keep arguments. There also seemed to be a hesitation to officially commit to the keep camp. The delete camp grew after a re-list and was closed. A keep or no consensus outcome would be extremely odd. `Mkdwtalk 09:13, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The strongest "keep" arguments were from S Marshall and Milowent, and both stated they thought the notability was borderline, which suggests they would be more happy to accept a delete than vice versa. So delete sounds like a suitable consensus. In my case, as well as notability, I think Ms Dykstra would be more comfortable having an article where, if we trimmed the unreliable stuff, was not left with something contentious she might not want to think about in future years. Hence my comments on the AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Social_Work_Helper (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Social Work Helper was deleted. In my opinion, it should not have been according to notability guidelines via Wikipedia. The notability standard is applied to the web content being introduced and not whether the dissenters think the independent sources are well known to them. The justification for deletion of this page was biased, and there was no consensus. Those who voted to delete did not present any argument that the sources were not independent or reliable. They only argued that the sources were not well known to them who objected to inclusion. Notability guidelines as I quoted in the post was ignored and the decision was arbitrary. I have talked with the individual that deleted and they refuse to reverse. Dhooper383 (talk) 16:51, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • If the cached version is [74] is the content which was deleted, then I'd agree with the commenters in the debate that the sources didn't meet the standard. We have three blog posts[75][76][77] which fail as not being reliable sources, we have three directory style listings which do not cover the subject in anything more than a trivial form and appear more "advert" than independent coverage[78][79] the final of these three [80] is a list of 50 such "blogs", coverage of this amounts to 1 sentence and doesn't get the name of the site correct. These wouldn't meet the WP:GNG standards. Are there any other sources?--62.254.139.60 (talk) 21:23, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given your username and the name of the founder of the site in question I suggest you read the WP:COI of interest guidelines, I notice you've also added links apparently also written by that founder. Realistically if the world has taken interest in your site, I'd have thought you wouldn't need to try and blow your own trumpet with a wikipedia article and linking to your own writings. --62.254.139.60 (talk) 22:26, 1 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The cached version referred to above is th content at the time the article was deleted, so I so no need to restore for discussion. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thinking about this article title and whether it should be a redlink made me realise that we should have an article about the job role of the Social Work Professional Assistant. I think that Mbisanz' close of that debate was the only one available to him and I think there is no chance that DRV will overturn it.—S Marshall T/C 11:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Giving my username, I am not trying to hide that the page was related to a website I own. My point is that without recognizing the current sources of the profession no social work site will ever meet the standard of a site "the world has taken notice of" which is not suppose to be the standard in the guidelines to prevent bias against smaller sites. If you notice my contributions to wikipedia is to enhance or provide sections on social work and not vanity. Here are two other references [1] [2] I seriously doubt that any sites used by my profession which are on this list would meet the current interpretation of the inclusion guidelines without being a university or governmental agency. Additionally, any additions that I made was not a direct reference made to my site. The reference used was to a site that recognized my work. This is what I mean about interpretation, and researching me doesn't diminish my argument. Most importantly, conflict of interest does not apply as I was not the original author of the page. So, are you saying that wikipedia guidelines prevents me from defending it from deletion? There seems to be a vested interest in being right than fair. Being a blog is not automatic disqualification of an independent source. Techcruch, Mashable, Mediaite are all wordpress blogs[3] which have been cited many times on Wikipedia. As the notable guidelines stated notable is not meant to be synonymous with "famous or important". The test for independent sources is reliability and independence as stated by the commenter above which has not present any evidence that the blogs are not authoritative and unreliable.Dhooper383 (talk) 18:33, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ http://www.dorleem.com/2012/06/online-community-for-social-workers.html
  2. ^ http://mswonlineprograms.org/great-sites/
  3. ^ http://www.famousbloggers.net/blogs-running-wordpress.html
  • The WP:GNG in a nutshell box defined "This page in a nutshell: Wikipedia articles cover notable topics—those that have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time...", so I'm not sure how you've reached the conclusion it's something else. The edit I referred to is this one [81] where you directly link to your site, insert the name of your site in the text and refer to a page which is pretty generic useful web "tools", which have no real specific link to social workers, except of course the app for your site itself. As to if adding this was vanity or not, I guess everyone can form their own opinion. Your activity here from your edit history seems pretty much exclusively to adding details of your own site in one shape or another, or being the sole defender of the article on your site, believing there to a COI is quite simple. The standard from the GNG is non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, most of the coverage is trivial. You are correct that being a blog does not automatically invalidate a source, however the standard for reliable sources includes here, the three referenced blogs do not meet the standard. "Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.". One of the blogs is by "Nathan" who's profile says they are "A technology enthusiast", one makes no indication of who the author is, the final one is by Eric who "has over 10 years experience in custom computer building and over 5 years in website design.". None of those meet the requirement for self published sources, the second of them is an interview so is questionable as to independence, even more so since they solicit individuals to contact them to be interviewed rather than being an independent showing of interest in the person. To try and put it another way, if I found a similar web design company (say) and their CEO wrote a blog article saying that social work helper is awful (or worse), would you think we'd should include that in the article as a reliable source? I'd suggest not since why would we want to use the opinion of someone who has no expertise in the subject, no track record and no reason to show their opinion is any better or worse than some random person I pick.--62.254.139.60 (talk) 19:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the page, I am tired of arguing about it. I will respect the decision, but I reserve the right to write about it.Dhooper383 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2013_February&oldid=535777854"