Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 2015 Deletion review archives December 2015 >

30 November 2015[edit]

  • Skiddle – No consensus in that two would allow recreation and three would relist. But I'm not sure how to meaningfully relist something that's now an userspace draft. Therefore: Lancshero or others are free to move this back to mainspace, and anybody else is then free to renominate it at AfD. –  Sandstein  19:40, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Skiddle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article has been cleaned up, rewritten. I don't think this revised page content was reviewed despite calls for this to happen. I've spoken to the editor who deleted it and he's restored it to here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lancshero/Skiddle - please can this be reviewed and the page be restored? Happy to see another vote on this new content if needed - but seems like a waste of time asking for someone to work on it only for it then to be deleted. Thanks Lancshero (talk) 22:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • This was only deleted yesterday, then userfied, then you want it restored all in one day. Go away and give the deleting admin a chance to respond. This listing at DRV is premature. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:56, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi - talked to the deleting admin, they did respond and asked me to start a deletion review. I thought i'd followed the right process. Also, i'm not asking for it to be restored in one day - just asking for it to be restored in general, I know it's likely to take longer than a day ;) --Lancshero (talk) 09:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The deleting admin asked Lancshero to come to DRV:

    Hi, just dropping you a line as it seems you've deleted an article I worked on for quite some time last night. It's was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skiddle - I think I did a pretty good job of tidying, cutting a lot of the garbage out and making it notable (while they are a smaller agent they're still fairly well known, I think I've probably used them at least 3 times this year so far and I maybe only go to 10 gigs a year maximum). The vote on the deletion page seemed tied at 3 for keep and 3 for delete and I don't think anyone had time to review my edits before you deleted it. Could you please take a look at my edits compared the version live yesterday and let me know if you could restore the article? Many thanks Lancshero (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

          I restored it and moved it to User:Lancshero/Skiddle. You can take it to Wikipedia:Deletion review and it is easier to discuss if people can see it. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

          Lancshero. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 17:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

    Cunard (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. Lancshero's significant work on the article renders {{db-repost}} inapplicable. Here are three sources (among others in the article):
    1. "Preston-based Skiddle ends financial year on a high". Lancashire Evening Post. 2015-04-30. Archived from the original on 2015-12-01. Retrieved 2015-12-01.
    2. Binns, Simon (2015-08-12). "PR Agency One is just the ticket for Skiddle". Prolific North. Archived from the original on 2015-12-01. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

      The article notes:

      Skiddle works with more than 50,000 event promoters and sells tickets for over 100,000 events in the UK and Europe, as well as offering hotel and restaurant bookings. Its three core focuses are club nights, live music events, and festivals.

    3. McCarthy, John (2015-03-31). "Skiddle to 3D print wellington boots on site in anticipation of rainy UK festival season". The Drum. Archived from the original on 2015-12-01. Retrieved 2015-12-01.
    Cunard (talk) 06:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation because it seems significantly improved. However, I still might well !vote to delete the article. I wish we had a clear way of denying these sort of pastiche encyclopedia articles. Thincat (talk) 11:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what sort of timeframe the deletion review works on, or how it comes to a close? Do two editors saying 'allow recreation' mean I should recreate or do I need to wait for a set amount of time? Sorry - not done this before! Thanks Lancshero (talk) 15:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews last seven days (or more) and I don't think this one will be closed early. You must wait until someone (usually an administrator) closes the review formally and then you may (or may not!) be allowed to recreate the draft as a full article. You are can improve the draft meanwhile and continue to comment here if you want. Thincat (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Thincat - I did just find that on the Deletion Review page, I should've spotted that earlier :) Lancshero (talk) 16:52, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm. Looking at the top of the page it isn't so very clear what happens when you are requesting recreation rather than appealing a deletion decision. My reply was based on my experience of DRV (and of course you are not the first person to be perplexed by all this!). Thincat (talk) 17:04, 2 December 2015 (UTC)of what generally happens.[reply]
  • RoySmith (talk · contribs), thank you for pointing this out. I had not noticed that the changes were made prior to the AfD closing. Lancshero rewrote the article at 00:28, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC) and commented at the AfD at 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC).

    The AfD was closed 10 hours later at 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC). In the intervening time, no one evaluated Lancshero's changes.

    Three of the four "delete" votes cited promotionalism (in addition to minor notability) as deletion rationales.

    AfD nominator DGG: "Promotional article for relatively minor site. Beyond my abilities to clean."

    Rayman60: "If it does pass any sort of notability test, the article will have to be stripped down so bare - from what I can see on the article, every point fails to be encyclopaedic, non-promotional, neutral in tone and referenced."

    Edwardx: "Even if the company could be deemed notable, I cannot imagine anyone wanting to put in the effort required to turn the current article into something acceptable."

    I think that Lancshero's significant cleaning up of the article prior to the AfD close should not be held against his requesting restoration since no one reviewed his changes.

    I think it'd be reasonable and fair to relist this article at AfD to see if Lancshero's changes address the notability and promotionalism concerns. Otherwise, no one will have reviewed Lancshero's hard work at AfD.

    Would you support a relist?

    Cunard (talk) 05:14, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Relist. No opinion on whether the new version should be kept or deleted, but such a major rewrite presented in the waning hours of the AfD should have resulted in a relist to allow proper review. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The article hasn't been improved since deletion and no plausible evidence that the discussion was wrong had been put forward. Spartaz Humbug! 21:31, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Spartaz - I made the changes before the page was deleted which is maybe why you're not seeing them? I think this is also what RoySmith said - but then clarified with "I had not noticed that the changes were made prior to the AfD closing. Lancshero rewrote the article at 00:28, 30 November 2015‎ (UTC) and commented at the AfD at 00:34, 30 November 2015 (UTC). The AfD was closed 10 hours later at 10:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC). In the intervening time, no one evaluated Lancshero's changes." The previous page was two thirds longer, had two thirds more references (some self promotional, their blog etc). Other editors had stated that the page would need to be cut down considerably to be kept but they didn't have time. I spent time to review and cut back and now I think this is a vastly improved - although short - page. The AfD was closed without anyone reviewing the changes as far as I can tell. Thanks, Lancshero (talk) 10:38, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that case then I agree that this should be relisted as the improvements were not discussed. Spartaz Humbug! 12:43, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) – Setting aside the interpersonal issues, there is no consensus in this review to overturn the closure. That being the case, I could relist the discussion, but I don't think that's useful for an AfD relisted twice already. Instead, because what appear to be new sources have been put forward here, I recommend userfying the article on the request of somebody who wants to work on it. If it is then recreated with new sources, G4 speedy deletion would not be possible and a new deletion discussion could be initiated by anybody who still thinks the subject isn't notable. –  Sandstein  08:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Noting that this is now at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Mayhew_Wainwright_(1821-1863) Spartaz Humbug! 09:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863) (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Basis solely on the arguments provided in the discussion the closed should be no other than no consensus. Source provided by Dual Freq suggest notability, this maybe an administrative supervote. If considering the votes is to 3 in favor of keep, 1 merge and 3 delete including the nominator, a clear lack of consensus. Valoem talk contrib 09:27, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Valoem I'm curious how you came to this AFD. You didn't vote in the discussion, you haven't discussed this with me and I reversed one of your NAC AFDs yesterday - and you were really butthurt about it and ran to Cunard looking for support that I was unfair and evil. I can't help thinking that the only way you could have come to this was by going through my contributions - presumably in the hope of finding something to complain about in revenge for my undoing your NAC. I'd be very interested in your explanation. Revenge DRV nominations are not classy.... Spartaz Humbug! 10:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also noting you did not notify me of this nomination as DRV guidance requires. So not classy... Spartaz Humbug! 10:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy endorse on behavioural grounds. The scope of legitimate DRVs is limited, and does not include revenge. Nominator has a history of inappropriate non-admin AfD closes; note also passive-aggressive whining at User_talk:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)#Wikipedia:Deletion_review.2FLog.2F2015_November_30. Reyk YO! 10:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for the close itself, I see that it was relisted twice. Every editor who commented after the first relist agreed that the article should not remain in mainspace. I think it's fair to close the AfD along those lines. Reyk YO! 14:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Now that I've seen the undeleted article, I affirm my endorsement. Reyk YO! 08:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is massive inappropriate accusation from the both of you Reyk, please highlight some inappropriate NACs in my history, you have every right to question my closures, however all closure I have dealt with you in the past have come to the same conclusion therefore my judgement is sound. I gave a perfectly solid rationale in my reason for DRV by providing sources, discussion reasons and vote counting. Upon reviewing this article here ACT Alberta I see neither participation nor editing of the article in question, so I too am curious as to how you came to it. And in answer to your question I came across it by skimming through AfD. Valoem talk contrib 10:55, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rubbish... You are even echoing RANs argument on my talkpage in your nomination so you can only have come to this from stalking my contributions. I hate to assume bad faith but there has to be a limit. Spartaz Humbug! 11:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Valoem On that subject - you went to RAN's page to notify him of the DRV and made the following comment unsurprising when you considered the administrator.. How can you honestly say there was no animus in your nomination after that? Spartaz Humbug! 11:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You have a history of closing against consensus and have been questioned numerous times. Am I wrong to say that? Valoem talk contrib 11:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are indeed wrong. My record in closing is fine bearing in mind that I generally close out the last remaining AFDs that no-one else wants to deal with but don't let facts get in the way of fancy and assuming bad faith. The only person here you are making look bad is yourself but feel to carry on making yourself look ignorant. Spartaz Humbug! 15:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
??? I apologize for not notifying you that was an error on my end. I saw that you were involved in the DRV below and assume you would see this. If you are trying to goad me, it is not going to work, and can be seen as poor form. If you do not believe my reasons than fine so be it, but I remain curious as to how you came to ACT Alberta. Valoem talk contrib 11:23, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Did you notice my closing out the AFD backlog yesterday? Interesting that you choose not to respond to evidence I provided of your making the nomination while showing clear animus against me. tacit acceptance anyone? Spartaz Humbug! 11:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would prefer editors to observe the close in question instead of the drama involved. Valoem talk contrib 11:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was no consensus to delete and the closing statement was perfunctory, not providing any reason for the deviation. The guidance of WP:DGFA was not followed, "respect the judgment and feelings of Wikipedia participants ... When in doubt, don't delete." Andrew D. (talk) 12:28, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No consensus for deletion. Closed with a supervote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please can an uninvolved admin engage with Valoem concerning his use of this discussion as a platform to make personal attacks against me? Thanks. Spartaz Humbug! 15:45, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the personal attacks? I just read the thread twice looking for them so I could warn him. You admit you close the controversial AFDs, and he thinks you add in a supervote when you close them, I also think the same thing. You tend to shift no-consensus closes into deletes by discounting a few keep views, instead of acting dispassionately. He is not stalking you, he is doing the same thing I am doing, when I see a bad close, I look to see if there have been other bad closes by the same person. That isn't stalking, it is best practices. When you see someone make a spelling or grammatical error, you check a few of the past edits to see if they made the same mistakes elsewhere. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
With respect Richard this comment was not aimed at you... especially as you followed it with another unevidenced attack on my integrity. Please don't. Spartaz Humbug! 16:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You word everything with such drama, "feel [free] to carry on making yourself look ignorant" and "clear animus against me" and "personal attacks" and "unevidenced attack on my integrity", if you cannot take legitimate focused criticism of your actions, you are on the wrong website. If all closes were perfect, we would not need the DRV process. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Spartaz you have made so many attacks me in the past saying things such as "you should be more experienced" despite this, all my closes and DRVs have favored me so I've simply dropped the issue. Now here anyone can it is in fact you who is making the personal attacks with comments such as "you were really butthurt about it and ran to Cunard looking for support that I was unfair and evil" all this could boomerang if you pursue it any further. Sometimes the grasshopper lies heavy, so they say. Valoem talk contrib 19:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK folks, can we get a temp. undelete of the article? IMO the !vote was NC, but if there weren't any meaningful sources (as some delete !votes indicated) it may be that delete was the right outcome. But I can't tell from here. Also, I've got opinions on everyone's behavior, but I don't think unsolicited advice is going to be helpful. If you ask (on my talk page or e-mail) I'll be happy to give my 2 cents. Hobit (talk) 18:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the compliment. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Encyclopedia entries for the subject are available, the argument was made that existing reference was insufficient without doing the simplest Google search to look for more. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:13, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which of the Johnathan Mayhew Wainwrights I mentioned above is discussed in that book, Richard? The one we still have an article on, perhaps?—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The person under discussion is "Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863)" and he was born in 1821 and he died in 1863 according to the title of the article. Read the biography in the link I posted and see if he was born in the same year. Then you can double check to see if he died in the same year. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:48, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I genuinely can't, Richard. Google snippet view isn't showing me anything intelligible at all, certainly nothing as useful as a date of birth. I presume what's on your screen is somehow different from what's on mine. Perhaps the snippet view varies between countries?—S Marshall T/C 01:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry for the snark, I take it back! It was published in 1892 so you should see the full text. You may have to be logged into Google. Sometimes for copyrighted works I can see more pages than other people. I think because when Google books was in beta I requested access as a beta tester. Do you accept my apology? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your gracious apology is fully accepted, of course.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've examined the first book, Officers of the Army and the Navy (regular) who Served in the Civil War. It does give a thorough biography of Wainwright. However, there are equally detailed bios of many other officers who also don't qualify for articles, e.g. Colonel James J. Van Horn, Captain S. C. Vedder, Captain G. S. Luttrell Ward, Captain J. Crittenden Watson, and Major William George Wedemeyer. A low ranking naval officer who "fell almost immediately" in a minor unnamed action isn't notable. The fact that there are copious writings on just about every conceivable aspect of the Civil War shouldn't skew things. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disagreement in the discussion is not reflected in the too brief closing statement. The closer should provide more information in the close to explain why it was closed that way. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Looking at the actual article, this was a good close because it was extremely clear it did not conceivably meet the standards of notability. The opposing arguments were essentially: ITSUSEFUL. But for a disputed close, it always helps to give a reason. I know the closer (whom I greatly respect, despite our occasional differences) prefers not to, but it would help to do this at least for disputes like this. I urge him to reconsider. DGG ( talk ) 02:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. No one in the discussion rebutted AfD participant Dual Freq (talk · contribs)'s source, which provides substantial coverage of the subject.

    Dual Freq wrote:

    Additionally, he is mentioned individually, with several paragraphs, in Johnson, Rossiter (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. The Biographical Society of Boston. He was a "Notable American".

    That the subject received a detailed entry in a biographical dictionary/encyclopedia published 41 years after he died strongly establishes he is notable.

    Since the vote count was split and there was a disagreement over whether the sources established notability, "no consensus" is the only proper close. "Delete" would be reasonable if and only if no reliable sources were provided, which clearly is not the case here.

    Cunard (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), Hobit (talk · contribs), DGG (talk · contribs), and S Marshall (talk · contribs), I have reproduced the full text of the sources mentioned in the AfD and here. All three sources are in the public domain, and all discuss the a man named Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright who was born in 1821 and died in 1863, which matches the title of this article, Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright (1821–1863).
    1. Johnson, Rossiter; Brown, John Howard, eds. (1904). The Twentieth Century Biographical Dictionary of Notable Americans. Boston: Biographical Society. p. 301. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

      The book notes on page 301:

      Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer, was born in New York city, July 27, 1821; son of the Rt. Rev. Jonathan Mayhew (q.v.) and Amelia Maria (Phelps) Wainwright. He entered the U.S. navy in 1841; became passed midshipman in 1843; was commissioned lieutenant in 1850; lieutenant-commander, 1861. He was lieutenant-commander on board the Harriet Lane, flagship of Commodore David D. Porter in the passage of the forts on the Mississipi, and he received the surrender of Commander Mitchell of the Confederate steamer Mississippi, and refused that officer the terms granted the officers of the fort on the ground that he had violated the flag of truce by firing the Mississipppi while the terms of capitulation were being arranged. He commanded the Harriet Lane in the gulf operations of 1862-63; and took possession of Galveston Bay in October, 1862. In the battle of Jan. 1, 1863, the Harriet Lane bore the brunt of the attack, and when the crew of the Confederate steamer Bayou City ran alongside and opened a musketry fire from behind a breastwork of cotton bales, Commander Wainwright was killed and his first lieutenant, Lea, mortally wounded. His son, Jonathan Mayhew Wainwright of the U.S. Naval academy, class of 1867, master on board the Mohican, San Blas, Mexico, died from wounds received in action with pirates, June 19, 1870; another son, Capt. Robert Powel Page Wainwright, of the 1st U.S. cavalry, was commended by Gen. Joseph Wheeler for good conduct at the battle of La Quasina, Cuba, 1808; and his daughter, Marie, became a prominent actress. Commander Wainwright's death occurred Jan. 1, 1863.

    2. The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography. Vol. 4. New York: J. T. White Company. 1895 [First published 1892]. p. 359. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

      3. The cover page says:

      Being the History of the United States

      Illustrated in the lives of the founders, builders, and defenders of the Republic, and of the men and women who are doing the work and moulding the thought of the present time.

      Edited by

      Distinguished biographers, selected from each state

      Revised and approved by the most eminent historians, scholars, and statesmen of the day

      Volume IV.

      New York

      James T. White & Company

      1895

      The book notes on page 359:

      Wainwright, Jonathan Mayhew, naval officer was born in New York July 27, 1821; son of Bishop Wainwright of the P. E. church. He entered the navy in 1827, became a passed midshipman in 1843, and a lieutenant in 1850, and in the civil war was engaged as commander of the Harriet Lane in the taking of New Orleans, Vicksburg and Galveston. Jan. 1, 1863, his vessel was attacked and captured by Confederates under Gen. Magruler, near Galveston, and he himself was killed in the fight.

    3. Powell, William Henry; Shippen, Edward, eds. (1892). Officers of the Army and the Navy (regular) who Served in the Civil War. Philadelphia: L. R. Hammersly & Company. p. 441. Retrieved 2015-12-01.

      The book notes on page 441:

      Commander Jonathan M. Wainwright, U.S.N. (deceased).

      Commander Jonathan Matthew Wainwright was born in the city of New York in July, 1821, and was killed in battle at Galveston Bay on January 1, 1863. He was a son of the well-known prelate of the same name, so long the Protestant Episcopal Bishop of New York.

      Commander Wainwright entered the navy as a midshipman in June, 1837, and performed the usual sea-duty of his grade until, in 1842, he was ordered to the Naval School, then at Philadelphia. He became a passed midshipman in 1843, in 1849 an acting master, and was commissioned as lieutenant in September, 1850. His service in the "Lexington," "San Jacinto," "Saratoga," "Dolphin," and other vessels did not differ from that of most junior lieutenants. Never very robust, he managed always to do his duty well, and was a great favorite with his messmates and shipmates on account of his pleasant manners and officer-like conduct. The outbreak of the Civil War found him engaged in special duty at Washington. He was ordered to the command of the "Harriet Lane," the well-known revenue streamer which had been transferred to the navy. She became the flag-ship of Commander (afterwards Admiral) Porter, of the Mortar Flotilla, during the operations against Vicksburg. In October, 1862, the "Harriet Lane" took part in the capture of Galveston as a part of Commander Renshaw's little squadron. Their tenure was not long, for on New Year's Day, 1863, the small squadron, some of which were ashore at low tide, was attacked by a Confederate force, which soon resumed control of the town and the bay. General Magruder had, for the water attack, fitted out three-steamers with cotton-bale defences and placed on board as many rifleman as could find room to act. They came down the bay at four A.M., and, as the "Harriet Lane" was the highest up, she was first attacked. Boarded by these vessels, swarming with sharp-shooters, the decks were swept by a shower of balls. Wainwright fell almost immediately, at the head of his men, endeavoring to repel boarders. The executive officer, Lea, was mortally wounded, and the next officer severely so. Half of those on deck were shot down, and in ten minutes the vessel was in the enemy's possession. A curious incident of the fight was, that young Lea's father was an officer on the Confederate side, and found his son in a dying condition after possession was taken.

      To complete the tragedy, Commander Renshaw, of the "Westfield," and the senior officer present was summoned to surrender under favorable conditions, which he might have done, as his vessel was unmanageable from the state of water at that time. This he refused, sending most of his crew on board an army transport which was afloat and remaining, with a few people, to destroy the "Westfield." Unfortunately the flames spread so fast that she blew up just as they got into the boat, and Renshaw, his first lieutenant, Zimmerman, Chief Engineer Green, and about a dozen men, lost their lives.

      Commander Wainwright had a son, also named Jonathan Mayhew, who was appointed a midshipman the year his father was killed, and who graduated from the Naval Academy in 1867. This young officer also lost his life by rifle-shot only three years after graduation. He had attained the rank of master, and was attached to the Pacific Squadron. In command of a boat expedition against the piratical steamer "Forward," in the lagoon at San Blas, he was shot in leading the boarders at her capture, and died the next day. The attack was successful, and the vessel was captured and burnt.

    Cunard (talk) 06:22, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD unearthed those sources but failed to analyse them in depth. Now that I've read them, I suspect that what we've got is a good close of a defective AfD, which typically leads to "endorse but relist" here.—S Marshall T/C 08:32, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was aware of these sources when I made my comment here. They represent extremely detailed coverage of something beyond the scope of detailed coverage of a contemporary encycopedia . There are many books that cover everybody above a certain rank or level in something--for example, the many series of military regimental histories, or the many 19th century bibliographies including everyone above a certain arbitrary level which is lower than what we would normally include. If WP were to be a complete representation of everything that had ever been noticed in that way, it will expand way beyond what anyone in our century would reasonably expect of an encycopediaL we have barely scratched the surface with articles and references like this. Now, including these all is indeed a possible vision for WP,but I don't think it's the current one. WP is not the sum of all verifiable knowledge. Should it be the sum of everything really notable, plus whatever sub--notable material people of specific interest groups could find reasons to include? We've gone a long way down this line, in some fields. In this field, we have previously decided on a specific limitation, which limits our coverage to commanders of particularly significant military actions and officers above a certain rank. The military actions here appear routine, and the rank is below our standard. DGG ( talk ) 09:54, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I found these sources compelling because the time period covered. Historical figures particularity from before the turn of the 20th century generally have fewer sources. A regional hero or specialist in a more esoteric field will not receive the same coverage as they would today. These three sources gives the person significant coverage. Should they not bear more weight? Valoem talk contrib 10:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why? He was a low-ranking officer who was killed without having accomplished much or even being decorated. We're routinely not accepting people awarded the Navy Cross, and yet we're supposed to welcome someone with no decorations at all? That just doesn't seem right. (I do seem to have erred, however, in that it wasn't an unnotable action.) Clarityfiend (talk) 08:51, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:GNG only requires: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." If we only have one source, we do not have "reliable sources". Here we have multiple sources. "commanders of particularly significant military actions and officers above a certain rank" are for people that do not meet GNG, but deserve an article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close but restore or relist I think the close of the discussion was reasonable, but that it's now pretty clear the topic meets the GNG. I can see that as being debatable so I've no objection to a relist. Hobit (talk) 21:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus because I don't think there was a consensus. Anyway, there are now new sources. I think it's a pity that more was not made of the merge suggestion and I would have regarded a somewhat creative merge closure as also being within discretion. I think too much was made at AFD and here of inherent non-notability and the extraneous discussion here on both sides has been unhelpful. Thincat (talk) 12:30, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Vu Digital – I find consensus to endorse the AfD's closure (nobody's really arguing against it anyways), but I find no consensus (but not consensus against) to restore the history under the redirect; it is a hotly debated point that should be be discussed on a broader scale (see ongoing RfC. Additionally, I find potential consensus (i.e.: not much discussion nor opposition) for recreating as a redirect (which I leave as an editorial decision to Cunard or any other editor), and I also find that after all this discussion (and perhaps especially the analysis of policies presented by Dirtlawyer1, although I must caution about the relentlessness with which you pursue your argument), it would be appropriate for Cunard to selectively merge content to C Spire Wireless either by rewriting it in his own words with the previous references, or by providing attribution (such as an edit summary "merged out from Vu Digital, attribution to contributors can be found in its history", regardless of whether said history is visible to non-admins or admins only). Cunard apparently already has said content but I'd be happy to provide a copy of it if necessary. – ☺ · Salvidrim! · ✉ 20:20, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Vu Digital (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion with closing admin:

Extended content

Regarding Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vu Digital (2nd nomination), would you undelete Vu Digital and redirect it to C Spire Wireless, so I can do a selective merge of its content to its parent company, C Spire Wireless? Thanks, Cunard (talk) 00:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I honestly can't see how I could do that without ignoring the actual consensus of the discussion which was a slam dunk delete. I'd feel uncomfortable with a blatent supervote like that. No objection to your creating a redirect as an editorial decision but there is no consensus for a merge. Spartaz Humbug! 00:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This was a well attended afd where the vast majority of the voters said to delete. i have to close by the consensus and there is no policy or practise to justify putting your two votes ahead. I can only redirect/smerge by ugnoring the consensus and I can't do that. Spartaz Humbug! 00:31, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

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

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

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

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

Restore the article's history under a redirect to C Spire Wireless so I can do a selective merge of a few sentences and their sources.

Cunard (talk) 00:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse "delete" closing. For over a year now, Cunard has been advancing a novel interpretation of preserving "article history" by redirecting in lieu of deletion whenever possible. It is past time to recognize that this is a novel interpretation with no actual basis in the applicable policies and guidelines, including without limitation WP:Deletion policy and WP:Editing policy. Often cited as a basis for this interpretation are WP:ATD (in reality, part of WP:Deletion policy) and WP:PRESERVE (part of WP:Editing policy); neither WP:ATD nor WP:PRESERVE actually mention the words "article history," and it is reasonably clear these policies did not perceive the preservation of "article content" as the equivalent of "article history". This line of thought has now run its logical course, and Cunard and others are arguing for a non-existent policy. If Cunard wants to implement a new content preservation policy -- one that sets forth circumstances and guidance for the preservation of article history -- it is far past the time for proponents of such changes to seek the consensus of the wider community by means of an RfC, rather than trying to jaw-jaw DRV participants into creating such a de facto policy in contravention of the actual policies on point which do not even so much as mention "article history" in the context of preserving content. Do the right thing, start that RfC, and seek the consensus of the community. Until then, it's time to oppose this obvious over-reach when it is put forward as a rationale for overturning the clear consensus of AfD participants (as quite properly interpreted by closing administrators) by means of DRVs such as this one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cunard's been doing that for one heck of a lot more than a year, and redirecting in preference to deletion isn't a "novel interpretation", it's policy.

    I'm conflicted. On the one hand, Spartaz's point is easily understood ---- there really was a consensus to delete, and what's the purpose of deleting material if it's restored on request? That makes our procedures seem pretty pointless. But on the other hand, Cunard's point is also easily understood ---- he wants to improve C Spire Wireless, and I approve of that because that content desperately needs help. Why should Cunard have to go back to the drawing board when there's material in a deleted history he can use? To make him start from scratch is to prioritise procedures over content, and we have policies that say content takes priority over procedure.

    The AfD is no help. I can't disagree with Spartaz' close: there really was a consensus to delete there, although it wasn't a slam dunk. I can't see the deleted material but from reading the AfD, some experienced editors whose judgment I trust were unimpressed with it. I can see from the AfD that Cunard has already done the work of finding the sources and I wonder to what extent he needs that old deleted content to work from?

    All in all I want to look for a third way here and I wonder whether it would be possible to userfy or email the material to Cunard? That way Cunard could cut and paste material into the article with an edit summary that preserves attribution, but we're respecting the consensus to delete by not restoring the contested article to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 02:19, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Here is the Google cache of the article. I would like to copy and paste several sentences in Vu Digital to C Spire Wireless. It would take fewer than five minutes, and I would do it now if I could be compliant with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright.

    I don't think a selective merge would be against the AfD's consensus. For example, DreamGuy wrote: "It should be mentioned more there, but it's up to the maintainers of that page how much to do so. A merge would have a lot of useless info." I can comply with his position by mentioning Vu Digital "more there" (cutting and pasting those sentences) but not merging "useless info" (the entire article).

    Cunard (talk) 02:32, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Apparently, you do not need anyone to provide a copy for you. There is no reason for this DRV. Nada. If you wanted to merge content from the deleted article, perhaps you should have participated in the AfD. Inventing an ex post facto rationale for overturning a properly decided AfD is sophistry. If you're genuinely concerned about our attribution and licensing policies, you may also paraphrase the desired content you believe is noteworthy. FYI, standard format citations are not generally considered creative content. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article history is needed to be compliant with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright. The natural place for the article history of a merged article is at its original title. Moving it to userspace eventually will be non-compliant with WP:UP#COPIES.

    If you're genuinely concerned about our you may also paraphrase the desired content you believe is noteworthy. – there is no reason to force editors to waste time paraphrasing material that already has been written. This is a poor reason to support deletion of the article's history.

    If you wanted to merge content from the deleted article, perhaps you should have participated in the AfD. – I did participate in the AfD.

    Cunard (talk) 02:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorry, but using your logic, every properly decided "delete" AfD could be overturned. Accept this was properly decided, and use the several available solutions. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:46, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @S Marshall: If Cunard personally wants to improve the related article, then he -- like any other editor -- may request a copy of the deleted article from any administrator. That's the simplest route forward. We do not overturn AfD consensus "delete" decisions, properly interpreted by the closing administrator, in order to preserve article history that someone may use in the future. Delete means "delete," not "delete, but we really know delete means redirect to preserve the history of a non-notable subject". And, yes, the interpretation of WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion policy to overturn properly decided AfD "delete" outcomes is novel. Neither of those policies even so much as mentions "article history" in the context of preserving content. If that's the interpretation you desire, then prepare your RfC for community approval. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:35, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm surprised and rather amused to see someone who's new here lecture me, Smokeyjoe and Cunard on what decisions DRV does and does not make. Because you are new, it's understandable that you're not aware of the occasions on which we have restored article histories to preserve attribution. It is in fact a relatively common outcome. We do not need an RFC to know that we have to observe the terms of use that are linked from the bottom of every page.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "I'm surprised and rather amused to see someone who's new here lecture me." I could respond in a similarly ad hominem manner, S Marshall, but instead I will point out that capturing a review panel with four or five reliable !votes and advocating outcomes that are not supported by a literal reading of existing policies and guidelines is nothing to lord over perceived "newbies." It's pretty clear based on comments in this and other recent DRVs involving the restoration of article history under redirects that you would be better informed and Wikipedia better served by reviewing the applicable policies:
  1. WP:Editing policy (with special attention to the fact "article history" is not mentioned in the context of "preserving content");
  2. WP:Deletion policy (ditto);
  3. WP:Deletion review (with particular attention to the scope of DRV review);
  4. WP:Protection policy (no basis for indefinite full protection of redirects); and
  5. WP:Copying within Wikipedia (proper paraphrasing of existing Wikipedia content does not require attribution).
Likewise, I am "surprised," but I am not at all "amused" by the misrepresentations of these fundamental policies in these discussions. I suggest that you save your condescension and start to review the weaknesses in the "save the article history arguments" presented. Apparently your assumptions (and those of other participants) have gone unchallenged by anyone who has actually read the applicable policies. As for being a newbie, I've been participating in AfDs and TfDs for six years, as well as copyright and attribution discussion, and I recognize when people have not read the actual policies they cite for support. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:51, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A true lawyer! Do delete history because it is not mentioned in WP:Editing policy and WP:Deletion review. Don't do any alternatives because they are not mentioned in WP:Protection policy. You do see your flawed logic ... right? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:42, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is no flawed logic, Richard, and your taunts are not becoming to a 56-year-old adult. "Delete and redirect" has been a perfectly valid !vote and AfD outcome for all of my six and a half years editing Wikipedia. The place to argue for the alternatives you seek was in the AfD; you don't get to overturn a valid AfD consensus because you don't like it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What's definitely not okay is to delete the history and then re-use the content. See WP:RUD. The real expert on this area is User:Flatscan, who sadly no longer edits, but he gave us a lot of wisdom on this point historically and looking at his contribution history will uncloak quite a lot of subtle thought about attribution in relation to deleted content. I also think it's plausible that in relation to close paraphrasing of deleted material, there's a gulf between behaviour that's technically within the rules, and behaviour that's up to the expected standards we enforce at DRV. This part of the encyclopaedia does have standards, and custom and practice, that's not written down and has to be learned through experience. It's also not particularly constrained; deletion review is the "highest court", to use a decidedly inappropriate metaphor, and so it has wide latitude to come to decisions which improve the encyclopaedia's deletion processes. Generally, I would repeat my suggestion to Dirtlawyer1 that for his first little while at Deletion Review it would be appropriate to use a little less of the imperative and the emphatic declarative, and a little more of the interrogative, when speaking to those with a lot of experience here.—S Marshall T/C 02:01, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, but undelete history to allow a selective merge, protect the title to enforce the decision to delete. The undeletion of the history is good practice for proper WP:Copyright compliance. Wikipedia internally should definitely err on the side of overcompliance if it wants any credibility in asking downstream users to respect its copyrights. The AfD was found to have a consensus for deletion, as a matter of Wikipedia-notability, but there was inadequate consideration of reuse of some sourced material elsewhere. Given that Cunard has read the deleted article, he is influenced by it, and so its authors require attribution should cunard add anything from it to another article. Dirtlawyer1's suggestion of obtaining a copy of the deleted article and proceeding without ongoing attribution violates WP:Copyrights, both the spirit and the letter. While attribution workarounds are possible, such as a null edit pointing to a talk page section naming the authors or reused deleted content, it is not reasonable to expect downstream users to honour that, downstream users will reasonably rely on the author list provided by the "Download as PDF" tool. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:30, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Please review the circumstances under which indefinite full page protection is available per WP:FPP. My reading of our page protection policy is that full page protection is not available for redirects, let alone indefinite full page protection. "Delete" means "delete," not "selective merge, with a redirect and restoration of article history under the redirect". It is axiomatic that every merge is a selective merge, and a "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome. It is not DRV's remit to overturn a properly decided consensus outcome; that's no different than an administrator "super vote" disregarding the consensus in closing the AfD. In the absence of an AfD consensus "merge" closing, the same net result may be achieved by obtaining a copy (or a copy of selected sections of the deleted article) and re-writing or paraphrasing any substantive content to be included in the target article. Standard format citations are generally not considered creative content and may be recycled without change. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • With the decreasing number of active editors, I suspect that administrative controls, such as page protection on redirects that are the made as the result of a formal consensus discussion, will need to become routine. WP:FPP will need updating. Old policy need not be a future straightjacket. I submit that a consensus found at AfD, or DRV, or in any formal well-participated discussion, need not feel bound by the wording of WP:FPP where the intention of WP:FPP was to discourage pre-emptive unilateral protection. As the consensus was that the article should not exist, and if it is felt that the article should never exist, then it is appropriate to protect the title.
You write: "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome.

I don't see that. Can you check again? I see no opposition to the merge suggestion. Maybe DreamGuys "A merge would have a lot of useless info", but I don't agree that there was a rejection of merge. The Delete !voters seemed to be looking at a keep/delete dichotomy.

At DRV, we may consider that a certain fine question was not well considered. We could send it back for discussion, but if fine question is trivial DRV participants may address it directly. Further, the usual limits to freedom of outcome opined here can be considerably broadened, noting a long history and heightened friction between Cunard and Spartaz. I note that this friction is plain to see, without suggesting myself that either is at fault. I doubt that they would drink together in the real world.
It is true that the references are not creative content, and Cunard may take the references and re-create content. It may be erring on the side of compliance to give attribution for content in the article that may be preserved through Cunard's reworking, but I believe that Wikipedia should go to lengths to demonstrate excellent attention to copyright compliance. I also note that there is no harm in keeping material in the history, if we can assume that it will stay there. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:05, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: FYI, I have been quite active in dealing with copyright material and enforcing the Wikipedia attribution guidelines for article-to-article copying of text within Wikipedia. Before you comment further, I strongly urge you to read WP:Copying within Wikipedia, which governs copying text from one Wikipedia article to another, and when attribution is required either in the article edit history or the article talk page. WP:COPYRIGHTS actually has little to say about copy-paste from one article to another.
I would also suggest that you re-read the DRV instructions on the WP:DRV page, your comments above suggest a great deal more latitude in what DRV should address than what you will find on that page. In particular, I suggest you take note of "Deletion Review should not be used . . . to request that previously deleted content be used on other pages (please go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion for these requests)." In short, DRV is the wrong forum for Cunard's request, and this DRV discussion is an obvious attempt to circumvent the foregoing guideline. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:18, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is OK to reuse deleted content in another article, then undelete, keep that content available behind the redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:11, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But why, Joe? The simplest, most time efficient solution is for Cunard to copy the references and the two or three sentences of substantive content he wishes to incorporate into the related article, and then re-write the two or three sentences he wishes to transfer. Easy-peasy, simple as pie. No redirect needed, no invalid full page protection for the redirect, no copyright problem, no Wikipedia attribution required, no overturning a perfectly valid consensus AfD close, and no more precedents for a very sketchy interpretation of WP:PRESERVE. One editor (Cunard) can implement everything required -- no DRV, no administrator to undelete, restore and page protect -- and it could have been done in less time than it took to file this DRV. Honestly, common sense has failed Cunard, here, because he is pursuing a completely unnecessary WP:POINT when the easiest, most time-efficient solution is completely within his own control. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:53, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • De minimis non curat lex -- "the law does not concern itself with trifles", and neither should DRV. As noted above, Cunard has it within his own power to accomplish his stated purpose without the necessity of this DRV or the assistance of any other editor. Why are we here? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why have you wandered in here attempting to wikilawyer? I am not persuaded.
There was a consensus that there should not be a standalone article, but the discussion did not adequately consider redirection vs deletion. A case here is made for redirection, and also that the deleted material is suitable for inclusion elsewhere. If there is no compelling reason for deletion of the material, then undeletion and conversion to redirect is appropriate.
While you may be correct that Cunard has gone to some length to make a point when he could have achieve a similar outcome another way, it does not change the fact that his point is correct.
Either restore the history and redirect or relist for consideration of whether some material is suitable for inclusion in other articles. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several of us are attempting to "wikilawyer" a non-existent policy into existence, but I am not among them, Joe. And you failed to answer my simple question, to wit:
Why did Cunard need to file this DRV when he could have simply copied the references and rephrased the two or three sentences of content he wants to transfer to the related article?
Cunard could have accomplished his stated purpose in less time than it took to file this DRV, and you know it. There is absolutely no valid reason to preserve the article history of the deleted article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are playing with words. "need" is an extreme word. None of us "need" do anything. Also, it is highly tangential. He has done it, and he is right. Perhaps he is trying to make a point to steer the project into more ideal practices, which definitely include only deleting content when there is good reason to do so. There was no good reason in this case. The request to undelete is reasonable. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation, Sources provided show notability have been established and a AfD may be required. I for one also find it easier to work and improve articles with a userfied version intact. To denied Cunard a userfied version is unbecoming. Valoem talk contrib 09:20, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • What? I haven't refused to userfy this. Cunard wants the article restored in mainspace - please check your facts before making unfounded accusations.. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I believed Cunard wanted to use to material in its history to do a selective merge a userfication may have prevented this discussion. Based on your talk page, I was under the impression this request was denied. Valoem talk contrib 06:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake, neither request should be denied. Valoem talk contrib 06:30, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history to allow merging and preserving copyright we must legally attribute material to the authors if some material is going to be merged. There is never a good reason to delete a history when converting into a redirect unless it is a copyright violation or slanderous in a BLP. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless of course the consensus of the discussion is to delete. Ignoring that would be the real supervote. Spartaz Humbug! 15:47, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution. However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia), requires attribution.
In this case, the need for a restoration of article history for attribution purposes as a justification for restoring the article edit history is a massive red herring. For the transfer of two or three sentences of substantive content, re-writing the transferred content in a manner sufficient to avoid close-paraphrasing completely obviates the need for attribution (see above quote and link). Clearly, Cunard is a capable writer, and fully able to rephrase two or three sentences in his own words. Once again, we are trying to justify overturning a clear and proper AfD consensus decision for reasons that are not even required under the policies cited. Before you quote policy to others, it would behoove you to read and understand those policies in some detail. Paraphrasing the limited content to be transferred is the far simpler solution, and does not require overturning a proper AfD consensus, the unnecessary restoration of article history, fully protecting a redirect on questionable grounds, or a sketchy interpretation of policy that requires the preservation of article history under all conceivable circumstances. Usually, the simplest solution is the best one. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, do not restore- Consensus to delete was clear. Generally, a consensus-based close should be overturned only if the closer has made a mistake in judging it, or the situation changes dramatically afterward. That's not the case here. I suggest that, instead of starting a DRV, it would have been easier for Cunard to just take the references (either from the cached copy, or by asking an admin to email them) and write the content in his own words. AfD result upheld, content written, copyright requirements adhered to. Everyone should be happy. Reyk YO! 15:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse, restore, redirect and protect. It achieves the same outcome as deletion but keeps us meeting our license. Alternatively, if desired, I believe it is considered acceptable to use deleted material as long as you cite everyone in the edit history that contributed to the article. I'd like a second opinion on that, but I believe that also meets the letter (and probably most of the intent) of the CC BY-SA License. Disagree with Reyk here: asking someone else to rewrite everything (even just a few sentences) for sake of policy is silly. Though of Reyk wants do do the rewrite (or anyone else) that's fine too. Dirtlawyer1 has certainly spent way (way) more time writing things here than doing that would take... Hobit (talk) 18:42, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hobit, it's not my obligation to re-write two or three sentences of text for a clearly capable writer. My objection here is that we are using these trivial needs for the transfer of a small amount of content into a reason for overturning a perfectly valid AfD close when a much simpler solution is readily available, and we are inventing a non-existent policy (preserve article history whenever possible is not the same as preserve article content when reasonably possible), as well as ignoring those policies that do exist -- i.e., there is no valid justification for preemptive, indefinite full page protection under WP:FPP, nor is there any real impediment to paraphrasing two or three sentences of content to be added to the related article per WP:Copying within Wikipedia. This is simply an excuse to try to further establish a precedent in favor of a new "policy" that has no explicit textual basis in existing policy, and it should be opposed on principle for that reason alone. As I said above, the simplest resolution to the "problem" presented by the OP is not the one requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:36, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not his job either. The text is there and if we have to have it undeleted to use it, I don't see the problem. I'm open to other solutions, but as a general rule, my feeling is that anyone who shouts "It's easy, just do it" should be prepared to either do it or should shut up. You do make a good point about our protection policies. But I think my alternative solution fixes everything. Your thoughts on that? Hobit (talk) 01:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It's not his job either." Uh, Cunard has premised this entire DRV on his desire to move a small amount of content from the deleted article to the related article ("a selective merge" in his words). The content was deleted per a perfectly valid consensus AfD closing. He now seeks to unwind that 7–3 "delete" vs. "keep" consensus closing because he did achieve his desired "keep" outcome in the AfD, saying that he wants to "preserve content" by transferring some verbatim content from the deleted article to the related article. He has a perfectly viable alternative per WP:Copying within Wikipedia: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution." But rewriting the content in his own words is not good enough for him, he want to transfer verbatim content from a deleted article whose subject was determined to be non-notable by a 7–3 !vote in which he participated. So, yeah . . . I'm a little taken aback by your "It's not his job either" response because it's such boldly stated non sequitur. He has made it his job by demanding a non-consensus outcome and the privilege to use that content -- is someone else going to transfer that content he has demanded be made available through a restored edit history or is someone else obligated to do that for him as their "job"? If he could just as easily paraphrase the two or three sentences of content per WP:Copying within Wikipedia, why exactly are we having this DRV? This DRV appears to be a WP:POINTY exercise. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps Cunard does not wish to rewrite in his own words. Perhaps the original version was well written. Erring on the side of providing attribution is a good thing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Erring on the side of providing attribution is a good thing." Generally, I would agree with that statement, however, WP:Copying within Wikipedia makes a specific exception: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution." That said, we do not overturn consensus because "Cunard does not wish to rewrite in his own words. Perhaps the original version was well written." Neither of those is a valid DRV rationale for overturning a properly decided AfD consensus, and I'm sorry, Joe, but repeating it doesn't make it any more valid. The "overturn" participants in this discussion are struggling to state a coherent reason for overturning a proper consensus "delete" closing. It may not be the way either of us would have voted had we participated, but absent clear error we don't get to substitute our !votes for those of the participants. "Delete" means "delete," not "delete the article, add a redirect and restore the article history of an article that was determined to non-notable by a perfectly valid consensus". Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD did not consider the merits of redirecting. Assuming that the title is now to be redirected (has that case been made?), then redirection with history intact should be the default position and undeleting the history should not be this hard.
Cunard could and should add the material now to the target, create the redirect, and see if the material in the target sticks and if the redirect is justified. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am following the discussion, I do believe there are sources that may allow a recreation at some point in the future. I understand that the opener's request it is allow a redirect to be retained so he can use the material for a merge to the main article. I find this to be a more than reasonable request, based on the discussion there does not appears to be violating material in the history of the article. It could be viewed an avoidable complexity. Such requests should be granted without such discussions unless a particular reason is noted. To allow an editor to use information to expand the encyclopedia is its appropriate place is the best way to grow Wikipedia. WP:PRESERVE exists for this reason. Valoem talk contrib 06:09, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guide to deletion - Please note that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard of clearly does not know the history of established AfD procedures as well as they think. Moreover, Curnard and one or more other editors who have suggested that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome are flat-out wrong. I hope this removes all doubt as to what is actually permissible as an AfD !vote or consensus outcome. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

::Thats understandable, a temporary userfication is a good alternative, I believe the editor would like to use content in its history to do a selective merge to the parent article. Is there a policy against that? Valoem talk contrib

Deleted content cannot be transferred to another article without attribution. The simple solution is to rewrite any copy-paste text in a manner sufficient to avoid a close paraphrase. This simple and obvious solution has been rejected by Cunard and the other editors who want the article history restored regardless based on a non-existent policy of preserving article history whenever possible. The real policy is to preserve article content by fixing an article or merging it to another when reasonably possible. Please note, however, that (a) preserving content and preserving article history are not the same things, and (b) the Wikipedia Guide to Deletion explicitly permits "delete and redirect" AfD !votes and consensus outcomes. This whole DRV (and several that preceded it) are based on a succession of misreadings and misunderstandings of well-established AfD procedures. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is indeed the one of the simpler solutions under discussion. The simplest solution that's been raised is for Spartaz to userfy or email a copy of the deleted content to Cunard; for Cunard to copy/paste whatever he likes into the article; and for the edit summary he uses to paste the material include a list of the contributors.—S Marshall T/C 08:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither are the best solution. The minimal requirement is that a downstream user can access the list of authors. The best solution is that the source website, wikipedia.org, allows the examination of the precise contribution. Trying to maintain this will help keep this website more respected than any mirror or reuse. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:58, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, redirect and undelete history. It is a good and well-established practice to keep the history under a redirect unless there has been abusive content (copyright infringement, attack). Lack of notability is a particularly strong reason for keeping the history so that material can later be included in a broader topic or recreated if notability is later established. Even if the history is not necessary in specific instance, it is better to retain it than argue about it. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hanne Verbruggen is a recent commendable example. Is there anything in the history being discussed here that ought to remain hidden? Protect the redirect if there is abuse. Thincat (talk) 10:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thincat: Please point to the provision of WP:Protection policy that permits preemptive full page protection for redirects. We some to have created one policy out of thin air, while ignoring several that do exist in this discussion. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:03, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well protection isn't my area of interest or expertise and I don't mind much whether any redirect is protected now, or in future, or not at all. I'm entirely happy to leave all that to others. Anyway, I'm not sure why you are asking me to point to where preemptive protection of redirects is permitted when I wasn't suggesting preemptive protection. When I glanced just now at the protection policy page I just couldn't face reading it! Over the years I have become familiar with many aspects of deletion policy and notability guidance but even there I generally look again to check up before giving an opinion here. Thincat (talk) 19:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Full protection of redirects after a deletion discussion is sometimes done for the same reason that full protection against re-creation is sometimes done: because some editors are unwilling to live with the consensus and this stops them from unilaterally re-creating the material. It's not really discussed in detail at WP:SALT but there is a brief discussion at the top of Category:Protected redirects. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:14, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect and reuse the already perfected content. If we are counting AfD votes, the votes from earlier nominations should be factored into the total. 1st nomination, 3 keep to 1 delete, 2nd nomination, 3 keep to 5 delete, In effect, the overall vote is 6 to 6, far from consensus. Additionally, I see WP:INHERIT bandied around a lot for Corp articles, I can't think of any individual or entity that is notable for their mere existence, it is their works or products that make them notable. In this case, we cannot just consider the corporation, there is also the product which may be notable and often brands are also notable. Finally, I've been kicking around the idea of hosting my own Wiki, recovering what I feel is valuable content that gets deleted on a daily basis. As such, without a redirect and edit history (blank article, install redirect), how does the external Wiki comply with the Foundation's policy for attribution? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 22:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, the second AfD was 6–3 delete vs. keep (we count the nominator as a delete !vote), and, no, we do not combine the !votes from multiple AfDs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, AfDs can be unlimited, with very little nominating supporting logic ("Seems like advertising to me"), while "keep" is sudden death, and the original author's vote is often discounted. How many times can the AfD be brought to DRV? -- Paid Editor -- User:009o9Talk 23:07, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@009o9: Per WP:Deletion policy, "As with deletion discussions, a certain amount of time should pass between repeated requests for deletion review, and these requests should be carefully considered in light of policy. Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." There is a limit of implied reasonableness on the frequency of AfDs regarding the same article. If an article is kept by consensus at AfD, it should not be submitted to AfD again (absent a DRV challenging the outcome) for a substantial time afterward. For an AfD that results in a "no consensus" outcome, there is no such implied limitation on when it may be resubmitted, although resubmitting a new AfD for a well-attended AfD that resulted in no consensus with good argument may not be particularly well received, either, and closed as tendentious. DRVs may be resubmitted upon the discovery of substantial new reliable sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject; the article may also be resubmitted if it has been userfied and substantially re-written to demonstrate the subject's notability or correction of other problems that led to its deletion. Consensus can change, and no consensus can be said to last indefinitely per WP:CCC. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
009o9, you should use Special:Export with appropriate settings to download the full page history. The relevant policy is WP:Reusing Wikipedia content. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion, do not restore. The deletion discussion not only had a clear consensus that the article should be deleted, but also that a major reason for the deletion was that the sources from the article were press releases and local news stories of too low quality to use. So undeleting the same material in order to use the same references to describe the same subject in a different article seems clearly against consensus to me. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:19, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is a compelling argument against including the same material in the redirect target, and undermines the merits of the request for undeletion. Is it true that the material sought to be reused was not sourced to quality material from quality sources? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:48, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made that remark having only read through the AfD itself, where I saw what appeared to be a consensus that the sources were low quality, but your question caused me to look at them myself. The deleted version of the article had six footnotes. Two are press-release-aggregators (Business Wire and PRNewswire). Two of them are local news sources (Mississippi Business Journal and The Clarion-Ledger). One appears to be a non-notable blog (newswatchblog.com). But the remaining source, in TechCrunch, might be sufficiently reliable and independent to use as a source. Here is the link: [1]. I doubt that it would require undeletion to re-use that source, though. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:20, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not in the least. The only thing cited to that source, which is the closest to usable, was a quote from the company's vice-president. The overwhelming majority of the article that isn't quotes from the company's mouthpieces are sourced to such gems as this; even the title of that press release is spam. There is no possible way a merge of this material would be of any use to anybody except as a thinly-veiled excuse to undelete this article for the sake of undeleting it. —Cryptic 01:35, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. For all the wikilawyering above, this is really very simple. The community was asked to decide what to do with this article. They said (by a 2:1 margin), to delete it. Now, Cunard is asking, Ignore what they said, do what I want instead. Sparatz is right, to go along with this request would be to ignore the consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm writing this as a separate comment, to make sure it doesn't get conflated with my unequivocal endorsement above. There is a bit of a technical problem here. There's really two different flavors of delete. One is, This material violates core policy by its very existence and must be expunged. That's the case with WP:BLP, WP:COPYVIO, WP:OFFICE, WP:OUT, etc. The other is, This material doesn't meet our editorial standards for inclusion as an article. For case 2 AfDs that get closed as merge or redirect, it's a no brainer to preserve the history under the redirect. For case 1, it's a no brainer to delete the history (in exceptional cases, even from the view of admins via WP:Oversight). The problem that we're discussing here is the (not terribly uncommon) case of an article being deleted for WP:N reasons without there being anyplace to redirect the title. The wiki software has no mechanism for this which doesn't involve hiding the history. We've got preserve the history under a redirect, but we don't have preserve the history with no visible title. Perhaps we should. We could implement that today, with no changes to the software, by creating a Deleted: namespace. Then, a case 2 deletion could be implemented as a rename of Foo to Deleted:Foo. I think this would result in exactly what we need. The article would be out of mainspace. It wouldn't show up in our search index (and it would be easy to adjust our robots.txt file to exclude it from the web crawlers so it wouldn't show up in google, bing, yahoo, etc). Wikilinks to it under the old title would now become redlinks (and we would have a policy which says articles in mainspace may never link to deleted space). But, the full edit history would still be there, so people could mine the old text for whatever purpose and attribution would be preserved. And, in AfD, people would have to be clear which flavor of delete they are arguing for. But, let me re-emphasize, I'm talking here about future directions. For this DRV, my !vote to endorse, above, is in full force. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting proposal, Roy. Probably deserves to be explored at length outside of this DRV. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and merge if it is actually beneficial as a merge can be made even if the article will still be deleted but keep the redirect for history purposes. SwisterTwister talk 19:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Suggestions There should be some principle by which we decide. I suggest these, which are the basis for what I say at one of these discussions:
  1. If the material will eventually make an article, but cannot practically be immediately improved, and is not actually harmful in some manner , such as being promotional, it's appropriate to userify--though I would suggest always doing this into draft space, to encourage others to work on it also & make it visible to the usual draft space processes. Make a redirect in addition, if there's an appropriate target; if necessary , protect it. . Do not keep the material in mainspace in the article history behind the redirect, because changing a redirect back to an article does not go though the New Pages process, and will thus not be noticed by the usual patrolling. The article history will still be therein the draft space, which will preserve attribution if it should become an article .
  2. If the subject might make an article, but the material at present is useless, or harmful in some manner, such as being promotional, delete, and let any good faith editor have a copy of the text to use as assistance for rewriting an article. Make a redirect if there's a good target. If necessary, protect it. Protection will normally force the new article to be made in draft space.
  3. If the subject is outrageous promotional, or written in violation of our terms of use, do not make a redirect, and protect the article title. If necessary, protect draft space also, for 6 months to a year. The new article should not be made immediately, to prevent the person improperly trying to take advantage of WP from benefiting by having an article. It is our only available sanction against violation of the tou, and individual editors will harm WP if they in any way encourage or reward such violations.
Now, we have no specific policy requiring the third point, but in practice we often do something of the sort. I have the highest regard for Cunard, but the practice by which he contributes to the work of promotional editors is harming WP, and we ought to establish a consensus to not allow it. (This is a disagreement, and should not be misinterpreted as as a personal quarrel.) Whether we have an article or not on a specific subject is almost always much less important than doing whatever is in our power to prevent WP from becoming a place for advertisements. DGG ( talk ) 01:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I missed the window to view the google cache. DGG, are you saying that Cunard is seeking to provide attribution, perhaps "courtesy attribution", to an editor whose clear intention in contributing to the deleted article was promotion? If yes, I would agree, attribution should be denied. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:32, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), you can see the article in the Bing Cache, which you can view by clicking the downward arrow on the "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vu_Digital" line and then clicking "Cached page". The article is written neutrally and has no promotional material. Attribution should not be denied to the editors who wrote that neutral content. Cunard (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's seriously your idea of neutral? —Cryptic 02:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see why it was deleted. It is wholly promotional. But not egregiously so, not so badly that I would agree to calling the authors spam vandals who should be banned and their memory suppressed. I don't see a problem with undeleting the history, as long as it is understood that the past content was promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:15, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cryptic and SmokeyJoe, yes, the article is written neutrally. The sentences sourced from the company's PRNewswire post are a mistaken addition from a new editor or IP editor in May 2015 and should not be held against the article's creator who wrote the article in 2013 or earlier based on the references' accessdates.

This has happened recently to one of the articles I wrote. Some very promotional wording had stayed in the article for several years before I noticed it a few days ago and reverted it. Promotional material later added to articles should not reflect poorly on the articles' creators who may no longer be around to remove it. Cunard (talk) 02:23, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good grief. Is this what Cunard is fighting so damn hard to "preserve" -- a WP:PROMOTION article that violates WP:What Wikipedia is not? Per WP:Deletion policy#Reasons for deletion no. 14 "Any other content not suitable for an encyclopedia," i.e., WP:What Wikipedia is not, including "Advertising, marketing or public relations," is subject to deletion at AfD. Enough. This should be embarrassing to everyone involved. The perfectly viable alternative is to take the references (i.e. non-creative content that does not require attribution), write a sentence or two about Vu Digital for the related article of the parent company -- minus the grotesquely promotional quotes from company insiders -- and call it a day. We should not be turning our policies and guidelines inside out and upside down over the "preservation" of so-called "content" that violates Wikipedia policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (ec) I would disagree that it was written neutrally. I would call it a tempered press release. The lack of critical commentary is the problem. A wholly owned subsidiary of a private company employing 1-10 people needs clearly independent commentary avoid being labelled "promotion". --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:39, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I copied three acceptable sources mentioned by Cunard from the Bing cache: [2], [3], [4]. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and merge:
  • The argument that the history must be preserved in order to maintain copyright holds water for me.
  • Cunard has specifically proposed to preserve only the content from the article that is sourced from reliable independent sources, such as TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, and The Clarion-Ledger. Is anyone challenging the reliability or independent nature of these sources?
  • Much of the opposition to this copyright chain issue in this discussion seems to be supported by an anti-promotional bias. We need to separate the bias against the promotional tone of the article from the merits of preserving the content that is based on reliable independent sources.
  • This was certainly not a 'slam dunk delete' as those who supported the Delete side based their arguments on (a) the presence of PR sources which could easily have been removed from the article without deleting it, and (b) there was never any argument laid out for why local and regional media sources were not valid. --Sbwoodside (talk) 05:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I asked AfD "delete" participant Joseph2302 whether he supported my proposal here at DRV to merge only material sourced from reliable independent sources like TechCrunch, Mississippi Business Journal, and The Clarion-Ledger. He wrote: "I cannot see the page, but from my previous comments, it seems like it was a spampage with a few okay sources. If you just use reliable sources, then I don't have an issue."

    The AfD had nine participants. On the "delete" side, SwisterTwister and Joseph2302 are okay with a merge using only reliable sources. On the "keep" side, 009o9, Sbwoodside, and I are also okay with a merge using only reliable sources. AfD "delete" participant DGG has written a nuanced comment above.

    I think that since at least five out of the nine AfD participants are fine with a merge using only reliable sources, it would not be against AfD participants' wishes to restore the history under the redirect to facilitate a merge to C Spire Wireless.

    Cunard (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion as the clear consensus of the AfD. Unless someone objects or beats me to it, I will write a few sentences in C Spire Wireless#History from the four acceptable sources without using text from the deleted article. I looked at the Bing cache version to copy its three sources, but I didn't actually read it. Flatscan (talk) 05:45, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Although we have disagreed on some occasions, I consider you to be Wikipedia's resident copyright sage and am glad to see you return to editing. Thank you for clearing up questions and misconceptions about copyright here and at another DRV. I appreciate your valuable insight.

    Thank you for offering to expand C Spire Wireless#History with information about Vu Digital. A majority of the AfD participants have said they are fine with restoring the article's history under the redirect to facilitate a merge. Since the article's history contains useful content for a merge and restoring it would not be against their wishes, I continue to believe the article's history should be restored. I view the merge of reliably sourced material from Vu Digital as complementary to your expansion, both of which will significantly improve the C Spire Wireless article. Cunard (talk) 07:22, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 November 2015[edit]

28 November 2015[edit]

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

Only one person suggested deleting the available information before turning into a redirect. The information and edit history should be restored, the redirect can stay. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend keeping history deleted unless it is needed temporarily as research material for another article or permanently for copyright/legal compliance, or if at least one editor from the AFD who said "redirect" chimes in here with a clarification that he favors keeping the history.
The deletion discussion results plus the DRV nomination combine to show these opinions:
Delete outright: 2 (including AFD nom.). Delete and redirect: 1. Redirect: 3 (including Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) who opened this DRV). Keep: 1
If you are going to count delete as delete and redirect then you have to count keep as preserve and redirect. You do recognize the logical flaw of what you are doing ... right? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:03, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Yes, Richard, both "delete" and "delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes have the same practical impact on article history: it's not retained or restored. As for "keep" !votes and outcomes, of course their practical impact on article history is the history is retained; that's axiomatic and does not need to be specified in the AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The nature of the Dirtlawyer1's Serialjoepsycho's comments strongly imply they favor "delete and redirect" rather than "keep history and redirect," or at the very least, that they don't care one way or the other. However, I could be wrong and they may come here and say otherwise. But even if they are both "neutral" on the "keep history or not" issue, it's still 3 editors who clearly favor deleting the history and 2 who clearly favor keeping it. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 04:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was actual arguing for a merge. Didn't know that Delete and redirect was an actual thing. You keep the histories in a merge and there's no reason that I can see to really delete the history.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 05:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe it would be best if Dirtlawyer1 stopped pretending he can read people's minds. If he really can, he has to teach it to all of us. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 14:58, 2 December 2015 (UTC) Richard, if you're going to insert your new comments in the middle of older threads, you need to learn to properly indent and bullet them, rather than outdenting and confusing the continuity of thread and subthreads. As for your comment about reading minds, I have no need of my wiki super powers when the proponents of ambiguous !votes are polled and they speak for themselves, as they have in this DRV. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In light of that, it's a 50/50 tossup on keeping the history or not. If only those who participated in the AFD's opinions are counted then it's still 3-2 in favor of deleting the history (the DRV discussion-opener is the 3rd "keep history" opinion). Personally, I think 3-2 is close enough to even that we can say there is "either a very weak or no consensus to delete the page history" but that's just my opinion. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 05:50, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. I was pinged for my interpretation of my own rationale in this AfD. Ordinarily, I would be indifferent as to whether a redirect outcome would involve saving the page history or not. In this case, however, I favor a delete and redirect because of the recent history of contentious article recreations after delete AfD results in this topic area. I would feel more comfortable if a would-be re-creator of this article could not simply undo the redirect and restore the deleted article. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's a faction of Wikipedians who're interested in extremely long-lived people, and I've long felt that there could be a separate wiki about them ---- something like TV tropes, where there's no notability rule so articles of this kind can be maintained by those who're so inclined. We could facilitate this outcome by not deleting the article histories. If there's some reason to think the article might be re-created, then protecting the redirect seems like a better way to prevent that than deleting the history, which seems destructive and hard to justify on policy grounds.—S Marshall T/C 10:53, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Destructive"? Sorry, but I'm not sure what purpose preserving the article history serves, if the content in the list article is being reduced to a brief a one-sentence description (e.g., "Butler was an English great grandmother from Bournemouth."), or, as in this case, five columns of simple facts -- gender, DOB, DOD, POB, POD and elapsed age. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:13, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I just said, the historical information could potentially be used elsewhere. We aren't the only wiki in the world. Many of the others don't have notability rules and could use this data. And needlessly deleting the history is destructive. See?—S Marshall T/C 14:20, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We're going to have to agree to disagree on this point. If your purpose is to promote an off-Wikipedia gerontological project, then we would be better served by userfication or admins providing copies of deleted articles on request. To my way of thinking, preserving edit history makes most sense when there has been a merge or when previous content might otherwise serve as future reference material for on-Wikipedia articles. We're not a repository for references on non-notable subjects, and I see no good reason why we should be. No need to reply -- I think we've both expressed our philosophical differences on point well enough. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:10, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, but I'll be the judge of whether I should reply. You're asking for a justification to keep this material and I'm asking for a justification to delete it. Mine is the question that's more usual on Wikipedia.—S Marshall T/C 16:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fair enough. The primary question above was answered in the AfD: the article was to be deleted. Now we're fussing about what happens to the article history. Normally, when an article is "deleted" that means the article history is deleted too, although I acknowledge there are a number of vocal editors who advocate preserving article history whenever possible even though the article has been deleted. A fair reading of WP:BEFORE and WP:Alternatives to deletion does not require, or even favor, keeping article history when an article has been deleted at AfD. Neither the deletion policy nor the AfD instructions/guidelines explicitly mention article history in their discussions of alternatives to deletion, and I think it's pretty clear that they are concerned with articles and article content, not article history. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • We all agree that consensus can change, that was how this article was made into a redirect on the third !vote. By deleting the history you are guaranteeing that consensus can never change in the reverse direction. 99.999% of editors no longer have access to the source material once it is deposited in the memory hole. As User:dirtlawyer points out: "I favor a delete and redirect because of the recent history of contentious article recreations" he is specifically asking for the deletion of the history to prevent consensus from ever changing again. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard, anyone can ask any administrator to userfy a copy of a deleted article to user space or to provide a copy of it by email. Consensus changing has nothing to do with it. If you want a copy, ask for it, but I see no reason to enable the contentious recreation of deleted articles by simply reverting a redirect contrary to the consensus established in an AfD. It was deleted for a reason. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can only request a copy if you know it exists. It no longer exists to 99.999% of editors, that is why it is such a sly tactic. I have seen some AFDs go to 10 tries before deleted and I have never seen one of the ones that went above 5 restored, once deleted. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:22, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • "sly tactic"? No, sir, it's standard operating procedure; there's nothing "sly" about it. If you want a copy of this article, or you want it userfied, then ask for it. DRV does not serve the function of facilitating one-edit restorations of articles deleted by consensus at AfD. That's contrary to common sense, especially in a contentious area like "oldest people" where SPA editors frequently re-create recently deleted articles, undo redirects, and seem not to have a firm grasp of our notability and other suitability guidelines. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:33, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • BTW, you opened this DRV with the suggestion that there was a split of !votes between delete/redirect (delete article history), and redirect (keep article history). I was one of the "redirect" !votes in this AfD, one of the votes you suggested did not support deleting the article history above. Well, my own interpretation of my own "redirect" vote includes deletion of the article history. Frankly, given this discussion and the efforts by "oldest people" SPA editors to disregard GNG and other applicable article suitability guidelines, I will be making my !votes in all AfDs in this topic area explicitly "delete and redirect" in the future. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:45, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would you be supportive of preserving the history if the redirects were fully-protected, which would prevent the SPA editors from undoing the redirects? Cunard (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Consensus can indeed change, but I would be very surprised if it were to change to include someone who for a few years was the second oldest person in the UK. If WP should ever change to that extent, it can always be resurrected. DGG ( talk ) 07:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the article's history under a fully-protected redirect. As I wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre:

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

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

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

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

    I agree with S Marshall that "the historical information could potentially be used elsewhere".

    Serialjoepsycho, an AfD participant, has stated above "I was actual arguing for a merge. ...there's no reason that I can see to really delete the history." This opinion is consistent with Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems (WP:PRESERVE), which says, "Instead of removing content from an article, consider: Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".

    Dirtlawyer1's concern that "I would feel more comfortable if a would-be re-creator of this article could not simply undo the redirect and restore the deleted article" can be handled easily by fully-protecting the redirect.

    Cunard (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please provide a brief policy-based justification for indefinite full page protection of a redirect under Wikipedia:Protection policy. If there is one, it is not immediately self-evident to me -- I don't believe the policy permits indefinite full protection in anticipation of a potential problem. We appear to be attempting to stitch together multiple policies and guidelines that were not written to address the idea of preserving page history whenever possible. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:35, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suggestion of indefinite full page protection of the redirect was based on your anticipation of a potential problem of the redirect's getting undone and using that as your main reason to deny restoration of the history. It is based on WP:IAR and a reasonable compromise with you, not Wikipedia:Protection policy.

    Full protection strikes a balance between keeping the article's history visible to all editors and preventing undoing of the redirect.

    If full protection of the redirect doesn't change your mind, then I will withdraw my support for full-protection because I agree with RoySmith (talk · contribs), who wrote below, "No reason to protect the article unless there's demonstrable, specific, evidence that there has been a problem and protection is the best way to solve it." Cunard (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recent DRVs about restoring article histories under redirects: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 19#Westshore Town Centre, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 August 28#Match World Cup annual event articles, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 November 25#Windows Police Pro, Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 January 21#Johnny Prill, and Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 8#List of wrestlers in WWE video games.

    See also the comments and links at Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Archives/2015/January#History undeletion underneath redirect.

    Cunard (talk) 08:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin notice to participants DRVs do not work well when discussion devolves to the level of the playground. It is perfectly possible to disagree and have different opinions without calling people names. I will (and have in the past) close this with no action if the accusations don't stop. Thanks Spartaz Humbug! 08:49, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore history and protect redirect. I understand the rationale for getting rid of the history (to make sure the article isn't repeatedly recreated), but I don't agree that having the history deleted is the best way to deal with the potential problem. Leaving the history there, as is the standard for 99% of our other pages, and putting it on full-protection seems to be the right balance between making the history transparent while still enforcing the current consensus. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:44, 29 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Restore history The general concept we use for dealing with disruptive activity is to use the least restrictive action which will prevent disruption. The only reason to delete history under a redirect is if the existing content cannot be allowed to exist because it violates copyright, WP:BLP, as a result of WP:OFFICE, or some other bright-line rule. None of those apply here. A vague fear that somebody might revert the redirect at some point in the future is very far away from that bar. Likewise with protection. No reason to protect the article unless there's demonstrable, specific, evidence that there has been a problem and protection is the best way to solve it. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The close was well within administrator discretion, given that debate. Nobody's yet put forward a reason why they actually want this content, only reasons why someone might hypothetically want it in the future. Endorse. —Cryptic 17:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, I get that people like to make a fuss rather than try to resolve differences with afd closers, but informing them of a drv isn't an optional step. —Cryptic 18:04, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody's yet put forward a reason why they actually want this content – the article's content can be merged to List of British supercentenarians#People, which deletion prevents. Cunard (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment How is someone to know that there is something there, so you can ask to be given a copy, once the history is deleted. As I said, that information is not available for 99.999% of editors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore History In the complete absence of consensus to destroy history, the standard should be to keep it as the base to allow future expansion to meet standards. WP:PRESERVE is rather clear that we have an affirmative requirement to try to keep whatever encyclopedic content exists, trying to fix problems than toss material into the bit bucket. Both as a matter of policy and of standard usage, history deletion should be an unusual and exceedingly rare circumstance. Without any consensus to do so, history deletion is not within an administrator's discretion. Alansohn (talk) 19:06, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please provide a brief policy-based justification for a redirect with preserved article history under the actual text of Wikipedia:Deletion policy. If there is one, it is not self-evident to me; neither Wikipedia:Deletion policy nor Wikipedia:Editing policy (of which WP:PRESERVE is a part) even mention editing history. It seems pretty clear that the Deletion and Editing policies are meant to address articles and article content, not editing history. This whole theory that WP:PRESERVE demands the preservation of a deleted article's edit history appears to be built on an ephemeral house of cards, not on actual policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse "delete and redirect" close of AfD. In the complete absence of any textual basis in either Wikipedia:Deletion policy or Wikipedia:Editing policy, there is no policy or guideline-based reason for overturning the decision of the closing administrator. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:02, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Closing admin's comment: I find it peculiar that I wasn't asked to restore the history, if this content – a few lines of trivia – is as important as it might appear from the discussion above. In this case, I interpreteted the "redirect" opinions as implying deletion, because they were based on the non-notability of the person, which normally results in "hard" deletion; the redirect is merely there to provide a search target. If these editors had thought the content worth retaining, they would have advocated a merger.  Sandstein  20:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What makes a fact = trivia? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:23, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find it peculiar that I wasn't asked to restore the history – yes Richard Arthur Norton should have contacted you before coming to DRV, which hopefully would have prevented this DRV.

    In this case, I interpreteted the "redirect" opinions as implying deletion – I think this is a wrong interpretation. Editors who say "redirect" don't make a case for retaining or deleting the history. Unless they explain why it is harmful to retain the history, then they have not made a policy-based reason to delete the history. This means that by default, the history should be preserved. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, "When in doubt, don't delete."

    AfD participant Serialjoepsycho, who supported a redirect, has written above "I was actual arguing for a merge. Didn't know that Delete and redirect was an actual thing. You keep the histories in a merge and there's no reason that I can see to really delete the history." Does this change your assessment of the consensus in the discussion?

    Cunard (talk) 23:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Cunard, there were 7 AfD discussion participants: 2 "deletes" (including the nominator by standard implication); 1 "delete and redirect"; 3 "redirects"; and 1 "keep". Of the three redirect !votes, one said he really meant "merge"; a second (me) said his redirect !vote implied "delete and redirect". That's four of 7 who support "delete", plus two more redirects. One participant voted "keep". That's a pretty clear consensus, one well within the discretionary interpretation of the closing administrator -- especially in light of the simple fact that there is no explicit policy basis for keeping article history when an AfD results in "delete". There is no basis for overturning the closing administrator's apparently accurate interpretation of consensus. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "restore history" supporters want to retain the history for these reasons:
    1. Wikipedia:Editing policy#Try to fix problems says: "Instead of removing content from an article, consider: Merging the entire article into another article with the original article turned into a redirect as described at performing a merge".

      Deletion prevents the consideration of a merge of British supercentenarian Annie Butler to List of British supercentenarians#People.

    2. The AfD participants' "delete" votes merely explained why they believed the subject was non-notable. They failed to explain why the content must be suppressed from a regular editor's view. From Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators#Deciding whether to delete, "When in doubt, don't delete."
    3. WP:BEFORE says (my bolding):

      If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article. This should be done particularly if the topic name is a likely search term.

      Note that this does not say "deleting and redirecting to an existing article".
    4. Retaining the history would facilitate a transwiki of the content to a place more suitable for it.
    Your desire to keep the history deleted seems based purely on (quoting from RoySmith): "A vague fear that somebody might revert the redirect at some point in the future". That is a very weak reason to keep the article's history deleted when full protection can be easily applied if that actually does happen.

    Cunard (talk) 23:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm sorry, Cunard, but you have conflated general principles -- none of which even mentions article history -- from multiple policies and guidelines to draw your personally favored interpretation of preserving article history whenever possible. Normally, I could overlook this in many discussions where the distinction means little of practical consequence, but folks who support this (mis)interpretation have become increasingly assertive. You have 4 of 7 !votes in this discussion in favor of "delete" or "delete and redirect", with a third "redirect" vote yet to be polled. You can cannot overturn that clear AfD consensus, solely on the basis of the general principles above -- arguably applicable only to articles and article content, and not article history -- a clear consensus properly and correctly interpreted by the closing administrator. I believe the correct standard for DRV reviews is whether the AfD close was either a clear error by or within the reasonable judgment/discretion of the closing administrator. Neither of those criteria for a DRV "overturn" are satisfied here; in the absence of clear error, DRV participants don't get to substitute their judgment for that of the AfD participants -- especially in the absence of any policy or guideline that expressly supports the preservation of article history for reasons other than attribution. You have over-reached yourself, sir. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have given multiple policy-based and practical reasons for why I believe it is a net positive to retain the history. We will have to agree to disagree. Cunard (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not exactly, Cunard, and we both know that you are eluding the central point: the applicable policies and guidelines mention preserving articles and article content when possible as an alternative to deletion, not preserving "article history". In fact, none of the applicable policies and guidelines actually mention the words "article history," and you know this. Your expanded interpretation of the policies and guidelines beyond what their drafters intended, and the fact that you cannot cite a single sentence of any policy or guideline directly on point speaks volumes. If you want to re-write the policies and guidelines to specifically include the preservation of article history, I suggest you open an RfC on point. In the mean time, I think the project would be better served by sticking to a more literal interpretation of our WP:Deletion policy and WP:Editing policy. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, sir, that doesn't fly. The AfD considered a merge, and decided in favor of redirect because there is no noteworthy content to merge to the list. Not one of the policies and guidelines you cited above mention the words "article history". Not one. And repeating your argument does not change that critical fact. Sorry. If you want to change the applicable policies and guidelines to explicitly cover the preservation of "article history," then start an RfC and seek the consensus of the community. That's the right way to achieve your goal, not bluffing your way through DRVs. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is a relevant DRV I just opened: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 November 30#Vu Digital. Cunard (talk) 01:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the history. There was no good reason to delete it, although I do not want to say that full deletion was outside admin discretion, and wish to defer to Sandstein should he emphatically stand by his decision. Protect the redirect by all means, if there is fear of unilateral unjustified reversal of the redirect. However, it would be far preferable that such redirects were done by talk page consensus, probably at the redirect target, rather than burdening AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:37, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SmokeyJoe: Likewise, there is no particularly good reason to restore the page history; contrary to representations above, WP:Deletion policy and WP:Editing policy do not require, or even favor restoring article history when there is a consensus "delete" outcome at AfD. "Delete" means "delete," not "selective merge, with a redirect and restoration of article history under the redirect". It is axiomatic that every merge is a selective merge, and a "merge" outcome was considered during the AfD and rejected by the AfD consensus in favor of a "delete" outcome. It is not DRV's remit to overturn a properly decided consensus outcome; that's no different than an administrator "super vote" disregarding the consensus in closing the AfD. In the absence of an AfD consensus "merge" closing, the same net result may be achieved by obtaining a copy (or a copy of selected sections of the deleted article) and re-writing or paraphrasing any substantive content to be included in the target article. Standard format citations are generally not considered creative content and may be recycled without change.
Moreover, there have also been misleading representations regarding the availability of page protection for redirects. Please review the circumstances under which indefinite full page protection is available per WP:FPP. My reading of our page protection policy is that full page protection is not available for redirects, let alone indefinite full page protection. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:38, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Similar to the other DRV discussion, I think you are too relaxed with WP:Copyrights with your encouragements to re-write or paraphrase deleted content, that a DRV discussion or even an AfD discussion need be bound by the letter of WP:FPP as written for different purposes, and I read that the question being reviewed is exactly whether there was a properly decided consensus outcome, and I have opined that there was not, when it comes to "delete & redirect" vs "redirect", although I would like to hear again from Sandstein. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:12, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@SmokeyJoe: Before commenting further, I urge you to actually read WP:COPYRIGHTS, but more importantly, read WP:Copying within Wikipedia, the latter of which actually governs copying text from one Wikipedia article to another, and when attribution is actually required either in the article edit history or the article talk page. WP:COPYRIGHTS actually has little to say about copy-paste from one article to another. BTW, I have been quite active in this area. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 07:07, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Actually read? I have been familiar with WP:COPYRIGHTS and WP:Copying within Wikipedia for a long time.
WP:COPYRIGHTS points the legal document that says, essentially in the end, that in this case attribution of all authors must be provided. Deletion of reused content may not be technically infringing, there are workaround provided at WP:Copying within Wikipedia, however, the deletion of reused content without very good reason is quite undesirable. I could expand on why it is undesirable, surely I don't have to?
My reading of the AfD is that no case was made for "delete and redirect". I cannot understand User:David in DC's rationale for requiring deletion of the history. Delete and Redirect is actually an unusual result. The rationals speaking to WP:N considerations have no impact on whether the history was to be deleted. The simple !votes to "redirect" are all consistent with redirection with the history intact.
Either restore the history behind the redirect or relist for consideration of whether the material is unsuitable for inclusion in any other article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is the editwarring over this notice intended to generate advertising at WP:ANI? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:38, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it is, Joe, if you consider that I have twice attempted to remove an inappropriate and non-neutrally-worded RfC notice from this page which is clearly intended to selectively notify DRV discussion participants. If it is permitted to specifically notify DRV discussion participants, is it also permitted to specifically notify the original AfD participants because one may assume they are no less concerned about the outcome of the DRV and RfC? Let's see if what is good for the goose is also good for the gander, gentlemen. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 02:50, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support notification of the original AfD participants, especially considering that we are attempting to divine their unstated thoughts on whether to maintain the history behind a redirect. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that, Joe. I appreciate your even-handedness in that regard. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 03:36, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the history, protect redirect if necessary. Eman235/talk 03:57, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Guide to deletion - Please note that the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion explicitly recognizes "Delete then Redirect", stating "Redirect is a recommendation to keep the article's history but to blank the content and replace it with a redirect. Users who want to see the article's history destroyed should explicitly recommend Delete then Redirect." The Guide has incorporated such guidance regarding "Delete then Redirect" since September 2005; before that, it previously included the concept of "Delete and then re-create as Redirect". Anyone who is suggesting that "Delete and redirect" !votes and outcomes are either improper or unheard of clearly does not know the history of established AfD procedures as well as they think. Moreover, Curnard and one or more other editors who have suggested that there is a built-in policy preference for keeping and/or restoring article history after a consensus "delete" or "delete and redirect" AfD outcome are flat-out wrong. I hope this removes all doubt as to what is actually permissible as an AfD !vote or consensus outcome. A proper consensus to "delete and redirect" is not a valid basis for overturning an AfD outcome. Are we clear now? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:19, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as the editor who originally voted for a straightforward delete. Protecting the redirect would be helpful and welcomed, but that would not protect against someone using the history to simply copy and paste the content to a similarly titled article (i.e. Ann Butler (supercentenarian)), as has happened in the past, in an attempt to circumvent consensus and forum shop in the hopes that another deletion vote would be unsuccessful. Yes, it might be deleted immediately but, given the history of contentious editing surrounding this topic, that is not the most likely outcome. Deleting the history makes this more difficult and sends a message to discourage this type of behavior; we've wasted enough time on this issue at this project already. Canadian Paul 16:11, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree wholeheartedly with Spartaz about the tone of this conversation. It has not gotten better since his warning. Agree that nothing in the cited policies and guidelines says one word about "article history". It's a red herring. Agree with Sandstein's reckoning of the consensus in the AfD for "delete and redirect". Agree that userfy or giving an editor the materials by email is a better solution than changing the outcome of this AfD. Agree that full protection is wholly out of sync with the strong presumption that full protection must be reserved for a very small, very compelling set of articles.
    There's a lot that seems irregular here. I think it's alluded to above that the closer was not initially notified of this DRV ("informing them of a drv isn't an optional step.") If that's true, it's really bad. The phrase "sly tactic", above is also troubling. The RfC generated because of this discussion is not worded in a neutral way. It also smacks of WP:BATTLEGROUND and the brand of wikilawyering commonly called forum-shopping. In my view, it ought not be rewarded. David in DC (talk) 16:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just to note that, in fact I as the closer was neither contacted prior to nor informed about this deletion review by the editor who requested it, which I find very odd.  Sandstein  18:04, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • If there is no consensus to restore the redirect, I recommend a relist at AfD as was done in a similar case at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 September 28#VideoPad to give editors the opportunity to discuss whether redirect's history should be retained. The original AfD lacked detailed discussion of whether retaining the history is a net positive. Cunard (talk) 05:43, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose relisting - There was a clear consensus to remove the article from mainspace with 2 "delete !votes, 1 "delete and redirect" !vote, and 3 "redirect" !votes. When pinged, two of the three "redirect" !voters responded: 1 said he really meant "merge," and the second said "delete and redirect." So when the polling is considered, there were 2 "delete" voters (i.e., no retained history) and 2 "delete and redirect" (i.e., no retained history); thus 4 of the 6 non-keep !voters wanted to delete or redirect the article with no history retention, 1 wanted a "merge" (i.e., includes a redirect and retained history by necessity), and 1 final "redirect" !voter whose intention regarding article history is unknown. Thus, the closing administrator correctly read the consensus of AfD participants regarding the deletion of the article and the deletion of the article edit history. Please respect that valid consensus; the failure to achieve your preferred outcome in either the AfD or this DRV is not a valid reason to relist the article again at AfD. Continuing to doggedly pursue your personally preferred outcome in the face of a clear AfD consensus and a split DRV is beginning to smell like forum-shopping. Drop the stick, please. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nominator, who is extremely familiar with the DRV process, has failed to attempt to resolve the issue by first raising with the deleting administrator. Stifle (talk) 12:03, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure. The article history has been restored and send to me by email upon my request. I am yet to understand how it becomes the focus-point for a 50k debate. My thanks go out to Dirtlawyer1 for trying to explain the pertinent difference between Redirect and Delete and redirect. Had I been more aware of this, my !vote at AFD would have been the latter. -Sam Sailor Talk! 20:18, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deleting the author history when doing a merge is a licensing violation per WP:FDL. -- Kendrick7talk 12:55, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody has either proposed or performed a merger in this case. That's why the history could be deleted.  Sandstein  14:14, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The assertion that no one has proposed a merge in this case is factually inaccurate. AfD participant Serialjoepsycho, who supported a redirect, has written above: "I was actual arguing for a merge. Didn't know that Delete and redirect was an actual thing. You keep the histories in a merge and there's no reason that I can see to really delete the history."

    Other editors and I have not "performed a merger in this case" because this would violate Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright, and we could be blocked for knowingly violating copyright policy. Cunard (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, in the AfD discussion, nobody (including Serialjoepsycho) proposed a merger. My closure couldn't take into account opinions expressed later.  Sandstein  12:13, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Serialjoepsycho meant his "redirect" vote to be "arguing for a merge", and I agree your close couldn't take into account his clarification expressed later. This is a strong argument that the AfD discussion was defective in that editors did not express their positions clearly and that the AfD should be relisted to discuss whether there should be a merge and whether the article's history should be retained under the redirect. Cunard (talk) 06:48, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Kendrick -- we know: but nothing prevents any competent editor from taking two or three sentences from the deleted article and rewriting them in his own words per WP:Copying within Wikipedia: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution." Moreover, standard format references do not constitute "creative content," and may be recycled freely. A formal "merge" is unnecessary, and as Sandstein noted, no one proposed a merge. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:17, 2 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution." The more you repeat that the more uncomfortable it is getting. It is not simply true. It is not true except with some important caveats. And even assuming the caveats, it is not good advice to be throwing around. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:45, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is simply not true, Joe: it is excellent advice. If you're not comfortable re-writing content from third-party sources -- so as to avoid plagiarism and close-paraphrasing -- then you don't understand one of the basic tasks of encyclopedia writing. The pertinent guideline, WP:Copying within Wikipedia, is crystal clear: "Not everything copied from one Wikipedia page to another requires attribution. . . . Content rewritten in one's own words does not need attribution. However, duplicating material by other contributors that is sufficiently creative to be copyrightable under US law (as the governing law for Wikipedia), requires attribution." Some of us understand the guideline, and the policy it expounds upon quite well. Like so much of this discussion, the folks who support overturning this AfD misread, misunderstand, and misrepresent the relevant policies and guidelines. If you disagree with WP:Copying within Wikipedia, I suggest you seek counsel at the talk pages for the policy and guidelines. Instead of trying to make up your own rules for DRVs, article history, and copying content, perhaps we should follow the actual policies, guidelines and procedures as they are written. I suggest you read the guidelines, and get comfortable with them. If you are uncomfortable with your own skills in this area, you may always seek advice from your fellow editors who are more knowledgeable than yourself at the relevant talk pages. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:21, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you or Cunard are uncomfortable re-writing two or three sentences of content to be transferred, please post the verbatim text of the content to be transferred, and I will be happy to re-write it for you in a manner that will satisfy the guideline. Cheers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:25, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dirtlawyer1, this offer is self-defeating as written: copying deleted text anywhere on Wikipedia triggers WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material (WP:RUD). You should instead request raw source URLs or retrieve only them from a search engine cache. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Flatscan: Please read again what I wrote: I did not offer to "re-use deleted material". I offered to rewrite in my own words -- so as to avoid re-using the creative content contributed by any other editor -- whatever factual information Cunard et al wanted to include. Big Difference. I've read your other comments and we are in substantial agreement. Re-using deleted material per WP:RUD clearly refers to creative content in context. Nothing prevents an editor from looking at the substance of deleted content, re-writing it in one's own words in a manner sufficient to avoid close paraphrasing, and adding it to any other article along with proper reference for purposes of verification. WP:Copying within Wikipedia is quite clear on this point, as quoted above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I interpreted "post the verbatim text of the content" as a request to post publicly unmodified excerpts from the deleted article. Separately, I prefer to rewrite from the sources to decrease the chance of inadvertent close paraphrasing. Flatscan (talk) 05:40, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DirtLawyer, it is always disingenuous to paraphrase to a point preceding a "however". It is bad advice because as an isolated statement it is not true. If I rewrite the content from some source in my own words, that does not mean that I don't have to attribute the source. I know that's not what you are saying, but it is what it sounds like you are saying. If the rewriting only draws information freshly from the sources, if your reject the other editor's creative input or consider it trivial, then no. If the source is the other Wikipedian's writing, then attribution is required. My point, which I don't think you are looking at, is that if in doubt it is better to attribute earlier editors of the same material. Why you think it is a good idea to minimise attribution of other editors I don't get, and I think it uncollegial at least. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It continues to baffle me why anyone thinks the out-of-place stubs grafted into List of British supercentenarians are a good idea. That's not a compromise by the ha-ha-only-serious definition of nobody being happy; it's worse than complete capitulation from both points of view. If you want the articles gone, the bios there are harder to monitor for harmful content and are higher visibility than individual pages. If you want the articles kept, then having eight minibios tacked onto a list of roughly 200 individuals just serves to emphasize their triviality compared to the people with bluelinks. —Cryptic 01:31, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as within the closer's discretion. Participants are responsible for expressing their recommendations without ambiguity. I agree with Cryptic's comments about "out-of-place stubs" in the list article. Flatscan (talk) 05:49, 7 December 2015 (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.
Susie Abromeit (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

She seems notable. Taku (talk) 03:14, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Recommend restore because it's simpler than starting over. The Google Cache copy's text was clearly below the A7 threshold so I'm not faulting the deleting admin. However, it did have an IMDB link[5] which had more than enough information to help the article pass the A7 threshold if only the page creator (or someone else) had bothered to add it to the article before it was deleted. Having said that, even if everything in the IMDB bio is true this person's notability is at best debatable and probably marginal. If this goes to AFD, it will depend on whether the individual AFD participants consider this persons roles as "significant." Yes, she has many roles. Yes, one or maybe 2 are unambiguously significant. Yes, there are several more that are possibly or arguably significant and different editors will have different opinions on whether these roles are significant. This is key because WP:NACTOR says an actor is presumed notable if she [h]as had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. The key phrase is "significant roles" which in this person's case will be a matter of opinion, and you know what they say about opinions: Everyone has one. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 03:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the speedy a/c our article on the series, a relatively minor role: assistant to one of the principal characters, but not to the leading character. I do not consider what was in the deleted article a rational claim to notability, and even if all the even less important prior roles were added, I doubt it has much of a chance at AfD. But the page has not been protected against re-creation, so anyone who wants to write a decent article can have a try at it. There's no need to come here to do that. DGG ( talk ) 07:13, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore - The performer had re-occurring roles and at least two major shows, Jessica Jones (TV series) and Devious Maids, which I argue were significant roles. I don't think Not sure if A7 speedy was appropriate. Additionally the performer is a Best Actress winner at the Beverly Hills Film Festival.[6] Don't know what the article looked like, but the topic in itself is not satisfying the A7 threshold. --Oakshade (talk) 20:38, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most recent A7 deletion was at worst borderline, given what was actually in the article. There's been more than enough presented here to restore it, but that doesn't justify calling the deletion inappropriate.
    On the other hand, revisions prior to TakuyaMurata's creation on November 27 should not be restored; the July 2012 version is (as best I can tell) a different person, and the October 2014 version's a G10. —Cryptic 21:16, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • List at AfD. Any reasonable challenge to an A7 means that someone wants a discussion, which is the purpose of AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:39, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and list at AfD. I agree with SmokeyJoe. Furthermore, davidwr and Oakshade have advanced strong arguments that the topic itself does not satisfy the A7 threshold (though the article itself might have). Cunard (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 November 2015[edit]

  • Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital – This is getting bad tempered so closing early. Endorsed. Take it to ARCA if you need clarification of the remedy but DRV isn't going to fight arbcom. As for the material in the main article? A null edit in the history noting that some material came from RAN is sufficient for our attibutation rules. – Spartaz Humbug! 08:54, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The deleter argues that I am currently banned from new article creation, but this was created long before I was banned. If restored it should be "Lists of deaths at Stuyvesant Polyclinic Hospital" Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • According to the history the page was created in February 2015. It's not obvious when it was moved to mainspace, but the topic ban on article creation was imposed in 2011 and confirmed by the arbitration committee in March 2013 and October 2015. I don't see how the page could have been created before the ban was imposed, unless it was a copy and paste move from somewhere else. Hut 8.5 18:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The history here is more complicated than I thought. This is what happened:
  • 5 February: RAN creates this page in his own userspace.
  • 8 February: material from the then-userspace page is added to an already existing mainspace article.
  • 18 October: Rich Farmbrough moves the page to mainspace, with a summary of "Move to mainsape for cleaner attribution". He immediately turns it into a redirect to Stuyvesant Polyclinic and made this edit to the target. It looks like this was done in order to have clearer attribution of the content that RAN had previously added to mainspace elsewhere, rather than to actually have this page as a standalone article.
  • 23 November: the redirect is nominated for deletion.
  • 25 November: RAN replaces the redirect with an article, presumably because the material had been removed from Stuyvesant Polyclinic in an edit war. Two people revert to restore the redirect on 25 and 26 November on the grounds that the RFD is still ongoing, RAN reverts them.
  • 27 November: page deleted under G5.
The central issue is whether RAN created this article by replacing a redirect with the article's content. I think he did: redirects are not articles, and replacing a not-article with an article is creating an article. The arbitration committee seems to agree with this, so endorse. At most this could be a redirect to Stuyvesant Polyclinic unless someone other than RAN is prepared to take responsibility for it, but as the RFD was running strongly in favour of deletion at the time that probably isn't a good idea either. Hut 8.5 17:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That will require further clarification from ARBCOM. Their restriction banned me from turning a redirect into a new article where no article existed before. Here I simply reversed back to a !legally created article. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:18, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was created in my user space and migrated by a second person into mainspace. The previous bans allowed me to create articles in user space and once someone approved, that person could migrate them to mainspace. User:Javert, or some similar name, was upset that I was doing that and appealed to ARBCOM to stop me from doing it, just a week or so ago. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:25, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It isn't clear to me whether, in the October 2015 amendment, Arbcom regarded themselves as clarifying the 2011 restriction or creating a new one.[7] If it was a clarification then the restriction on new drafts relates back to 2011. If it is a new restriction to change a previous one now viewed as more limited, the restriction is recent ... but your mileage will vary. Thincat (talk) 23:20, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Start a clarification to find out if the restrictions have been restricted or expanded. The clarification needs to be further clarified.
  • Endorse for now, but ask for clarification, if this didn't qualify, it didn't do so for purely technical reasons. Send it to Arbcom for clarification, if they are happy that RAN acted within the letter and spirit of his restrictions then it should be restored. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • If, as Hut 8.5 says, the page was moved into mainspace in February 2015 (or indeed at any time between 23 November 2013 and 15 October 2015), then the rule in effect was this one. In this case the person moving it into mainspace takes responsibility for it. Logically, this invalidates the G5. It is of course entirely possible that other speedy deletion reasons may have applied.—S Marshall T/C 16:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now I have the benefit of Hut 8.5's chronology (thanks!), I can see how much of a bloody mess this is. If there's content in the mainspace or article history by RAN then it needs to be clearly attributed to him, so the outcome I'd be most comfortable with is restore redirect.—S Marshall T/C 18:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think there's a lot of point in that, to be honest. The edit history already attributes the content to RAN. The only thing we gain by having the redirect is the edits in which RAN developed the content, but there were only two before the content was added to Stuyvesant Polyclinic and one of those was just putting in some extra footnotes. Hut 8.5 20:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

26 November 2015[edit]

25 November 2015[edit]

24 November 2015[edit]

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

I've updated the page content to reflect notes form previous deletion discussions including additions to citations and removal of non neutral textIdaho.jim (talk) 23:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm assuming you've made a draft somewhere. Can you please provide a link to that draft? Stifle (talk) 09:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes thanks. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Arena_Solutions Idaho.jim (talk) 18:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)idaho.jim[reply]
  • Endorse deletion This is not improved significantly over the deleted versions. Two not important prizes, refs are almost entirely routine notices. DGG ( talk ) 02:30, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot see the deleted article, so cannot see the improvements. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:43, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted without prejudice to another DRV filing if more significant coverage in reliable sources is found. I've reviewed the references in Draft:Arena Solutions and found most of them to be press releases or unreliable sources. This articleWebCite from SiliconIndia provides significant coverage of Arena Solutions. Another source like this one likely would be enough to meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    Cunard (talk) 05:22, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the transparent feedback Cunard, will comeback with notability citations in hand. Idaho.jim (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Idaho.jim (talk · contribs). I recommend finding two more independent sources that provide substantial coverage (at least multiple paragraphs) about Arena Solutions. If you can find two sources from print newspapers or magazines, then Arena Solutions will pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    The Deletion Review (DRV) is due for closure after seven days at 23:25, 1 December 2015 (UTC). If the DRV is closed before you can provide more sources, I recommend providing the sources on the DRV closer's talk page, asking whether they are sufficient to justify a second DRV. Feel free to contact me at User talk:Cunard as well.

    Cunard (talk) 07:08, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse consensus deletion outcome. If the article proponents of the article find significant coverage of the subject in reliable, independent sources they may request undeletion by an administrator or a new DRV. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2015 (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.
The Critical Badger (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This page was recently deleted, erroneously in my view. It was an important blog, and many people supported retention of the page on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.189.82.66 (talk) 00:56, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse; policy-based arguments clearly supported deletion. AfD is not a vote. Huon (talk) 01:02, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per Huon. Rotideypoc41352 (talk) 01:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore: The Critical Badger was a highly influential blog. This page should be restored on Wikipedia. It was heavily supported by many Wikipedia users. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.112.199.82 (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Close given the lack of a policy-based argument to review. DRV is for discussion of errors in the deletion process, not a second bite at the AFD cherry. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:28, 25 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 November 2015[edit]

  • Eric West – Snow endorse. Four consecutive AfDs ending in delete, no policy arguments put forth here, nominated by an WP:SPA, no reason to spend any more time on this. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Eric_West (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I've contacted (talk) for undelete an for reasons I do not understand he has denied. Eric is followed by 100,000's of people, on Major TV shows, in magazines like GQ, Time, US Weekly and widely considered a fashion icon by the fashion industry.

I appose to it as with Eric West there is more than enough coverage to warrant a keep. "world's ultimate Renaissance man" Complex magazine. [8], "influencers" [9], "The 25 Hottest Actors Under 35" Vibe [10], "Expect Big Things from this Hollywood Star, Eric West has been on our radar for a while now, his spot on our list of ones to watch was recently cemented in place."Barneys New York [11], "Style Icon" Askmen [12], "A-list" China Daily [13] US Weekly [14] Esquire [15] InStyle [16] Time [17] various issues of GQ [18] [19], followed up 100,000's of people on social media, face of huge campaigns [20] [21]. Stars as Garrett on Satisfaction on USA Network and many other shows. [22] "Prince of Fashion Week" [23] Shorty Award nomination for Actor of the Year Hollywood Reporter [24]

For him to not have even a stub doesn't seem right. Alejandrad117 (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • endorse Basically, NOT TABLOID. see the last afd. DGG ( talk ) 04:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because delete was the rather strong consensus.[25] However, thank you for letting us know he is the "world's ultimate Renaissance man" thanks to his LG G Watch R smart watch.[26] Thincat (talk) 08:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and list at WP:DEEPER. Per consensus at a very long list of AFDs. Stifle (talk) 09:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, clear consensus the last few times that this has come up that we don't want an article on this fellow. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse. COI subject of a massive PR campaign which extends even to writing faux posts on his IMDB-page message board, and even getting a post there which mentioned these faux accolades deleted. @DGG, Thincat, Stifle, and Lankiveil: Might also check this user's other article creation(s) (just sayin'). Softlavender (talk) 14:25, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Confused by the opinions above Dear, Softlavender What is your proof of that and what does comments on his IMDB message board have to do with anything? None of that has to do with the fact that he is the star of a show on TV right now [1] has a large following, [2] is a successful model, the face of major brands including Coach and LG Start Watch. But you allowed recreation of Huccha Venkat over Eric West?? All of this sounds personal. I am going to look for a direct contact to someone at Wiki. This seems extremely weird that someone as influential as Eric that has even been profiled by some of the most iconic brands like Barneys New York, Time magazine and GQ isn't allowed a Wiki page. What has he done to you?

You'd allow creation of Huccah over Eric and he doesn't even register in Google Trends [27]. So your reason is because of comments on his IMDB message board as a reason why someone on a major TV show who also ranks as one of the most influential people on Social Media as well the reason why? [28]. I think you need to start realizing that his success will continue and find better reasons for someone that is clearly notable. Alejandrad117 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"he is the star of a show on TV right now". Ha ha that's funny. A background extra from one episode is the STAR. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and keep salted and scorch. He didn't star in Benjamin Button, He didn't star in World War Z, He didn't star in 50 Rock, He didn't star in Scandal, He didn't release an album, he didn't date Christina Milian. An article on things he didn't do maybe. duffbeerforme (talk) 07:49, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Once again confused by the opinions above First thing at hand you're starting false information. [29] "Eric West makes a hot show that much hotter." [30] "This is how my night ended....with my eyes wide opened at handsome @EricXWest ;)) "Satisfaction" - Love the show.". I guess that the 100's of people tweeting are watching an extra according to you. [31] "I WAS VERY EXCITED. I WATCHED IT OVER AND OVER. CONGRATULATIONS I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING MORE!!! I LOVE YOU ERIC!!!!!"

Like I said it seems like you're the only one here starting false information other than focusing on fact which is why I sent an email to a bunch of contacts I found last night and I just got an email back from someone directly at Wiki who is going to look into all of the users above who are making decisions when there is clearly enough to warrant an article. His words exactly were "Eric West is article worthy, I will investigate and get back to you." Alejandrad117 (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • MoreI guess according to duffbeerforme (talk) "extra's" receive "star" credit and a character? But you're deciding what gets kept and deleted? Which is exactly why I reported a lot of you. Any personal feelings you have about Eric West doesn't change the fact that he should have an article.

Alejandrad117 (talk) 17:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Listed like that because they don't have a separate section for "Guy in the background mugging for the camera". duffbeerforme (talk) 11:18, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More. Guess extra's also get credit on Hawaii Five-O too.


Alejandrad117 (talk) 18:26, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've looked into the role in the second screenshot, it is obviously a very minor one - the character only appeared in one episode, in which he was killed off, and even a fan wiki can't find any more to say about it than "Simon O'Toole is a member of the Irish Mob in Boston." Sources listed above are far less impressive than claimed. Endorse. Hut 8.5 23:17, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Huccha_Venkat – clear consensus to allow recreation. If someone still disputes notability they are free to list at AFD for further discussion – Spartaz Humbug! 08:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Huccha_Venkat (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Article rewritten with substantial references from various reliable and reputed sources. Rajannamysore (talk) 15:41, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Draft version is under Draft:Huccha Venkat Rajannamysore (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Looks quite different from the skimpy A7 certainty that I deleted. Peridon (talk) 17:22, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation and send to AfD. I am not sure whether there is real notability here, or just an energetic self-publicist who having failed to get anyone to watch his film is trying the rant-on-Youtube/get-thrown-off-reality-show route to "fame"; but there is certainly now enough to pass WP:CSD#A7. JohnCD (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re–creation certainly there's enough to pass A7 and likely WP:GNG based on the number of independent references. (unsalt and move draft back to article space) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation even if the revised version wouldn't pass AfD it would certainly stand a fighting chance there and it's clearly not an A7. Hut 8.5 21:46, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation - Just in case someone feels like this was canvassed, I was going to !vote anyway. In the current form, this likely meets GNG. It was deleted as an A7 so it is pretty safe to assume that the condition of the article might have been really shoddy. Great work on the improvements. Yash! 02:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re–creation Notable enough, good start. Yann (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow re-creation and send to AfD. Finally throwing my own two cents in. The guy has received quite a bit of coverage, enough to where there's an assertion of notability so it wouldn't really pass A7 criteria. Now whether or not the claims are enough to pass overall criteria, that's another question. I'm somewhat uncomfortable about the claims for two reasons: first, the marriage claims could impact the actress's entry and second, Venkat is undergoing legal issues and his lawyer claims that he has schizophrenia. That's the one I'm most concerned about because if it's true then we have an article for someone who has received media attention for things that he did because he was mentally ill. Almost all of the coverage I've seen has come about as a result of his public actions, which could be chalked up to a possible mental illness. That means that we now have to consider whether or not having an article on Wikipedia would cause potential WP:HARM to Venkat. If he is mentally ill then it may be in poor form and potentially harmful to him in the long run to have an article where the coverage is almost entirely based on actions that may or may not have been due to a mental illness. I'm stressing this because this needs to be very carefully considered. However at the same time, DRV isn't really the place for this and AfD would be a better place since that would give a more broad consensus. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Huccha Venkat may or may not have schizophrenia. That only a qualified doctor can certify. Lawyer tries every weapon in their arsenal to protect their client. I personally have watched his interviews. He becomes temperamental when somebody challenges his believe. He thinks too high of himself. But otherwise, he thinks rational.
If he was truly insane, he would not have survived in Bigg Boss house for 3 weeks. He gives hours of TV interview, answers callers question without any hesitation. If we go by -> Psychopathography of Adolf Hitler article (schizophrenia was one of many disorders he had), then Adolf Hitler article needs to sent to AfD. SAME LOGIC.
Huccha Venkat is a Writer, Director and played lead role in two Kannada feature films besides another movie where he has appeared has supporting role. He is directing another movie, which is in production. some undeniably notable work. My 2 cents. Rajannamysore (talk) 08:41, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 November 2015[edit]

  • Philosothon – The outcome of this deletion review is complex, and some of the participants are new to Wikipedia, so I'll explain in a little more depth than is customary.

    I'll begin with a discussion of procedural irregularities. This is a non-admin close of a deletion review and I'm closing it before the customary 168 hours have elapsed. It would certainly be possible to question the validity the close on this basis, and I wouldn't be doing this unless had complete confidence that we've had all the necessary input; that this is the correct outcome; that if reviewed, it would be upheld; and that it is unlikely to be reviewed because I don't believe any experienced DRV participants would quibble it.

    The discussion below might seem like a single debate but in fact it considers three facets of the article and the behaviours that generated it. For the benefit of newer users I'll distinguish the three.

    (1) KTC's evaluation of the original deletion discussion is unanimously agreed to be accurate by everyone who commented on it. Her evaluation is endorsed.

    (2) Tokyogirl79 has done diligent research on the subject, as she often does, and she shows that the original discussion was defective. She has produced an array of sources that that debate failed to unearth. These sources were sufficient to show that the earlier debate's conclusion is unsafe. Therefore, we send it back to AfD for them to consider again (which I will do immediately after I've finished this close). In Wikipedian jargon, this part of the outcome is called a relist.

    (3) Sydney59 is referred to our guidelines on conflict of interest. There are a number of reasons why Wikipedia is attractive to marketers, so we have had to become very good at detecting promotional activity and very efficient in how we deal with it; this sometimes catches good faith users as collateral damage, and I hope explains the impatience some users show during the discussion below. Sydney59 is also asked to confine himself to one !vote per discussion in future, please, and gently advised that Wikipedian discussion closers will check this point. It is okay to comment several times, but very rarely necessary to do so. – —S Marshall T/C 17:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

Request by Sydney59 for undeletion (incorrectly) at Refund and then my talk page as the deleting admin. I'm okay with my deletion, but I am happy if people think this should be relisted. -- KTC (talk) 02:23, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SmartSE, Duffbeerforme, TomStar81, and Tokyogirl79: pinging since you either commented at the original AFD or at Refund. -- KTC (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uphold Delete This is a promotional articles designed exclusively to advertise for the event in question. We didn't need it a week ago when it was deleted and we don't need it now. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn If this was a promotional article why does it include a section titled "Criticisms"? Also if it was designed specifically to promote the event why was much of content published by me later in a peer reviewed reputable journal; "The American Philosophical Association"?

http://www.apaonline.org/resource/collection/808CBF9D-D8E6-44A7-AE13-41A70645A525/v12n1_Teaching.pdf (page 13) This has been further edited by others since this article was first placed on Wikipedia...but the point is it was not written as publicity.

Finally if it was "designed exclusively to advertise the event" what evidence is there from the article that this is advertising? What phrases and quotes are there in the article that indicate it is anything more than an account of the history and nature of the event? It has never been stated by any editors what exactly is promotional...in which case it could be removed. Suffice to say it is not advertising nor was it ever intended to be. Sydney59 (talk) 07:45, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, and suggest this DRV be speedy closed. The primary author of this article is an obvious WP:SPA who is currently under COI investigation, and is abusing Wikipedia for personal promotion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am finding some coverage out there. I found these articles from ABC.net.au, Wells Journal, and Bournemouth Echo. However most of what I'm finding is primary: it's either by someone involved or an institution hosting the event. So far I'm not really bringing up a huge amount of things that would overturn the AfD. I'll check a few more places first, but offhand I'm leaning towards endorsing the deletion. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:01, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's some more: Yahoo, Daily Echo. The Daily Echo is fairly short, so that'd probably be considered a WP:TRIVIAL source overall, though. I'm going to check my school database next. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:08, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here's what's I've found from my school database. Since I can't link to those, I'm going to just list the citations. I haven't compared these against the ones above, so there may be some repeated cites.
Selleck, Amy. "New state of mind", Gold Coast bulletin, 24 June 2014.
Kumar, Anita. (Student reporter) "Pondering life's issues", Gold Coast bulletin, 07/24/2012.
Phillips, Yasmine. "Asking big questions", The Sunday Times, Oct 24, 2010.
I'll go through these a little more in a bit. So far this looks to be predominantly local coverage. I found some links that looked to be primary. For Sydney's benefit, I'll explain primary sourcing on Wikipedia: primary sourcing is anything that is written by someone/something related to the event. This means that anything written by Wills is primary, regardless of where it's posted. I'm undecided at this point and I may try going through and cleaning the article. While there may not have been an intent to promote the Philosothon, it's easy to have things come across as promotional when you're editing with a conflict of interest. Why? Because you're inclined to see things in a more positive light than someone that isn't related to the event at all. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:27, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment.Please note that none of the newspaper articles, ABC radio programs, nor the host schools coverage on their websites was authored by me. This article was originally co-authored by me, Professor John Kleinig (Metropolitan university of NY) Dr Alan Tapper (Charles Sturt University)and Professor Tzipporah Kasachkoff (Ben Gurion University Israel) and other academic editors. Again notability established I would suggest some editing but why delete?Sydney59 (talk) 22:56, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing about WP:PRIMARY sources is that they don't have to be written by you. If a school hosts an event, they're considered to be a primary source regardless of whether or not you were involved with the event or were even aware of it. The same thing goes for schools that had students participate. They have a definite interest in writing about the event or students, as taking part in any educational event makes them look good and seem more prestigious - thus making it more likely that people will want to attend their school, give them money, or so on. They may genuinely be excited about everything and may not be thinking "money, prestige, power" necessarily, but because they're directly related to the topic they're also more likely to be more positive and cover the event. It's essentially impossible for them to be truly neutral or to be a good gauge of coverage/interest per Wikipedia's guidelines. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now what works against the sources here is that they're all predominantly local sources writing about local events. This doesn't mean that they can't be used per se, but they do tend to be greatly depreciated when it comes to judging notability on Wikipedia. They are secondary, but just like schools have an interest in writing about something they're presenting, local papers have a bit of an interest in covering local events or people. It's not something I always agree with necessarily, but this is one of the most prevalent arguments against articles that are mostly or entirely composed of local sources. It'd be helpful if there was secondary, independent coverage in something like an academic textbook or journal article, since those can show a bit of a wider coverage. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 15:06, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning relist. Nothing wrong with the close, no criticism of the closer, but no harm in relisting. Note that academic promotion gets more latitude than garage bands or for-profit corporations or their products. The claim of credentialled academic authors justifies taking a slow look.
The article has many references. However, many references to not make Wikipedia-notability. Deletion will turn on whether the independent coverage (which excludes involved schools' coverage) is secondary source coverage, or is little more than reporting of facts (i.e. primary source material).
Looking through media reports for commentary or analysis added to reporting takes time and care, and I haven't attempted this yet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion The discussion was not as thorough as might be desirable, but I do not see how it could have come to any other conclusion. DGG ( talk ) 09:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • DGG, given the boatloads of material on subjects like Robinson family, don't you think we should give some extra time to more worthy non-fiction, and populate categories like Category:Australian educational programs to maybe 1% of Category:Neighbours characters? The project has a clear pop culture bias. Criticism of "predominantly local coverage" is an exercise of majority bias. Promotion? Promotion of educational programs? I think the sources deserve better consideration. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist without indictment against the original closure. This discussion has already brought up new arguments and sources which, if sussed out in the original AfD, could've changed the outcome. Deryck C. 15:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist Sources listed above are strong enough that they should be discussed. Hobit (talk) 10:29, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My name is Professor John Kleinig and I am not a Wikipedia Editor so apologies for any lack of protocol. The currently disputed article on Philosothon, falls clearly within the ambit of Philosophy for Children. First of all, I think that the Philosophy for Children article is far too brief as it stands, and the current reference to the Philosothon that it contains would be uninformative were the Philosothon article not also contained in Wikipedia. Second, I don't see any dispute about the Ethics Bowl entry in Wikipedia, which is something of a US parallel to the Philosothon, though it is not as extensive as the current Philosothon entry. Should the Ethics Bowl article be expanded or the Philosothon article be contracted? That may not be for me to judge, though one of the things I've always like about Wikipedia articles is their attempt at comprehensiveness. Third, and of real salience, although the Philosothon began as the vision of just a few people in a particular place, it has expanded considerably over a relatively short time, and there is some reason to acknowledge this in the more extensive format that it currently has. I can envisage a time when the expansion is such that the competition/program gets to the point at which some of the tables might be eliminated and replaced by reference to other web sites, though when that will be is probably for others to judge. Fourth, some concern has been expressed about conflict of interest and the suggestion that the article is largely promotional. Certainly there is some conflict of interest, though as the Wikipedia editors will be well aware, Community of inquiry as such does not entail bias. For the most part the article is objectively written, whether or not it might also be used for promotional purposes. Perhaps there is room for a more extensive airing and development of criticisms, though I notice that the Wikipedia Community of inquiry article, on which the Philosothon is based, does not itself gesture toward any criticisms of that model. So, apart from the contingent criticism implied by a CoI, one might wonder whether there may be other factors at work in seeking to have the site deleted. It is certainly no discredit to Wikipedia to have the current article, and it does contain a fair minded if longish account of a growing movement/competition/program.

John Kleinig Emeritus Professor, Department of Criminal Justice John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 2411N 524 West 59th Street New York, NY 10019 USA Phone: +1 212 237-8415 Email: jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu http://www.jjay.cuny.edu/faculty/john-kleinig =[email]='jkleinig@jjay.cuny.edu' https://www.gc.cuny.edu/Page-Elements/Academics-Research-Centers-Initiatives/Doctoral-Programs/Philosophy/Faculty-Bios/John-Kleinig — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.111.101.134 (talk) 22:31, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist There is ample evidence of relevant secondary sources. While some are local it is interesting that even these come from local newspaper articles around Australia and the UK.... It has been established that this article was never designed for publicity. There are academic credentials attached to this article that are lacking in many equivalent Wiki articles. Please relist urgently.Sydney59 (talk) 03:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

21 November 2015[edit]

20 November 2015[edit]

19 November 2015[edit]

18 November 2015[edit]

  • Leona Tuttle – The decision was not to disturb the close. Two deletion decisions were reviewed here. RHaworth's G6 is endorsed and Legacypac's discussion close is allowed to stand, but not endorsed. The question of whether non-administrators can legitimately close as "delete", redirect it, and then slap a G6 template on the redirect, is discussed below. Obvious though the answer to that question undoubtedly is, a deletion review is the wrong place to decide it; but Deletion review's primary process is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed and this page has a history of overturning closes with procedural irregularities of this kind. User:Legacypac is thanked for his accurate close and politely requested to confine his NACs to those he can actually implement in future. Appropriately enough, this DRV close is also a NAC.—S Marshall T/C 21:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Leona Tuttle (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Wrong to NAC a dispute, especially with a delete and then closing with a redirect and not a delete. 166.176.59.169 (talk) 20:18, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Policy states that closes should not be overturned solely on the grounds that the closer was not an admin. Apparently my close was against one policy, but somewhat consistent with other policies that suggest that a closer who can't do everything advise an admin to complete the tasks. The close decision was correct and should not be overturned only based on my current lack of Adminship. I have no issue with the redirect created by another user afterward, cause it makes sense, the women is on that list. Legacypac (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Is that there? Can you point me to it? I could see that this would just be a technicality under WP:DRVPURPOSE not 6 though. The essay points to this discussion from July allow for deletions for TFD as does the guideline itself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:10, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close seems perfectly reasonable, and trying to overturn it just because the closer doesn't own a mop seems like pointless process wonkery. I would suggest to the closer that he run for adminship, but the last time I suggest that to somebody, they got dragged through the mud for no good reason, so I'm kind of down on the whole admin thing. Rule #1 is that we're here to write an encyclopedia. Everything else is crap. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist If an IP tried to close a discussion they would be blocked. Rules are rules. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.176.56.199 (talk) 03:13, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete, or even overturn and redirect or relist. There is little doubt the opener has a strong point and such a closure could not stay. The process here was a mess, NAC AfD closures as delete just do not exist, let alone using an inappropriate G6 speedy deletion to enforce a NAC closure as delete. Frankly it could had been avoided just spending a couple of minutes striking Legacypac's closure and replacing it with an admin's closure, as it was suggested both at RHaworth's talk page and in the relevant ANI thread. Consensus seems consistent with delete, so the easiest thing is (was) striking Legacypoint's closing comment and replacing with an admin closure as delete, but once we are at this point I'm fine even with a closure as redirect (not suggested in the discussion, but it makes sense) or even a relist (still, I hardly see a different outcome for the discussion). Cavarrone 05:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Per policy here:[[32]]
Under Challenging a deletion
Deletion Review should not be used:
1. because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment
2. when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first,
3. to argue technicalities (such as a deletion discussion being closed ten minutes early);
And, listed further down (this may not directly apply but the principle may apply):
Closures will rarely be changed by either the closing editor or a closure review:
2. if the complaint is that the closer is not an admin.[3] with the note " A request for comment discussed how to appeal closures and whether an administrator can summarily overturn a non-administrator's closure. The consensus was that closures should not be reverted solely because the closer was not an administrator."
Does this answer the policy question? Legacypac (talk) 06:20, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and a general point but I'd say essays and a guideline should trump that, in particular when there was an RFC not too long ago. I don't think we're reverting it. I'm thinking that an admin (preferably the person who actually deleted the page) should strike it out and state that it has been deleted but if not, the closer of the DRV can just strike it and close it as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:28, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
also if you use twinkle under G6 XfD it lists Afd, Rfd, Tfd, and three more with a spot to put the deletion discussion link. It uses the word Admin too, I'll grant you. I know Twinkle is not policy, but it is a widely used tool, and an Admin would never need to Twinkle on G6 XfD, because they can just take the action themselves. Legacypac (talk) 07:39, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this was pretty solid consensus. The only keep vote included three articles but only the standard local stuff for a very old person - no long-term national coverage. —МандичкаYO 😜 06:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shouldn't have been closed by a non-admin as they lack the capacity to delete pages, but the closure was not wrong other than for this. Keep deleted. Stifle (talk) 12:41, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I endorse the outcome, but not how we got there (sigh, bureaucracy). WP:NACD is the controlling guideline here, and it couldn't be clearer: "Non-administrators should not close discussions in which they lack the technical ability to act upon the outcome, such as deletion." WP:G6 isn't meant to handle these sorts of cases; you can't shortcut NACD in this manner. Note particularly that G6 is meant for "uncontroversial" deletions, which this kind of deletion never would be. This also isn't fair to the administrators who patrol CAT:CSD and aren't expecting this situation. WP:NACD also trumps WP:CLOSE, which is an essay, and in any event this would fall under "substantial procedural error." The point about non-admin closures rarely being changed is irrelevant: the page is describing a common outcome, and those outcomes involve closes which conform to NACD. This one doesn't. It's a fine point, but the close can't stand as-is. Legacypac (talk · contribs), please go become an administrator. I'm willing to stick my name on the close if it comes to that as it's perfectly valid otherwise. Mackensen (talk) 12:44, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm open for your nomination - I enjoy cleaning up messes and am getting tired of not having all the tools to do so. Legacypac (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you. I don't know how we can say that non-admins shouldn't do something and if they do, it's irrelevant. Otherwise, it's essentially people shouldn't do it and if they do, we'll only block or something if it's considered disruptive on its own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the only complaint being issued here is that it was a NAC, but from my viewing of the discussion it's not controversial enough to require an admin to sort through. As an admin, I'd have closed the discussion in exactly the same way, and salute User:Legacypac for trying to help out in this way. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse deletion I do not think any other conclusion was possible, not matter who closed the debate. DGG ( talk ) 09:11, 23 November 2015 (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.
Beyond Unbroken (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Page was deleted after only 2 users contributed. Both Different answers. One was delete. One was redirect. There is no harm in redirecting the page as the previous info could be used if the subject becomes noticeable, instead of recreating the entire page. Teddy2Gloves(talk)(contribs) 03:11, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • What is it with folks posting DRVs without trying to contact me first? As Stifle noted here, the instructions are abundantly clear that the closing user should be approached before filing for formal review. That said, when an AfD has been open for several weeks without any arguments in favor for keeping the article, I'm going to treat it as an expired PROD. In this case, we had three participating users (there's no reason to ignore the nominator's arguments) in agreement that the subject didn't meet our notability requirements. You're free to create a redirect, but I don't see that the "previous info" has any real use; the content was sourced almost entirely to the band's website and social media like Instagram and YouTube. – Juliancolton | Talk 03:59, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. And people don't talk to admins because questioning admins get you blocked. People have thin skin and massive egos166.176.59.9 (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why overturn? – Juliancolton | Talk 23:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nobody is going to block you for questioning the outcome of a deletion discussion. Hut 8.5 17:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - this band is just not notable by WP standards; SwisterTwister recommended delete and is always very thorough in searching for sources. I don't believe there will be different outcome is this is overturned. —МандичкаYO 😜 17:06, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse all three contributors to the deletion discussion agreed that the subject wasn't notable and that conclusion looks reasonable to me, so deletion is perfectly acceptable. A Delete outcome doesn't stop you from creating a redirect. The argument that the content may be needed in the hypothetical situation that the band becomes notable is rather dubious as there wasn't very much content and the sourcing was very poor, I doubt it would be of much use and if anyone particularly cares it could be restored in that situation. Hut 8.5 17:33, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, the nub of the argument is that there shouldn't be an article for the band, and there's nothing there to say you can't go and create a redirect. Lankiveil (speak to me) 02:42, 22 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse, out of scope of DRV as mentioned above. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close was appropriate. sst✈(discuss) 12:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 November 2015[edit]

16 November 2015[edit]

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

Disclaimer: I created the incarnation of this article that was most recently deleted. The reason given in the deletion log was "attack page", but I don't think that the article, although admittedly a probable violation of WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:BLP, qualified as an attack page (though I don't remember exactly what it looked like prior to it being deleted recently). The content was well sourced and not negative enough to warrant being speedied under this criterion. Given that this speedy deletion seems, at least to me, to have been unwarranted under the criterion used by the deleting admin, I think the page should be restored. Everymorning (talk) 01:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn. Article was one-sided but capable of being salvaged. Stifle (talk) 16:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I speedy deleted this one. I'm certain that Everymorning had the best of intentions in cleaning it up but this was not clean-upable IMO. This BLP was thrice created and deleted, most recently deleted under CSD A7 in October 2014, and subsequently salted by another admin User:Materialscientist. The article consisted of a one sentence lead describing him as an evangelist and internet personality. There were three brief paragraphs under "career": one about an incident about an anti-gay message on a cake, one about a YouTube video upload, and one about a video about why he didn't like Starbucks red cups without Christmas imagery which was uploaded to Facebook. All three were sourced by single primary references about those incidents, not about the individual. No content about his evangelism or sources about his internet fame, or anything else that substantiated why he should be in an encyclopedia. Indeed the page as a whole consisted only of three sourced episodes that just created a patchwork criticism of this fellow. The revision 1 minute before before called him "homophobic, gay-hating race-baiting", substantiated purportedly on the basis of these incidents. In my opinion, this was one-sided enough to be content that essentially only disparaged its subject, even if sourced, and met criteria for G10. -- Samir 23:08, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn this was a seriously problematic article which needs work, if indeed we want an article on this person at all, but I don't think it was an attack page. Whether the sources were primary and the fact that the article was vandalised just before the deletion aren't relevant to the consideration of whether it was an attack page. Yes, it did describe the subject as "homophobic, gay-hating race-baiting" one minute before deletion, but one minute before that it didn't. The subject is evidently known for starting controversies and taking stances which most people (or most Wikipedians, anyway) would think are worthy of ridicule, but that doesn't in itself make the article an attack page. The two previous versions were far worse and were obvious A7s, it isn't worth considering them here. The article does need work for neutrality and BLP compliance, if the subject is actually notable at all, but I don't think it reaches G10 territory. Hut 8.5 14:25, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - as far as I can see, it's really not G10 at all - it reads negatively because the guy's only notable for doing disparagable things - the article isn't critical of him; it's pretty neutral, but a neutral reading of the facts makes readers form negative judgements about him. If it were unsourced, you could make a G10 claim, but given the sources, you really can't. WilyD 11:27, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weakish Endorse. It's always difficult with articles on contemptible individuals to tell whether an article that chronicles their awfulness is an unfair attack page or just some cosmic karma. I prefer to err on the side of caution with these sorts of things. The initial version of the article simply listed a bunch of things that Feuerstein has done, and was clearly intended to paint him in a negative light. Subsequent edits made adjustments around the edges but didn't address that core issue, thus there was no "clean" version to revert to. CSD G10 doesn't have an out for cases where the subject of the article may have deserved it, or if the nature of any sources means that the only way to cover the subject makes them out to be a monster. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:00, 18 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
    • G10 has a specific out for this - that's why it's for either attack pages, or negative unsourced pages. It's recognising that a NPOV article can be negative if the person has done largely or entirely negative things - it's absolutely false to say the article paints him in a negative light - he painted himself in a negative light, the article just reflects that light. WilyD 18:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I understand where you're coming from, but I still feel this was intended as an attack page and is thus eligible as CSD G10. It's different from, say, Adolf Hitler, which is reasonably neutral in tone, obviously leads the reader to make negative conclusions about the subject, but has been written to inform rather than simply intended as character assassination. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:38, 19 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • overturn and list at AfD where I suspect it will get deleted. But doesn't meet the G10 criteria from what I can see. Hobit (talk) 05:32, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 November 2015[edit]

  • Folklore Museum of Velventos – Endorse, but relist. There is strong consensus here that, given the material at the time, the close was fine. But, there is also substantial feeling that since that time, more sources have been located, they need to be evaluated, and AfD is a better place to discuss them than here. So I'm going to restore the article and repost it at AfD. And, please folks, when contesting a deletion, step 1 should be to talk to the closing admin. Often, a good solution can be found without a week's worth of DRV. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Folklore Museum of Velventos (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Surprising how many Wikipedians don't understand that notability doesn't require coverage in English-language media, and that a Google search has to take different translations (such as "Folk Museum of Velvendo") into regard.
Indeed, the museum has been covered by national newspapers in Greece, rather casually in Ta Nea, Ethnos and Kathimerini; more extensive again in Kathimerini and Eleftherotypia. Apart from that, it is mentioned in Museum Practice (vol. 37-40, page 26, and more extensively in Enteukterio (vol. 19, nr. 74/75, page 156). Also, as the museum's presentation was developed by a team from Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, a printed guide obviosly published and/or edited by the Thessaloniki School of Architecture exists.
Does that mean there is overwhelming coverage? No, but the coverage I found already points to a relevance going beyond a WP:Run-of-the-mill museum (if that exists) or even a WP:SNOWFLAKE kind of article. The museum has distinct features making it relevant for a national (or possibly international) audience. Also, note that only very few Greek-language books are available via Google books, so there might be more. As Montanabw said in the AfD discussion, research in foreign languages may be more difficult. PanchoS (talk) 02:31, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Very nice of you to discuss this with me first. – Juliancolton | Talk 02:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Juliancolton: Sorry, didn't mean to bypass you. Just followed the steps as proposed on WP:DRV, and of course left a notice on all participants' talk pages. Next time I will ask first, but maybe this should be changed on WP:DRV. PanchoS (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Step #1 of the steps at DRV include "please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly". Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
      "maybe this should be changed on WP:DRV"... got to challenge this.
      1. "Deletion Review should not be used:... 2.when you have not discussed the matter with the administrator who deleted the page/closed the discussion first"
      2. "Before listing a review request, please: 1.discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first"
      3. "Before listing a review request please attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as this could resolve the matter more quickly"
      All three of the above instructions appear on the page. How much clearer does it need to be? Stifle (talk) 17:01, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse close, restore with leave to relist A reasonable close given the discussion and the lack of reasonable sources provided in the AfD or the article (English or otherwise). But sources have been found and while not stellar, would IMO meet WP:N so restore with no prejudice to someone sending it back to AfD. Also, it's quite possible this DRV wouldn't have been needed if you'd just contacted the closing admin... Hobit (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close - clearly the right decision based on the discussion. Of the added sources, I only see one which would help the notability (the 2nd Kathimerini article). The other "lengthy" piece I am unsure about since I can't figure out what the publication is/was, and whether or not this might be a promotion piece (it looks like a listing of attractions). Even with that, I don't think this museum quite reaches the level of the notability requirements. Onel5969 TT me 18:25, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I understand that, as I said the sources aren't stellar. But I'd argue AfD is the right place to debate the quality of the sources rather than DRV. New sources have been provided and the AfD was under attended. Hobit (talk) 18:19, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close, restore with leave to relist The close was accurate, and the DRV nominator should have discussed with the closing admin before taking this to DRV. But I agree that the new sources should be discussed at AfD. Cunard (talk) 05:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 November 2015[edit]

13 November 2015[edit]

12 November 2015[edit]

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

Marianna Yarovskaya page which was created through the AFC process on 9th November 2015, with different content and references, but deleted again as per previous discussion in 2012. Iamothers (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Iamothers: Please explain what has changed regarding this person's notability since the previous AfD in 2012, or why the recent version of the article is more keepworthy than the 2012 version, or if there is any other reason the previous AfD result should be changed. Thank you. Newyorkbrad (talk) 04:34, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply ::Since 2012 the person produced two award-winning feature length documentary films — Greedy Lying Bastards and Pussy Riot: The Movement. Greedy Lying Bastards received several awards, including the Boston Film Festival Eco Award and Best Documentary Feature at the Burbank Film Festival.

She also produced and directed a feature film Women of the Gulag (in post-production), based on Paul Gregory’s Hoover book of the same title. This feature-length documentary is supported by a media grant from the National Endowment for the Humanities. She has also received National Endowment for Democracy Grant, Pacific Pioneer Grant, and many other awards and commendations.

She was one of the producers of media for the Russian Jewish Museum and Tolerance Center, which opened in Moscow in 2012.

She is a member of PGA (Producers Guild of America) since 2015.

Her partial list of credits in research/ archival producing include such award-winning feature films as God the Father, Vessel, Swift Current, Red Army, Merchants of Doubt, Spirit of the Marathon II, and many others. In addition Yarovskaya worked in research on an Academy Award nominated Last Days in Vietnam by Rory Kennedy (2014). Iamothers (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment as a non-admin it's difficult to assess if g4 is valid or not. However noting that the admin deleting as g4 is the same person who nominated for deletion in the original discussion seems less than ideal, did someone else tag this for g4 or all one action by the admin? --86.2.216.5 (talk) 07:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, I have temp restored the article, so non-admin participants can decide whether this diff, which was the last one before it was deleted at AFD and this diff, which was the last one before it was speedied G4, are sufficiently identical for CSD G4 to apply. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment Lankiveil's links no longer work now the article is restored. The following diff shows the difference between the two versions. here. Spartaz Humbug! 12:46, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G4 and list at AfD. Based on the diffs offered by Spartaz, it looks like the newly created version has significant changes from the one deleted at AfD, including new references, at least some of which appear to be WP:RS. I offer no opinion on whether this is sufficient to survive another AfD, but it certainly seems like enough to disqualify WP:G4 -- RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and optionally relist at AfD. Thesituation has clearly changed. DGG ( talk ) 06:13, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, with no prejudice against listing at AFD. The situation has changed enough, and the articles are sufficiently different that I don't feel that G4 is valid. It may be that the community still does not feel that the subject is notable enough for her own article, but that is best hammered out through a proper discussion and review rather than through administrative fiat. Thanks incidentally to User:Spartaz for fixing up my links above. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:29, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn. The current text includes credible claims of significance postdating the prior AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 13:50, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It clearly goes to the direction of overturning, which will be my first ever administrative decision to be overturned. This is ok, but, to make it clear, I still see no significant difference between the previous version of this article written by the subject itself (using socks) and the new one using the same credentials and written by a single-purpose account. I believe that none of the concerns raised at the AfD were addressed. However, after the article gets kept, I will unwatch it. If someone else wants to take it to AfD, they are welcome. I do not have so much time left in my life to fight every piece of garbage in Wikipedia, and I long ago came to the conclusion that certain percentage of the Wikipedia article will be garbage anyway, so let it be.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:31, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
WP:G4 requires the pages to be substantially identical. That's a (much) higher bar than, none of the concerns raised at the AfD were addressed. I agree with you that we've got way too much garbage (although, I would use a less politically correct term to describe it), but I think admins should be very conservative when it comes to WP:CSD -- RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it is a close paraphrasing of the previous version.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 November 2015[edit]

10 November 2015[edit]

9 November 2015[edit]

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

This template was deleted by User:Bgwhite citing CSD:G6. I have contacted User:Bgwhite to ask for it to be restored, and my request was denied. As I attempted to explain to Bgwhite, what I created was a "substitution only template" which may be used to translate articles from the German Wikipedia to this Wikipedia. This is very similar to Template:Infobox Burg, which was created by Bermicourt for translating pages articles about castles. To make sure it could not be used directly, I specifically wrapped the output in a parserfunction which prevented the template from producing any output if it was not substituted. Hence, it is important to note that what I created is completely useless if it's not substituted. Despite all of this, User:Bgwhite insists that I created to help XaviYuahanda. this is clearly not the case since the template is useless if it's not substituted. I am unable to demonstrate this fact while the template is deleted. the thread where I tried to explain all of this to Bgwhite can be found here. as I stated there, if there is a fundamental problem with this type of translation tool, then we should discuss it at WP:TFD. any deletion of this type of template should be bundled with all the other "shimming templates" (as Bermicourt calls them). Frietjes (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn, unless it can be shown that another speedy deletion rationale applies. But G6 is only for uncontroversial maintenance, which any contested deletion is by definition not. The stated reason of the template being used to help another user circumvent their ban on another Wikipedia does not fit any speedy deletion criteria.  Sandstein  19:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm the blocked user. I was blocked by an argument, not because of the reason which BGWHITE named. The blockreason was unbelehrbar, that means unteachable. My articles were liked. It's really bad that BGWHITE is telling lies about me! --XaviYuahanda (talk) 19:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Clearly doesn't fit any of the criteria listed under G6, so the deletion on those grounds should be overturned. Calathan (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I said Frietjes can restore it after the 15th, when the ban was over. User XaviYuahanda has been banned on dewiki 5 times for adding/creating non-notable people to football articles and not listening to advice given to them. They are currently under their second one month ban and it is set to expire on the 15th. The template was created after an interaction between Friejtes and the banned user. The only non-talk pages that link to the template are the ~50 articles created by the user. User stated on their dewiki talk page, that Frietjes "was kind enough to create a BNR template" and has said he wants the template back. I looked at several of the articles and they are about footballers who haven't played a pro game yet. It appears the user's intention is to copy the articles to dewiki after their ban is done. A notice was placed on the dewiki admin board by another user that talks about XaviYuahanda's actions on enwiki. I don't understand why this template, which hasn't been around for several years, has to be restored now for a banned user who wants it back. Bgwhite (talk) 20:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Look at your disc --XaviYuahanda (talk) 20:09, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite, if Frietjes explanation is true, then the template has nothing to do with what XaviYuahanda is doing. XaviYuahanda seems to be writing German articles, and transcluding the template into them expecting it to produce an infobox in German. However, Frietjes says the template only works if it is substituted, and that it produces an infobox in English that would be useless to what XaviYuahanda is doing. You are basically accusing Frietjes of being a liar and acting in bad faith, but have presented no evidence I can see of that (I'm not an admin, so I can't see the deleted template to know what it actually does). Without being able to see the template, my assumption is that Frietjes is acting in good faith, that his template does what he says it does, and XaviYuahanda linking to a template with that name expecting it to do something different is completely unrelated to why Frietjes made the template. If you truly believe that Frietjes made the template to help XaviYuahanda and lied to you about why he made it and what it does, then you can take that up at somewhere more appropriate like ANI. However, even if that were true (and again, I'm assuming it isn't), that still wouldn't justify deleting the template under G6. Calathan (talk) 21:19, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calathan, why can't you assume good faith? You instead assume I'm evil. Thanks. Frietjes didn't know the user was blocked when she created it. She thought she was helping somebody. I'm not accusing her of anything. I even told her I'm not accusing her of anything. Egads. The user is creating the infobox in German. The infobox appears in English, but they read English. They know if the infobox is right or not before they transfer the article over. I'm now being threatened with ANI, Frietjes has cut me off, Calathan thinks I'm evil person that calls everybody a liar and a banned user gets their way... all over waiting a few days. I'm done. Bgwhite (talk) 23:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bgwhite, I'm not threatening you with ANI (I was suggesting you could take Frietjas to ANI), and I don't see how anything in my statement could in any way imply I thought you were evil. In my mind, there are two possibilities here:
  • Frietjas created the template for his own use, XaviYuahanda tried to use it as well but used it incorrectly, you mistakenly thought Frietjas created it for XaviYuahanda, and you deleted it as under speedy criterion G6. In such a case the template should be restored because G6 clearly doesn't apply.
  • Frietjas created the template for XaviYuahanda, you noticed that XaviYuahanda was blocked and deleted the template citing G6, and Frietjas then deceived us by implying here that the template was for his own use and had nothing to do with what XaviYuahanda. In that case the template should still be restored since G6 still clearly doesn't apply, but you should also do something about Frietjas deceiving us (such as starting an ANI discussion).
In neither case are you in any way evil. You seem to think the second scenario is what happened. All I'm saying is that you haven't presented any evidence that supports the second scenario over the first, and that I don't think G6 applied to the template regardless of which scenario actually happened. Calathan (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Calathan Frietjas contacts XaviYuahanda on the 4th about not using the German template because it was showing up on her reports. Frietjas creates the template on the 5th. I notice it on the 6th and I comment out sections of the template on articles in XaviYuahanda's space that were showing up on my report. XaviYuahanda reverts. On the 7th I leave message on their talk page. XaviYuahanda responds by saying they need and use that template.
Note, you said, "You are basically accusing Frietjes of being a liar and acting in bad faith", thus I was being evil.
FYI... Frietjes is a she and you keep saying "he". Bgwhite (talk) 00:49, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In that sentence you quoted, I wasn't suggesting you were acting in bad faith, but that your statement would mean she was. I thought you were acting in good faith, but in my opinion possibly mistaken. Also, apologizes to Frietjes for calling her "he". I should have looked at your user page more closely before choosing a pronoun. Calathan (talk) 02:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to TFD. If a deletion is contested it is by definition not uncontroversial, but I struggle to understand the relevance of having a German-language template here on the English Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:30, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The logic for a German-language template here on the English Wikipedia is simple: it saves hours of time manually converting all the fields and data into English when transferring articles over using what I think is called a pivot table so it displays like the English template. However, the German template should not stay here longer than is necessary, but be automatically replaced by its English equivalent. This is very neatly done with Template:Infobox Berg by a bot, so everyone is happy. I'm not sure if Frietjes can do that, but great if she can. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. (1) The existence or otherwise of this template is irrelevant to whether or not some user has been blocked or banned. (2) There is an obvious need for this and similar templates to translate WP:FOOTY articles from de:wp to en:wp, given the large volume of articles there on German football and footballers. (3) Sandstein is correct that G6 is not a valid reason for deleting this template, and that no other speedy deletion criterion applies. --NSH002 (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn G6 never applied. And, on the merits, this seems a useful template. DGG ( talk ) 06:14, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - obviously controversial, so G6 doesn't apply. Refusing to undo G6es is always the wrong decision, and turns an "oopsie" action into a "bad administrating action". WilyD 09:34, 13 November 2015 (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.
Ferdinand Ashmall (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This seems to me a clear case of a closer putting their own opinions before those of the majority. Yes, yes, we all know it's not just about numbers voting, but nine keeps against five deletes? Come on, that's a clear consensus to keep; no consensus at the very outside. If a closer can discount this level of support for keeping and just decide to delete anyway then what on earth is the point of having an AfD discussion in the first place? Incidentally, I think I've only brought one other case to deletion review in all the years I've been here - two in one day is pure coincidence and not a campaign against deletion! -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You say you recognize AfDs are not votes, yet your entire rational above is a naked appeal to a justification of numbers rather than strength of arguments. No one supporting the article managed to provide the significant sources required to demonstrate notability, as I stated in the closing message. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is just your opinion, just as it was other editors' opinions that it did demonstrate notability. And some of those editors were very experienced. It's up to a closer to judge by what others have said and yes, to take into account how many have said it (no, it's not just about numbers, but claiming numbers aren't significant is ridiculous), not to put forward their own "super-opinion" and effectively discount all those that disagree with them. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:10, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, for all your experience on Wikipedia, I'd expect better than "it's obviously notable" as a argument, and seniority carries no weight in argument validity either way. As for "super opinions", I presented no novel reason for deletion that was not expressed in the AfD itself, so an accusation of "super opinion" seems unreasonable. I'd ask if you can find any specific way my actions have disagreed with the deletion guidelines for admins. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 16:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I made no comment about "seniority". My point is that the opinions of experienced editors are valid enough not to be simply dismissed. We've been here a long time. We know how Wikipedia works as well as you do. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, clearly a closing admin super !vote. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore The actual participants at the AfD in question considered the issues raised by the closer and rejected the proposition, seeing the sources as conferring notability per WP:GNG. All the closing admin has done is disregard the actual discussion, put his thumb (and other body parts) on the scale, and decide that his vote is all that counts; the actual consensus lost by one vote to zero. This blatant disregard of actual community consensus should be overturned. Alansohn (talk) 16:49, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Several participants in the discussion assessed the sources and thought they were sufficient to confer notability, while other participants assessed the sources and thought they were insufficient to confer notability. Arguing to keep based on sufficient sources and to delete based on insufficient sources are equally strong policy-based arguments, so each such !vote should have been given equal weight in closing the discussion. There were at least as many people saying the sources were sufficient as saying they were insufficient, so the discussion should have been closed as keep or no consensus. That the closer thought one side was right and the other was wrong should not have been considered in deciding the close, as it is the participants' assessment of the sources that matter, not the closer's (though of course he could have !voted instead of closing the discussion). Calathan (talk) 18:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I was certainly surprised by this outcome. While I can see that there were arguments on both sides, I would have expected rule 4 "When in doubt, don't delete" to apply here. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 18:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep I took some time looking at the sources [33] has enough details by itself to support an article. I honestly don't understand the "significance" argument being made by the closer (sources aren't significant, sources aren't in significant depth, topic isn't significant?). Meets GNG and would take a really strong consensus to delete. That plainly wasn't in existence here. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. In cases where experienced editors disagree in good faith whether certain sources are sufficient for notability, that is in most cases a matter of judgment and not something that can be resolved clearly by applying a policy or guideline. Because the closing admin has not made clear, in this case, why their appreciation of the sources is unambiguously correct in terms of a specific policy or guideline (as would be the case, e.g., if the sources at issue were all obviously unreliable), they have not shown why their closing statement is not in fact a "supervote", that is, an opinion disguised as an appreciation of consensus. If that supervote is treated as an opinion among others, I can't find consensus one way or the other, given the poor quality of many opinions made on both sides.  Sandstein  19:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Largely agree with you, but I'm unclear what makes the keep !votes particularly weak. Generally "here's some sources" is a pretty strong !vote when the sources are non-trivial. What am I missing here? Hobit (talk) 03:37, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Several "keep" opinions broadly asserted the existence of sources without explaining which sources they considered relevant. The DRV nominator made an argument based on asserted inherent notability, which I would have discounted as in the case below. On the other side, there was also an incomprehensible "delete" opinion that went "I personally would not trust the word of the church on this"; I would have discounted that also.  Sandstein  13:58, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I have said in the DRV below, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. It is perfectly valid for an editor in an AfD discussion to opine that the subject of the discussion is notable and it is perfectly valid for that opinion to be based on the fact that the subject is one of a very small group, since such a fact is very often taken to confer notability in and of itself. We are not bound by set-in-stone policy and guidelines, and those that exist are mutable depending on consensus of opinion. It is never valid for a closer to dismiss opinions if enough of them agree. That would be wholly against the spirit of what we do in this project. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's part of the described DRV procedure to discuss with the closing admin before listing here. Can the nominator explain why he/she chose not to do this? Stifle (talk) 09:32, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • In my experience closers who are challenged about their closure invariably just say "I stick by it" or words to that effect and do not enter into any further discussion. The closer in this instance has already said as much. I'm not sure of the value in challenging their closure when they've already expressed their opinion in closing, especially when the opinion is as clear-cut as it was here; taking direct to DRV is more productive. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above comment makes me sad, for a couple of reasons. I get queried about closes all the time. Sometimes I stand by my close (especially if the query sounds like somebody who didn't get their way just taking another whack at the argument). But, if I think there's a reasonable argument that my close was in error, I'll typically just revert myself and let somebody else re-close it. I think (or, at least, hope) most admins have a similar policy. I am concerned about your choice of words. The interaction should be a conversation, not a challenge. Challenge implies combat. What we're looking for is collaboration. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think if you look at the closer's actual words in the closure you will see what I mean. Someone who ignores pretty much any opinion that doesn't match his in his closure isn't likely to agree that his closure was wrong. And please note that I am an admin myself - I do understand very well how Wikipedia works and I always strive for collaboration, but I've also been here long enough to read between the lines and to realise when I'm likely to be flagellating a deceased equine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. The closing comment makes clear that the closer simply differs with the expressed consensus as to the weight to be given the sources cited. That at least approaches being a supervote, but, more important, is left unexplained by the closer. If the opinions of so many experienced users are to be rejected, more than a pro forma explanation should be required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - consensus is not clear and there were some good sources brought up. The source added in the last comment before closure is a good argument for notability. —МандичкаYO 😜 03:24, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Essentially per User:Sandstein above. Some of the keep votes are weak, but others do bring sources to the table and there doesn't seem to be a consensus that they are insufficient. Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:50, 12 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus - sufficient sources to at least plausibly meet WP:N, about which the discussion is split. WilyD 09:37, 13 November 2015 (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.
Jean-Pierre Bolduc (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Seems to me a clear no consensus close - three keeps against two deletes. The closer has said he's discounted keep opinions as there is no presumption of notability for ambassadors. However, it is AfD discussion that largely shapes guidelines and AfD discussion is largely about opinion as to a subject's notability. If editors' opinions are going to be discounted in this way then there really is no point in having AfD discussions - we may as well just let admins delete any articles which do not fit within rigidly defined criteria as they see fit. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:48, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Closer's comment: I'd have closed this as a "no consensus" if the "keep" opinions had been based on the coverage of this ambassador in reliable sources – i.e., on his general notability. However, most "keep" opinions instead argued that ambassadors are inherently notable. Administrators are to weigh arguments on the basis of their strength in the light of our guidelines and policies, and our notability guidelines do not extend presumptive notability to diplomats (as they do, e.g., to certain politicians). That is not an oversight, but rather because there has never been consensus to do so, as a look at the guideline talkpage archives shows. A relatively long discussion about this in January 2015 did not seem to reach consensus either. As it is, therefore, projectwide consensus (as expressed in the notability guidelines) does not deem diplomats presumptively notable, and I must therefore give less weight to opinions in local discussions that express a different view. I consequently maintain the view expressed in the closing statement.  Sandstein  16:00, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion, clearly a closing admin super !vote. I am not able to see the article, I am just looking at the AFD. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
  • Comment I disagree with the outcome (I think most ambassadors should be considered notable) but otherwise feel that the closer is correct--this is fairly well settled. I'll not urge an overturn because the close was, IMO, within policy and guidelines. But I think it's the wrong result so I cannot endorse. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to be clear A) I've looked at the sources below. They are decent, but not clearly above the WP:N bar IMO. B) I think that keep because ambassador is a reasonable !vote to give less weight to as we've generally agreed that isn't a valid reason to keep an article. I'd have !voted to keep here (sources good enough, I too would rather we keep most ambassadors), but I don't think the close can be said to be outside of discretion. Hobit (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Closers are entitled to apply policy and guidelines with higher weight to debate contributions where the contributions are arguing from a premise not supported in policy. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • That suggests to me the old and discredited Wikipedia is a bureaucracy argument. Notability is not determined by policy, but by discussion. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • An AFD is not a raw vote, which can be won by stacking it with non-policy-based votes one way or the other — closing admins are allowed, in fact required, to entirely discount votes that are explicitly not grounded in any Wikipedia policy. A discussion with 98 keeps and just two deletes can be closed as a delete consensus if the deletes are supported by a correct and detailed interpretation of policy, while the keeps are on the level of "keep because I said so" or "keep because Baby Jesus will cry if you don't". Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • That may be some sort of happy place for deletionists, but it is not in fact what happens in practice and should not in fact be what happens in practice. "Keep because I say so" may not be a valid argument; but an experienced editor saying "keep because common sense points towards notability even if set-in-stone guidelines don't" is. Nothing is set in stone here. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:43, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I just don't find the "highest level of their profession" analogy to sports figures convincing. The sports figures situation is an anomaly: it's based on the disproportionate (in comparison to their real-world impact) coverage of sports figures. The world's top-level copyeditors, arborists, and diamond cutters aren't seen as inherently notable. I'm not arguing that the consensus about ambassadors is right, just that it's a consensus established by a broad enough argument that it shouldn't be rejected by a single sparsely argued AFD. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Everyone, please re-read the AfD, particularly Bearcat's findings: Bolduc's notability seems to stem not only from mere being an ambassador, but from his humanitarian background before that, and diplomatic status in several countries during the tenure. There's a serious possibility of cultural bias, as there are significant sources about his Senegal career [34]. Maybe all of that does not add up, but when in doubt, the default should be "no consensus", not a supervote. No such user (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you list which sources you think count as significant coverage toward WP:N? I'm not seeing anything, but I'd be quite pleased to hear WP:N is met. Hobit (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Hobit:: His bio (page 6) in a brochure issued for visit of Canadian GG to Africa.
      • An interview of his given to L'Observateur, apparently
      • His statements during the tenure in Congo
      • His statements concerning visit of Ghanian president to Canada
      • Bolduc helps establish a Trust Fund for Victims of Gender Violence in Ghana
      • Mentioned back in 1986 concerning his work with CIDA
      • Yeah, I will agree that those are bits and pieces, but there are many (I listed only those that appeared more substantive), and the 1st ref taken verbatim really helps establish a decent short article. But this is DRV, not AFD. No such user (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn deletion I brought forward French-language articles on him and they were dismissed with the comment the ambassadors are basically puppets and all they do is repeat the official line of the government, so articles about them don't count. This is not a valid argument for GNG. - —МандичкаYO 😜 03:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not going to "vote" here, because having participated in the original discussion I feel like I'd be just trying to relitigate a decision I didn't "get my way" from, but since I was pinged above I wanted to add some comments for perspective. Even though I voted to keep, I see that I was the only one who based my reasoning on the existence of further sourcing beyond what was already present in the article — every other keep vote essentially boiled down to some variation on "keep because ambassadors are automatically notable", without reference to the fact that (a) Wikipedia does not actually have any such rule, and (b) even the notability claims that we do accept as conferring an automatic keep still have to be supported by reliable sources to actually get the article kept. Meanwhile, several of the delete votes specifically addressed my point about other sources available on Google News, reviewing them and coming to the conclusion that there wasn't enough substance to them. If things had been different, and my comments in the discussion had been signed by someone else while I had been the person assessing it for closure, I would have assessed it the same way: three policy-based delete votes to just one policy-based keep, constituting more than enough for a delete consensus, with three irrelevant keep votes that had to be discounted for lacking a connection to Wikipedia's actual notability or sourcing policies. That's a completely correct and valid close option according to AFD's actual rules. And, of course, it bears remembering that an AFD discussion is not a permanent ban on the subject ever having an article; if you feel really strongly about it (which I have to admit that I don't), then you do still have the option of putting in the work to write a better article about him than the first one. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore Policy is what we do, not what we say. What we do about ambassadors varies widely. (I would personally prefer we keep them all, and I've argued that for years, but the consensus has not been with me) But neither is the consensus that we delete them all. It goes case by case. Where there is no consensus to delete in a given case, thearticle should be kept. There was no such consensus here. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to NC. I explicitly reject any notion that merely being an ambassador should be taken as evidence of notability; notability is defined for our purposes by coverage in reliable sources. Two of the "Keep" votes made bare assertions of WP:ITSNOTABLE and they were quite properly discounted, but two of them did bring sources to the table that appear to be reliable. The closing admin should have either considered them in the close, or at least explained why these sources were discounted. Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:45, 13 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn to NC - both as the sources are plausible enough for WP:N + split headcount, and as the argument that "Ambassadors are of sufficient importance that if Wikipedia is to be a serious reference, it must cover them" is a worthwhile one (whether I'm wholly convinced or not, it's reasonable). WilyD 09:41, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Diplomats are not automatically notable, absent actually meeting the WP:GNG. Also, the claim that they are at "top-level" of their professions strikes me as obviously untrue: "foreign minister" (or "Secretary of State", in the U.S.) would be the actual top level for the diplomatic service, since that's who ambassadors report to. --Calton | Talk 10:12, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have to say I am personally firmly in the all ambassadors (or at least, all ambassadors from major nations) are notable camp. However, I appreciate that the weight of consensus is not as yet with me. Had this been a deletion after a clear consensus then I would not have brought this to DRV. However, it was not. It was clearly a no consensus, which should of course default to keep, and thus I believe was a misinterpretation by the closer. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:49, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

8 November 2015[edit]

7 November 2015[edit]

6 November 2015[edit]

5 November 2015[edit]

4 November 2015[edit]

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

more reliable sources have appeared since last deletion, [35] [36] [37] [38] Prisencolin (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • information Administrator note Sigh. You do not appear to have read the directions for a deletion review. The purpose here is to challenge a previous deletion decision as flawed, after first discussing the matter with the admin who deleted it. (that would be me) Unless you intend to challenge the outcome of the deletion discussion had 48 months ago I believe this is moot. If your intention was to ask that the old version be restored or userfiedso you could improve it with your new sourcing, all you had to do was ask me. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:16, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's nothing stopping you from writing a new article at this title, if it improves on the AfDed version then it will not be deleted again without a new AfD. You don't need to come here to do this. If you want to use the old article as a starting point them I'm sure someone will userfy it for you. Hut 8.5 23:04, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. A video game player trying to be passed as a WP:ATHLETE is unusual enough for this to be revisited every three or four years, sure. It passed AfD1 in 2008, failed AfD2 in 2011 with less participation and non-emphatically. Please try to be personable and friendly with Beeblebrox, he's a nice guy but chaffs with the impersonal bureaucracy that overtook the project. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • SmokeyJoe (talk · contribs), I don't understand your comment about "Please try to be personable and friendly with Beeblebrox". I don't see where Prisencolin was unpersonable or unfriendly with Beeblebrox. Prisencolin wanted the community's permission to recreate the article so he took it here. Cunard (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • My reading of SmokeyJoe's comment was that he was apologizing for Beeblebrox. Stifle (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prisencolin filled in and submitted a form to start a process, reminiscent of Brazil (1985 film), instead of just asking the deleting admin. Nothing to get worked up about. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:41, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • SmokeyJoe, your comment is unhelpful. Please do not make fun of Prisencolin, a good faith editor who is inexperienced with DRV and tried his best to follow the instructions. That is hurtful and unnecessary.

          Stifle: I thought SmokeyJoe had meant that and had misspoken but apparently not.

          Cunard (talk) 05:48, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

          • No fun of Prisencolin intended, but fun of Beeblebrox. Prisencolin, were you offended? Cunard, you are not very good with humour, are you? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:29, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read the deletion review guidelines several times and I guess I still misudnerstood what to do, lol sorry about that. As I can imagine from seeing other competitive gaming articles, I can imagine that this article was pretty atrocious when I was AFDed. If it would get restored to my userspace under "/cypher" that would be great.--Prisencolin (talk) 09:46, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need to apologize. I don't think you did anything wrong here.

    Wikipedia:Deletion review#Purpose says: "Deletion Review may be used: 3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page".

    It is reasonable to ask the community for permission to recreate the article if you feel that restoration could be controversial. I did that for Archive.is at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 June 1#Archive.is. For future reference, if you don't think a recreation will be controversial, then you could follow Beeblebrox's advice and just recreate the article with new sources and new content.

    Cunard (talk) 07:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 November 2015[edit]

2 November 2015[edit]

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

The original deletion request may have been politically motivated and therefore highly inappropriate for a page of this type. The National Assembly Elections in Wales are to take place in 2016, News stories have published that Wales Green Party are polled to gain seats in this election for the first time in Wales, therefore this page will become ever more necessary in the coming months. There are also many links to this page from constituency pages and Assembly Regional pages so a delete would create many dead links as well. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 19:54, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose deletion or a redirect of the Wales Green Party Page The original deletion request made a number of erroneous claims about the wales green party, and these have been highlighted by correspondents on the talk page and on this page. But just to recap members in wales elect their own leader, officers and ruling council. And members in wales put together a welsh green manifesto to be presented to the welsh electorate in the elections to the national assembly for wales next may. The affairs of the wales green party are not determined outside wales.
While it is frankly semantic nonsense for some to suggest the welsh green party doesnt have a 'leader'. Pippa Bartolotti was very publicly elected leader of the welsh greens in a leadership contest last year http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/11669116.Newport_s_Bartolotti_re_elected_as_Wales_Green_Party_leader/. She is repeatedly referred to in the online, print and broadcast media as being the 'leader of the wales green party', and perhaps the best and most telling examples of this came in the televised debates in wales during last may's general election when pippa bartolotti was billed as the 'leader of the wales green party' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-wales-32530830 and http://www.itv.com/news/wales/update/2015-05-08/wales-green-party-weve-broken-so-many-records/
In short to everyone in the world - a couple of wikipedia contributors seemingly excepted - the welsh green party has a 'leader'. As for comments about the wales green wikipedia page not being updated well those who made those claims obviously havent visited the page recently.It's not only very up to date but gives a very comprehensive and informative account of the wales green party https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wales_Green_Party.
Finally the wales green party candidate's in next year's elections to the welsh assembly will be registered with the electoral commission in wales as standing for the 'Wales Green Party/Plaid Werdd Cymru'. In effect and legally speaking the wales green party exists and is fully deserving of a page in its own right and certainly not deletion or a redirect from another page. No one has the right to downgrade the wikipedia status of what is a legally registered party in wales. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 03:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I closed the AfD. This appears not to be a request to review the close, but to question the rationale behind the AfD nomination. I'm not sure this is the right venue for such a discussion. If the situation has changed regarding sources for the article, then a talkpage discussion could take place regarding if the article should still be a redirect or could now be a standalone article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:43, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I note that the AfD merge tag has been removed three times: [39], [40], [41]. The edit summaries indicate that it is felt that the merge close was not consensus because there were more keep votes. I think that is a legitimate concern for a review, and if a discussion on the legitimacy of the close were the focus of this review, that might be helpful to prevent continued edit warring. Either that, or a discussion on the talkpage to establish if the new sources are enough to establish the topic as a stand alone article. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:46, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ultimately, AFD debates can end in the article being deleted, or not-deleted. Whilst there are several variants of not-delete, there is no need for a DRV to change between one of these and the discussion can and should be better dealt with on the article talk page. Endorse. Stifle (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What he said. The requested action does not require an admin, so it's best if this is hashed out on the article talk page. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Back to the Talk page

would just point out that those of us in favour of retention were advised to set up this deletion review page. but ok guys then guys, will now return to the talk page and put the arguments for a stand alone page there again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by D Karras (talk • contribs) 01:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse, I would have gone "no consensus" myself, but redirect would seem to be within the discretion we traditonally allow for such messy discussions. The accusations of bad faith against the nominator either need to be substantiated with proof, or withdrawn. Lankiveil (speak to me) 05:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC).[reply]
  • Comment, WP:DRVPURPOSE notes Deletion Review may be used if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly, which is what I believe to be the issue here, per User:SilkTork above. Nevertheless, if editors endorse the AfD closure, which was to Merge Wales Green Party into Green Party of England and Wales, how would discussing it on the article talk page allow the merge to take place? Surely the practical effect is to re-open the AfD. Please advise. Daicaregos (talk) 08:10, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The review statement mentions the motivation behind the AfD, and says there are new sources, but does not discuss the close, which is what this venue is for. Ignoring the bad faith comment about motivation, that there are new sources is an edi6orial discussion, which has no place on a forum to decide if the AfD close was proper or not. The outcome was to merge the contents into another article, which does not delete the material, merely places it elswhere on Wikipedia. A redirect would lead readers to the right place. This is all minor shelving and categorising really, as the content remains in place to be read. As someone commented, it's a minor thing to be raising a review over anyway, as the material has not been deleted. Those who edit the article and are concerned about it are urged to discuss the matter on Talk:Green Party of England and Wales. I am going out now, but when I return I will do the merge (as it hasn't yet been done), and set up a talkpage discussion. SilkTork ✔Tea time 14:48, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 15:38, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Please do ot do the merge, that is wahat we are all objecting to. It was Daicaregos that advised us to create this DRV, which is why I did so. I would like to point out that I am not meaning to cast aspersions in 'bad faith' about the actual editor who nominated the page for the merge, however I have seen evidence (on another forum) that some to the arguments made for the merge (by at least one) may have been politically motivated. Jimmy3d0 (talk) 18:30, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be clear, I said; "If editors feel the closure was made in error, it should be brought up at Wikipedia:Deletion review rather than here [Talk:Green Party of England and Wales].", per WP:DELREV. That you chose to base the deletion review request on a bad faith claim of "politically motivated" closure was unlikely to win friends or influence anyone to your cause. It would probably be in your interests to reign back the bad faith accusations, to read WP:AGF ... and the two pages noted by SilkTork on the Green Party of England and Wales talk page: Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) and Wikipedia:Notability. Whether you take that advice or not is up to you. Good luck. Daicaregos (talk) 21:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • OverturnI would would have closed "Keep, with a recommendation to look into merging". Not an unreasonable close, but I read a discussion heading to somewhere between "no consensus", "Keep" and "merge". I don't think there is quite a consensus for "merge", and indeed, the merge may be a drawn out process that shouldn't be mandated from AfD. I agree with the closer that merging is a good idea. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:55, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think it should be noted here that it was, in fact, done after this review process was opened, by the closer, and in full knowledge of the fact. Although doubtless it was just an error of judgement, it does look like an attempt to preempt the issue. Bagunceiro (talk) 18:57, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - closer followed appropriate guidelines per WP:BRANCH. This is not the appropriate forum for this and I dispute the accusations of bias in the deletion discussion. As an American with no strong feelings either way about the Green Party, I neutrally recommended merge based on evidence and not because of "political motivation." Stating that the article should be restored because there is an election next year and "this page will become ever more necessary", is, however, clear evidence of political motivation. I note (with annoyance) that the deletion review from JUNE called for merging and it was not only not done, people continually removed the merge tag from the page. This is not the way to follow procedure. The page still hasn't been properly merged into the article. —МандичкаYO 😜 02:45, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I have carried out the merge to prevent further edit warring; the article can now be found as a section within the parent article: Green Party of England and Wales#Wales Green Party, with a redirect from Wales Green Party. I have also opened a discussion to establish if new sources that have come forward since the AfD would allow the article to be restored as a standalone. Talk:Green Party of England and Wales#Should Wales Green Party become a standalone article?. SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:19, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 November 2015[edit]

  • Caroline Mulroney – Recreation permitted. Also history merger, if that's really necessary, although it's not evident why from this discussion. –  Sandstein  19:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Caroline Mulroney (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
I started working on User:Geo Swan/Caroline Mulroney today.

I request the deleted revision history be grafted on the userspace file I started.

Note: the AFDs are very old, and predate Lapham's appointment to the Windsor Detroit Bridge Authority, and her founding of the non-profit The Shoebox Project. Since the basic argument for delete had been that there was nothing noteworthy to cover, beyond her ties to notable people, and she now has independent notability factors, I think it is worth considering whether she now measures up to our current notability criteria.

Fwiw, there had been an earlier AFD WP:Articles for deletion/Caroline Mulroney.

Fwiw, if an article belongs in article space, it should probably be at Caroline Mulroney Lapham. Geo Swan (talk) 00:14, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Allow recreation, restore history, and move User:Geo Swan/Caroline Mulroney to Caroline Mulroney Lapham.

    Here are some sources I found about the subject:

    1. Govani, Shinan (2010-10-18). "Shinan: Kiddie talk". National Post. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Toronto’s Caroline Mulroney Lapham, the only daughter of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, has dipped her feet, we see, into blog waters — signing on as co-editor of a precocious website called GoGoNews (GoGoNews.com). The scoop? Aimed at kids, the four-year-old local endeavour is a Huffington Post of sorts for the velcro set, complete with tag line, “Big News for Little People.” (The Harvard and NYU-educated Caroline has four children/guinea pigs of her own, which makes her more qualified than most!)

      A visitor to the site to begin with, Caroline’s family got “hooked” on it, we’re told — after which she joined it in a professional capacity to “write and develop.” Lately, we see, GoGoNews has covered everything from J.K. Rowling (naturally) to the world record-breaking speed of a hump whale to the birthday milestone last week of one ex-Iron Lady (that old pal of Caroline’s dad, Margaret Thatcher!). No late-breakings, notably, of Lindsay Lohan (that would be, ahem, brother Ben’s terrain).

      So, how’s it going for the budding journo (having worked previously as an investment banker as well as corporate lawyer)? Well, dear Caroline — who basically grew up in the glare of the national spotlight — definitely has two things going for her: for one, her father-in-law just happens to be the illustrious and plugged-in magazine editor in New York, Lewis Lapham; for another, in addition to her own children, the total Mulroney grandkid-brood is now up to seven kids (which makes for an excellent potential focus group!).

    2. MacDonald, Gayle (2010-12-14). "GoGoNews aims to be the go-to site for kids". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      At a birthday party two years ago, Caroline Mulroney Lapham had a chance encounter that set her on a new career path.

      She was introduced to entrepreneur Golnar Khosrowshahi, who had recently started writing an online newspaper for her kids. As soon as the daughter of former prime minister Brian Mulroney got home that night, she checked out the kid-friendly website, GoGoNews.com, which publishes articles both silly and serious about everything from politics to sports.

      Ms. Mulroney Lapham, a mother of four, had stopped working as a lawyer in New York in the summer of 2005, shortly before the birth of twins and the family’s move back to Toronto. Two years ago, she started visiting the site daily and chatting with her brood (who are all under the age of 6) about stories and jokes that took their collective fancy.

      Impressed with the quality of conversation that GoGoNews seemed to spark, she called Ms. Khosrowshahi and expressed an interest in becoming actively involved in expanding and building the site.

    3. Taber, Jane (2004-10-30). "News for the Mulroneys is simply grand". The Globe and Mail. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      The much-anticipated first Mulroney grandchild came into the world early Tuesday morning. Caroline Mulroney, the eldest child and only Mulroney daughter, and her husband, Andrew Lapham, had a seven-pound, four-ounce boy, Lewis Lapham III. (The baby is the grandson of Lewis Lapham Jr., editor-in-chief of Harper's; the "Lewis" skips a generation. The first Lewis Lapham founded Texaco.)

      Caroline and her husband live in New York. Her mother, Mila Mulroney, had been in Manhattan for the past three weeks, apparently convinced the baby would be early; he was two days late.

      I explicitly note that I am not using this article to establish notability but am listing it here because it may contain useful information in expanding the article.
    4. "Weddings; Caroline Mulroney, Andrew Lapham". The New York Times. 2000-09-17. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Caroline Anne Mulroney, the daughter of Brian Mulroney, the former Canadian prime minister, and Mila Mulroney of Montreal, was married yesterday to Andrew Polk Lapham, a son of Joan and Lewis H. Lapham of New York. The Rev. Gregory A. MacKinnon performed the ceremony at St. Leon de Westmount Roman Catholic Church in Westmount, Quebec.

      The bride, 26, will continue to use her name professionally. She graduated cum laude from Harvard and is a law student at New York University. Before law school, she was a financial analyst in telecommunications investment banking at Bear, Stearns & Company in New York.

      I explicitly note that I am not using this article to establish notability but am listing it here because it may contain useful information in expanding the article.
    5. Salutin, Rick (2015). What Was I Thinking?: The Autobiography of an Idea and Other Essays. Toronto: ECW Press. p. 101. ISBN 1770907343. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The book notes:

      My first Globe column was a defence of Frank magazine, the scuzzy satirical journal that everyone in Ottawa reviled and read. Frank had run a "contest" for young Tories, who were invited to "deflower" Caroline Mulroney, the prime minister's 16-year-old daughter. His popularity was at low ebb and still plunging, so he'd start bringing her to Conservative Party events, especially of the young, in order to quite blatantly boost his standing. There had been outrage among the elites over Frank's lèse majesté, particularly at the Globe, where Thorsell was a huge Mulroney acolyte. Mulroney, like any good politican knows how to fan the flames. If Thorsell was in an editorial meeting when Mulroney called, his secretary would come to the door and stroke her chin. Here's the column.

      There is something ironic in the controversy over a mock ad that appeared in Frank. The ad announced a Deflower Caroline contest for young Tories, including an entry blank requiring “proof of conquest.” The reaction has been intense, to understate wildly.

      ...

      I explicitly note that I am not using this article to establish notability but am listing it here because it may contain useful information in expanding the article.
    6. Ditchburn, Jennifer (2013-12-02). "Mulroney women join forces with Parliament Hill for holiday charity". Maclean's. The Canadian Press. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      An informal Christmas donation idea thought up by the Mulroney family women two years ago has spilled over into a major grassroots charitable drive across Canada, including among Canada’s political movers and shakers.

      The Shoebox Project has donors put together a kit of “little luxuries” for women who are spending the holidays in a shelter — mascara, mittens, gift certificates. The recipients include refugees, the homeless and the abused.

      Caroline Mulroney, daughter of former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, said the project spread by word of mouth after her brother Ben’s wife Jessica suggested the idea two years ago.

      ...

      “The immediate impact is to let somebody who’s going through a difficult time know that they’re not forgotten, that someone in the community is thinking about them,” said Mulroney, who works for venture fund Wellington Financial.

      ...

      Mulroney spoke about the project on television last year, capturing the interest of cabinet minister Lisa Raitt. Raitt is now one of the drive’s promoters on Parliament Hill, and will be accepting boxes at her constituency office for delivery to local shelters.

    7. "Raitt unveils panel that will oversee new Detroit-Windsor bridge". Business News Network. 2014-07-30. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Caroline Mulroney Lapham, the daughter of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, has been appointed to the board of Crown Corporation that will oversee the construction and operation of a new, second bridge across Canada’s most vital trade link to the United States.

    8. Mellor, Clare (2015-05-08). "Shoebox Project: Mother's Day donations for women in shelters". The Chronicle Herald. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      The charity was started in Toronto by Caroline Mulroney Lapham, daughter of former prime minister Brian Mulroney, and her three sisters-in-law.

    9. Batagello, Dave (2014-07-31). "DRIC board appointees have close ties to political leaders". Windsor Star. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Also on the WDBA as one of four members is Caroline Mulroney Lapham, daughter of former prime minster Brian Mulroney. Along with her Conservative government ties, she recently worked with McQueen as vice-president of corporate development at Wellington Financial. McQueen also served for her dad in the prime minister’s office as an executive assistant for a few years in the early 1990s.

    10. LaSalle, LuAnn (2000-09-18). "George Bush, Kathie Lee, Queen Noor among guests; Former PM's daughter marries magazine editor's son". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      Bride Caroline Mulroney and groom Andrew Lapham didn't stop to smooch outside the church when cheering onlookers shouted "Kiss her!"

      But the pair didn't hold back earlier at their Saturday night wedding ceremony when Rev. Gregory MacKinnon gave permission for the couple's first kiss as husband and wife.

      The 26-year-old bride threw her arms around Lapham's neck and planted a long kiss on his lips as the St. Leon's Church congregation burst into loud applause.

      ...

      The wedding of ex-prime minister Brian Mulroney's only daughter drew about 450 guests, including former U.S. president George Bush and wife Barbara, Queen Noor of Jordan and former TV talk-show host Kathie Lee Gifford.

      Political and business figures including Tory Leader Joe Clark, newspaper owner Conrad Black, Power Corp.'s Paul Desmarais and Pierre-Karl Peladeau of Quebecor came to the evening ceremony.

      Also present were former Tory cabinet ministers John Crosbie, Michael Wilson, Barbara McDougall and Jean Charest -- now Quebec Liberal party leader.

      Photos of the bride and groom covered the front pages of three Montreal dailies yesterday, along with detailed articles. A headline in Montreal La Presse called it The Princely Marriage of Caroline Mulroney.

    11. Bauch, Hubert (1991-09-24). "Media embrace unfair to PM's daughter". Waterloo Region Record. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      What happened to Caroline Mulroney when the national media latched on to her as this summer's new face in Canadian politics is a sorry example of how hurtful it can get.

      It started in July, at the annual meeting of leaders of the Group of Seven industrial countries in London, where, in the absence of any real news from the conference, the London papers went agog over Mila Mulroney, who was accompanied on a number of occasions by her daughter.

      Back home after the summit, there was Caroline Mulroney, front and centre: In Macleans magazine, prominently posed between her parents during her father's auld sod pilgrimage to Ireland; on the front page of Toronto's Globe and Mail strolling with her father at the Conservative convention in August; in the Montreal Gazette, descending the ramp of the PM's plane at the Quebec Tory caucus meeting.

      Suddenly, people all over the country were talking about Caroline, and hadn't she turned into some looker. Some Tories even started chortling about having discovered a new secret weapon for the death struggle that awaits them in the next election.

      This kind of talk was bound to provoke a cynical backlash. Some saw Caroline Mulroney's run of media exposure as part of a calibrated PR scheme to make people feel warmer about Brian Mulroney. In any case, this was the way it was interpreted by the editors of Frank magazine, who ran a spoof page in their Sept. 5 edition, advertising a fictitious "Deflower Caroline Mulroney contest," inviting young Tories to write in for the privilege.

    12. Ferguson, Jonathan (1991-08-10). "PM's daughter belle of the ball". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.

      The article notes:

      The Tory convention will be remembered as a giant coming-out party for Canada's version of Princess Caroline.

      Caroline Mulroney, 17, has emerged as the country's leading political debutante.

      Tall and striking like her mother, the Mulroneys' eldest frequently accompanied her father on walkabouts among the 2,500 delegates.

      She was also spotted in hospitality suites and at late-night parties on the arm of a beaming Prime Minister.

      Constantly surrounded by an entourage of visibly enchanted male Tory youths when the Prime Minister strayed away, Caroline rivalled her mom in composure and charm in the spotlight.

    13. LaSalle, LuAnn (2000-09-15). "Mulroney wedding draws rich, powerful - Caroline's guest list a 'who's who of the world's political elite'". Toronto Star. Archived from the original on 2015-11-02. Retrieved 2015-11-02.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Caroline Mulroney Lapham to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are sources about the subject in the early 1990s while her father, Brian Mulroney, was Prime Minister of Canada. There are sources about the subject during her 2000 wedding. There are sources about the subject in 2010 in relation to her being the editor of GoGoNews. She is clearly notable.

    Cunard (talk) 07:06, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes Thincat (talk) 16:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly appears to meet our notability guidelines at this point. I'm fine with this. Hobit (talk) 00:00, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand why this is at deletion review, the purpose of which is to challenge the outcome of deletion decisions, not to argue that in the past seven years the situation has changed and you are drafting a new, updated article with better sourcing. Is there something stopping you from just going ahead with this and asking for a WP:HISTMERGE that is not evident from this discussion? Beeblebrox (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • History merge and move to mainspace. It appears to be an acceptable WP:BLP. While it is good to be cautious with BLPs, an 8-year-old AfD, an unsalted mainspace title, lots of post-AfD new sources, and a non-private individual usually means that you can just re-create it, as long as you re paying close attention to the past reasons for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:41, 6 November 2015 (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.
ISentia (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Discussion with closing admin:

Extended content
You wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ISentia:

Assuming that other editors did the same searches Cunard did then there is no consensus that his sources are sufficient. I'm drawn to this because most voters make it explicit that they researched and evaluated the available sources.

There is no indication that their searches for sources turned up the same sources I did. They did not "make it explicit" that they reviewed the same sources I did. Please reclose as "no consensus". Cunard (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Your sources were considered by another editor who found them routine which accords with the comments by the other editors who confirmed they searched for and considered sources. On that basis there is no reason to give your vote primacy over their's. Had your sources not been challenged I would have relisted to allow comment but that was not necessary as your evaluation was considered by another user. Spartaz Humbug! 22:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here are the sources I provided in the discussion:

  1. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-05-05). "Media-monitoring firm iSentia set for $400m sharemarket float". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  2. Bell, Nathan (2014-06-11). "iSentia's share price is a fragile flower". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  3. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-06-05). "iSentia shares impress on debut". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  4. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-06-07). "iSentia overvalued, says analyst". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  5. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-07-01). "Media monitoring iSentia 'ticks all the boxes', says Moelis". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  6. Heffernan, Madeleine (2014-08-29). "iSentia reaffirms guidance". The Age. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  7. Chappell, Trevor (2014-06-05). "iSentia makes strong ASX debut". The Australian. Australian Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  8. Jackson, Sally (2013-10-30). "AAP sells client list to dominant iSentia". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
  9. Stacey, Daniel (2014-02-19). "Quadrant Delays $451 million IPO of iSentia". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2015-11-01. Retrieved 2015-11-01.
After I listed these sources, an editor contested them as routine. I explained why they met the "deep coverage" criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage:

This article from The Age:

iSentia was a dream pitch for private equity seller Quadrant, which did a fantastic job of getting this away at a price-earnings-ratio of 26. There’s also no doubt that media monitoring is a good and growing business. iSentia is the largest firm of its kind in Australia, enjoying a 90 per cent market share by revenue, and counting 87 per cent of the S&P/ASX 100 as customers. Tick the box marked ‘‘industry leader with pricing power’’.

The company was founded in 1982 as a press clipping service, but is now a software company. Its products are organised into three pillars to help organisations get their message into the mainstream and social media, keep customers up to date with what’s appearing in the media, and delivering analytical reports on an organisation’s performance in the media.

The company’s 5000 or so customers – mainly large companies and governments – pay a subscription fee to access these products and tend to be loyal. Its top 50 clients have been with the company for an average of more than 11 years – another tick.

There’s also the fact that iSentia’s software is highly scalable. With costs largely fixed, a decent chunk of each additional sale flows straight to the bottom line. That’s good for growing margins. Tick.

This article from The Australian:

iSentia was among the most traded stocks, with its market cap hitting $486 million.

iSentia dominates Australia's media monitoring market, providing information from various media sources to alert business and government clients to what is being said about their organisations, competitors and industry.

The company uses software and other systems to capture and interpret data from more than 5,500 mainstream media outlets, 55,000 online news sources and 3.4 million user-generated content sources on Facebook, Twitter and Weibol.

Clients include Microsoft, Nike, Coca-Cola and Samsung and most of the top 100 companies listed on the ASX.

It also operates in the Philippines, Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, Singapore and Vietnam and has an emerging presence China.

Spartaz closed as "delete" writing:

Assuming that other editors did the same searches Cunard did then there is no consensus that his sources are sufficient. I'm drawn to this because most voters make it explicit that they researched and evaluated the available sources.

There is no evidence that the other editors found the sources I found. No one mentioned the in-depth sources I found from The Age and The Australian. Perhaps they found passing mentions.

No one explained why the sources I provided don't meet the "deep coverage" criterion in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 22:56, 1 November 2015 (UTC) I am also fine with an "overturn to relist" (see Hobit's edit summary). Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn -- those who voiced "delete" opinions did so prior to Cunard producing copious references. AGF, and all that that, let's assume that those who claimed there weren't sufficient resources genuinely thought they had complied with WP:BEFORE. But I think the references Cunard found showed they just didn't look hard enough. Geo Swan (talk) 04:07, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you, Geo Swan (talk · contribs), for your detailed, insightful analysis. By "overturn", would you be fine with either an "overturn to no consensus" or an "overturn to relist"? Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Clarification -- I agree to an Overturn to relist Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse but allow recreation of an improved article Closers should go by what people said rather than what they maybe ought to have said. Thincat (talk) 16:18, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Spartaz wrote below that because one participant found the sources "routine", he assumed that "while Cunard clearly likes his sources, other assessors have found the available sources routine and that the article should therefore be deleted by their votes".

    I believe "Closers should go by what people said rather than what they maybe ought to have said" applies to that comment. There is no evidence in the discussion that the other assessors reviewed the same sources I did. Like Hobit wrote below, "I don't think it reasonable to assume all the silent folks are on one side or the other."

    Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Interesting. I'd say a better close was "no consensus" as the keep arguments had a stronger argument, though that may be a personal issue as I think pretty little of WP:ROUTINE arguments where the topic is something not routine at all (there aren't that many IPOs folks) as it can lead to silly results (it's just a routine world series, not worth covering). In any case, I'll go with relist as a LOT of new sources were found the original !voters didn't respond to the coverage listed. I'd say a neutral notification to the previous !voters would be appropriate to see if the new information changes their mind. Hobit (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to either an "overturn to NC" or the endorse and and allow recreation outcomes, though I prefer a relist as the closer may be right about that others had found the same sources and viewed them as routine. Hobit (talk) 16:59, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd simply point out that one of the delete voters did assess Cunard's sources and adjudged them routine per their original opinion. On that basis I do think it is reasonable to take the view that while Cunard clearly likes his sources, other assessors have found the available sources routine and that the article should therefore be deleted by their votes. Spartaz Humbug! 21:03, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yep, if no one else had not liked the sources, I'd call it a tie between keep and NC. But that one person didn't like them is no more helpful than knowing that one person did, you're back to NC. I don't think it reasonable to assume all the silent folks are on one side or the other. Which is why I prefer a relist. All that said, as I mentioned, I view the objections as routine to misunderstand WP:ROUTINE and therefore would personally discount that !vote and would probably have closed as NC or relist. Hobit (talk) 22:13, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Spartaz:, you refer to this comment, from @Bjelleklang:. But how could you rely so much on this single comment, when Bjelleklang explicitly noted "while I'm far from an expert on these things I'd think that this is more or less routine coverage".

    Bjelleklang said they were not an expert. You, on the other hand, were the closing administrator. No reasonable person expects every administrator to have expertise on every wrinkle of policy. However, if a closure requires expertise you don't have, for crying out loud, could you please let someone else close it? Geo Swan (talk) 04:54, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Relist". Although the sources look like run-of-the-mill financial speculation, it would have been probably more appropriate to keep the discussion in the AfD log for one more day, pinging all participants, to comment on those sources. We don't need a 7-day review; we can do that now: pinging participants Bjelleklang, Hydronium Hydroxide, 69.204.153.39, Onel5969, and SwisterTwister for comments on the sources above. Esquivalience t 03:42, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • After an editor wondered whether the sources were "routine", I explained at the AfD why the sources met the "deep coverage" standard in Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Depth of coverage. The "deep coverage" standard explains what is routine and what is not routine.

    Editors were not given the opportunity at the AfD to refute or endorse my analysis that because the sources provide "deep coverage", they can be used to establish notability.

    I'd prefer not to discuss the sources at DRV. The DRV closer will discount editors' comments with the admonition: "DRV is not AfD round 2". If the sources are to be discussed, they should be discussed at AfD.

    Cunard (talk) 05:11, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I continue to consider iSentia sufficiently notable (and thanks to Cunard for doing the spadework), but then again a large percentage of the people I know would recognise iSentia or at least "Media Monitors". Problems for sourcing are that apart from the IPO, the nature of the business is more or less to avoid making the news -- it's why (ignoring the IPO) most of what shows up on Google for iSentia or MM are transcripts or citations. Anyway, some additional non-IPO related links for weight:
-Case Study from Microsoft
-Explicit use of their database for research -- not entirely favourable -- by Andrew Leigh and Joshua Gans
-Obituary of founder.
-The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission investigated the acquisition of Australian Associated Press Ltd’s media monitoring business by iSentia because of the concentration risks.
-Their support/actions for the Australian Olympic Team
-Use by the Australian Government
Hydronium Hydroxide (talk) 07:34, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • First of all, thanks for the ping. For the most part I don't respond to other editors during AfD (I've probably done it a dozen times in hundreds of discussions), because I've found that it can lead to some pretty contentious discussions, as they attempt to advocate for their side. If they have added something which I feel is pertinent to my vote, I'll change my vote. If I don't think it's enough for me to change my !vote, I simply leave my original !vote. With all that in mind, not sure what I'm being asked here. Would the additional sources have made me change my !vote? Nope. I agree that they are completely WP:ROUTINE. Bjelleklang's assessment of the additional sourcing is spot on. IPO's are actually not that rare, there are hundreds in the US alone, and if you take into account every stock exchange in the world, there are thousands. So, if it means what I think it means, Endorse the close as per Spartaz Onel5969 TT me 11:59, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • And when did you last check the wording of WP:ROUTINE? If there is a lesson in for any of us here, I suggest it should be that we are all fallible, and should therefore exercise a little more caution and humility. It seems to me that you and Spartaz want to treat ROUTINE as if it said no predictable scheduled event could ever be notable, could ever merit coverage. Without regard to whether IPOs are or are not rare, when multiple reliable sources say something is exceptional, then those RS are saying it is notable. Don't the quotes Cunard furnished make crystal clear that RS did in fact characterize the IPO as exceptional?

      You are perfectly entitled to hold the personal opinion that the business reporters who described this IPO as exceptional are a bunch of corrupt, lazy hacks, and that their opinions are worthless. But, they are RS, and you are just a private citizen. Your personal opinion of their credibility should be completely irrelevant.

      When you place your personal opinion above the published opinions of RS isn't this an example of what the WP:Arguments to avoid essay calls WP:I don't like it? If we work on the wikipedia long enough we will all encounter topics where we disagree with all the RS. The test for us then is can we ignore our personal opinion, remember that key policy WP:VER say "verifiability, not truth", and rely on the verifiable RS we personally doubt. Geo Swan (talk) 16:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hydronium Hydroxide (talk · contribs) has provided more sources about the subject here. Those sources are unrelated to the pre-IPO, IPO, and post-IPO articles about the company. As I wrote in the AfD, sustained, extensive coverage about the company in two major Australian newspapers, The Age and The Australian, clearly establish the company is notable. I strongly agree with Hobit (talk · contribs)'s and Geo Swan (talk · contribs)'s sound argument about editors' misapplication of WP:ROUTINE. An IPO is not routine.

    Since the sources and the applicability of WP:ROUTINE were barely discussed at the AfD, the AfD should be relisted so a discussion can take place about them.

    Cunard (talk) 04:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from closing admin Please can cunard tone down their badgering overly formatted responses to every comment here as I'm finding it impossible to follow the flow of the discussion here. My rationale when I closed the discussion was that two users had already considered the sources properly and found them routine and not up to snuff. Cunard disputes this but the evidence of this review and in the actual AFD was that both users considered the sources Cunard provided and were not persuaded against their original view. My role in closing a discussion is to assess the arguments provided and not put in my own opinion. The votes were:- Nomination - SwisterTwister provided clear evidence they had properly sought sources and found them lacking

Bjelleklang - Searched for sources and found them inadequate. Reviewed Cunard's sources in the AFD and found them unpersuasive<br /> IP editor - found the sources mundane<br /> {{u|Hydronium Hydroxide}} provided sources for a previous company - which to my mind is not about this company and does not count<br /> {{u|Onel5969}} reviewed sources and confirmed here that Cunards sources did not persuade him<br /> Sock vote discarded<br /> {{u|Cunard}} provided a long list of sources that was dismissed as routine by Bjelleklang. <br /> The only way I could not find a delete consensus would be to discard the majority of the votes despite clear evidence that these voters had properly sought sources and evaluated what was there and found it lacking.~~~~

  • I don't know what "overly formatted" means and why my well-formatted text makes it "impossible to follow the flow of the discussion here". Your reply above with HTML tags visible throughout makes it harder for me to follow your response.

    Regarding SwisterTwister's nomination: He posted links to a Google Books search, two Google News searches that do not return the sources I found, and one HighBeam search. None of his searches unearthed the sources I found. To say that he reviewed the same sources I did is in conflict with the evidence.

    The discussion had six participants. Four supported "delete": SwisterTwister, Bjelleklang, 69.204.153.39, and Onel5969. Two supported "keep": Hydronium Hydroxide and Cunard.

    Two weeks ago, you wrote in two DRVs "This meme that discounting IP votes is wrong is nonsense ... Basically, its an accepted norm and objections to deletion based on this have no basis in community standards" (link and link). DRV closer RoySmith (talk · contribs) concluded at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 October 11: "No problem with discounting the IP comments under the circumstances".

    How is this IP vote different? If you applied this line of reasoning to this AfD, then you would discount the IP vote of 69.204.153.39. That IP editor likely has a dynamic IP address, became inactive shortly after posting at the AfD, and cannot be reached to evaluate the new sources.

    Like me, Hydronium Hydroxide (talk · contribs) doesn't find the sources routine.

    That leaves the discussion at 3–2 in support of deletion. That is a "no consensus" or "relist" if both sides had reasonable arguments (which is charitable to the "delete" side, most of whom did not discuss specific sources).

    I will decline to reply to Thincat (talk · contribs)'s well-intentioned but misguided comment below so I don't give editors more fuel for their accusations of "badgering" and being "very excessive", words editors use when they want to stifle discussion.

    Cunard (talk) 05:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment (I !voted above). I also think Cunard's comments are very excessive though they are well-intended and principled. It is sad when nominations and !votes for deletion demonstrate inadequate work but in my opinion it is not up to the closer to correct for this where the difference is one of opinion rather than fact. In this case I would have preferred a no consensus close although delete was within reasonable discretion. In my experience it is tactically unwise to bring new references to bear during an AFD or DRV discussion on notability, either by adding them to the discussion or by improving the article. Despite encouragement to improve articles during discussion, this is a bad thing to do. Rather, wait and see if the article gets deleted. If it gets deleted then create a brand new article with the references you have garnered. A WP:CSD#G4 may ensue but will be readily overturned here. The worst that will happen will be a new AFD when everyone will be able to see a worthwhile (I hope!) article from the start. Thincat (talk) 11:08, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse a reasonable close, but relist to evaluate new arguments. Note that WP:CORP holds commercial companies to a higher threshold than the WP:GNG. I think that Cunard and Spartaz have clashed previously over one's lack of appreciation of the style of the other, and suggest that special effort should be made to ensure badgering is not tolerated in the relisted discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:48, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Testing sources for independence for commercial companies can be tricky. These sources should be carefully evaluated at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:33, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: I am concerned to read, above, that you think Spartaz closed the initial AFD in spite of having clashed with Cunard in the past.

      My reading of the record strongly suggests that Spartaz did not read Cunard's counter-arguments properly. Cunard made what looked like a valid counter-argument to the opinions of deleter !voters -- pointing out that they were misinterpreting ROUTINE. Spartaz didn't address Cunard's counter-arguments in his closure, on his subsequent discussion on his talk page, or here in the DRV.

      Spartaz asserted here that Cunard's "badgering overly formatted responses", made it "impossible to follow the flow of the discussion here". However, Cunard's comment style in this DRV is essentially the same comment style used in the AFD. Sorry, but this strongly looks like a tacit admission Spartaz closed the AFD without making the effort to try to understand Cunard's counter-arguments.

      Spartaz's comment above, says that the nominator "SwisterTwister provided clear evidence they had properly sought sources and found them lacking." AGF, let's all assume SwisterTwister genuinely thought they were complying with WP:BEFORE. But, after this article has been brought to DRV, is it really responsible for Spartaz to continue to assume the nominator's compliance with BEFORE was competently done?

      I've already done my own evaluation of sources, enough to convince me the claims of ROUTINE were specious, and that Spartaz lapsed by failing to discount those opinions. @SmokeyJoe:, you wrote "Testing sources for independence for commercial companies can be tricky. These sources should be carefully evaluated at AfD. I think it is necessary to point out that Spartaz's comments in the AFD and here in this DRV strongly imply he or she did not make any effort to evaluate the sources for themselves. All their comments strongly imply they relied solely on the evaluation of the nominator and the AFD participants -- ignoring Cunard's counter-arguments that those contributors review of the references was based on a misinterpretation of ROUTINE.

      When I consider the extra information you added, that Spartaz had clashed with Cunard in the past, I am afraid it raises the concern that Spartaz's lapses here may have been due to an unconscious emotional reaction to those previous clashes; or even that it might have been due to a conscious decision.

      When should administrators decide not to make pointed, explicit criticisms of the lapses of fellow administrators? I dunno. Volunteering to be an administrator can be hard work; administrators can come to feel their efforts aren't being properly appreciated; some regular contributors react rudely, even abusively, to administrator actions.

      But I suggest that when an administrator seems intransigent, seems unwilling to give any sign that they did fall short of the behavior the community should be able to expect of them, their fellow administrators should clearly voice their concerns over their peer's lapses. Geo Swan (talk) 15:58, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist. This was an AfD where a number of people voiced opinions but no obvious consensus had emerged. Near the end of the debate, a significant list of new sources was offered. I haven't looked at the sources, so I have no opinion on whether they are good or not, but if I were closing this AfD, I would have extended the discussion to give people time to evaluate the new information. I suggest backing out the close and letting the existing debate run for another week. I offer no opinion on whether the close was good or bad, just saying what I would have done had I closed it. I would also add my voice to those who say brevity is a virtue. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  1. ^ https://twitter.com/EricXWest/status/662819664041525248
  2. ^ https://instagram.com/p/9Q861Crujo/?taken-by=ericxwest
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2015_November&oldid=688299418"