Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 January

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 2016 Deletion review archives February 2017 >

31 January 2017[edit]

30 January 2017[edit]

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

The deletion of the article broken thousands of links, which are not the result of sockpuppetry in any website. This article existed for years and all the material in it is encyclopedic. Lots of sites cite this article, that is now a dead link. Luis150902 (talk | contribs) 22:13, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion. Though thinly attended it was well argued with no dissents so the decision was right. You disagree with it, but that is not grounds for overturning. There are only four incoming links, easily fixed, not thousands. What other sites do is not our concern, but anyone looking for information on the topic can look at the sources for the article, such as they were. How many other sites link to it is not a grounds for keeping it.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- The discussion reached a workable consensus. The nomination in particular was extensive and well-argued. I do not see any reason why this needs to be overturned. Reyk YO! 10:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The deletion rationales were sound, and this DRV rationale is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:41, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per lack of valid reasoning. Number of incoming links has never been a reason to undelete anything, nor has article longevity. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:42, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this is "basically the same" as Binary combinatory logic, as specified in the deletion nomination, then why can't it be redirected there, which would solve the external links issue as well? There were no redirect votes, but there were only two votes for delete plus the nominator, so I wouldn't say there is clear consensus not to redirect. Would doing so require a deletion review, or can someone be WP:BOLD and do it now? Smartyllama (talk) 22:51, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to stop you doing it yourself.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 23:00, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Smartyllama (talk) 23:14, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

29 January 2017[edit]

28 January 2017[edit]

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

Since an IP requested an redirect at AFC/R, should be created as an redirect? KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 19:35, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You don't need to come to DRV to create a redirect just because a previous article here was deleted at AFD.
    On the merits, though, this should still be denied. According to the target article, Cheon isn't an alternate name, but a teammate. Redirecting the name of one BLP to another like that is nonsensical; there's no possible way it would survive RFD. —Cryptic 00:33, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Cryptic: Most admins deny unprotection requests at WP:RFP and they ask me to go to DRV when an page is salted. KGirlTrucker81 huh? what I've been doing 01:10, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Paul Cheon is not "covered" at the target, Luis Scott-Vargas, as is required for a redirect. Paul Cheon is merely the subject of passing mentions. Better to let any searches for Paul Cheon do their job. I note that the search returns Luis Scott-Vargas as the top result, but that there are other pages also returned due to containing mentions (eg Magic: The Gathering Pro Tour season 2008), and that if allowed to do its job, the search engine will not possibly become out of date like a redirect. Redirects should no longer be used to assist searches. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:20, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Cryptic above. This is not a sensible redirect to create. Declaration of interest: I am a Magic: The Gathering judge. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of professional Magic: The Gathering players, where Paul Cheon is listed and some stats for him are given. I know it isn't really in deletion review's remit to suggest a new outcome that wasn't proposed elsewhere, but a redirect to the list seems more useful than just leaving this as a redlink. The requested redirect to Luis Scott-Vargas doesn't make any sense though. Calathan (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a brief mention in a particular context, not coverage. Better to let the search engine report all the mentions, and not choose one here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I simply disagree with that. None of the other results that come up when searching on his name provide as useful information as on that list, and many of the results that are returned aren't even related to him (and many of the others mention him merely in passing). While I can't speak for everyone, certainly if I were to search for a professional Magic player that didn't have his own page, what I would want to see is the content on that list. Calathan (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Paul+Cheon" search for "Paul Cheron" gives your preferred result at the 9th result. Search without quotes give it at the 59th result, with lots of unrelated hits. It looks like the search engine underprioritises exact string matches. I disagree with any redirect, because it hides the fact that this person's name appears on many articles. I can see that your preferred target might be arguably the best, but at Name, Country, some unsourced stats, one broken link, PT debut, it still isn't very good, the searcher would be better of with the myriad of search results and no pretence that Wikipedia is covering this person. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone seriously interested in him should use google, and find things like this: http://mtgsalvation.gamepedia.com/Paul_Cheon ahead of being sucked in by a wikipedia redirect offering non-coverage. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:16, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

27 January 2017[edit]

26 January 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:National Bank of New Zealand logo.svg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Lack of consensus; no discussion since 15 June 2016. There is no rationale for treating the National Bank of New Zealand differently to Lloyds Bank Canada, Lloyds Bank California and Lloyds Associated Banking Company. All four entities used the undifferenced black horse device. 2.27.81.170 (talk) 17:49, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: There is discussion relevant to this at User talk:Nthep#IP 2.28.71.127. Also, since IP 2.27.81.170 (the IP who started this review), IP 2.28.71.127 (the IP who posted on the closing admin's user talk) and IP 2.27.75.26 (the IP who participated in the FFD discussion whose close is being reviewed) are quite possibly the same person. If that's the case then it might be helpful for everyone who participates in this DRV if that's made clear, just to avoid any misunderstanding or confusion. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:20, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The dialectical reasoning at this WP:FFD discussion would not have disgraced the Council of Trent. Lack of sensible rationale has never been a disadvantage on these occasions. Thincat (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Properly closed. See advice at Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse weakly, consensus seems clear. Renomination is possible. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Not sure how the "consensus seems clear". There were two editors discussing: one for deletion and one (myself) against. 2.27.92.11 (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is indeed a very curious comment to make about the discussion. Clarity and consensus both seem to be outstandingly lacking. Thincat (talk) 10:45, 3 February 2017 (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.
Presidential and Vice Presidential March (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Prematurely closed, I would have commented keep because it is used in sources such as [1], which is why I created the redirect. - CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Confused, the discussion was closed as "nomination withdrawn" and the page was kept, so I'm not sure what you're asking for here. Lankiveil (speak to me) 01:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

25 January 2017[edit]

24 January 2017[edit]

23 January 2017[edit]

  • Uroš_Pinterič – It's possible to read this debate in two ways: either as "consensus to endorse" the decision, with Colcody2000, DGG and Unscintillating dissenting; or a generous closer might read it as "no consensus to overturn". Either reading has the same result, so it's not necessary to decide which obtains. The outcome of this debate is that the article will remain a redlink. In the event that substantial new sources about Mr Pinterič become available in future, these sources may be brought back to deletion review for a fresh discussion about their merits.—S Marshall T/C 00:59, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

no consensus Colcody2000 (talk) 14:05, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The page in question was deleted despite weak argumentation on the side of editors, nonresponsiveness to the well-argumented reasons to keep the article and two-day no response from the person who actually deleted the article. Consensus was far from reached, it was simple overvote by an argument which was continuously disputed with content. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uro%C5%A1_Pinteri%C4%8D Measures of notability are different, contextual, the article was well referenced with independent sources. I am not disputing the need for constant update and improvement. But i am disputing the consensus (since debate was done in the sense delete for No notability versus long explanations on a need for contextualization). Unless the AfD review shall be done on numerous articles about scholars of similar ranking, the article in question shall be restored. In any case, there are two elements to consensus: ability to reach the agreement and need to have a discussion. None of them was achieved. Delete argumentation was technical and out of the scope. Link to the request for restoration to the "deletor": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Juliancolton#Colcody2000_.28talk.29_12:12.2C_21_January_2017_.28UTC.29_deletation_of_Uro.C5.A1_Pinteri.C4.8D_article

  • Endorse Suggest speedy closing this as failing WP:DRVPURPOSE. With the exception of the nominator, who is a WP:SPA, the debate was uninamous, reasonably well attended, and cited numerous policy-based reasons for deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is what i am disputing, next to nominator there were 3 other participants, with technical argumentation and no content (4 is far from well attended), and calling on policies wich already incorporate the clause that they should be taken with some reasonable amount of reservation is far from argumentation.Colcody2000 (talk) 14:59, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • 4-5 is marginally above average for an AFD actually. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The arguments for keeping the article are both non-standard and were not accepted by the folks in that AfD. Hobit (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Problem of standardisation is lack of understanding of the specifics and question of judgement ability of "folks in AfD" - because "folks in AfD" showed very little contextual thinking. And this is happening also now, and this what the process of revision should not be. Technically, arguments of different (non-standard) nature should be exposed (for or against). To help you out a bit, obviously, i have little experience with doing things on Wiki, so i usually use wrong - non-tecnical language, but for sure i understand positive approach towards articles/information (where non-malicious attitude shall be respected, in combination with some relevance and no advertising style of writing) in opposition to technicist negative selection (which is still questionable in result), where rather anonymous group of people defines what is notable (even if irrelevant). BTW: what is then the ruling in the case if some person (assume notable - Nobel prize winner) requires never ever to appear (or his/her knowldge -e.g. theory) on Wiki? (just asking)Colcody2000 (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - unless series of same level or worse cases (in the sense of article organisation as well as notability according to the general opposition) shall be questioned: - article is about someone, fairly unknown, much worse documented. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%BCrgen_Matth%C3%A4us and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus-Michael_Mallmann, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katra_Zajc , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Juraj_Maru%C5%A1iak So now I am calling double standards here. Colcody2000 (talk) 23:38, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your nomination here already indicates you want the article restored. Please do not bold-prefix any subsequent comments. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The purpose of deletion review is to call attention to and resolve failures to follow deletion process. It is not a venue to make new arguments (or repeat old ones) that have or ought to have been made at AFD. Stifle (talk) 10:02, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist for fuller discussion. The question of how to evaluate academics who work in countries with a lesser-known academic system has been controversial here. In the case of those who work on the same research topics as do those in the principal countries, the rule has been that they are to be judged by an international standard, but even so we tend to make some allowances. But it's not that clear with respect to those who work on topics of national interest only, because they will publish primarily in national journals, and get refeerred to by n other national journals, not the international journals that are the base of SCI. We're supposed to have equal coverage worldwide, but we're using an indicator that greatly favors some nations over others. Normally, for national topics in other fields we ask for national sources--local sources to a particular city aren't enough, but international sources from other countries are not required. We should therefore judge him in relation to others in his field in his own country; iy is enough to be an academic influence there--it doesn't have to be worldwide.
Any decision based on an inaccurate or debatable interpretation of guidelines can suitably be called into question here. Any result that appears to be wrong for any reason can be called into question here; an admin closing an afd is supposed to make a reasonable decision, and it's not reasonable to get the wrong result. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you think policy should be changed to permit "any result that appears to be wrong for any reason" to be listed here, feel free to open a discussion and attempt to gather a consensus to change it at a relevant talk page. However, as it stands, what you have written is your opinion of what policy should be; I've asked you many times before not to misrepresent it as policy, and I do so again. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
yes, we have disagreed on this for many years. Actual practice usually matches the way I've said it. DGG ( talk ) 19:18, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- There is no way this discussion could have been closed differently. It was well attended and the arguments were well grounded in policy. Reyk YO! 05:37, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The strength of argument was not resolved, so it was premature to close after one week.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist  The absence of a response from the closing admin leaves editors to view the strength of argument as it stands, which is not resolved. 

    The delete !votes primarily have one comment, which is that the GS citation metrics are low; and countered neither the point that they lacked subject matter expertise in Slovenian academics, nor the points made that support notability for Slovenia.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:49, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are no relevant sources and this person doesn't seem to meet WP:ACADEMIC. You don't need to be a subject area expert to understand sources. Now maybe this is an article we should have for some reason, but I don't think the nom has given a reason that holds water even if we took the claims at face value. Hobit (talk) 22:12, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am sorry for interfering again from the position of the person, whose article is judged (tecnically if we are sticlers, i just tried to make it somehow "normal", since I am not original author, but here is kind invitation to check few things: my argument http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uro%C5%A1_Pinteri%C4%8D with some clarification regarding measured position of a person in question regarding the country specifics and field specifics. Additionally, in fact you need to be bit of an expert to know sources - 1. to recognise that not every "scientist" is able to publish anything with major international publishers (i understand that this is not enough as the only argument), 2. not every academic author at age under 40 has over 200 publications (unfortunately the source is in Slovenian language), with reasonable share of articles in impacted journals (for the rest of the argumentation in this field please check the deletion debate). Response to Stifle - it is not about new arguments, it is about old arguments, which were ignored/overlooked. (However, I do apologise for messing up the code - I am obviously not too good with it). the new argument: regarding the WP:ACADEMIC: In independent institutions called faculties (in some countries they are out of the University shelter - dean is highest rank academic position and vice-dean is the second one. And chair of the supervisory board is pretty much like chair of the board of directors (in the business world)- positions that person in the deleted article held or holds. and are under WP:ACADEMIC, considered to be relevant. This is why, some understanding of sources and the context is needed for taking any decision. And Stifle, please don't get me wrong, but I am trying to provide information on which the decision should be taken, and i am trying to explain why i believe deletion was wrong decision (i see desperate need to do so, since short dismissal of the issue by 5 words are too simple and shallow solution - and i believe it is my right and duty to protect the article (otherwise, i wouldn't even care to try to fix it) and to convince you that article is worth keeping - in order to do so i need to write more than just simple citation of certain policy.Colcody2000 (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the closing admin, I don't have much of a rebuttal except to say that consensus among uninvolved users was clear. DGG and others may have perfectly valid points about our shortcomings in how we judge the notability of professors in non-English speaking nations, but anything other than a "delete" close would have been a WP:SUPERVOTE on my part. As previously noted, given how many AfDs are relisted two and three times with no comments, I'd like to avoid at all costs relisting debates where an outcome has been solidly determined. – Juliancolton | Talk 00:33, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • If i may suggest (based on my previous explanations (in the AfD discussion as well as here) and to save some issues (if i got it correctly based on what Juliancolton finally expressed) - I suggested that Juliancolton, based on the aforementioned explanation (regarding the WP:ACADEMIC mix (vice-dean, chair of supervisory board, Slovenian positioning in the field of political science, publication presence, etc. - which all leads to relative notability decides on: overturning the previous decision - based on arguments presented. His decision can be supported by the fact of WP:ATADR arguments which were supporting deletion without incorporating the information in article itself as well as in the debate presented in AfD. To recap the technical procedure: i was trying to respond at AfD discussion - with very little discussion and actual response to my comments, article was deleted in very timely manner, According to protocol, i tried to resolve the issue with the deleting person (i was ignored), now i see finally some talk (which should also to my imagination happened before), where my arguments predominantly dismissed in content as well as in process perspective. Instead of asking me to supplement your missing information (on the fact over the independent faculties leadership,etc.) and serve as contributor to the certain blank field, you are predominantly defending the deleted position of the article, which created discomfort in what you call current consensus (far from that i call article 100% proper, but for sure enough grounded in WP:ACADEMIC. Calling on wiki policies works only under knowing also the meaning of certain elements (like relative position of the dean in university vs independent education institution). I am not debating the policy itself here - but i am saying that policy was wrongly applied due to ignorance of particular situation Colcody2000 (talk) 01:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Endorse Per RoySmith ZettaComposer (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Arguments appear sound. One WP:SPA doesn't agree. Two editors would like to discuss a loosening of WP:PROF, fair enough but this, or a relisted AfD on a single early career academic are not the places for it. WT:PROF is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • the one who doesn't agree is constantly trying to prove that at all stages EXISTING policies were ignored (argumentation read above) as well as the "cultural" context and comparable entries, which all can be the reason for overturning the decision. So, I am trying to provide the argument for overturning the decision on the level of content as well as on the level of existing practice of keeping similar ranking articles (often with weaker sources supporting the article). ADDITIONALLY i call upon this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(academics)/Precedents (by the already taken decision on similar cases, article shall be kept (under average publication (despite this one is insulting), under organisation of conferences (which is my mistake not to expose it), under notability within the country (which is systematically overlooked despite 2 editors see this as possible case of notability...(it is the rules that i was not involved in, it is decisions that i did not participate in, but still i believe they are giving me the ground for requestion to overturn the decision of AfD and to undelete the article. Colcody2000 (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:SmokeyJoe, In 2012, you wanted to gut WP:N of its basic definition, diff.  Here we see what was intended in 2012, to argue that only previously documented paths to define notability can be argued at AfD.  But if a topic is "worthy of notice", there is no requirement that there be a documented precedent.  WP:N is a guideline, and it is independent of WP:PROF.  There is no need for a discussion at WT:PROF for this AfD or for this DRV.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then, as now, I consider the notion "worthy of notice" to be confusing and when push comes to shove, irrelevant. What matters is whether the subject/topic has been noticed, meaning commented on, in independent reliable sources. It is not for Wikipedia to make decisions of worthiness. Instead, Wikipedia should cover what others already cover. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • The problem IMO is that because you are not working from fundamentals, you are having trouble in assessing a novel situation, and are falling back on truisms, this one being WP:GNG.  Notability for a novel situation doesn't mean that it is Wikipedians making the decision.  Notability requires evidence in reliable sources of attention to the topic.  Reliable evidence is reliable, even if the source is not independent.  Thus if the school said that a person was a Dean (meaning in this context the highest academic administrator), that would satisfy WP:PROF, and would not be based on "comments" and is not from an independent source. 

          The case here is the idea of Slovenian notability, where IMO the case has been made that such exists or could exist. 

          According to publication activity in the national context the person in question is ranked (on this day) on 7th (out of first 100) position among Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies, Communication studies and narrow political science) (leaving behind many full professors) based on publication outcome, shares 11th position on number of articles in web of Science, and is on 33th position (competing with the people who are in academia much longer time than him) based on number of quotations without auto quotations (info can daily change based on new publications entered to the system - source: SICRIS/WOS). If the data is retrieved for narrow field of political science (politology) his ranking is higher. 4th by publication scoring, 2nd by number of WOS publications, 10th by number of quotations without auto quotations, and 7th based on h-index. He was present in national media - despite these mentions are under actual relevance, since commenting the daily events is far from the actual work.

          Where has this argument been refuted, that this is reliable evidence that shows attention to the topic from the world at large over a period of time (WP:N nutshell)?  Unscintillating (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

          • For me, "Wikipedia covers subjects already covered by others" is not a truism but a statement of principle, one that underlies the GNG, and more importantly is a principle enshrined in the core content policy WP:NOR (specifically WP:PSTS). WP:N is a special case of WP:PSTS, it is not a harsher version of WP:V.
            Exception to the above comes from arguments of completeness (eg "we have an article on nearly every element, so let's include the last obscure two for completeness") or navigation/interconnectivity reasons (eg lots of incoming wikilinks and no suitable merge target).
            The case, as you quote above, sound perhaps a little too specific.
            Does Wikipedia already cover the top 10 or so "Slovenian political scientists (International relations, Defence studies)". I think I checked and found his h-index to be 6, which does not impress. I don't see anything worthy of being called a "novel situation", he is a non-leading academic in a very small country.
            I am not inherently opposed to this biography, but here at DRV it has to be endorsed because it could not have been closed any other way. I really do not see the point of further discussion. There may be hope in pursuing userfication and improvement by locating more and better sources. I think it is hopeless, largely on the basis of the little I find in searching for sources, and as the rest of mainspace contains only one passing mention, not counting the reference to his publication in Sinicization of Tibet. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:32, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dear SmokeyJoe if this is your problem - i will make sure that the guy will be properly, significantly and validly quoted at each possible position to which his texts are contributing (regarding H-index: "The London School of Economics found that full professors in the social sciences had average h-indices ranging from 2.8 (in law), through 3.4 (in political science), 3.7 (in sociology), 6.5 (in geography) and 7.6 (in economics). On average across the disciplines, a full professor in the social sciences had an h-index about twice that of a lecturer or a senior lecturer, though the difference was the smallest in geography.[14]" via: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H-index. Technically he has an almost double average score of LSE political scientists average. (Stifle this is not WP:BLUDGEON - this is called argument - but yes i agree that i stand on te position against WP:LACK - still i agree that this discussion should be done earlier - unfortunately i was the only one from the group here participating in discussion there.)
  • Comment: User:Colcody2000 is counselled not to WP:BLUDGEON the debate. Stifle (talk) 12:33, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: most of the debate participants(excluding 2 or 3, who see things bit more in depth) are advised to consult WP:RUSH, WP:BATHWATER, WP:DOUBT, WP:LACK, WP:LAWYER, etc. If this would be done at a proper time (starting with discussion on talk page of already deleted article, things could be potentially clarifed there (where they actually belong) - , the debate could be resolved better (but at least the topic is getting some attention), or not even taking place.Colcody2000 (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

22 January 2017[edit]

21 January 2017[edit]

20 January 2017[edit]

  • Jeet Gian – No reason given for request, therefore speedy endorsed as default. The requests at the AFD page appeared to be in the nature of requesting an admin to close the discussion, not requesting a deletion review in advance. Anyone who wants to refile a properly-formed request is of course welcome to do so. – Stifle (talk) 09:13, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Jeet Gian (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was requested by Pri D at the AfD for the article to be undeleted and the AfD be relisted so that a clearer consensus can be developed. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 05:47, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Admin note: GeoffreyT2000, this review request may be speedily closed if you do not indicate why you think the AfD was wrongly closed.  Sandstein  08:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

19 January 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
January 2017 European cold wave (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The afd was closed without consensus. I didn't violate any rules, the administrator just disagreed with me. I consider this as an invalid reason to close the afd discussion without consensus. Let me also respond to some of the counter-arguments:

  • "widespread weather event with loss of life in multiple countries." Well, there is a refugee crisis in Europe. Some of the refugees are living in tents! No wonder that they die once it gets a little bit colder. As for the homeless people, keep in mind that especially the south of Europe was affected by a huge financial crisis from which it hasn't fully recovered yet, leading to extreme unemployment rates.
  • "There are ample sources to provide additional information to the article from several languages." We only have a collection of short news articles which report cold temperatures in some places. We have no evidence that this is an extremely exceptional event. The administrator even admits that there are no in-depth reviews yet on his discussion page: "As for in-depth review, there hasn't been enough time since the event for it to be studied." Also keep in mind Wikipedia:Bombardment.

All in all, this article is mainly based on original research. The authors collected some news articles, then deduced that there must be an exceptional event. Let us wait until there are clear, reputable scientific sources confirming the exceptionalism of this event. And if there are such sources in the future, the article can be recreated. TheRandomIP (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not really sure what action to take here. I don't care for the speedy close of the AfD, not one bit. There is no reason not to let it proceed, though I think the odds of a delete outcome are really slim. At the same time, the editor/account has very few edits and is almost certainly a sock (of an IP editor I assume from the name?) and _that_ makes me uncomfortable. I'm leaning toward "overturn closure" but suspect I'm missing some context (in particular the claim of WP:POINT by the closing admin might imply this has been a running problem of some sort). Hobit (talk) 15:01, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I'm from Germany and I have a lot of edits there. Just check it. I usually only contribute here if we have a similar case in our language version, for example, if a spammer places advertisement in many different Wikipedia versions. And indeed we have an ongoing afd discussion in the german version as well. I choose my name "TheRandomIP" as a parody. I disapprove the strong harassment against people without an account. My message is: Don't judge people by name or account. Look at the content. --TheRandomIP (talk) 15:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The content (this nomination) in this case is pretty questionable IMO and feels like WP:BEFORE wasn't followed all that well. At this point I'd prefer you just withdraw the AfD and DRV. The sources are plentiful and supplied, the fact they aren't in the article isn't relevant to our inclusion guidelines. If you won't do that, I guess weakly overturn. But basically both of you screwed up (bad nom, bad reaction to the nom) but the closing admin's error (out-of-process speedy keep) was worse than yours (not doing a good job on WP:BEFORE) if we're keeping score somewhere... Hobit (talk) 03:18, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The AfD probably shouldn't have been closed as quickly as it was, but like Hobit, I can't envision a scenario in which any result other than "keep" or even "speedy keep" would have arisen. An event doesn't have to be "extremely exceptional" to be notable, and the claims of original research seem misguided; there are clearly many reliable sources which discuss the arctic outbreak in significant depth as a single, coherent topic. It's not as if many little snippets of data were cobbled together to synthesize a new concept. That said, DRV is not AfD so this isn't the appropriate place to debate notability. I will grant that the initial nomination does appear to be something of a drive-by with no apparent attempt made by the nominator to discuss their concerns with local editors; that a debate is ongoing on another project isn't grounds in itself to start a corresponding one here. Overall, a bad nomination and a bad close, but I suspect any decision to overturn would be purely procedural. – Juliancolton | Talk 17:25, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's new information. Your new references are neither part of the article nor provided in any previous discussion. I wasn't aware of them, too. Since none of your in-depths reviews are listed in the article, I wonder if the authors actually knew about them or if they indeed "cobbled together many little snippets of data to synthesize a new concept". Even if it now turns out to be an existing concept, that's not how it should be done in Wikipedia. First check if it's a real concept. Then write the article. Not the other way around.
However, if you all say based on your experience the article will be kept, I'd agree to close this discussion and give the authors the chance to better highlight the notability in their article There are also other voices now. --TheRandomIP (talk) 19:32, 19 January 2017 (UTC) --TheRandomIP (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Juliancolton is another weather fan; just look at his user page. Such editors are obviously not impartial in this matter and their opinions should be discounted accordingly. Andrew D. (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You'll notice, Andrew Davidson, that I didn't lodge a vote to overturn or endorse precisely for that reason. If you disagree with my thoughts and sources then say so, but please explain why. – Juliancolton | Talk 19:08, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The merits of the topic should be discussed in the AfD. We're here to discuss the procedural merits of the close. Andrew D. (talk) 19:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I noted as much in my comment. I suggested that an overturn would be justified, though ultimately unlikely to yield a different result. Do you have something constructive to add to my assessment or are you simply being contrary for the sake of it? – Juliancolton | Talk 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)'[reply]
So editors of weather topics who "haven't even voted" suddenly aren't allowed to share their perspectives just because? Why not consider the actual merits of what was said? That's nothing more than an ad hominem. If you think the argument is flawed or there are issues, then point out those flaws rather than questioning the motives of the editor. Dustin (talk) 01:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn The closer had previously edited the article in question and is generally invested in such topics. This makes them far too involved to be closing the discussion in any way, let alone so speedily. The nomination seems quite valid on the face of it per WP:EVENT. We usually have cold spells in winter and we don't need an article every time this happens. Andrew D. (talk) 19:02, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • For what it's worth, my four edits to the article are thus: two to fix the infobox so it displayed the fatalities, one to remove the initial AfD template, and one to add a citation for the deaths which was previously missing. I don't believe anyone would consider that level of editing "involved". ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:10, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I consider the involved status of Cyclonebiskit to be quite blatant. The fact that he does not recognise this indicates that he should be de-sysopped. We can't have involved admins protecting their pet subjects in this way. Andrew D. (talk) 19:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, sure. My authoritarian rule of closing an AfD that had no prior discussion and providing the nominator with links on where to go if they disagreed with my closing must be stopped. If you honestly think having knowledge of a subject makes you incapable of better assessing notability, I truly believe you don't understand the beauty of Wikipedia. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • As you said yourself, The merits of the topic should be discussed in the AfD. We're here to discuss the procedural merits of the close. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and trout. My first thought when I saw this earlier this morning was, What? Another rogue NAC?. Then I saw the closer was an admin. I can see plenty of reasons to delete this article (WP:NOTNEWS, etc), but let the community decide. If it really is a slam-dunk keep, it should be obvious soon enough. Reclose it in a few days as snow-keep if that's the case. But, close it half an hour after it was opened, before a single person had a chance to comment? Wow. I wouldn't jump directly to playing the desysopping card yet, but Cyclonebiskit should re-read WP:INVOLVED. When it's obvious from your username and your user page that your main interest is weather, its a pretty high bar to claim that you're not involved with a weather article, regardless of how many edits you've made to it. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I mostly support the viewpoint above. It would be best for editors closely affiliated with a subject (in this case, weather) to stay hands-off except in very obvious cases when it comes to speedy closes like this (regular AfD participation is still okay). I think starting a talk page discussion first would have been a better start for the AfD nominator, although that doesn't invalidate the rest of what I've said. Dustin (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. It was the right outcome even if procedurally dodgy. What are we going to do with an "overturn"? Relist? Pointless. In any event I wouldn't be inclined to say that the administrator acted improperly here. Perhaps it was the correct thing to shut down peremptorily a doomed-to-fail AfD on a high-visibility current event article. --Mkativerata (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist It was a very poor AFD nomination but I don't think speedy keep should have been invoked. None of its criteria seem to be met. The first aspect of the close, WP:POINT, puzzles me (shortly after leaving the main page?[2]) but the closer's comments here don't elaborate. What followed was inevitably a WP:SUPERVOTE. Quite often admins close discussions in broad areas where they have a strong editing interest (e.g. footballers) and sometimes that leaves me feeling uneasy. Thincat (talk) 23:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist it seems obvious that the article will be kept, but we should probably let consensus develop more clearly. That being said, I find calls for a desysop to be absurd and borderline disruptive. Lepricavark (talk) 15:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I think a keep is inevitable, but there should have been time allowed for discussion. A few days would probably have justified an -- as it happens, appropriately named -- SNOW closing. I normally follow the deWP's verdict on German topics, but the enWP has always been more hospitable to ongoing events of significance and similar material. (but fwiw, the dewP article has some excellent graphics and we should add them while we can.) DGG ( talk ) 18:06, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist the argument for deleting this article does certainly look rather shaky and I suspect this AfD will end up being closed as an overwhelming or even SNOW keep, but the nomination wasn't disruptive or POINTy and it shouldn't have been speedily closed half an hour after it was filed and before anyone else commented. Hut 8.5 23:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist. A SNOW close is one thing, but this was closed before a single flake occurred. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout but otherwise no action. Closing admin should have at least waited until there was some snow on the ground before invoking the snowball clause, but now that we're here and we all seem to agree that the discussion would be doomed and result in a Keep anyway, I see relisting or reopening as pointless process wonkery. Lankiveil (speak to me) 09:49, 21 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn and relist is the inevitable outcome when a good faith editor complains about a SNOW close. We're here to ensure the community's deletion processes are correctly followed (see WP:DRVPURPOSE point 5). A SNOW close is inherently IAR; SNOW is a thing an editor can invoke when the consensus is so strong that it's clearly needless to allow the full allotted time for a discussion. So if DRV is to stay within its parameters, we can't allow a SNOW close to stand when a good faith editor complains about it. The cut-out-and-keep, take-home point from this discussion is that when I said "clearly needless", I mean it has to be "clearly needless" to everyone, not just to the editor making the SNOW call.—S Marshall T/C 14:16, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to speedy keep WP:NPASR  The close has elements of both SNOW and SK, and the remedy is to overturn the SNOW part of the close.  The closer reasonably cites WP:POINT given that the nominator can't decide if the topic fails notability, and is using the AfD process to get assistance from the community to help him decide.  WP:NPASR allows the nominator the opportunity to review the deficiencies in the nomination, and if re-nominating, to correct those deficiencies.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:32, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. As the editor who started the article, I'd no idea that its deletion had been suggested. Clearly I'd argue that it be kept. But I've no objection to it being relisted for discussion. Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:58, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and relist IAR The only person to comment wants it deleted and the result is keep? Absolute madness. The discussion needs to be re-opened and proper opinions sought. Please insert the correct bold text that says what I have just said. This is ridiculous and the person who closed the discussion should be ashamed. I hope the rest of this page is not like this. Op47 (talk) 13:15, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only commentator was the nomination, who had not formed a delete opinion, saying, "I doubt this is a notable event."  As per WP:AFD, "If you are unsure whether a page should be nominated for deletion, or if you need more help, try this talk page or Wikipedia's help desk."  WP:BEFORE C3 continues, "If an article has issues try first raising your concerns on the article's talk page, with the main contributors, or an associated WikiProject, and/or adding a cleanup tag...; this ensures readers are aware of the problem and may act to remedy it."  One of the points made in the closing was, "No attempt was made by the AfD nominator to initiate discussion on the talk page about notability".  Unscintillating (talk) 14:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-example While reviewing another case, I happened across Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2016 North American spring – another article about seasonal weather which was deleted. This seems to demonstrate that the fate of such articles is not certain. Andrew D. (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Andrew Davidson: The bulk season articles were simply dumping grounds for any weather-related events and not coherent. It was a blatant violation of WP:SYNTH whereas the article in question here is a single coherent event. They're not comparable in the least. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 19:47, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • There was only ever one spring article which I did not endorse the creation of. Dustin (talk) 20:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from original closing admin – For what it's worth, I fully accept that I acted rashly and made a mistake with an out-of-line speedy close. Willingly accepting any and all trout heading my way. Apologies to TheRandomIP and others involved for turning this into way more of a mess than it needed to be. ~ Cyclonebiskit (chat) 21:27, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My suggestion is to just back out your close and life goes on, sans fish. Nobody's perfect. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Not SNOW, with no participants. To avoid poor Speedy closes, be sure to properly reference the applicable point at WP:SK. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:46, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, trout and relist. Reasonable nomination, let it have its discussion. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

18 January 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Shelton Ranaraja.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|restore)

This image was speedily deleted under WP:F9 (non-free images that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use). This was incorrect as I had claimed fair use under WP:NFCI#10 (pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely). The image was uploaded using File Upload Wizard and as such had all the required information under WP:NFCCP.

I asked the deleting admin RHaworth to review the deletion but he has bluntly refused, stating that I should be able to find a free image as the subject died in 2011. Unfortunately there are no free images of the subject. I could only find four images of the subject (here and here), none free. I ask that the image be undeleted. If there was doubt as to whether the fair use claim was appropriate it should have been discussed at WP:FFD, not speedily deleted.--obi2canibetalk contr 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC) obi2canibetalk contr 19:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We've got an editor who edits in one fairly specialized area and whose claim of there being no free image should be given some weight. But this is also a subject who died in 2011 and thus it seems _likely_ there is a free image out there somewhere. I think the deleting admin was reasonable in their claim that it is likely there is such a picture. However, I think given the uploader's long tenure and contributions it's reasonable to give them the chance to make their case at FfD. overturn speedy with no fault assigned to the deleting admin as it sounds like a better case for a discussion than a speedy though letter-of-the-law the deleting admin is probably in the right. That said, do note that "I can't find a free image with a web search" is unlikely to be enough to get people to believe it's unlikely such a free image exists (which is, sadly IMO, the bar that we use for cases like this). Hobit (talk) 21:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wow, I really thought I just read something that said that F9 was reasonable when the image was clearly replaceable by a free image. Don't know what I read. But yeah, this is a clear overturn and a wrong deletion. Sorry I got that wrong. Hobit (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The entry in the deletion log says "Media file copyright violation without credible claim of fair use or permission", implying it applies to non-credible fair use rationales. I'm not sure what generated this but it isn't the default reason and it doesn't agree with the criterion wording. Hut 8.5 07:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ah - it's the wording that comes up if you click on the link in the speedy deletion template. I've suggested altering it. Hut 8.5 07:49, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks. Nice to know I'm not entirely crazy. Hobit (talk) 14:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn the wording of F9 is "obviously non-free images (or other media files) that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use". The uploader did claim this was fair use (by sticking a fair use rationale on it), so F9 doesn't apply. The rationale for compliance under our fair use policy presented above may be wrong but it isn't ridiculous either. While you could make a better case for F7 applying I think FFD would be a better place for it. Hut 8.5 22:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The F9 is plainly invalid. T. Canens (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn There was plenty of time to arrange a free image while the subject was alive. Five years after his death is obviously far too late for this. F9 clearly does not apply. Andrew D. (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, noting that this edit is inexcusably rude and unbecoming of a sysop.—S Marshall T/C 14:19, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to FfD. Speedies are not for things where longstanding, good-faith editors differ. Jclemens (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. WP:F9 says, This applies to [...] images [...] that are not claimed by the uploader to be fair use. The image did indeed have a fair-use claim. I'm not an expert on copyright, but at least on the surface, the explanation looked reasonable. Should be decided by community review at WP:FFD, not by a single admin acting alone. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:48, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and send to FFD on the strictly narrow point that there was a fair use claim which deserved to be considered. I don't think the fair use claim has any merit, as our use is likely to conflict substantially with commercial opportunities for the image in question, but there is a claim and it should be discussed. Stifle (talk) 09:20, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

17 January 2017[edit]

16 January 2017[edit]

15 January 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Football at the 2011 Military World Games – Men's tournament (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This is an official world military competition hosted by the CISM. This football competition is a part of the Military World Games (5th edition) (Rio 2011 - 5th CISM World Military Games) and the World Military Cup (43rd edition) (Championnat du monde militaire de football 2011). Fayçal.09 (talk) 11:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 21:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

14 January 2017[edit]

13 January 2017[edit]

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

Hello and thank you for your ongoing work to legitimize the information on Wikipedia. The aricle Jon Asher had been nominated, then wrongfully deleted in the past two months. There are many wikipedia pages that credit the published writer. Since deletion, even prior to deletion, there have been many digital and physical releases printed on CD's, MP3, Vinyl and other forms of media, published and verified with Jon Asher's writing credits in the liners - published by his music publisher, Roc Nation administrated by Warner Chappel Music. Liner notes of each individual published and credited work ever written by Asher can be presented as evidence for this claim. There are several articles online including Billboard, Rolling Stone, Song Facts and many more. This information is more than sufficient to back the credibility and legitimacy of this songwriter to re-instate, then protect this page from another wrongful deletion. Published works have been released through the likes of Colombia Records, Sony Music USA, Sony Music Japan, Sony Music Australia, Universal Music Group, SM Entertainment South Korea with artists and works such as Britney Spears "Mood Ring", The Chainsmokers "Setting Fires", Aaron Carter "Fool's Gold", Taeyeon "I", Stan Walker "Loud", Stan Walker "Light It Up", Bonnie McKee "American Girl", to name a few of his discography works. In the past, we have had communications with wiki volunteers but have had no progressive resolution. The original inquiry was with Ticket#2016110110000091 WRONGFUL DELETION OF ARTICLE - with a volunteer named Stephen Philbrick. }} Keyofgemini (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. AfD was unanimous. Suggest speedy closing this as failing WP:DRVPURPOSE. It also sounds, from the tone of the nom's statement, and use of we, that there's probably an undisclosed WP:COI here. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:33, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- both AfDs for this article had unanimous consensus to delete. There was no possibility of any other outcome. Reyk YO! 07:00, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse AfD was unanimous, thus making the outcome obvious. Lepricavark (talk) 01:48, 18 January 2017 (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.
Einstein's Sink (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The sink has been described in two national magazines; the Dutch Physics magazine Volume: 81, Editie: 12, Pagina: 41: https://www.ntvn.nl/archief/?q=wasbak+einstein&volume_start=&volume_end= And a monthly historical magazine (Historisch nieuwsblad) November 2015. It was even on the route of the historical bicycle trip of Museum Boerhaave during the Einstein & Friends exhibition. It has quite some local fame and is a noteworthy 'attraction' in Leiden. For this reason I think that it is relevant for wikipedia. I can't see the old article, but perhaps these two sources were not mentioned, because if it was only the newspaper articles then I can see how this could seem irrelevant. Synethos (talk) 11:28, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Yes as I expected the 'real' sources are not named. So adding those would add notability right? It's not much different from Einstein's blackboard or Einstein's Chair. How does it get decided weather to delete it or not actually? --Synethos (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have temporarily restored the page for DRV. T. Canens (talk) 17:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure the Einstein's Chair article is defensible, because the association is totally without any connection to the science, unlike the Blackboard. I think the relevant rule is is NOTTRIVIA. DGG ( talk ) 01:59, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can't get to the one link provided. If you'd like to e-mail me an (ideally translated) copy of the articles, I'd be willing to take a look to see if they support a strong GNG argument for the topic in question. But as it stands, the AfD's outcome seems both clear and proper. Hobit (talk) 22:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can find them here: http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~pietrow/files/ntvn.pdf http://home.strw.leidenuniv.nl/~pietrow/files/hist.pdf Translating them would be a lot of work and don't really have the time at the moment. --Synethos (talk) 09:28, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What AfD was that? I don't see anything obvious that points there. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:27, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was supposing the AFD was in a state of quantum superposition being simultaneously closed and never having been opened. Complete clarification is at Schrödinger's cat. Such a result might usefully have broader application. Thincat (talk) 17:01, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse delete Opinions were anonymous unanimous, conclusion was obvious. gidonb (talk) 07:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused what is anonymous?--Synethos (talk) 13:12, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, it was unanimous. The late hour. Thank you, Synethos! gidonb (talk) 13:34, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes I realize that buy this is why I opened this topic. I believe that the sink is notable due to the two national publications. Would you not agree? If not, what would it need for proper notability? --Synethos (talk) 10:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

12 January 2017[edit]

11 January 2017[edit]

  • Ciara Sherwood – Uncontroversial request speedily agreed: DRV will not enforce the two-year-old AfD result when events have moved on. BsZ has unprotected it.—S Marshall T/C 19:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ciara Sherwood (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Originally deleted back in April 2014 as she didn't meet WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG at the time, and it was then speedied a couple of times before being salted. Allow recreation now that she has made multiple caps for Northern Ireland women's national football team.[4][5] KTC (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2017 (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.
Donald Trump "compromised" claims (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

WP:INVOLVED close and a ton of notable coverage in reliable sources making this notable in it's own right as a scandal, even if it is disproven like Pizzagate. The article title may need work, but the content of the article easily passes WP:GNG. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:44, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The AfD wasn't closed, the article was speedily deleted per WP:G10. Recommend closing this DRV. Softlavender (talk) 11:55, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly was a sourced, notable controversy an attack page? Twitbookspacetube (talk) 11:59, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Read the discussions and rationales in the AfD [6] and, if you like, the ANI thread [7]. -- Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse speedy deletion due to the SNOW consensus at AfD and due to obvious and blatant call-out BLP-violation based on one recent article/source and its unproven allegations. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Here is a list of just a fraction of the coverage from notable sources about this controversy
Extended content

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/01/10/russian-hacking-cnn-information-election-trump/96414062/

https://www.buzzfeed.com/kenbensinger/these-reports-allege-trump-has-deep-ties-to-russia

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-intelligence-report-russia/

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/pro-trump-senators-back-intelligence-officials-hacking-report-n705241

https://nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/donald-trump-russia-compromising-information-intelligence-report-us-election-hack-a7520576.html

https://www.recode.net/2017/1/10/14232186/trump-memo-allegations-buzzfeed

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/10/us/politics/donald-trump-russia-intelligence.html?emc=edit_na_20170110&nlid=58191642&ref=cta&_r=0

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/intelligence-chiefs-briefed-trump-and-obama-on-unconfirmed-claims-russia-has-compromising-information-on-president-elect/2017/01/10/9da3969e-d788-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/what-cnns-bombshell-report-does-and-doesnt-say/512747/

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/fbi-investigating-allegations-russia-compromised-trump

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/donald-trump-briefed-former-british-spys-report-russia-claims/

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/10/509223836/trump-denies-allegations-of-secret-ties-collusion-between-campaign-and-russia

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/313679-trump-blasts-fake-news-after-report-that-russia-tried-to

http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/10/politics/donald-trump-russia-allegations-congressional-reaction/index.html

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/trump-russia-campaign-coordination-233439

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jan/10/fbi-chief-given-dossier-by-john-mccain-alleging-secret-trump-russia-contacts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/10/explosive-but-unsubstantiated-intel-dossier-alleges-russia-has-kompromat-on-trump/

Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:13, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then add them (or try adding them) to a relevant existing article, rather than a BLP-violating article. Softlavender (talk) 12:15, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Actually, that's probably not such a crazy idea... Twitbookspacetube (talk) 12:17, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion as a stand-alone article per G10; that the media chooses to report on unsubstantiated allegations against a BLP does not change our standards. Agree that adding some matter mentioning the controversy without specifics could at least be discussed on, say, the talk page of the article on the transition.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:22, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @Twitbookspacetube: I'm just wondering what you thought was the WP:INVOLVED violation? I know you tried to withdraw it after someone else had replied, but had you just made a mistake or is there something that you genuinely think is a violation? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Genuine mistake, hence the attempted withdrawal. Twitbookspacetube (talk) 13:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks - you could just strike it rather than deleting it. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G10 and snow. This was such a blatant BLP violation that G10 was fine. AfD was a snow result that came to the same conclusion. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:05, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

10 January 2017[edit]

9 January 2017[edit]

8 January 2017[edit]

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

(Note that I had mistakenly posted this request on the talk page and am copying that discussion here because an editor commented on my request.) 10 months ago Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Murder of Ashley Ann Olsen was closed as delete; closing editor noted, accurately, that few editors weighed in in support keep, and that most editors described coverage as "routine"; although there was a strong minority opinion to keep. I am not arguing that the close was in any way improper at that time. The problem is that the AFD took place shortly after the murder, making it impossible to validate assertions at AFD that this murder failed WP:LASTING and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, and that it was WP:ROUTINE. I request that the article be restored on the grounds that it was not a WP:ROUTINE as evidenced by the fact that - unlike "routine" murders - this murder received national and international coverage when it happened, in the year since, and, most recently, when the murderer was convicted. The victim is from Florida and the murder took place in Florence). As an example of the kind of non-routine coverage this has generated, this: [8] essay in Salon.com on this murder as an example of the kind of harassment foreign women experience in Italian cities, and of the way young, attractive female murder victims can be blamed for their own deaths. Here is a small sample of recent and international coverage: 1.) Conviction of the murderer had gotten major international attention, detailed coverage in the New York Times, [9], The Guardian,[10]. 2.) Coverage has been ongoing since the murder and arrest, [11], [12] and the trial was covered outside Italy [13]. Olsen's murder is cited as an example of the way criminals can prey on visiting foreigners in Italian cities [14]. In sum, although an argument that this murder garnered "only routine coverage" was not implausible last February, it now seems clear, even from the small sample of ongoing coverage that I have linked, that this was a notable murder as evidenced by the the extensive and substantive national and international news coverage.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:23, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Note that I made this request to closing editor, who responded: "Personally, I think that the newer coverage is just as routine as the old, but if you want to take this to DRV seeking recreation on the basis of new coverage, please do so with my blessing."E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:24, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that that discussion was contaminated by a sock puppet.  Unscintillating (talk) 00:33, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @E.M.Gregory: IMO, the first deletion was ok given the newness of the event, although everyone knew that more information was coming, so a move to user space or draftspace could have been considered, as is also mentioned in WP:RAPID.  I'd have to read the AfD several more times to sort it out, but much of the discussion is now obsolete, for multiple reasons. 

    We have reliably sourced information, and longlasting and international attention, and now one hit on Google Books.  I had better results using "Cheik Diaw" as a search term.  There is nothing "routine" about the Salon article.  Given how fresh the conviction news is here, the first thing to do might be to wait a couple of more weeks, and then ask the admin to userfy the article. 

    One factor that might weigh in is the considerable attention given to illegal-immigrant crime during the past year in the US presidential election, and will continue to get in the coming year.  The AfD points out that a similar process was already occurring in Europe.  Each of the two people in the center of this event draw unusual attention for a murder.  Unscintillating (talk) 01:19, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

7 January 2017[edit]

  • Kingsley C. Dassanayake – Summarily reopened and relisted. An administrator having indicated, by relisting the discussion, that they found the consensus unclear, an NAC is plainly inappropriate in the complete absence of further comments. – T. Canens (talk) 17:11, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kingsley C. Dassanayake (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Based on the votes this Afd was heading for keep but the reasons given by AKS.9955: for his WP:NAC are contrary to the points made by the contributors. None of those who voted keep argued that the subject met WP:BASIC and WP:GNG and yet this was the reason he gave for keeping the article. AKS.9955 has a history of making problematic non-admin Afd closures (e.g. Leslie R. Mitchell) and is the subject of an ANI discussion. obi2canibetalk contr 16:04, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 January 2017[edit]

5 January 2017[edit]

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

Allow recreation of the page if new information is presented and deemed sufficient to permit recreation. User:Nghwaya.

  • comment The XFD was at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sukuma Calendar, and also note Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma calendar. Also slightly relevant to the whole situation are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma Ancient Salt Technology and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sukuma Ancient Milk Technology. I speedy deleted the draft as a re-creation. However there are some differences, there is a new reference "Makwaia, E. A.: ABC of the Sukuma Calendar, International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics. Vol. 2, No. 2, 2016, pp. 127-135. doi: 10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25"[15]. This reference does have a web site, but the DOI looks fake. Also there new sections "Sidereal New Year", Lunar New Year, Length of the Luni-sidereal Year, Solar Festivals Overview, and "Lunar Festivals Overview". The images appear to be by the second author on the new reference. Normally I would be pretty lenient with a G4 delete, but the MFD shows the community attitude to this topic was not addressed. Also to consider is Draft:Sukuma calendar (2) which the writer blanked on request. On commons there is also a set of images File:VSkmCalendarLL1.PNG to File:VSkmCalendarLL13.PNG. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in response to a query on the talk page of WP:NJournals. The International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics is published by the "Science Publishing Group" a predatory publisher included on Jeffrey Beall's list. This means that it is doubtful that any article published in one of their journals has undergone proper peer review. Any article in such a journal should be regarded as self-published and treated as such (note that we sometimes accept self-published sources]]. See also Talk:Ibn Zuhr for a similar discussion. I have no time to look into the details of the above and therefore don't express any opinion either way. Not watchlisting this, so ping me if more comment is needed. Hope this was helpful! --Randykitty (talk) 09:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I notice the comment from Graeme Bartlett that the doi looks fake. If 10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25 is a real and correct doi, then it should find the article by the link http://dx.doi.org/10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25; it does not. However, http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ijtam.20160202.25.html (with the same claimed doi) does find the article, so the doi is not wrong. It is fake. Looking at the article and its 74 equations, anyone familiar with peer review and science literature will see that any alleged review was inadequate (OR, I know). No view on the DRv, but the paper looks like junk to me, especially when reference 7 is "McCarthy & Guinot: Julian Day Number (2013), 91–2, at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day"... (Randykitty, you might find this reference amusing.) EdChem (talk) 12:35, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on dois. Sometimes a doi is assigned, but the doi database takes a few weeks to update itself. That may be what is happening with doi:10.11648/j.ijtam.20160202.25. Either way, [16] makes it pretty clear this isn't a WP:RS. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:19, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason I thought the doi is fake is because it has 5 digits after the 10. 5 digits would only be allowed if there were over 9999 registrants. But looking up the prefix at doi.org does yield "Science Publishing Group". So Headbomb, you could be correct. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Their first ever paper, from issue 1, 2015, lists: doi:10.11648/j.ijtam.20150101.11, which leads to a DOI not found error, but the link http://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/html/10.11648.j.ijtam.20150101.11.html works. The dois would have had to be assigned recently for a 2015 doi to be valid but not work. The sole author of both papers in issue 1 is the editor in chief of the journal, and the home page lists peer reviewers, which is decidedly odd. This description of becoming a member of the Editorial Board] is strange, too. Taking this journal seriously is a challenge... EdChem (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leave deleted. It is one big hoax. The references are hoaxes. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have also deleted Draft:Sukuma calendar as yet another recreation. Also if this review does not decide to restore, then we should also delete Draft:Sukuma calendar (2). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've given the editor a WP:NOTHERE block because from what I can see, all they've done since they first came on to Wikipedia was to try to insert various fringe theories into Wikipedia via new article creations and insertions into existing articles. They seem to be fairly single minded in their goals, but what makes their actions disruptive is that they have repeatedly re-added their deleted content despite clear indication that this was not seen as appropriate. I honestly don't see their article getting restored via this DRV because even if the hoax status wasn't an issue, the content is still seen as a non-notable fringe theory or original research - and their past actions give enough evidence to suggest that they will just try to restore the content again despite prior deletions. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:14, 10 January 2017 (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.
Draft:Abstract homotopy theory (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

The g13 doesn't apply, since the page was not created through an AfC. Unfortunately, the mistakes like this one have been too common. -- Taku (talk) 18:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • overturned You are correct, but you could also have asked for a quick restore at WP:REFUND. I have restored this for you. Another venue is to ask the deleting administrator. I think this could be closed, (however I don't know how, if anyone does, can they update Template:Editnotices/Group/Wikipedia:Deletion review with some quick instructions). Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's a fairly clear-cut that the deletion was incorrect. But I wanted to post here because I wanted to raise an issue that there is a perception that (1) the draft namespace is used only for the AfC process and that (2) because of (1), many editors don't distinguish between the AfC draft pages and the other user drafts. Perhaps we need an AfC draft namespace? If an enough number of the editors keep making a wrong assumption on the draft namespace, then, obviously, the problem is systemic (which requires a systemic solution). -- Taku (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would like to apologize, since I'm the one who caused this trouble. I've been tagging non AfC'd drafts for G13, because I can't read what G13 actually applies to, apparently. Given the fact that drafts in my CSD log are mostly redlinks, I think perhaps administrators are also suffering from this as well. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:34, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I didn't mean to single-out a particular editor or a particular deletion. The point I wanted to raise is that this is a systemic issue; the current system that the draft namespace consists of pages of two different types, with the g13 applying to one type and not to the other is too confusing. I myself am caught up with the real-life obligations to propose any structural change to the community. But, one simplest solution is to retire g13 (since it's not really necessary to clean-up the draft namespace). The other solution is to split the draft namespace into two namespaces, the one for AfC and the other for other drafts. -- Taku (talk) 03:45, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • What I was trying to get at with my previous response is that that difference is perhaps lost on deleting administrators, too, since my CSD log is chock-full of non-AfC drafts deleted by my G13 tags. Zupotachyon Ping me (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:50, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

4 January 2017[edit]

  • Leslie R. Mitchell – I'm going to reopen the discussion. The close was clearly defective - although the outcome was probably OK for the discussion at the time, the reasoning for the close was not. – Spartaz Humbug! 07:22, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Leslie R. Mitchell (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

AfD was a lengthy and contentious debate with multiple users supporting both sides, and employing differing rationales within those sides, some of which have implications for hundreds of similar articles. User:AKS.9955 closed as NAC, and it was suggested on their talk by both myself and User:HighKing that they undo their closure, as it fairly clearly wasn't an appropriate NAC. Their response was essentially "sod off", and simply delete the thread on their talk. So here we are.

I've made my own argument at the AfD, but don't have a strong opinion on how the consensus should actually be assessed, other than it is not an appropriate discussion for an NAC, and probably trout worthy. TimothyJosephWood 14:46, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, this appears to be a pattern ([17], [18], [19], [20]), and this may be a good opportunity to officially...suggest...that the user needs to...adjust...their behavior with regard to inappropriate NAC closures, or file an RfA if they want to do admin work. TimothyJosephWood 15:04, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - and definitely trout worthy. It was inappropriate for a NAC and given this closure and their subsequent responses, I would be of the opinion that this editor should steer clear of nac's until they understand the rules and they get more experience. -- HighKing++ 15:05, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes - I had this as endorse because I was endorsing the point made by TJW above. Turns out it should have been a !vote to overturn the original non-admin close. -- HighKing++ 17:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll remain neutral on the question of the WP:NAC itself. Reading the AfD, I almost certainly would have closed it the same way, so I'm having trouble seeing what all the fuss is about. But, what bothers me here is the discussion at User talk:AKS.9955. One of the requirements of being an admin is that you are unflinchingly polite (I'll admit, I don't always live up to that 100%, but I try), you can roll with the punches, and you are willing to have your actions reviewed in public. The discussion doesn't strike me as meeting the politeness criteria. Way too quick to jump to the Well, if you don't like it, file a DRV stage. But, more seriously is the deletion of the whole thread from the talk page. You just don't do that. Admins are supposed to set the example for how to behave, and if you're going to be doing admin-type work, you should live up to that. Hold your ground if you really feel you are in the right, but do it politely, and own it. Deleting the conversation is just wrong. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith the "fuss" for me at least, is closing the discussion as it relates to any notability conferred by the award, which (either way) is potentially building toward precedent setting for 350 or so articles on people who have also won one, some of which are already at AfD, and others which may wind up there. Unless the discussion is extremely clear cut (which this one wasn't) that's not an appropriate situation for an NAC at all, and much less so for one of potential consequence beyond the article in question. TimothyJosephWood 21:10, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The consensus of the discussion was that the award was enough to support an article. That may well be a good topic for an RfC, but I think that take on the award isn't unreasonable. This wasn't even vaguely close on numbers.
I have a bit more sympathy than Roy for the closer's behavior. He (correctly IMO) summarized the reason for his closure, made it plain that he felt he was right but that DRV is the place to bring an appeal. He could have been a bit more verbose, but honestly I don't think continued conversation was going to result in anything other than a DRV. Blanking the discussion was suboptimal however. Eh. Endorse close and remind the closer that he should be a bit more open to discussion when issues with his closes are raised and certainly shouldn't be blanking the discussion on his page about his close. Hobit (talk) 00:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I entirely agree that User:AKS.9955 should not have closed this AfD. There needs to be more discussion on the notability of holders of the Bronze Wolf Award, but I consider that this article is more likely to be kept because the Jamboree on the Air is a very large event that has been noticed in many places. So I am inclined to keep this article to allow time for more sources to be discovered. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:54, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reopen The close did not address itself to the problem presented by the article. The key question was whether the Bronze Wolf by itself was enough to show notability, which was strongly argued either way. The closer said simple that it did, without any discussion of why. there was a secondary question of whether other aspects of the scouting career were relevant, and this was ignored. The most obvious close would have been "no-consenssus", but in any case a better discussion was needed. Most admins would have realized that. DGG ( talk ) 03:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The !votes seem to be 11 for keeping, 2 for deleting (and 1 of each also suggesting a redirect as an option). Most, but not all of the !votes are based on the award. Given that our inclusion guidelines allow for an article to be kept if the subject has a well-known and significant award, it seems we have local consensus that this award meets that standard. A NC close would be extremely brave in this situation. I don't think hardly any closer would reach that conclusion. An RfC on the topic is perfectly reasonable to open, but this AfD really couldn't realistically be closed in any other way. There are other arguments for keeping, but the award was the one that had general consensus, so of course it's what the closer cited. Hobit (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
our inclusion guidelines allow That's the problem, they don't, at all, and where they seem to, what they actually do is suggest that individuals who have won awards are simply likely to meet GNG. TimothyJosephWood 10:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hang on. People are getting over judgmental on me; following;
  1. Just because my views are different than other people, I am the bad guy? Why cant I have my own opinion?
  2. I categorically refused to get into an argument with fellow editors and asked them to follow next logical step (second AfD or DRV). Whats wrong with that?
  3. I have all rights to maintain my own talkpage. Why should anyone have any problem with that? And besides, any talk there can still be retrieved and viewed.
  4. Just because I told someone in straightforward manner to use a recourse; should not be taken as an act of rudeness or being stubborn. I could have been termed stubborn, had I picked an argument with someone and tried to push my POV. I did not do that.
  5. I have noticed that in case of a NAC with undesired result, people jump in to tarnish the image of the editor and start a smear campaign rather than behaving with civility. You need to understand that my reason of being on Wikipedia is no less or significant than your's.
Since the matter is in DRV, I suggest you people focus on the merits of the AfD rather than trying to score brownie-points over who crucifies me faster. And Timothyjosephwood is simply lying when he said that he discussed with me; no he did not. Conversation with HighKing started at 13:12 UTC and last comment from me was at 13:41 UTC. Timothyjosephwood posted a message 13:57 UTC. After I posted my last message, I could see where this was going and stopped replying. For love of God, stop taking things personally people - that was just an AfD discussion and not a discussion on which our lives are dependent on. The world does not come to an end if my view do not agree with yours; stop smearing me. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:05, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If someone addresses a close you made on your talk, and you shut it down demanding that they take it to a public forum, don't get your feelings hurt when they address a close you made, and the fact that you shut down discussion, in the forum you directed them to, especially when they explicitly warn you beforehand that doing so may call into question your judgement. TimothyJosephWood 10:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse and pinging all involved users (especially after the comment of Hobit) from the AfD. @Kintetsubuffalo:, @Egel:, @Evrik:, @HighKing: (already present in this discussion), @Bduke:, @Sionk:, @Naraht:, @Btphelps:, @Narky Blert:, @DGG: (already present in this discussion), @E.M.Gregory:, @Timothyjosephwood: (already present in this discussion) and @Alansohn:. These are all the involved users with different views and not selective pinging. Arun Kumar SINGH (Talk) 05:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Never been in on one of these, so whatever the term is for "support reopen" is, yes please.-I don't know why non-admin closures are allowed in any form unless it's WP:SNOWBALL, otherwise it will likely come up for AfD again sometime. I've seen that go awry before, and I am pretty sure that's why we have admins. If a respected admin does it, that's more final. Mind you I am for keep, but I want it done above board, so there is no question later. I've e-mailed HighKing to express this as well. I want to see a discussion on the notability of the Bronze Wolf so we don't have to go through 300+ of these, and that discussion was kind of happening organically before its premature end.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 06:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, I'd have closed the discussion the same way. The discussion on the talk page probably isn't going to win User:AKS.9955 any awards for diplomacy, but it isn't abrupt or rude enough in my view for any further action to be taken. The only thing I would have done differently is the original rationale given, which looks a little like a supervote when there is instead a clear consensus, but that doesn't affect the substance of things. Lankiveil (speak to me) 10:40, 5 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse closing editor's decision to keep. I assessed notability ignoring the Award (I know nothing about scouting awards and chose not to research the question.). Instead, I searched for WP:RS. Mitchell was active in the mid-twentieth century, and even major newspapers of that era are hard - sometimes impossible - to search online. What I have been able to find in major newspapers validates notability. I suspect that the "news clippings" a member of Mitchell's family wrote that the the original AFD page that the subject's family has in its possession will provide additional validation. I just added the Christian Science Monitor's 1965 article describing Mitchell as the originator of" the Jamboree-on-the-air to the page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:16, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Revised iVote Ah, my error. The decisio to keep was, in my opinion, correct. But the closing editor was incorrect in asserting that the Award confers notability. That has not been established.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:30, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note This thread was not started as an attempt to overturn the assessment of the consensus as keep (I also !voted keep), but to question the closing of the discussion by a non administrator, and (in my own case) the use of a rationale which, on its face is contrary to policy, and an inaccurate assessment of the arguments made. The fact that we have here, both keep and delete !votes arguing to reopen, as well as administrators on both sides of the issue, should be well enough to establish that this was not an uncontroversial close, which is what NACs are required to be.
This would not be an issue were this only about this individual article, but the nature of this award, for our purposes, should be decided correctly, and by demonstrating that recipients are indeed likely to meet GNG. This cannot be done by closing AfDs by declaring recipients notable by fiat. TimothyJosephWood 11:28, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. A "no consensus" would not be a fair call on the discussion. "Delete" would be indefensible. The closer's comment reflects the points made in discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Was it a proper NAC? No. Non admins should never close discussions if it ends up at DRV. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:09, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with the points made by TimothyJosephWood above. Editors of both the Keep and the Delete !votes in the original AfD have all voiced the opinion that the AfD should be reopened. As expressed earlier by TimothyJosephWood and Kinetsubuffalo and others - the issue is whether this AfD was suitable for a NAC, not whether you would have closed the AfD in the same way. If those !voting to "Endorse" above are also stating that it was a proper NAC, then we need further clarification in the rules that non-admins cannot close contentious AfD's. -- HighKing++ 12:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • trout- Although I am unconvinced that an administrator would have closed with a different result I don't think any user, admin or not, should be closing AfDs with a keep vote in place of a closing statement. Reyk YO! 13:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment2 I'm neutral about which way the close should have gone--I !voted "uncertain" at the AfD. But I suggest that the appropriate remedy for a NAC close of a discussion that should not be closed by a non-admin is to reopen, see if there are additional arguments--better there than here--, and then have a proper close. If the close is the same, that's OK, but then it's a close people can have confidence in. DGG ( talk ) 16:22, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the only person arguing for deletion apart from the nominator. The AfD certainly wasn't suitable for NAC and the closing editor simply parroted the assertions of the bizarre "Strong" keep comments, that anyone with a Bronze scouting award meets WP:GNG (how that is "strong" I've still no idea). Unfortunately based on numbers alone, the consensus was towards "Keep" - though AfD is not simply a vote counting exercise, is it? I've no, erm, strong feelings either way, and re-opening the AfD might not be productive, I just tend to think the closing comments needed greater explanation and a better policy based rationale. Sionk (talk) 19:58, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-open. The close is inappropriate and cannot stand. I agree that a no-consensus/keep is the likely outcome, but it needs to be done properly. Mackensen (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@AKS.9955: NOTE-THIS COMMENT IS INTENTIONALLY ALL CAPS TO INFER YELLING. STOP DOING THESE CLOSURES! YOU ARE CAUSING PROBLEMS, CAN'T YOU SEE THAT? YOU JUST CLOSED Kingsley C. Dassanayake AND I AM TEMPTED TO REOPEN IT JUST BECAUSE YOU ARE KILLING OUR DISCUSSIONS. DESIST!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:02, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Followup-I have posted Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Multiple_inappropriate_non-admin_closures_by_User:AKS.9955, this sabotage is more damaging than any deletion vote. This behavior must be addressed now, he's got his thumbs in his ears up to his elbows.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close, trout the user. The NAC issue should be resolved at ANI now that it is there and I don't see the need for more bureaucracy by reopening. If the closing statement bothers people so much, I'd be fine with striking the rationale but keeping the "keep" result. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse with an admonition to word closing rationales in more detail (this is not a fault that is limited to non-admins btw, plenty of Admins are guilty of this). The !vote consensus is clear that the recipient of the Wolf award is enough to satisfy the award criteria of ANYBIO. Since there was no real opposition other than 'That award doesnt make them notable enough'. This is not even close to being a no consensus, let alone a delete. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. The close couldn't have gone any other way and DRV shouldn't be in the business of overturning deletion outcomes that are procedurally wrong but substantially unimpeachable. --Mkativerata (talk) 19:48, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editing break

Extended content
  • Question-having employed the biggest trout available, the next logical question is how do we prove or disprove the inherent notability of the Bronze Wolf, conclusively, once and for all? Sending Bronze Wolf to AfD would clearly fail, Wikipedia:3O is not binding enough and at any rate that's meant for 2 editors. I don't follow how admins do stuff, one of you who does, where do we take it? What is the high court?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 05:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Kintetsubuffalo:, this doesn't appear to be the correct venue for this discussion, and I will continue on your talk. TimothyJosephWood 13:48, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Says who? We're all here, we all have some tie to this discussion by now, and based on your snottiness at [21], I don't want you near my talkpage. Leave it here-the question is valid and open for all, and pertinent.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 13:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you need to get a good helping of WP:AGF, and take someone's advice when they tell you something is in the wrong forum. TimothyJosephWood 14:05, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take a good look at your recent interactions with me, and then in the mirror, before you start spouting WP:AGF. As per your "...it might be time to propose a broader consensus on whether the award should get its own "rule of thumb" to help editors avoid forgone nominations and discussions", that is exactly the point of my query, and what I was asking was where such a thing can be done (vide my very clear question above "where do we take it?"), not needing a sermon on my talkpage right after you've bitten me within the half hour. Especially when said droning makes no mention of where precisely the right forum is. I put on my pants every day without your help and do not need someone like you talking down to me. I was not bitey in the question, why were you bitey in the not-an-answer?--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In response to Kintetsubuffalo, there is no high court. Certainly, there's no high court of admins which resolves content disputes, which is what this is. My suggestion would be to start a WP:RFC on the topic. An AfD for Bronze Wolf wouldn't address the question at all. I don't see anybody arguing that the award itself is non-notable, just that receiving the award doesn't automatically confer notability on the recipient. That seems like a perfectly reasonable question to hash out in an RFC discussion. Then, once that's decided, it becomes a lot easier to sort out AfDs such as the one being discussed here.
I'm concerned about what's going on here. This feels like it's turning into a which-hunt. There's multiple questions being addressed here. 1) Is this award important enough to confer notability? 2) Does the close of this AfD fairly represent the consensus of the people who participated in the discussion? 3) Was this discussion within the scope of what WP:NAC allows? 4) Has a particular editor's conduct performing NACs been proper, over an extended period of time? Those are all distinct, orthogonal, questions, and unfortunately, they're getting conflated here (with a fair amount of emotion on all sides), which makes it hard to come to any rational understand about any of them. I suggest putting this whole DRV on hold, opening up the RFC, and seeing where that goes before anything else. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that WP:RFC was just the answer I was looking for, thanks @RoySmith:! Sorry it's gotten scrambled. Now that I have the answer I was looking for, consider 1) moved and finished. 2) and 3) should be the focus of this deletion review, and were until the next improper closure, 4) which is now at ANI. As @TonyBallioni: says, "The NAC issue should be resolved at ANI now that it is there and I don't see the need for more bureaucracy by reopening". Now that you have kindly answered my query, I'd be happy to Template:Collapse this section and go back to 2) and 3), if there is more to say separate from 4). Thanks and good night from freezing Japan!--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The easy way to disprove the notability of an award which has a wikipedia article is to take our article on it to AFD. Good luck with that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:12, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was actually discarded above, the article would pass muster, the core question at this point is, does having the thing make you notable by Wikistandards? Some say goodbye, some say hello... Hence the RFD.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:26, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately if you best argument for non-notability of a person is that the award itself is not notable/significant enough, you actually have to present evidence why that is the case rather than just asserting it. Which wasnt the case here. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:51, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I actually assert the opposite, putting you and I on the same side, but this is not the place for that. But the AFD, had it been allowed to close without interference from the non-admin with a history of bad closes, would have gotten us closer to answering that question.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 15:57, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That was a generic you, not a 'you' personally. But the AFD for a biography is not the place to argue the award itself is not significant. Which is why its an argument with little weight in the above case. It was clear the consensus was the award was enough to confer notability, with no actual evidence beyond claiming it isnt from the opposers. Now they are !votes for a reason, but if a significant majority of people claim status X satifies notability guideline Y, and a minority say 'no it doesnt'. There is really no option other than keep. This wasnt a 60-40 split. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The close was clearly defective, and amounts to a supervote. Winning a notable award does not necessarily make one notable (cf Rhodes Scholarships and various military medals, for example). Most of the keep !votes assumed that the award was sufficient, without citing any consensus on whether the award met the "well-known/significant" standard of ANYBIO, and one keep !voter accurately noted that no such consensus had been established. The discussion should be reopened with an appropriate note about the as-yet-unresolved issue. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by administrators since 2006. (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Aston Whiteside – Moot. Clear consensus here that no official DRV action is required. Just go ahead and create a new article. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:56, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Aston Whiteside (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Now notable per WP:NGRIDIRON (source) WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At the very least 3 seasons in the CFL is enough to overcome A7--64.229.167.158 (talk) 08:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Take no action. The full deleted text from 2012 was: "Aston Whiteside is a NFL Player for the Chicago Bears. He was undrafted and the Dallas Cowboys signed him. Aston was wavied by the Cowboys and the Chicago Bears signed him. He is on the Bears' practice squad right now with Kamar Aiken, Joseph Anderson, Matt Blanchard, James Brown, Isaiah Frey, Gabe Miller, and Harvey Unga." Whether or not the A7 deletion was correct on this basis, this content is junk and the article needs to be recreated from scratch in proper form and with proper references if the person is now in fact notable. Anybody can do that without a decision from deletion review.  Sandstein  08:48, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there references in the article? If so, it might be nice to restore it so that they can be easily grabbed. But otherwise just recreate it if he now meets a SNG. Hobit (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There was a single external link - http://profootballweekly.com/prospect/player/aston-whiteside-2/ - but that was noted as a deadlink in the last revision prior to deletion and currently redirects to the site's homepage and the original content does not appear to be available via archive.org. Thryduulf (talk) 02:24, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks. In that case just recreate it as there is nothing worth restoring and nothing preventing the article's creation. It won't (or at least shouldn't) be speedied if it meets a SNG. Hobit (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation. The deletion was completely in line with our usual practice, but if there is more to say, start over. DGG ( talk ) 03:42, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allow recreation per DGG. Mackensen (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

3 January 2017[edit]

  • Elisa Jordana – Overturn to NC. It's essentially unanimous that NC was the correct result; the only real debate here is whether it's worth overturning to get there, with the edge to doing so. There was some discussion about whether to turn this into a redirect or not, but so few people addressed that question, I'll call it NC on that particular point. The advice Hut 8.5 gave about renominating seems reasonable. – -- RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Elisa Jordana (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

The AfD reached 5 in favor of delete, 3 for keep, and 1 for redirect, and yet someone did a non-admin closure and said it was a consensus for keep even though it was not. The 5/3/1 vote was among two different AfD pages, the one listed above and [this one].TBMNY (talk) 17:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't agree with your count on deletes/keeps/redirects. Could you explain where you got your numbers? By my reading keep or NC were both reasonable outcomes of that discussion, though I'd have preferred NC given the sourcing isn't a slam dunk. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
SwisterTwister, Sir Joseph, Thechased, The Banner, and TBMNY (me) voted delete. Alansohn, LeafK1, and KaisaL voted keep. BusterD voted redirect. That's 5/3/1, a clear consensus for delete. TBMNY (talk) 19:28, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's counting 2 AfDs over time. Sorry I missed that. Since there were additional sources after the first one, it isn't all that reasonable to consider the old !votes in that way. Also, I updated the AfD link to point to the newest AfD earlier (as it's the one that you are appealing). Feel free to point it back to the original or (better yet) change your comment to point to the AfD1 rather than AfD2. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not a clear consensus for delete. In fact it's not a clear consensus for anything, and I don't really agree with the "keep" outcome in this case either. I would suggest that we overturn to no consensus and restore the redirect.—S Marshall T/C 21:19, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weakly endorse close though no objection to overturning to NC which I think would have been a better close. That said, I _do_ object to changing to a redirect. The AfD2 didn't reach any such conclusion. Hobit (talk) 21:38, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it didn't, that's certainly true. I was advocating a return to what I thought was the stable status quo?—S Marshall T/C 21:44, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Humm, I see where you are coming from, but I'm not sure I favor having an old AfD result control in the case of NC when a new-from-scratch article would have been kept in the case of NC. Hobit (talk) 22:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. NC would probably have been better, but the distinction isn't enough to overturn. Just wait a couple of months and if there's no significant new sources or new notability, re-nominate it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:42, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Numerically this was pretty evenly split and I don't see that the arguments in favour of keeping were particularly stronger. The distinction does make a difference - if someone renominates this in a month or two there will probably be complaints, whereas renominating No Consensus closures is considered more acceptable. Hut 8.5 07:43, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (to "no consensus"). Defaults to keep. I don't read that as a consensus. Articulated deletion reasons were not rebutted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • So how do I proceed now? TBMNY (talk) 18:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the result is overturned to No Consensus then I'd suggest renominating it in a few months, making sure to address the comments of people who wanted it kept in the last AfD. If it stays as Keep then I'd suggest waiting a bit longer. Hut 8.5 19:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. Relist followed by a weak keep is not evidence of consensus for keep. No consensus existed here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:18, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. There is no clear consensus either way. This is one of several closures by a non-admin that are less than optimal. There is another on January 4 and one on January 7. Let it be renominated in a few months. --Bduke (Discussion) 06:42, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note there is a discussion about the closure by the non-admin who closed this AfD at ANI.--Bduke (Discussion) 07:41, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to no consensus. A clear consensus for a keep result is not evident in the discussion, whereas a no consensus result is much more evident. North America1000 06:56, 9 January 2017 (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.
File:Prov bank.jpg (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

Lack of consensus; no discussion since 17 June 2016. The site referred to in the last comment has only been active since 2011, so the image is unlikely to have come from there and I don't think File:001 National Prov Bank Holyhead 18.08.13 edited-2.jpg is suitable for the infobox at National Provincial Bank. 2.27.81.240 (talk) 15:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment from closer/self-endorse: This wasn't discussed with me prior to bringing it here, but no worries. FfD is quite different than other XfD processes in that there are significant legal concerns involved with what images we may retain. Strength of arguments is everything here. While the FfD in question had one editor supporting deletion and one IP editor favoring keep, the arguments of the editor supporting deletion were substantially stronger both in the sense of policy and copyright legalities. Per WP:NFCCP#10a, we must provide a source for a non-free image in order to both attribute it appropriately and assess our respect for commercial opportunities, which is necessary to claim fair use. After being at FfD for six months, there was still no specific source listed, so the argument of the editor supporting deletion held substantially more weight based on our non-free content criteria. Separately, the point was raised that this may not satisfy WP:NFCCP#4, as the only mention of this coat of arms available online is a picture of a privately-sent letter, which is another concern well-founded in policy. The arguments of the IP editor were not based in policy or copyright law. ~ Rob13Talk 18:16, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is making me go, "What?" I must be missing something. I can't see this (it's been deleted) but if it's a logo from 1833, then it's clearly in the public domain and a decision to delete it makes no sense to me whatsoever. If it's a photograph of a logo that was first devised in 1833, then I thought the Wikimedia foundation's position was that faithful reproductions of out-of-copyright works were themselves out of copyright. Shouldn't it be restored and sent to Commons?—S Marshall T/C 21:39, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @S Marshall: The bank originated in 1833, but we have no indication that the logo originated at that time. Indeed, we have no publication date at all or really any information about where this came from. There's no reliable source even indicating this was the actual logo of the bank. ~ Rob13Talk 23:31, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I can understand that. I'm hampered in this discussion because I don't know what was deleted. What we need, and should retain, is an image of the bank's coat of arms, so it would look something like an embellished shield. The coat of arms would have been printed on its bank notes. (The National Provincial was formed in 1833 and would have issued its own bank notes between 1833 and 1844 when the Bank Charter Act came into force.) We can evidence the coat of arms' existence, origination date and association with the National Provincial by finding a photo of a National Provincial bank note, as these only existed in a relatively narrow time window. Bank notes are auctioned from time to time so an auction catalogue would be a likely source. If it's not the coat of arms then that's a different matter and I'd be less interested in it.—S Marshall T/C 17:37, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Hi S Marshall. I nominated the file for discussion and if I remember correctly I believe it is similar to what is shown at the top here, but perhaps BU Rob13 can clarify that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Oh, thanks, that's helpful. Yes, that's the coat of arms of the National Provincial Bank (see page 12 of this source). We need to find a photo of one of their bank notes to be sure but I think that's very likely to date to 1833 or thereabouts. But that doesn't mean we need to restore that particular image to en.wiki; if I can find the evidence then it's public domain, so I can redraw it in .svg format as a better quality image and upload to Commons. Which boils down to no need to disturb the close.—S Marshall T/C 22:18, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • @S Marshall and Marchjuly: FWIW, the deleted image is almost certainly a cropped version (showing just the shield) of the file linked to above - the creases are in the same place. Thryduulf (talk) 02:31, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
              • I did mention that as a possibility in the relevant FFD discussion, but I did not upload the file so I couldn't say for sure. FWIW, Chrisieboy who uploaded the file was notified of the FFD and was also pinged regarding the source of the logo, so I'm assuming Chrisieboy was at least aware of the FFD discussion and decided not to comment. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting that, if new information comes to light about the public domain status of this image, I'd have no objection to undeletion/would be willing to overturn myself. ~ Rob13Talk 09:34, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've just had a look at the image and I agree that it plausibly/probably comes from the 19th century, but there's no room for such ambiguity on this. Perhaps if we could find the logo on some archived documents from that era? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:02, 5 January 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse. Due to ambiguity and possible confusion with making a file eligible for WP:NFCC or proving it released with a free license, the closer performed the default action to prevent legal action against the project: deletion. If there can be evidence provided that the file is eligible for free licensing, I recommend uploading the file directly to Wikimedia Commons. In cases like this, it's best to err on the side of deletion over retention (which is usually the exact opposite for articles.) Steel1943 (talk) 21:55, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse or moot. It's more than plausibly public domain. Develop the argument that it is public domain and upload to commons. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've discovered that you can re-create a coat of arms in .svg and upload it to Wikimedia Commons at will. The emblazon (actual image of the shield) can be copyrighted but in US law, the blazon (specification for the shield) can't, under 17 USC 102(b). So apparently the correct procedure for all of these will be to create them on Commons as a fresh emblazon in .svg format, add this tag, and then delete them from en.wiki. I'll do this in due course.—S Marshall T/C 00:43, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @S Marshall: Be careful doing that. {{Insignia}} doesn't say anything about copyright; it just states that additional restrictions beyond copyright may exist on insignias in some countries. It's true that a blazon isn't copyrightable, but the emblazon is, so producing another emblazon directly based on the first would be a derivative work. In order to be safe here, you'd need to be drawing an entirely original emblazon based on the blazon. ~ Rob13Talk 13:50, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, Commons does contains quite a lot of emblazons that do seem to have been produced in this way. There's even a collection of standardised .svg elements for the purpose. You could start a discussion with them about reverse-engineering blazons if you feel it's a problem? Personally I think it's so likely that the source image is public domain, and so morally and ethically harmless to reverse-engineer the coat of arms of a bank that stopped trading before I was born, that I'm comfortable with it.—S Marshall T/C 14:03, 7 January 2017 (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.
Draft:NUUP (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Administrator failed to see Talk page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs)

Endorse deletion I believe RHaworth was well within his rights to speedy delete this per WP:CSD#G11. Multiple draft reviewers had told you it was an inappropriate piece of writing, but you ignored their advice and continually hit "submit". For the benefit of non-admins, the talk page text is as follows : "This page is not unambiguously promotional, because it is an initiative from government initiative NUUP (National unified USSD payment) service. Do not delete, I can update the page further only after successful review, since i don't waste time on content which is not reviewed properly." Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answering "Multiple draft reviewers had told you it was an inappropriate piece of writing" - Multiple draft reviewers told me how to enhance the page not about G11, see the review comments properly speedy deleters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion. I might have just let this sit in draft space pending its inevitable G13 deletion, but this is a justifiable deletion under G11. ~ Rob13Talk 14:06, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, how to prove it is not promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:09, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is an Initiative or Service by Government of India. It is about the features and how it works. Do Not have any promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manivannan184 (talk • contribs) 14:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Trout all around. On the one hand, yeah, this doesn't sound like an article we need, but it's not (IHMO) so blatantly promotional that WP:G11 applied. And, especially to a draft. The whole point of draft space is to incubate articles which aren't ready for mainspace yet. It's got to be really bad to warrant speedying something in draftspace. On the other hand, just continuing to hit the submit button in the hopes the next person to review it sees things differently isn't useful. Read the reviews and try to understand what people are objecting to. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:23, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse deletion it reads like text from a brochure, with bulleted lists of things like "Round the clock availability (functional even on holidays)." No attempt was made to make it even slightly resemble an encyclopedia article. In addition, the service in question doesn't appear encyclopedically notable, so trying to fix it would just be a waste of time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a temp undelete please? In this case, the actual text is relevant (and I don't think cached by Google). Hobit (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have temporarily undeleted the draft for review. Mackensen (talk) 02:56, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this isn't an ideal speedy case. A) It's certainly overly promotional but also fixable. B) It's a draft C) the topic is likely notable. C doesn't really matter for a G11 and technically B) doesn't either, but realisitially we expect draft articles to have problems and don't generally speedy them if they are recoverable. This topic certainly is and the current draft can be easily fixed to deal with the promotionalism. overturn speedy and allow as a draft. Hobit (talk) 03:27, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore to draft. I agree with Hobit's reasoning here. It is a fixable advertising case, and it was in draft space. None of the reviewers had mentioned promotional content, so I'm less sympathetic to the argument that its been reviewed multiple times. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just promotionalism, it's copyvio promotionalism pasted together from various bits of the company's marketing material. All of the first revision is from [22], for example. —Cryptic 02:32, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep deleted but allow recreation and move of new page Draft:NUUP Services to mainspace. Because Draft:NUUP is a copyright violation (as Cryptic has shown above), it should remain deleted.

    But I agree with the "Overturn" editors commenting here that it did not meet the speedy deletion criterion "G11. Unambiguous advertising or promotion", which says:

    This applies to pages that are exclusively promotional and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to conform with Wikipedia:NOTFORPROMOTION. If a subject is notable and the content could plausibly be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion.

    I do not believe the article would need to be "fundamentally rewritten".

    Furthermore, I agree with RoySmith that "It's got to be really bad to warrant speedying something in draftspace" and with Hobit that "realisitially we expect draft articles to have problems and don't generally speedy them if they are recoverable".

    The opening poster, Manivannan184 (talk · contribs), has created a new draft at Draft:NUUP Services. It contains reliable sources like http://www.financialexpress.com/money/nuup-dial-99-and-make-easy-payments-without-using-internet-by-any-featured-phone-through-a-new-ussd-based-technology/469515/ and http://tech.firstpost.com/news-analysis/bhim-heres-your-guide-to-cashless-transactions-using-nuup-on-ios-and-feature-phones-355798.html. The new draft is less promotional and does not contain any copyright violations, so I recommend moving that page to mainspace.

    Cunard (talk) 10:39, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse deletion and No Move the new Draft to mainspace yet, because the Draft still has no signs of convincing acceptance, not only because the URls are not neatly formatted, but because it still needs additional work thus not yet acceptable. SwisterTwister talk 05:55, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update from Author

I have created new draft Draft:NUUP_Services, with live advice from Wiki experts. So i request keep Draft:NUUP deleted and help in moving Draft:NUUP_Services to main article.

Few points to add - if you think it is promotional on seeing citation of SBI and ICICI, I can give you explanantion. SBI and ICICI are public and private banks in India. They are showing how their customers can use NUUP_Services. NUUP is something like NEFT, IMPS, RTGS (different types of transaction mechanisms). So bank websites shows how the services work, as it is new to India.

- in mentioned NEFT, IMPS pages. are you seeing any convincing citations? because these are mode of transaction, which does not have articles in news paper, as much you expected.

- Could I request for immediate intervention in Draft:NUUP_Services, as this technology is national wide implementation and has no wiki main article for users to look into. Manivannan184 (talk) 06:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn G11, delete G7 - in article space, the speedy would already be fairly disputable. So in Draft:, hell no. While I never really understood why draft space is necessary when there are user subpages, the threshold for WP:G11 is certainly higher there. (And G7 per the above comment.) TigraanClick here to contact me 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Manivannan184: None seems to have told that to you, but if you read carefully WP:PROMO, it says Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so. "It is a government-backed initiative, thus the article is non-promotional" is therefore an incorrect reasoning. TigraanClick here to contact me 17:01, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

2 January 2017[edit]

1 January 2017[edit]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_January&oldid=757489643"