Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2017 July

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 2017 Deletion review archives August 2017 >

31 July 2017[edit]

30 July 2017[edit]

  • Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy – Endorse. There's multiple articles here which are all about essentially the same topic. It sounds like there needs to be some merging of content and adjusting of titles, but all of that can be done by discussion on the article talk pages and/or application of WP:BOLD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

User:Kurykh closed this AfD of mine as no-consensus and WP:NPASR, but two other editors both commented in support of deletion of this page, and possibly also deletion or redirection of other pages. That admin has declined to respond to my request for clarification of his reasoning, so here we are. It's not a large participation, but it's not nobody and there was no dissent. Per the NPASR, seems like at least a case of "treat as expired PROD", but I don't see why it's not consensus-delete (given the comments are multiple and policy-based). DMacks (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. Bad nomination, if you can't bring yourself to make a convincing argument to delete, don't nominate. Post your thoughts on the article talk page instead. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse fine close. Nominating statement wasn't a great case for delete per above. It seems like a waste of time to me to have this at DRV, where you'll almost certainly not get a no consensus close overturned. It was closed no prejudice to speedy renomination. I'd recommend closing this and doing a second AfD if you still feel it should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Clearly a case of bad translation from people in both the west and Ukraine doing a literal translation/transliteration instead of actually translating the meaning (hint translation means the meaning not the nearest English equivalent). Stomatalogical means Dental - its not the common word used in English so we should use Dental not Stomtalogical. In the same way a Pedagogical university should be translated as a teacher training university - because that is what it means in the most user friendly translation. The institution's English website is poorly translated and does not reflect the correct name in English and should not be relied on as a guide. This should be either Ukrainian Medical and Dental Academy or Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy. The way to deal with this is to merge the 3 articles into 1. This requires no discussion and no content needs to be deleted from the defunct pages. Just make one article with a sensible name and move on. Spartaz Humbug! 06:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- I am going to agree with earlier commenters here. Universities are generally notable, even if they are not in the Anglosphere. If nominator is correct, and we really do have three articles on the same University, under three different translations of its Ukrainian name, then, someone should have picked one, placed two {{mergefrom}} tags on it, and {{mergeto}} tags on the other two -- and explained all this on a talk page. Deletion should never have been on the table. The eventual result should probably be two redirections.

    Note: I checked the closing administratr Kurykh's user talk page. Nominator DMacks did ask about this closure there in late May. But, apparently, they asked a few hours after closer took a long wikibreak.

    Note: Admissionoffice started both Ukrainian Medical Dental Academy and Ukrainian Medical and Dental Academy, 28 months ago, apparently unaware, at the time, of Ukrainian Medical Stomatological Academy.

    I am concerned that what we see here is an instance of articles being neglected due to the sea change in contributor's focus. During the wikipedia golden age there were way more contributors who were interested in adding new contents, and fixing and updating existing content, and relatively fewer contributors who thought deleting content was the best way to improve the wikipedia. Unfortunately, about a decade ago, certain policy changes made deletion relatively easier, and the activities that build and update the wikipedia harder. An absolutely terrible unintended consequence of these policy changes is that quality control volunteers, who focus on deletion have driven away the key volunteers we need to keep the wikipedia healthy. So, if you are a wikipedia volunteer, who has focussed solely, or largely, on deletion, I encourage you to spend more time working on building the project, through adding or updating actual content. I encourage you to use a lot more gentle methods than jumping immediately to deletion, when you are doing quality control work. Geo Swan (talk) 10:12, 2 August 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 July 2017[edit]

The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:Kuanghsu Yuanpao Honan 1905.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Alleged copyright

I am contesting the deletion of File:Kuanghsu Yuanpao Honan 1905.png on the grounds that it did not violate any copyright it got deleted because I made more accounts and the only reason more accounts were created was because they all got blocked but never was a reason given and not once was I allowed to contest. The sysop that deleted my file claimed copyright violation while the file was home made with my own home scan and cropped out nowhere in the policies does it say that files from blocked accounts must be deleted as this file here is also from a blocked user but is allowed to stay. My files were used on wikipedia and the sysop repeatedly claimed copyright violation now at best the she does not understand what copyright means and at worst she is abusing her admin privileges in a petty to systematically delete any files I upload regardless of the name or if they are in scope or not. Now the sysop follows me around and blanks whatever I write so let us hope that someone who wants to build an encyclopedia rather than delete anything from people they dislike which makes me wonder how many other usable files were falsely deleted based on copyright claims by this user. Now this user keeps blanking my pages and puts petty insults while doing so but whether or not the blocks were justified is besides the point even as all I did was ask why I got blocked and having a similar username to anyone isn't against policy and another user that got blocked was an acquaintance Codename Alex and Sunshine Alexi. But why were the two images that I irrevocably uploaded deleted multiple times? The only reason why I even made another account was because I cannot contest a deletion as an IP user and am sure that I will get blocked immediately but all I ask is for the sysop to be adult at least once in her life and explain her actions. What copyright did my images violate and only one was used on my accounts and that of a few friends that were asked to support me the other file was only used in wikipedia. This file is not a copyright violation of any kind and deleting them with that claim and not the real reason can be an abuse of sysop tools. Most pages that goy blanked only asked for why I got blocked and Im posting it here because on commons I will get blocked within a minute.]]

I am contesting the deletion of File:Kuanghsu Yuanpao Honan 1905.png on the grounds that it did not violate any copyright it got deleted because I made more accounts and the only reason more accounts were created was because they all got blocked but never was a reason given and not once was I allowed to contest. The sysop that deleted my file claimed copyright violation while the file was home made with my own home scan and cropped out nowhere in the policies does it say that files from blocked accounts must be deleted as this file here is also from a blocked user but is allowed to stay. My files were used on wikipedia and the sysop repeatedly claimed copyright violation now at best the she does not understand what copyright means and at worst she is abusing her admin privileges in a petty to systematically delete any files I upload regardless of the name or if they are in scope or not. Now the sysop follows me around and blanks whatever I write so let us hope that someone who wants to build an encyclopedia rather than delete anything from people they dislike which makes me wonder how many other usable files were falsely deleted based on copyright claims by this user. Now this user keeps blanking my pages and puts petty insults while doing so but whether or not the blocks were justified is besides the point even as all I did was ask why I got blocked and having a similar username to anyone isn't against policy and another user that got blocked was an acquaintance Codename Alex and Sunshine Alexi. But why were the two images that I irrevocably uploaded deleted multiple times? The only reason why I even made another account was because I cannot contest a deletion as an IP user and am sure that I will get blocked immediately but all I ask is for the sysop to be adult at least once in her life and explain her actions. What copyright did my images violate and only one was used on my accounts and that of a few friends that were asked to support me the other file was only used in wikipedia. This file is not a copyright violation of any kind and deleting them with that claim and not the real reason can be an abuse of sysop tools. Most pages that goy blanked only asked for why I got blocked and Im posting it here because on commons I will get blocked within a minute. Chelsey Wong the Chinese coin girl (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

28 July 2017[edit]

  • Kayako – Overturn. There is reasonably clear consensus here that the article met neither A7 nor G11 when it was recreated the last time (not to mention that most editors agree that one admin should not speedy delete an article that other admin reinstated). As for those few endorsing the deletion, remember that DRV is not for discussing the merits of the article itself which can be done at AFD if someone feels this is necessary. – SoWhy 08:35, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Kayako (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

It was undeleted by an administrator after reworking The article Kayako was reinstated by the administrator User:Sarahj2107 after I had rewritten a draft (only a couple of months ago) (see User_talk:Sarahj2107#Kayako_article_deletion). It was deleted again by User:RHaworth. User:RHaworth asked me to come here to report it (User_talk:RHaworth#Kayako). If it cannot be undeleted can it be recovered as a draft so I can work with it still thank you 109.159.159.194 (talk) 17:15, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse but allow Draft use, as a CSD is a CSD, exactly that and because it was repeatedly deleted, the best option is to use WP:AfC instead where it can be reviewed. It's not always a convincing sign a restarted article under a year ago is here again. It would've also helped to show us what you can add to it. SwisterTwister talk 19:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. The most recent text was evaluated by admin User:Sarahj2107 and found minimally sufficient for mainspace; that User:RHaworth disagrees is not grounds for speedy deletion, which is not acceptable when reasonable disagreement has been established. I also note that RHaworth's response to the OP on their talk page [1] is wholly unacceptable, both in terms of the absolute refusal to discuss and the rejection of a perfectly reasonable request to restore to draftspace, and clearly merits censure; as well as does their decision to salt the topic without any discussion shortly after another admin had found an article acceptable. Bad, bad, bad. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I see no reason not to trust RHaworth's judgment that the article was promotional and lacked a credible claim of significance. Also, the article deletion history strongly suggests that this is content that does not belong on an encyclopedia.- MrX 14:22, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to trust User:Sarahj2107's judgment either, but her judgement more than three months ago does not preclude RHaworth from deleting the article now. I see no controversy.- MrX 14:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn: If reasonable, experienced users can disagree, a speedy was obviously not appropriate. No objection to taking it to AfD if that's what people want, but that's the process that should be followed. Smartyllama (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn I don't think this qualified for A7 or G11. The article contained a number of assertions of significance, including the number of clients they have and some of the major organisations who use their products, and it cited some respectable looking sources. There were one or two phrases which could be seen as promotional, but I don't think we're in G11 territory and the article included negative information as well (the fact that a site they were hosting was hacked). Hut 8.5 17:01, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, or draftify. Given the prior history of six WP:CSD deletions, and then deleted again by WP:AfD, and the general promotional nature of the article, it's not hard to see how an admin could be tempted to CSD this again. But, the fact that another admin restored it to mainspace should be sufficient defense against WP:CSD. And, there are a number of reasonable references in the article (tempundeleted for review). My personal opinion is that all of the sources are weak (for example, I give no credence to TechCrunch when it comes to establishing WP:N). But, WP:CSD says that process is for pages or media with no practical chance of surviving discussion and I've (sadly) seen many articles with no better sourcing than this pass review at WP:AfD. So, I'd say that CSD does not apply here. I'd rather see this restored to draft than to mainspace, but either is preferable to letting the CSD stand. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn  The deleting administrator (meaning the admin of record which is from the 2nd AfD), has restored the article stating, diff, "Article is significantly different to deleted version with no promotional content and enough suitable sources to meet WP:ORG."  RAHaworth should respect another administrator's decision instead of dismissing an IP address and binding the time of DRV volunteers.  RAHaworth's only explanation here is that the deletion was for "multiple reasons", which is not a reason to which anyone at DRV can respond.  Caveat: I was a participant at the 2nd AfD.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:56, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and I while I'm not thrilled disagree with the speedy deletion, it's not beyond the pale. The response by the deleting admin (as noted by HW above) _is_ however very problematic. We don't blow off users, even IP users. Hobit (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will be surprised if this company will ever pass WP:CORP. What are the new sources since AfD2? Wikipedia is not for tracking current statuses of corporations. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:32, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with the CSD isn't whether it's notable, it's whether there's "a credible claim of significance." To me, their clients as well as the hacking incident demonstrate "credible claims of significance", and the latter being included in the article shows it's not promotional, or at least not enough so to merit a speedy. Are these enough to confer actual notability? That's an issue that should be taken to AfD. But there's enough here that a speedy is not appropriate. Smartyllama (talk) 14:43, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • You appear to talk to the threshold of a first CSD tagging. This threshold doesn't apply to pages previously deleted per consensus (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kayako (2nd nomination)). Given that it is re-creation of a deleted topic, proponents should be ready with a good answer to "what is new since the last deletion discussion?" --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • Other than G4, in what way are any speedy deletion criteria modified by previous deletions? Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Given that the article was previously deleted at AfD, anyone seeking to put it back in mainspace should be advised to be ready to answer the question "what is new since the last deletion discussion?"
            The speedy deletion does not appear justified. At a minimum, G4 should have been cited. Sarahj2107 (talk) 08:44, 20 April 2017 appears to assert that G4 won't apply (my reading), and so this case should be Send to AfD. At AfD, I advise the proponents to be ready to answer that question. Right now, I would be inclined to !vote "delete" at AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:37, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn No articulated speedy deletion criteria met, and an IAR needs a more compelling rationale. Jclemens (talk) 20:38, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn It doesn't explicitly say it, but Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Pages that have survived deletion discussions suggests you should not A7 something that has had a deletion discussion, which has then been restored by the original deleting admin. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:37, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the lead does actually specify this: "If a page has survived its most recent deletion discussion, it should not be speedy deleted except for newly discovered copyright violations and pages that meet specific uncontroversial criteria; these criteria are noted below." Jclemens (talk) 01:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn, if this was a fresh discussion I would have entertained a call of G11 (but not A7, as there are claims of notability made). Given the history of the article including review and undeletion by another admin though, I would have at the very least discussed with the other admin, or declined speedy and recommended AFD/PROD. A trout to User:RHaworth for the rude response to a perfectly reasonable enquiry about this on their talk page, as well. Lankiveil (speak to me) 04:31, 3 August 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn - I agree the article is somewhat spammy however it should've gone through AFD, The G11 tag I can understand but the A7 one makes no sense, Anyway FWIW I think IP editing should be done away with... always have and always will however that doesn't mean one should dismiss an IP and say right fuck off to DRV - There should've been a discussion and IMHO it should've been restored, Anyway the article although somewhat spammy seems to be notable judging by the sources in the article as well as the results on Google. –Davey2010Talk 11:27, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse -- there's nothing in the current article that's indicative of notability, while the content is strictly promotional. There's no need to return this article to mainspace. Better off staying deleted; would save the community some time getting it deleted. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:13, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oveturn – The article has moderate claims of significance (e.g. it "... now serves 50,000 customers in over 100 countries ...") and does not have a strong promotional tone that would require a fundamental rewriting of its entire contents. Minor promotional tone can be addressed by copy editing parts the article. North America1000 19:43, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Picaboo – "No consensus" outcome endorsed. Two editors each would overturn to keep or delete, respectively, but I guess these views cancel each other out. –  Sandstein  09:42, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Picaboo (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

4 Deletes against 2 Keeps ratio with the Deletes having heavier weight, and the final sources being analyzed along with questions answered suggests No Consensus was not a foreseeable result. Overturn and delete would be appropriate given the considerable analysis and, this explains the first relist which said "To allow further discussion on sources and answer Crystallizedcarbon's question" all of which occurred. SwisterTwister talk 17:09, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello SwisterTwister my friend. This is the first time I have to differ with you on an AfD as our interpretation of policy, up to this point, we have been always aligned, so I really look forward to have a constructive dialog with you on this one and I am quite sure we will be able to reach a consensus if we are given a bit more time. There will not be much of an impact to Wikipedia on weather this particular article is kept or deleted, but there is an interesting discussion on how to interpret our policies on notability and promotional material that I think would be very worthwhile to complete (at least for me). I think that according to WP:NOTVOTE we should not decide this just on number of votes alone, even if two of them are from 2 admins I very much respect, as I really do not feel that my questions have been answered (please review them) and there is still room to find a consensus. If at the end the consensus is to delete I would be equally satisfied, as that would mean that I was wrong in my interpretation of our policies and that I would have learned a valuable lesson for future contributions. Therefor I am requesting that the deletion discussion be reopened. If it is not, as I posted in the talk page of the article, I will open a second AfD with keep recommendation and ping all users involved to determine if it meets our notability criteria and/or if it violates what Wikipedia is not in regards to promotional material. Best regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:20, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SwisterTwister: I forgot to mention that I had no time to respond to your last comment on the AfD as you made it on the same day it was closed. I happened to be out deep sea fishing and by the time I got back it was already closed. If the AfD is re-opened I will like to give a more detailed answer to your comment, since according to my current understanding, positive statements in a source do not invalidate it as a reference as long as that source is both reliable and independent. Also to point out that many of the sources cited did not include positive statements and were centered on comparative analysis of its features and those of other photo editing tools or mentioned it as a recommended option along with some of its competition. Regards. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:57, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Message received, Crystallizedcarbon and I want to say you're absolutely welcome to ask me any questions or send any comments about future articles at my talk page, and I'll always be happy to help. If agreed upon, I would support a reopening for further attention. n Saludos, SwisterTwister talk 22:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, exchanging points of view with such an experienced wiki-friend is always welcomed. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 06:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Closing admin here. I really don't think my decision in this case was remotely controversial. The discussion had already been relisted twice, and there was nothing extraordinary going on that would justify a third relist. I felt that Crystallizedcarbon's analysis carried the discussion is only because none of the delete side of the argument bothered to turn up to rebut it. I freely admit that I down-weighted SwisterTwister's characteristically verbose argument because, frankly, it was only partly comprehensible to me. What I could infer from its meaning seemed to indicate that it was based on the article being promotional, which is a reason to clean up an article, not a valid argument for deletion. A Traintalk 10:00, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Not a terribly well-argued AFD. The close is clearly within administrative discretion, and the argument that favorable reviews in a genuinely independent publication should be dismissed as promotional flies in the face of consensus, practice, and rational analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 17:20, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - I found the keep arguments to be sufficiently strong to prevent a delete consensus from taking hold. - MrX 15:26, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Perfectly reasonable close. Yes, the deletes were in a 2:1 ratio, but there were only six !votes. Four deletes and two keeps is not really a consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse I find the closing admin's comments here to be sufficient to justify the close. Ideally would have included at least some of that (about User:Crystallizedcarbon) in the close itself. Hobit (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and delete the participants at the AfD analyzed the sources provided and found them wanting. Copying and pasting large chunks of text or lists of references into an AfD doesn't matter if the participants in the conversation weren't convinced in the empirical judgement of whether or not they met the notability policy. Both sides made equally valid policy based arguments and assessments of the article in question. Neither were particularly stronger from a policy perspective than any of the others: the question is hinges on whether or not by their judgement the participants felt that the sourcing met the policies and guidelines. Most didn't. Additionally, SOFIXIT is just an essay, and WP:N makes it clear that failing WP:NOT is a sufficient reason for deletion, as does the deletion policy. Editors in an AfD may reject that argument in favour of keeping, but an admin should not discount it as not being policy based. It most clearly is. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:32, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I strongly disagree on a number of points.
  • You imply that I'm making an argument based on SOFIXIT -- I have not cited that essay anywhere here or in the original AfD, or indeed anywhere at all.
  • What I am arguing is that WP:PROMO is by its very nature an argument about tone, not about notability. If the article about IBM was re-written tomorrow by an ad agency, it would run afoul of PROMO, but no one in their right minds would argue that IBM is suddenly not notable. PROMO is not related to WP:N.
  • It is uncontroversial that admins are expected to weigh the quality of the arguments on the different sides of an AfD debate -- otherwise we would just have a bot closing AfDs. None of the users arguing to delete came back to engage with Cunard or CrystalizedCarbon's arguments. Only SwisterTwister's was posted after their contributions, and ST's argument is incoherent. A Traintalk 12:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to explain more
  • You didn't but some here made the argument on tone that can be improved, which is an inherent reference to the SOFIXIT mindset. I was actually wrong about it being an essay: it's actually just a snarky redirect title to BOLD. People !voting delete are of the opinion that something can't be reasonably fixed through editing, and if they advance this through policy, the closer should assume that they are trying to help fix the encyclopedia, just through making it more credible by getting rid of an article they feel are at odds with our core values.
  • WP:N makes it abundantly clear that PROMO is in fact a reason for deletion: WP:NOT is mentioned right under the GNG as an equal requirement for inclusion. This is reaffirmed by both WP:DEL4 and WP:DEL14. Participants in an AfD have to make practical judgements about the tensions that exist in Wikipedia, discounting one policy based reason because you prefer another yourself is a reason to !vote, not close.
  • Yes, but admins should avoid making calls on the actual quality of the sourcing except in rare circumstances. They should judge consensus based on the strength of policy-based arguments. In this case people advanced arguments that disagreed with the empirical value of the wall-of-text. Setting it aside becomes a personal judgment on the quality of the sourcing, not one on policy. We have to assume that participants did do a search themselves and were confident in their vote, otherwise this reasoning simply induces bludgeoning of those who disagree with you.
I'm obviously in the minority here, but I do think it's important to go on the record opposing closes based on admins making judgement calls in sourcing except in rare circumstances such as where language skills are needed. A !vote would have been more appropriate in these circumstances. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:14, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think that WP:PRESERVE, WP:DEL4, and WP:PROMO are all saying the same thing; that our job is to empower the reader with a NPOV, even if NPOV includes promotion.  To do otherwise is censorship.  Unscintillating (talk) 16:23, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine for you to read it that way, but it's a question for participants in an AfD to decide in the case of a particular article what is the best way to deal with it according to policy. WP:DON'T PRESERVE also exists to be thrown into the mix as something to consider in how best to solve the problems in an article. The point is that the closer shouldn't substitute their judgment of how to apply policy to facts for the judgment of the participants. If A train had !voted instead of closing, no consensus would probably have been justifiable. Instead they closed against a clear consensus. Turning this DRV into a second AfD based on Cunard's sources doesn't change that. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEL4 is a widely accepted standard that should be following by all editors.  Had the closer !voted because of the vote count, he would have been participating in vote counting.  Sources have been provided...and the fact that they source a for-profit company is not a violation of our rules.  Wikipedia is not censored.  Unscintillating (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"The point is that the closer shouldn't substitute their judgment of how to apply policy[.]" TonyBallioni, can you clarify here? I'm reading this as you saying that admins should not attempt to determine if AfD arguments are congruent with policy. Please correct me if I'm wrong because that seems to ignore over a decade of precedent. A Traintalk 12:39, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No, what I'm saying is that admins are not called upon to determine which empirical analysis of the sources are right. They are called upon to determine which arguments have basis in policy. If an admin thinks that the side with a clear policy-based consensus is wrong in their analysis of the facts, they should provide their own policy-based argument as a !vote. Two people can look at the same source and derive completely different views on it and both be arguing 100% from policy. The AfD process allows us to figure out how to apply policy to specific articles, and when the closer disagrees with the outcome, closing it as no consensus per "not a vote" will almost never be overturned at an AfD, but it doesn't make it okay to do in my mind. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think you fundamentally misapprehend what I did. I did not and do not have any opinion about the article. I only evaluated the sources for the purpose of making sure they actually lined up with what the editors in the discussion said about them. Even if you disregard the fact that the keep arguments went unrebutted, you are left with 3 (intelligible) delete !votes vs 2 keep !votes. That is not a clear consensus to delete no way, no how -- and the discussion had already been relisted twice.
I'm broadly sympathetic to the argument that you're making but you've chosen a very unreliable vehicle for it in this AfD. A Traintalk 08:32, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, per AfD is not a vote, sources provided by Cunard undisputedly pass GNG and counter deletion rationale. Valoem talk contrib 06:43, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Just for future reference WP:N is a guideline, but not a policy and this was recently rediscussed at Wikipedia talk:Notability/Archive 60. WP:NOT is a policy. Thincat (talk) 19:31, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. A very brief nomination. Divergent opinions. No consensus. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:29, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse. I probably would have closed this as Delete, but No Consensus is not an unreasonable reading of the discussion, and well within discretion. Regarding the closer's statement above, that he down-weighted SwisterTwister's characteristically verbose argument because, frankly, it was only partly comprehensible to me, I have to agree. I've tried reading that paragraph several times, and I haven't been able to make it through to the end. Making your point, clearly and succinctly, is an important skill. Everything we do here is based on the written word, both in our primary product (encyclopedia articles), and the background work (discussions on talk and project pages). If what you write is difficult for people to read and understand, you are not communicating effectively. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:43, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - Had editors analysed the sources etc and decided no they wasn't sufficient then deletion could've happened however as ST was the only editor to analyse these the AFD couldn't of been closed any other way, I see nothing wrong with the closure and the sources provided by Cunard pretty much make the nominators rationale moot. –Davey2010Talk 18:18, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep The deletion arguers were clearly not arguing in an NPOV manner, demonstrating a fundamental misunderstanding of what promotion is and is not. When the WSJ likes your company, that doesn't make it primary, or non-reliable, or promotional. Promotion is based on the tone of the article, not the reliable sources underlying an NPOV article. There is not one single policy-based deletion argument in this AfD, and Keep is the only WP:ROUGHCONSENSUS reasonably consistent with our actual deletion policies. While the individual participants are welcome to their own biases against businesses, our administrators and other XfD closers must avoid considering them as policy-based. Jclemens (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to keep as per Jclemens.  Unscintillating (talk) 13:42, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
  • Gary Renard – Endorse. There is near-unanimous agreement here that the AfD was closed correctly. On the subject of renominating, there were some requests that the closing admin should set a schedule for when that's allowed. I feel that doing so would be beyond my remit, but I will urge anybody thinking of a renomination to read WP:RENOM#Renominating for deletion and WP:RENOM#Advice on renominating. Yes, that's an essay, so it holds no official weight. But it does offer good advice. – -- RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Gary Renard (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This particular discussion was closed as "no consensus" when there seems to be some serious issues with the keep arguments that the two admins who did the relisting and the closing (incidentally, note that these two admins have a history of mutually reinforcing each other's positions as can be seen here: Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/SoWhy 2. Clarification was asked from both admins about the matters of substance that were discussed, but either the admins do not understand the policy/guideline arguments or there is a willful ignoring of the sourcing concerns in favor of an exasperated "I give up" stance. I summarized the main crux of the deletion debate as follows:

Keep!voter: Here's a lot of sources.
Delete!voter: None of them are usable according to WP:FRIND, WP:RS, etc.
Keep!voter: Yes they are!
Delete!voter: Explain.
Keep!voter: (makes accusations of bad behavior).

I argue that there is no evidence that the Keep!voter has and it sets a terrible precedence that such discussion with lopsided arguments in favor of delete can just be made "no consensus" by means of a Chewbacca defense. As such, I request an overturn to delete be decided here on the merits of the arguments presented about the lack of sourcing. Discussion of this matter was had at both User talk:Ritchie333 and Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Gary Renard with no headway made in getting the administrators to discuss the merits of the discussion as outlined here. Instead the argument is made that we should "wait a month" even though the substance of the argument is clear. Make the determination. One side or another has made the best case here and that's not going to change by twiddling our thumbs until the end of August. jps (talk) 10:11, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Three admins (Northamerica1000, SoWhy and I) all decided there was not enough consensus and I also thought you were talking too much about each other, and not about the article. While admins aren't always right, when three independently agree on something, they probably have a point. Incidentally, saying "note that these two admins have a history of mutually reinforcing each other's positions" is a bit wide of the mark as I can pull out numerous discussions where I have flat out disagreed with SoWhy and grumbled about it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:23, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to explain how the actual substance of the deletion debate is different from what I outlined above, please do so. There are no usable sources and when the Keep!voters had that pointed out they never came back with a response. This is why the count of !votes is so lopsided in favor of delete. jps (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has to agree with your opinion. I'm off to some gnoming on London Victoria station now, have a nice day. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:30, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Always nice to see the professionalism of the admin corps on such proud display. Have fun! jps (talk) 10:32, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'd point out that this user has still not contended with the fact that all the "sources" being listed are published by vanity publishers, are self-published, or are published by fringe outlets. This was emphasized numerous times in the AfD, but this doesn't prevent a tiresome repetition. jps (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you are talking about the individual links I provided above, Hay House is a major international publisher. And many of the 80 to 100 books he is mentioned or quoted substantially in are from major publishers, such as for instance these two books by Wayne Dyer: [6], [7]. If you are talking about the citations in the article, those are irrelevant to discussing notability and the fact that the subject clearly meets meets #2 of WP:ANYBIO and #1 and #3 of WP:NAUTHOR. The article could use improvement, but the state of the article is not what AfD is concerned with. Softlavender (talk) 12:07, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Are you kidding me? Hay House is a means for Louise Hay to publish her books and other books she likes. It is the very definition of a self-publishing outfit. jps (talk) 18:22, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing admin: Like the AfD itself, this DRV was also canvassed in the non-neutral thread full of false accusations and absurd aspersions: [8]. Live thread: [9]; current permalink: [10]. -- Softlavender (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My two peneth Whilst the AFD degenerated (and not the first one to do so) due to discussion about editors and a general attitude towards "non sensible subjects" I disagree that there was no consensus, as pretty much there was for deletion. I note that the same (accusations of canvasing, accusations of using sources that are too fringe. There is (frankly and I have said this before) a certain attitude that rejects anything that is not "real science" out of hand, and this engenders similar responses from those who reject the notion. I do not agree that this article meets out criteria for retention, but I do not agree with the general attitude shown by some editors (and no it is not just one) to what they (elsewhere) have dismissed as "in universe sources". I think both sides in this dispute are out of order, and have no choice bu to accept that (on the grounds of attitude alone) this close was inevitable. I for one wish it would be accepted, we lost so lets at least lose with some dignity and integrity.Slatersteven (talk) 18:50, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • We're here to write an encyclopedia, not to kowtow to civil POV-pushers who would whine that we aren't nice to people who deny basic undeniable facts about the universe. Hurmph. jps (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak endorse the canvasing problem appears to be real and probably tainted the debate enough that making a NC call is probably within discretion (yes, that's two conditionals). But the sources are at best questionable and the general consensus was mostly toward deletion. I think delete would have been a better reading, but NC isn't so unreasonable that it needs to be overturned. I would suggest a renomination in the fullness of time. Hobit (talk) 18:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully intend to renominate it immediately if the closure is ultimately endorsed as a "no consensus" closure means that you can renominate whenever you want, right? jps (talk) 18:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Generally it's best (by far) to wait at least a month. If you nominate sooner you might attract some "keep, we just discussed this" type responses. Hobit (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And this is reaching the level of tendentious editing (all but for a non controversial POV), it is also a pretty battleground mentality. I am not singling out one side over this, as in the AFD both sides fought their corners, but I do single out one side for refusing to drop the stick.Slatersteven (talk) 21:49, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse - The close is an accurate assessment of (lack of) consensus. Some of the delete participants hoisted themselves by their own petards. I think the article should be immediately re-nominated for deletion and participants should be more respectful of the process, and each other.- MrX 15:12, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refer to ANI  The declaration that a new AfD will ensue as soon as this DRV is closed means that the process here is but a stepping stone.  I count 17 edits at the afd and 7 more here, so this editor has not been able to state his viewpoint and step back and let the community decide.  Unscintillating (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse because there was no consensus. What any consensus ought to have been is not for DRV. The AFD was beset with claims and denials of poor behaviour and claims and counterclaims arguing interpretations of guidelines as if they were categorical aspects of settled policy. This obscured any rational conclusion but it doesn't look to me it was "unfair" on either side. Thincat (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was no consensus in that debate. Jps' accusation that the closer was meatpuppeting for SoWhy, and his rather overexcited postings on the fringe theory noticeboard, are unbecoming of a user of his experience and I feel that he owes Ritchie333 an apology. But that article certainly doesn't meet the minimum criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia, and a swift and merciful euthanasia really would be the kindest thing. So there's only one outcome which is consistent with both our procedures and our minimum standards for articles, which is endorse closure as no consensus with permission to immediately relist. And just to be clear, I will personally nominate it for deletion again as soon as this debate is over.—S Marshall T/C 22:46, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak endorse SoWhy knows I think that he is too relist-happy (see RfB/my talk/his talk archives), and I think that here as well, and think a delete close would have been reasonable at that time, with a no consensus close being a stretch, but also within the realm of possibility. That being said, Ritchie's closure was completely appropriate and within discretion following that relist. Agree with S Marshall that it should be allowed to become AfD4 immediately after this though because of that. TonyBallioni (talk) 04:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Is this guy fringe? Absolutely. Is he notable fringe? Yep. Sure, Hay House is a fringe publisher... but not self-published. We don't get to exclude notable fringe as WP:NIME, and a 4th AfD would be pointless. Editors interested in limiting the damage caused by people believing him should focus their efforts on the content of the article, rather than its existence. Jclemens (talk) 21:02, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, as there was no viable consensus in that particular debate. I don't think an immediate AFD4 is warranted, simply because (as noted above) we are going to get a few editors who !vote "Keep - we just discussed this." You're not going to get a good read on the actual quality of the article, such as it is. So my recommendation would be to wait until a month after the close of this discussion, then renominate. Perhaps the admin closing this discussion might set a schedule for that new debate in their close? UltraExactZZ Said ~ Did 13:52, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do like the idea of the closing admin setting a schedule. I'd suggest a month or two, but anything firm would be acceptable to me. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I swear to god, if I see the phrase "non-neutrally canvassed" in regards to this issue again, I'm going to start tracking down editors and engaging in some run-by fruiting. Only I'm using rotten fruit. @Softlavender: I normally find you to be quite a good editor, but in this case, you're really beating the crap out of a horse that no-one wanted to ride in the first place. Just let it go.
Also; Endorse close, but with the option to open it right the hell back up again. It's clear that most editors who care want the article deleted, and we shouldn't reward the tendentiousness of editors willing to sidetrack the discussion with accusations of bad behavior. That being said, allowing ourselves to get sidetracked certainly did a world of hurt to the formation of a solid consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:54, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"It's clear that most editors who care want the article deleted" -- most editors who were non-neutrally canvassed at FTN want the article deleted. And apparently those who want the article kept don't "care"? Softlavender (talk) 22:58, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If there was canvassing going on, it's worth bringing up. If nothing else, in the hope it will discurage canvasing next time around. Hobit (talk) 04:30, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:STICK ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 04:53, 4 August 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 July 2017[edit]

26 July 2017[edit]

  • File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png – Endorse. There is good consensus here to endorse the most recent FFD close. That being said, there is also considerable disagreement about the meaning of our non-free content policy., specifically whether the onus is on those arguing to keep, or on those arguing to delete. Putting it another way, which way does a no-consensus result default to? That question is best hashed out on WT:Non-free content, and by taking advantage of the WP:RFC process to get broader visibility (as has been suggested by several participants in this debate). I would strongly urge those who wish to continue this debate to do so via that route, rather than open a new WP:FFD – -- RoySmith (talk) 12:59, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
File:James Thomas Hodgkinson.png (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

This discussion was about whether a photograph of the perpetrator of the 2017 Congressional baseball shooting can be used as fair use in that article. The discussion should have been closed as "no consensus, default to keep" instead of "delete".

The closer errs in finding a consensus to delete. Numerically, we have 6 delete to 4 keep opinions. This is not an obvious consensus, so the "delete" arguments would need to be clearly stronger in the light of policy than the "keep" ones. They are not, and the closer does not establish that they are. At the core of the argument is a strong disagreement about how to apply WP:NFCC#8, and both sides have advanced nuanced and, I think, defensible views about how to do so. The closer does not even attempt to weigh the respective arguments in the light of policy, but instead advances a single argument made in the discussion: that the fact that the article is not a biography "weighs heavily against WP:NFCI#10". This has been rebutted, by Hut 8.5 among others, in the discussion, but the closer does not explain why the opposite view is clearly more persuasive in the light of policy. This, as well as the closer's reference to a "majority", which is not relevant in XfD discussions, gives the brief and inartful closure the appearance of casting a "supervote" or conducting a vote count instead of properly assessing the arguments that have been made.

The closer also errs in considering that "even if the FFD's closure was 'overturned to no consensus' the end result would be the same". Our deletion policy WP:DPAFD states: "The discussion lasts at least seven full days; afterwards, pages are deleted by an administrator if there is consensus to do so." That is, absent a consensus to delete, the outcome is keep. No exception is made for files or fair use content. The closer's argument on his talk page that fair use content must have a valid rationale as established by positive consensus or lack of opposition is wrong. No policy states this. Our policies establish many seemingly clear requirements that content or pages must meet to be included (neutral, reliably sourced, not a copyvio, etc.), but there is no general rule that content that does not have positive consensus for inclusion must be removed (rather, our deletion policy stipulates the opposite), and there is no basis on which to fashion an exception for fair use content.  Sandstein  07:11, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • While I don't necessarily object to an "overturn to no consensus", I think the real question to be answered is: Does an FFD discussion resulting in "no consensus that a file meets NFCC" mean that the file cannot remain on Wikipedia? -- and I'm not sure DRV is the venue of choice to discuss this. I think WP:CSD#F7 and {{Dfu}} cover this sufficiently: disputed fair-use rationales (this is clearly one) for which "concerns are not addressed" (such as by virtue of there being no consensus) are to be deleted. Unless there is agreement that a fair-use rationale is valid (or, in most cases, no opposition), then files cannot remain on Wikipedia without valid fair-use rationales. This file does not have a valid fair-use rationale (only a disputed one for which there is no consensus or consensus against.) Ben—Salvidrim! ✉ 13:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking pretty much this intuitively, but wasn't eloquent enough to explain it. Non-free use is so inherently weak to begin with, that it doesn't make any obvious sense to me why a no-con would result in keep rather than default delete. TimothyJosephWood 13:47, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, Salvidrim!, but I found {{dfu}} either useless or redundant or misused to me. It can be used on grounds for usually deletion. Using it to contest other uses... can that lead to deletion? Anyway, the more useful approaches to me are talk pages, FFD, DRV, and PROD. --George Ho (talk) 16:45, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure and deletion. We've been through an FfD about this not just once (see discussion) but twice (see discussion). We've been through a deletion review about this before (see discussion). DRV is not a second chance third chance FOURTH chance FfD. At this point, this DRV is becoming tendentious and disruptive. We have been debating this issue now for well over a month, and never has there been consensus that the image is needed in the article. Two well experienced administrators have closed the prior FfDs. Even if we granted a new FfD, nothing has changed that would somehow create a consensus to keep where one did not exist in THREE discussions over the last month about this issue. There is zero point to this DRV, and should be closed with prejudice. Even if we agree with Sandstein's impugning of the Salvadrim's consensus conclusion, we're at no consensus, and yet another FfD that would (at best) close as no consensus, then we're back a DRV, then we're back at FFD, then we're back at DRV. This madness has to stop. We can't keep chucking the dice until the result comes up the way Sandstein wants it to. I concur with Salvidrim; coming up with a new standard for policy interpretation is not the purview of DRV. This DRV is cart before the horse; take the no consensus = delete issue to WT:NFC and start an RfC there. Sandstein, please, I beg of you, drop this. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:01, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's not an argument for not having this DRV. The first DRV found the first FfD deficient, so we just go through the process a second time. That's entirely normal.  Sandstein  15:07, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't normal. THIS much discussion over 5 weeks, with 2 FFDs and a prior DRV and now this one. Enough is enough. Further debate about this is not helping the project, but actively taking up people's time on an issue that will never achieve consensus in favor of keeping it, as all the prior discussions have already shown. We can't keep chucking the dice over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. Please, PLEASE drop this. Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion would be a helpful read I think. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not a huge fan of that closing statement but I agree with the closer that no consensus means deletion in this situation. WP:NFCCE effectively says that the burden of proof in these situations is on those seeking to include the file to provide a valid rationale, so if there is no consensus that the rationale is valid then the file should be deleted. Hut 8.5 18:10, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to RfC. Sandstein is clearly correct to say that this is a "no consensus" debate. With all due respect for the closer's ingenious arguments, the position that there was a consensus to delete there is completely untenable. I disagree with hut 8.5 when he says NFCCE means that "no consensus" at FFD defaults to delete, because if NFCCE means that, then NFCCE should say so. (The actual wording is too opaque and inscrutable to be much help.) The reason I say send to RfC is because we're stuck in a loop now. Editors active at FFD don't want this file, and editors active at DRV do. So FFD will continue to delete it and DRV will continue to overturn them, as has already happened. An RfC is the best way to attract fresh eyes and new arguments that might get us out of the loop, I think. I also think it would help to get a steer from the wider community about cases like this one when they're files we can lawfully and ethically use that help the reader to understand the topic ---- is it more important to remove the fair use files for reasons of ideological purity, or is it more important to, you know, actually build an encyclopaedia?—S Marshall T/C 19:22, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The issue isn't "ideological purity"; it's whether "they're files we can lawfully and ethically use". We don't have NFCC to ensure we're not spiritually unclean; we have it make sure we don't... you know... break the law. Your statement above is pretty clearly begging the question. TimothyJosephWood 19:30, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The suggestion that this file might not be available under fair use at all is a novel one. So far the arguments have been about Wikipedia policy rather than US law. I... err, don't quite know how to respond because to my eyes it's so extremely clearly a valid fair use.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I realize that our policy is designed to not just meet the legal standard, but clearly exceed it. I assume the reason for that is because we're one of the most visited websites in the world, and at the end of the day, we're giving people a free alternative to things they might otherwise pay for. We're the WalMart of websites, and anything we do that approaches the legally permissible standard paints a target on our back. So perhaps not whether we can "legally use it" isn't the best wording, but rather whether we can "abundantly clearly and uncontroversial legally use it without the potential risk of litigation", because if we're going to see precedent setting litigation on the issue, we're a prime target. TimothyJosephWood 21:28, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eh. No fair use case is going to be clear and uncontroversial--especially by any commercial reuse. But yes, for us to use this as (as a non-profit with a goal of education we are exactly the type of thing fair use was created for) is fair use. Hobit (talk) 14:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And as I indicated, there is no other non-profit in the world more likely to spoil that than we are, if we do not hold ourselves to a high and consistent standard. TimothyJosephWood 15:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no lawyer (though I do teach some of this stuff), but I really really don't see that happening. First of all, Wikipedia isn't going to spoil things for others. No one case is likely to change things that radically. Secondly, it's pretty easily fair use. I very much doubt you could find an IP lawyer who would claim otherwise. Doesn't mean we can't have stricter rules--we can and do. But arguing legal problems with using this picture isn't reasonable IMO. Hobit (talk) 17:45, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "cases like this one when they're files we can lawfully and ethically use that help the reader to understand the topic ---- is it more important to remove the fair use files for reasons of ideological purity, or is it more important to, you know, actually build an encyclopaedia?" This is inaccurate, unnuanced, and assumes bad faith. The very crux of the decision to use the file or not rests on whether it helps the reader understand the topic. I (and others) have seen no evidence in the article or unused reliable sources that anything about that file helps readers understand the topic (the shooting). I didn't read any contributors' comments as desirous of a vegan encyclopedia, just that the copyrighted material isn't necessary by our own rules; to assume such editors are on an active crusade to rid the wiki of non-free filth, as opposed to being here to actually build The Free Encyclopedia, has no bearing. — fourthords | =Λ= | 19:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A widely advertised RfC might be a good idea to help clarify this issue, which only a handful of users are discussing here.  Sandstein  19:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well this is the trouble with NFCC#8. It's a matter of opinion. My opinion is that this is an article about a crime and this is a picture of the perpetrator --- used in a biographical section of the article --- so it could hardly be more germane. Yours is presumably different but I'm under no obligation to convince you. Is it your position that a fair use image would only be acceptable if it actually showed the crime in progress? Because that seems, err, needlessly restrictive.—S Marshall T/C 20:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion of the appropriateness of the image itself isn't for DRV. That's for FFD. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • At DRV we do need to be able to rectify defective closes. To enable this, we need to have latitude to dissect the FFD discussion and weigh and analyse the arguments presented there. This entails re-litigating the previous discussion to an extent. In the past we've overturned deletion discussions because the closer weighed the arguments wrongly, and on occasion even because there were things that should have been discussed but weren't. A discussion of the appropriateness of the image is within DRV's scope.—S Marshall T/C 22:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With apologies to others, it's not about ideological purity nor is it about complying with fair use law. In fact, under fair use law, we would never have to have a fair use rationale be included with the image to validate its usage. If we were challenged perhaps, but we're never going to get challenged as we are an educational resource and have very wide latitude about the use of non-free images. The NFCC policy is about restricting the use of non-free media that which we absolutely MUST have to accomplish the goal of creating a (here's the part people keep missing) FREE (and there it is) encyclopedia. If our only goal was to create an encyclopedia, we wouldn't be having this discussion. The point is NOT about whether the image is encyclopedic or not, whether the image is legal to use or not, or ideological purity. If we were after the latter, we would be demanding a cessation of all non-free media use. We're not. That's where NFCC comes in. It's a middle ground, has little to do with fair use law, and isn't about ideological purity. --Hammersoft (talk) 20:51, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - There are limits to using a non-free content. Digital distribution of multimedia content can be... a little risky, especially when fair use laws are at stake. This image is no exception to other deleted biographical images previously used in non-biographical articles. Keeping this image on assumption that omitting this image would affect readers' understanding of this event is bad faith toward general readers. We should avoid bad faith and encourage trust to our readers instead. A free replacement is possible, but I wonder whether the consensus would allow a free image of the person. Of course, the "no consensus" matter can be discussed at RfC, but the image shouldn't be discussed again and again (well, until the RfC discussion is concluded). Meanwhile, I just uploaded an unrelated image that is freely permissible via OTRS service. Wow! I think I might got a hang of the OTRS service. --George Ho (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC); clarified, 01:37, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Consensus was to delete. To take this further, take it to RfC to review interpretation of NFCC. There is an undercurrent of opinion that interpretation is or has become too strict. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:39, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, what??? Endorse deletion. Going FFD->DRV->FFD->DRV is just silly. We should not keep discussing this until Sandstein agrees with the outcome. —Kusma (t·c) 09:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If anything, the closer gave too much weight to "keep" arguments which rested on the premise that we can weaken or disregard standards established by the WMF. The "keep" arguments also to some degree were based on the rejected position that the death of a person immediately creates a presumption that use of a nonfree image is acceptable; given the subject's participation in public political events, it's not unreasonable to see the availability of free images as possible. Finally, no plausible argument was advanced for using a news/news service image when less commercially valuable alternatives, such as the individual's drivers license photo, could easily be found online. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 12:38, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody proposed a plausible alternative image, except an older mugshot, but consensus in the first FfD was that it was also unfree and also prejudicial. If a free drivers license photo or other free image can "easily be found online", could you link to it?  Sandstein  12:59, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The credit says "Derik Holtmann/Belleville News-Democrat, via Associated Press". Right, Hullaballoo Wolfowitz? The image may have commercial interests, another reason to endorse the deletion. --George Ho (talk) 10:42, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ooh... Also found this photo page from AP Images and that page from the Belleville News-Democrat, which has its terms of service. --George Ho (talk) 11:01, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Would these sources above change your mind, Sandstein, S Marshall, and Hobit? Such use would violate the WP:NFCC#2 ("respect for commercial opportunities"), wouldn't it? --George Ho (talk) 11:04, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Send to RfC per S Marshall. Or more so, per SmokeyJoe. I think an article like this _should_ have such a picture, but I don't think our policies or that discussion would allow it (said another way "endorse per the rules as they exist, but I think the rules are wrongheaded here") Hobit (talk) 14:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse for the same reasons given above by Salvidrim! et al. as well as the comments I made in the previous DRV and the subsequent FFD regarding the file's use. It may be a good idea have an RfC to decide whether WP:NFCCP needs to be changed or clarified, but policy matters should be addressed on the talk page of the relevant policy, which in this case is WT:NFCC. This file has already been discussed in two different FFDs and closed the same way by two different administrators, so relisting it once again so soon seems rather pointless. If an RfC is started and results in a change/clarification that would be relevant to this file's use, then the discussion can be revisted at such a time. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:37, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as within discretion although the closing rationale concentrated far too much on our guideline, WP:NFC, which allows for occasional exceptions, and our understanding of subjective aspects of our local WP policy. Image use must comply with the law (which this does) and also with WMF policy. Our policy on non-free use is at WP:Exemption Doctrine Policy but this is constrained within the terms given at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. This policy is considerably undesirable for an encyclopedia in my opinion (even for a free one) but it is what we must work with. We could of course have an RFC to discuss what are the restrictions of WMF policy, whether we should ask for them to be changed, or whether we should change our own policies and guidelines. This DRV is entirely appropriate: DRV1 legitimated AFD2 and it is only the latter that is being challenged here. Thincat (talk) 09:25, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse - While I actually strongly agree with Sandstein's arguments for keeping the photo, I think the close reflected a reasonable judgement of consensus, although I personally would have closed it as no consensus.- MrX 15:16, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Full disclosure, I closed the original discussion as delete. This has become a pretty clear case of WP:IDHT, and I would advise stepping away from the horse carcass. The original DRV closing as "relist" was itself moronic; the original decision should have stood, and and RFC should have been initiated at that time. ℯxplicit 23:54, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Shit, I made a "moronic" close? Since explicit says so, that means it is now an established precedent™ on Wikipedia that I'm moronic! This is awful! IronGargoyle (talk) 23:19, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say that in that case, we need more morons.  ;)—S Marshall T/C 18:33, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Sandstein is correct that no consensus for a fair use of an image does not, by policy, automagically default to deletion. The amount of discussion is not solely Sandstein's fault, as I empathize with his principled desire to ensure concrete encyclopedic coverage in the face of admittedly over-cautious fair use guidelines, and he should not be subject to the derision he has been above. Sure, if he gave up the problem would go away; but it would also go away if the disputed image was allowed, too. Jclemens (talk) 21:14, 1 August 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 July 2017[edit]

  • Tony Chang – No consensus, default to maintain closure. Opinions here are divided about whether the AfD was correctly closed as "delete" or whether it should have been closed as "no consensus". There's no obvious way to make a determination for me as DRV closer whose arguments are stronger. Because there is no consensus to overturn the closure, it remains in effect. I do not relist the AfD because it is already very long and has received ample discussion, and nothing here suggests that a relisting would result in a clearer outcome. –  Sandstein  08:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Tony Chang (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

I just looked back at the Afd discussion and was surprise and doubted the page was finally deleted, as I believe there were no consensus in the Afd discussion. The number of users supporting keep was even larger than the number of users supporting delete, and both sides have all stated reasons and relevant policies.
By looking into the AfD discussion, the two concerns for deletion are notability and promotional tone. However, there were no consensus on both concerns. Some user considered there was notibility, and some others considered not; some user considered the article was in promotional tone, but many others believed the writing can easily be fixed (such as My very best wishes said "that promotional bias would be easy to fix by removing a few paragraphs and rephrasing some others").
The closing admin linked the policy of WP:SPIP, which I also believe should not apply for this article, as I believe none of the sources in the article are self-promotion, autobiography, product placement or most paid material. As the subject of the article, I want to declare that I did not contact any media on my own initiative. The media was just interested in my stories and then made reports on me, as I stated in the AfD, because most teenagers and youth in China are brainwashed by the Chinese government, so that they found me as a Chinese youth dissident and even have the experience of being persecuted are special. I also did not pay the media, and not only I did not pay the media, but also the media spent a lot for making the news report and interview about me, such as ABC Four Corners. There is no team of Four Corners in Brisbane, so that a group of 5 staff in Four Corners flew from Sydney to Brisbane, and hired 2 vehicles and 1 interpreter (as they want to make sure the accuracy of their program so they want to interview me in my native language although I said my English was okay enough for the interview). That should cost at least thousands of Australian dollars (even more than ten thousands) for ABC. As Agathoclea said in the discussion, "We should not ask the question "notable for what?". It is not up to us to decide to decide if someone is "worthy enough" to merit an article. The media makes that decision for us. In this case international media has picked on the article subject as notable compared to thousands of other dissidents." If I am considered not notable, why ABC spent such huge amount of money to interview and make reports on a not notable person? More importantly, there is also no consensus on WP:SPIP concern in the AfD discussion, such as Deathlibrarian said "He didn't promote himself by being chosen to be interviewed by Four Corners. He didn't arrange articles in Deuech Weller, SMH, etc. He also didn't arrange to promote himself by having his family harrassed by the Chinese Police for his political stance. These are all things that happened to him, not things he arranged. And he certainly didn't write this article himself."
Therefore, I believe this should be Restore and Relist at AfD or Overturn to no concensus. I hope other admins can review the AfD discussion and re-consider about the decision. Thanks. Shujen Chang (talk) 16:29, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse DRV is not AfD 2.0, and the arguments above are essentially a rearguing of the AfD. I also don't see the closing admin being consulted here. There is no reason at all to relist at this point: it had a very through discussion. The closing admin reviewed the discussion, and based on policy arguments decided that the delete !votes had more weight. The justification for the close was well written out and clear. Well within an admin's discretion, and we should not relitigate it here. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not rearguing of the AfD, but arguing about the closing admin's decision, and even the closing admin himself had said "To contest this decision, please go through the process of deletion review" when closing the AfD discussion.--Shujen Chang (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Your argument above is a rearguing of things that are relevant at AfD. not at a deletion review in my mind: the consensus at the AfD was that the sourcing did not amount to notability. Several editors reviewed it, some in both languages. The consensus was policy based and against keeping the article. Yes, I see how you could get that view on not contacting from the close. The first step on this page though highly suggests that you do contact, and I think they would have appreciated it. I went ahead and notified the closer when I saw this open, so they'll probably make a statement later. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:45, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • What the closer said in the AfD is "To contest this decision, please go through the process of deletion review" not "To contest this decision, please contact me". That is why I am going to here instead of contacting the closer.--Shujen Chang (talk) 17:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Question - given that the person initiating the request is the subject of the deleted article, as noted in the AfD in which the user appeared to be heavily involved, should this request be closed without prejudice to someone uninvolved initiating a review due to conflict of interest? ZettaComposer (talk) 18:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from closer Please read the purpose and instructions of deletion review before listing, as several steps have been skipped, in particular 5. To repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion. I am going to be brief, since TonyBallioni already covered most of my response. When closing a discussion, consensus is not determined by counting heads, but by looking at strength of argument, and underlying policy. This was well within discretionary call. Alex ShihTalk 18:22, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have read everything before listing, and not repeating arguments in AfD, but arguing on the closer's determination on consensus from the AfD. The purpose for me to list this DRV is to let the community to discuss whether consensus has been reached from AfD, not whether the article should be delete or not.--Shujen Chang (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC I can't see the article, and maybe it's a WP:TNT candidate. But nearly no one argued he doesn't meet WP:N. Rather the arguments are about either the state of the article (not normally a reason for deletion), the fact the sources are largely not in English (which isn't a policy-based reason for deletion) or a sense that the subject uses Wikipedia as a source of promotion, which also isn't really a reason for deletion. I get those objections, and maybe we need to strip the article down to the basics and protect it. But that discussion had more and stronger policy-based arguments for having an article on the subject than for not. Maybe not _this_ article, but even that didn't have consensus in the discussion IMO. Hobit (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per TonyBallioni. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, let's walk the various delete !votes. I'm not going to go into the various back-and-forth. Just the votes.
    • Nomination didn't provide a reason for deletion. It just referenced a previous AfD over a year ago.
    • El cid made the argument that "Nothing is notable about him" and "Not notable". This is a WP:JNN argument. No reference is made to sources.
    • Beyond My Ken made the argument that there is only one meaningful source in English. There is no policy-based argument there. WP:N doesn't care what language the sources are in ( "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.")
    • John Pack Lambert felt the sources were not enough. A reasonable WP:N argument.
    • Hijiri 88, among other arguments, finds that WP:N isn't met.
    • DGG makes a POV/ADVOCACY argument for deleting. That, to me, isn't a reason not to have an article on the subject. It's a reason to fix, protect or block. But not to delete. Hobit (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • K.e.coffman's argument is a bit hard to wrap my head around from a policy viewpoint. Could be he doesn't find the sources to be enough--I can't tell.
    • TonyBalloni makes a WP:NOTNEWS argument as well as the argument that just because the subject was featured as an example, doesn't mean he's notable. It also looks like he may have only considered the English sourcing.
    • STSC argues that the article may well meet WP:N but is a coatrack for Tony Chang's political struggle. Which seems odd to me. Wouldn't an article on a writer be a coatrack for the writer's writing? I mean if that's what he's notable for, of course that's what the article focuses on.
By-and-large the keep arguments were focused on meeting WP:N. There are certainly multiple independent sources. I don't think anyone has argued otherwise. And the only arguments about being "in passing" was if about 400 words was in depth enough. This meets the letter of WP:N and about half of the people in the discussion (exactly half?) felt it met WP:N and had reasonable arguments as to why. Only about half of the delete !votes (about 25% of those discussing) disagreed. I don't see how delete gets reached from that. Hobit (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, to be clear, my analysis of the English-speaking sources was that the subject was the lede into a larger story about the CPC and that the coverage was about the CPC, not him. I trust the analysis of the editors who had the linguistic skills to analyze the non-English sourcing, which is why I did not go into it. Thank you for your thoughtful analysis here (I do appreciate it). TonyBallioni (talk) 02:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the kind words! My sense of the discussion of the Chinese sources is that people didn't like them because they are political sources. I consider Taiwanese newspapers and Radio Free Asia (for example) to be reliable sources and reject the notion that they are so biases wrt China that they can't be used (in fact, I'd call that utterly wrong). Was there some other argument in that discussion that discounted the Chinese language sources for some reason other than that or because they were in Chinese? It's a long discussion, so I could easily have missed something. But from the discussion, I can't find a valid reason to ignore those sources. Hobit (talk) 14:06, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hobit, if you'd prefer, I would be glad to walk you through every Chinese source to explain the rationale. Every single Chinese source offers no significant coverage of the subject (a quote, a sentence, one source is just an interview). Most importantly, these sources all focuses on the coverage of the larger story, not the subject himself. In this case, these are coverage on series of events unfolded from Xi Jinping's visit to Australia, a typical case of WP:BLP1E in the broader context. This is sufficiently conclusive even if we disregard majority of the Chinese sources here are famously known to be non-partisan. Regards, Alex ShihTalk 15:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, in the AfD discussion, no one actually said he/she "had the linguistic skills to analyze the non-English sourcing" and walked through the Chinese sources to let other voters to decide. If you said you are able to read the Chinese sources, why didn't you walk through them in the AfD, and let others to discuss and vote based on your explanation of these sources? That should be more convincible than just close the discussion with decision of delete. Also, you just said that DRV is not to "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion", but now it seems you are going to do that to make this DRV into "AfD 2.0" (as TonyBallioni said)?
However, if you really want to go through to the Chinese sources in here, I also want to say something about Chinese source:
  • I believe this secondary source (from Radio Free Asia) have significant coverage of me about my experience in China in the 7th paragraph (the 4th paragraph from bottom). Although there is just one paragraph, but as My very best wishes quoted the policy in AfD: "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.".
  • I also believe this source (from Liberty Times) have significant coverage of my experience as well in the second and third paragraph, which I also believe is a secondary source (as summarise and analyse of a primary source should be considered as secondary source, and the Liberty Times article is analysing of this primary source in Yahoo! news)
You are welcome to make arguments on the sources I just mentioned.--Shujen Chang (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Hobit Hobit, I'm sorry for replying out of thread here, but I don't want to make it look like I'm responding to Shujenchang, but to you. This was a very messy AfD, and I confused who said what. STSC made an analysis of the sources, which seemed well informed and I trusted given the reputation of the organizations involved. When matched with the lack of notability in the English-language sourcing and WP:SPIP/the WP:NOTADVOCACY argument, this confirmed my analysis of the English sourcing. I know that we have different views as to SOFIXIT/NOT, but I do think that NOT should be a factor when weighing borderline notability. The user who did read the sourcing based on language skills was Alex Shih. While a closer should normally refrains from making value judgements on claims regarding sourcing, there are times when it is useful: in this case I think it was appropriate for him to do so in order to evaluate the claims made about the nature of the non-English sourcing that most AfD participants couldn't do. This is a key factor in my endorsing the close (and yes, I did support deletion, but I do try to reevaluate neutrally at DRV and MR). I hope this makes my endorsement/my argument in the AfD clearer. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No worries on the reply location. STSC's argument was that Voice of Tibet, Voice of America, Liberty Times, NTDT, Radio Free Asia, Epoch Times and the Apple_Daily_(Taiwan) are all biased in this context and so can't be reliable sources. I don't buy that and in fact think it a fairly ridiculous argument to make about notability (NPOV isn't a part of WP:N, it's about how we write the article) and I certainly object to VoA being called unreliable (the rest seem above the reliablity bar too as far as I can see). The question is the depth of coverage and that discussion wasn't had in the AfD to any extent (at least that I could find). Hobit (talk) 17:15, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. A clear majority of !voters supported retaining the article/content, and their arguments were generally reasonably based in applicable policy and guidelines. A number of the delete !voters based their opinions at least in part on invalid criteria, such as the use of non-English=language sources and disapproval of journalistic practices. AFD is not merely a head count, but the closer does not have carte blanche do discount majority policy-based arguments. The closer gave no explanation whatever of their decision, and their comments here indicate that they did not actually weigh community opinion, but reviewed the sources themselves and supervoted. I also find it disturbing that an admin who's been essentially inactive for ten years returns and closes a controversial AFD against expressed community sentiment without providing an explanation of their action. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. (talk) 10:39, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn as 'no consensus' - While I abhor self-promotion on Wikipedia, it seems that the closer did not properly evaluate consensus. There were several strong keep arguments supported with sources, and several very week delete arguments. Also, the closer introduced their own argument (WP:SPIP) into the mix, which is a big no no.- MrX 15:53, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as I was invited to the AfD because of my past with it, and I agree it was a delete; there was heavy attention to what was weighed in the article and it was unconvincing to accept otherwise. Also subsequent delete votes are enough to count in deletion. SwisterTwister talk 19:52, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse There was a clear consensus to delete. It was never clear if it was based on POV issues or weak sources, but there was a clear consensus that the sourcing was not enough to justify having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:02, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • While there is nothing wrong with AfD !voters coming to DRV (happens all the time), there do seem to be more here than normal. It would be ideal to get some new voices. Anyone have thoughts about a good neutral way to do so? Hobit (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist I have not read every word of that astonishingly bad-tempered AfD, but I tried to follow all the main points. I have every sympathy with Alex Shih, who had a very difficult job. However, there does not seem to have been even a rough consensus to delete this article. There were several different reasons offered for deletion, some against policy, and (though I didn't keep an exact count) they all seemed to be contested. Also, as MrX said, the introduction of WP:SPIP by the closer was a surprise. It might be a decisive argument, but the process was brought to a halt too soon. Matt's talk 11:07, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn per Hobit. Again, the sources do not appear to have been read in an NPOV manner, and the subject is treated prejudicially rather than dispassionately. Jclemens (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

24 July 2017[edit]

  • Draft:Galaxy Note 8 – MEH. Consensus, such as it is, seems to be that this didn't need to be brought to DRV, and should have just been worked out quicker by contacting the deleting admin. If anybody wants to create the redirect, go ahead and do it. If, after that, anybody objects, bring it to WP:RfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Galaxy Note 8 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This redirect should been restored per WP:RDRAFT. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 14:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This one is a bit more difficult. If I understand correctly, it was a redirect from the old draft article to the new draft article which was then moved to mainspace. No idea what should be done here, but probably this should be discussed rather than speedied. Again, contacting the deleting admin first (which I don't think happened) would be preferred. Hobit (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then, it should target to the existing article, rather than being deleted. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 00:34, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe? I don't think the RfC in question really touches on this exactly. I think a restoration and perhaps sending it to an RfD (if anyone cares to) is the best bet. Hobit (talk) 02:09, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 09:49, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • RDRAFT is the policy that does suggest redirects in draft space be retained. Technically it should stay. At the same time, I know admins who suppress redirects when moving to main space though, and it is very rarely a big deal. Count this as a "no opposition to restoration, but also don't see what the issue is not restoring" !vote. If a passing admin wants to summarily restore it, that's fine. If KGT wants to speedily close this request and recreate the redirect themselves, thats also fine. I just don't see the need for a DRV. If G6 is contested, it wasn't a valid G6 so recreation without restoration or DRV shouldn't be an issue. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:00, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. I see no evidence of the nominator attempting discussion with the deleting administrator before taking this here. -- Tavix (talk) 23:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - While consensus seems to be that such redirects should be retained, it doesn't need to be recreated unless there is an actual need for it. If that is the case, someone can boldly create it.- MrX 15:21, 28 July 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:OnePlus 5 (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This redirect should been restored per WP:RDRAFT. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 14:35, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • It does appear that the RDRAFT page (an information page that seems widely accepted) controls here and G6 doesn't apply. Have you contacted the deleting admin first? Seems like a simple error on their part (or there is a deeper reason I'm missing), so it probably doesn't need to be here... Hobit (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: I have already notified the admin for this discussion. KGirl (Wanna chat?) 17:50, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restored. I wasn't aware of that RFC. Drafts are something I don't typically handle CSD on, kind of surprised we keep them, but the RFC (while poorly attended) is still the closest we have to a public consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 19:00, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

23 July 2017[edit]

22 July 2017[edit]

21 July 2017[edit]

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

This was speedy deleted under U5 by RickinBaltimore, at the moment I was writing a decline reason. The content looked to me like a fairly reasonable announcement of who the user was and what the user's general activities and interests are. The tagging user thought it was promotional and a case of U5. I think we need a better consensus on just what is "unrelated to Wikipedia's goals" and a blatant misuse of Wikipedia as a web host. I asked the deleting admin to undelete, and the request was declined at User talk:RickinBaltimore#User:Harryrgwatts. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:48, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Overturn this was not an appropriate use of U5. The page was very brief and only contained the person's name, his date of birth, where he comes from, what he's studying at university and a mention that he was involved with "helping" a famous band recently. All perfectly acceptable material for a userpage of the kind that is explicitly excluded from U5. (The deleting admin's userpage also tells you what his name is, where he comes from and where he went to university.) Deleting this was also a violation of WP:BITE. Granted, the user only has a handful of edits, but new editors aren't forbidden from having userpages. Hut 8.5 19:13, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Undelete This is a perfectly appropriate user page, and I'm going to quoter it here: " Harry Watts , was born on the 29th of June 1999, in the United Kingdom, Southampton. Harry Watts is a Performing Arts student that studies musical theatre, dance and acting. Due to recent success Harry has contributed to helping one of the biggest girl groups in the world, Little Mix.
This is not advertising for Little Mix, which I have never heard of before, but according to their article, is not in the least need of advertisement on WP. Given that Harry doesn't give the specifics, it may be a little boastful, or even just a statement by a fan--he could have helped them by buying one of their records--but it's not publicity for him either.
I have a somewhat broader view of what constitutes G11 than DESiegel; he has declined some of my G11s, and for some of them I think he was right, for others not. This time, he seems absolutely correct. DGG ( talk ) 19:38, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've overturned my deletion after giving it more thought (and seeing the arguments here). RickinBaltimore (talk) 19:26, 21 July 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.
Viaden Media (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

Because significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. And due to the lack of response (admin who deleted the article is inactive), I have raised this as a deletion review. Proposed draft is here. --ELindas (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • This has already been deleted twice at AfD, and salted the second time. The current draft reads no better. Unfortunately, most of the references in the article are in Russian, which I can't read. Can you give us two or three, and no more of the best sources which would demonstrate what significant new information has emerged since the last AfD? -- RoySmith (talk) 11:54, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, until I get some sources I can look at and evaluate myself, I'm neutral on this. If Ymblanter says the sources are good, that's fine, and I have no objection to going with his judgement, but I can't in good faith actually express an opinion until I see for myself. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse by default for lack of reasoning. Nominator claims significant new information but doesn't specify what this new information is or why it might lead us to overturn prior consensus. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment from the closer of the last AFD. —Cryptic 17:59, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Judging from what I can see in Google Translate I don't think this has much chance at another AfD. Many of the sources appear to be press releases or other types of routine coverage which WP:CORPDEPTH excludes from consideration regarding notability. Hut 8.5 18:51, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think it needs another full discussion. The article is totally unlike the one 6 years ago. I don't want to guess whether the AfD will delete it, but the reason for salting no longer holds. DGG ( talk ) 19:41, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt and permit move to mainspace at an editor's option. The draft has totally different sources from the one deleted in 2011, and includes information about developments since that time. It includes statements which, if supported by sources, probably confer notability without more. (Such as: By 2010, Viaden had released 4 of 10 most financially successful entertainment applications for the iPad, In the US, the application was included into the top-30 paid apps in the App Store. In Russia, All-in Fitness has become the most popular programme of all available applications, and Viaden Media was twice recognised in the annual App Store Awards given by Apple.) This is enough that the previous AfD result can no longer be considered as binding, and a G4 is not proper. Do not perform an administrative relist at AfD, but any editor may nominate for deletion if s/he thinks proper. From the comments above, i suspect someone will think proper, so an administrative listing would merely prevent a properly done nomination statement. (In general i oppose "procedural" nominations by someone who does not make a case for deletion or some other proposed action.) DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:42, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Shining the batsignal for @Ymblanter: who'll be able to read those sources.—S Marshall T/C 20:50, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    The sources seem to be reliable and confirm the info in the article. If I saw this article in the NPP queue, I would likely have marked it as reviewed.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I trust Ymblanter. Unsalt.—S Marshall T/C 22:31, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • unsalt per DES. Hobit (talk) 23:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unsalt per DGG and Ymblanter's analysis of the sourcing. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close but unsalt per DES.- MrX 14:59, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

20 July 2017[edit]

19 July 2017[edit]

18 July 2017[edit]

  • Watch Shop – Overturn WP:CSD. Good consensus here that this is sufficiently different from the previous version that WP:G4 did not apply, and enough doubt about WP:A7 (No indication of importance) that it shouldn't have been invoked. Anybody is free to take this to AfD. – -- RoySmith (talk) 15:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.

Due to the lack of response, I have raised this as a deletion review. Please see the discussion here: ==Deletion review for Watch Shop== An editor has asked for a deletion review of Watch Shop. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Natashajerrellcraig (talk) 11:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Watch Shop (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Hello, I'd like to raise a request for editors to reconsider the speedy deletion of the Watch Shop page. I have reached out to User:SouthernNights and left a message on their talk page but did not receive a response. There was no discussion about deleting the page, and no response in the talk page when I contested the speedy deletion. While the grounds for deletion of the page in 2013 as outlined in Wikipedia: Articles for deletion/Watch Shop may have been fair, the status of the subject has since grown and changed. Below, I've outlined a response to the reasons given for the recent deletion (WP:A7 and WP:G4).

Watch Shop is a subsidiary of the UK’s leading jewellery retailer, Aurum Holdings.[1][2] There are live Wikipedia pages about several of Aurum Holdings’ other businesses, including Goldsmiths, Mappin & Webb and Watches of Switzerland. Note: Some of these pages are not written neutrally or as well sourced as the page in question.

The company meets the criteria outlined in WP:WEBCRIT:

“The content itself has been the subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the site itself.” Several newspaper articles document the business’ history, growth, and relevance, including:[3][1][4]

Details about the company are cited with independent, third-party reliable sources.

"The website or content has won a well-known and independent award from either a publication or organization." See Sunday Times Fast Track 100.[5][6]

I can't see what the old page looked like, but while it may not have been valid in 2013, the company is now a leading online retailer in the UK watch market[7][8][9] and a ‘market leader’[10][11] and is therefore relevant in a similar way to Farfetch, Trainline and Moonpig. Its subsequent growth, activity, and consumer interest in it mean it meets notability guidelines, which have been appropriately cited in line with WP:V. Natashajerrellcraig (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ a b Kristy Dorsey (1 December 2014). "Monday Interview: Brian Duffy, Aurum Holdings". The Scotsman.
  2. ^ Marion Dakers (19 September 2015). "Jewellery group Aurum increases sales after Watch Shop takeover". The Telegraph.
  3. ^ David Millward (7 June 2013). "Fast Track success for family firm". Get Reading.
  4. ^ Tom Pegden (8 August 2014). "Goldsmiths owner aquires online leader Watch Shop". Leciester Mercury.
  5. ^ "Sunday Times Fast Track 100 2010". 2010.
  6. ^ "Sunday Times Fast Track 100 2011". 2011.
  7. ^ Maggie O'Sullivan (29 March 2010). "Watchshop: Good buy guide". The Telegraph.
  8. ^ Rob Corder (25 April 2017). "WatchShop.com shifts into sunglasses". WatchPro.
  9. ^ "Why Us?". Watch Shop.
  10. ^ Rob Corder (4 May 2017). "Aurum Holdings confirms creation of Goldsmiths Luxury retail brand". WatchPro.
  11. ^ Tom Davis (8 August 2014). "Aurum announces acquisition of Watch Shop". Jewellery Focus.
  • restore with no objection to someone listing at AfD. The sources don't seem great, but are, IMO, enough to get past a speedy deletion at this point (both A7 and G4). Hobit (talk) 16:58, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did you see any independent sources that contain more than a passing mention, Hobit? I may be missing something.—S Marshall T/C 19:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • [12] isn't hugely in-depth, but it's more than in passing. [13] is fairly in-depth, but also looks quite local. Between those and the other sources, I feel that there is both an assertion of notability that can be had and sources that happened after the AfD in 2013. I won't claim it's clearly passing WP:N, but I do think that puts it over the bar of A7 and G4. Hobit (talk) 22:07, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment can an admin tell us who the article creator was/if it is the same as Natashajerrellcraig ? I find it interesting that there is no CSD warning on their talk page and this is there second edit. If it was created by them, a trout to the nominator for not notifying, and I'd be open to userfy on that combined with the above. I also suspect this might be an undeclared paid situation. While I'd normally be open to userfication of G4s from AfDs multiple years ago, these concerns combined with S Marshall's points about the mere passing mentions in the sourcing have me suspecting that this might be a situation where it would be a possible G5 deletion if restored . TonyBallioni (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've tempundeleted the article (which also makes the full history available). -- RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's useful, thanks. I would like comments from the nom here. The fact that you have only used this account to edit on this topic leads me to suspect there may be WP:COI issues here. Could you explain what caused you to create this article (from scratch in one edit it appears)? Do you have any other accounts? Hobit (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]


        • Hello and thanks for reviewing my request. I am new to Wikipedia and am still learning the processes, so apologies if I’ve missed something out by not notifying editors that I had created the page. In response to your questions, I follow blogs like WatchPro[1] and Jewellery Focus[2] and noticed there wasn’t a Watch Shop page on Wikipedia, while there were pages for related companies like Goldsmiths and Watches of Switzerland. I thought it seemed relevant, in line with existing pages about other UK online retailers I mentioned before (Farfetch, Trainline, and Moonpig). The reason the article was uploaded in one edit was because I had been working on it offline and amending it in the Sandbox until it was complete.

References

  1. ^ "WatchPro". WatchPro.
  2. ^ "Jewellery Focus". Jewellery Focus.
          • I don't know that you quite answered all my questions, sorry if they were unclear. #1: Do you have any other accounts here? #2: Have you been paid or otherwise compensated in any way for writing this article? Thanks, Hobit (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Apologies if my response was unclear. To answer your questions, no, I am just a new

user who has gradually been working on the page offline/in the sandbox.

  • Overturn WP:G4 was an invalid nomination (simply speculative?) and G4 should not have been cited in the deletion rationale. Before, after, diff, or is my diff awry? However, the deletion also cited WP:A7 and this has much more going for it. Even using the wikithink that importance is a lower bar than notability, this article has a better chance surviving challenge at AFD for notability than at CSD for A7. Articles about small businesses are all the better if they do not claim importance but merely make a sober assessment of whatever is the state of affairs. This article seems to manage (no one has yet said "spam") and the reading is therefore uninteresting. It is this, rather than any exuberance, that is raising questions about whether it has been written with ulterior motives. So, I'll conclude that the speedy was not "when no controversy exists". Restore, userspace, draft? I don't know. Maybe restore. Thincat (talk) 18:53, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn doesn't meet G4 given the difference from the deleted version, although the tagger was not an admin and presumably wouldn't have known that. There were also several claims of significance which I think should have prevented A7 deletion, including "UK’s largest luxury jeweller", several awards and national press coverage. The fact the AfD was four years ago doesn't exactly help. I'm not sure there's enough here to survive another AfD but I think there is enough to justify sending it back there. Hut 8.5 20:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Clearly not G4, though no fault of the tagger on that count. Agree with Hut 8.5 that this should be sent back to AfD. I'd likely !vote delete on both notability and spam grounds, but I don't see it meeting any of the CSD criteria at this time. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. Many new references since the version deleted by a brief AfD in 2013. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:34, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn Not a valid G4 or A7, improper deletion. The issue of whether this is paid/COI editing is not properly before us: aside from questioning the nominator, no one has actually accused this of being a paid editing or banned sock job. Jclemens (talk) 23:52, 22 July 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 July 2017[edit]

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

I've discovered new sources that appear to support notability. These were not considered in the original discussion, and I believe this qualifies as "new information" to overturn the deletion. The first source is the most significant, but the others are also substantial coverage. [14] [15] [16] ~ Rob13Talk 01:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Relist and restore so that the sources can be evaluated at AfD. I don't have a particular view one way or another on this subject, but coverage in regional papers can swing either way in an AfD conversation when editors are weighing them. Best to go ahead and get more discussion. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perfectly fine with that solution. ~ Rob13Talk 12:09, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore and Relist at AfD. The AfD saw minimal participation. I'm not terribly excited about the sources presented here, but they're at least plausible, and deserve discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Userify Relisting an AfD from February would be too discontinuous. Integrate the new content and put it back in mainspace--DRV is not required. Jclemens (talk) 06:20, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to soft delete. An AFD with only two participants should ideally have been treated like an expired PROD, so we should just restore the article as if this was a request at WP:REFUND. Regards SoWhy 11:17, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, allow re-creation. If the new sources overcome the reason for deletion (no reliable sources), then an experienced editor in good standard may recreate the article. Optionally history merge if requested. Do not relist, AfDs are decisions at a certain point in time and that one was closed correctly given the input. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SmokeyJoe: I came here mostly because I'm unclear on procedure. To be clear on this point, does "allow recreation" mean that I can undelete the existing article and add the sources to it? I didn't want to use my admin tools to unilaterally overturn an AfD, and I do want to make sure the result of this discussion makes clear whether undeletion is appropriate or not. ~ Rob13Talk 15:39, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Best practice procedure, my opinion, is:
(a) if you know what you are doing (you are experienced and in good standing) you may: Boldly recreate the page, adding sources that clearly overcome the central reason for deletion ion the AfD; or
(b) Ask the deleting admin (User:Kurykh) if he agrees the sources overcome the reasons for deletion as stated in the AfD. If agreeable, he could then undelete the page in mainspace, or more usually userfy/draftify it for you. If userfied/draftified, after improvement, you may boldly move it to mainspace, or apply an AfC template and submit it.
(c) if the deleting admin doesn't agree, and you are not particularly experienced, I would recommend that you get some experience improving non-deleted articles.
(d) If the deleting admin is inactive or doesn't answer, ask at WP:REFUND
(e) If you don't like the answer of the deleting admin, or the answer given at WP:REFUND, come to DRV.
I get it that you would like a second opinion before unilaterally undeleting or userfying. You have an extra burden of being an admin. I think your sources are much better than the none present during the AfD, but they are not fantastic sources for a BLP of a person engaged in business (he acts for profit). I suggest re-creating. When re-created, ask the deleting admin and all AfD participants, pinging from the talk, their opinion. Any of them may choose to renominate it at AfD.
If the page is re-created, I would generally recommend undeleting the history. If the re-creation is truly independent, maybe don't undelete the history. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Waay too bureaucratic: Undelete it, move it to your userspace if you want while you fix it, and fix it, moving it back into mainspace when finished if you worked on it in your userspace. No need to consult anyone. If you're not an admin, get an admin to undelete it for you, and then do the same thing, again without any need to consult anyone. Until and unless the article has been salted due to repeated recreations, WP:SOFIXIT is all the permission any editor needs to go clean up an article, even one that's been previously deleted. Jclemens (talk) 03:37, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

16 July 2017[edit]

  • CPC character set – Speedy endorse – no actual argument for undeletion has been advanced, and listing fails DRVPURPOSE. – Stifle (talk) 08:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
CPC character set (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)

This character set developed by Amstrad. Rowan03 (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse. @Rowan03: you should read WP:DRVPURPOSE to get a better feel for what this forum is about. The AfD was close to unanimous, and I don't see how this could have been closed with any other outcome. The proposal to merge to Amstrad CPC seems plausible, but the idea was considered and rejected. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per RoySmith. Drmies weighed the merge argument, but did not see a consensus for that and instead found a consensus to delete. Nothing to doubt the reasoning behind the close. TonyBallioni (talk) 15:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per TonyB. Clearly it was never going to be 'kept; in the pure sense of the word, and while WP:ATD should always be at the forefront of our minds, so should improving the encyclopaedia, and if merging some slightly random half-baked trivia into another article is going to decrease the quality of that article, then it should not be an ATD. As, in this particular case, it was not. — fortunavelut luna 15:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. Nomination in good faith, arguments presented in compliance with policy and guidelines, closure represents consensus. —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

15 July 2017[edit]

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

WP:WITHDRAWN is clear. A discussion can not be closed as "nominator withdrew" if anyone other than the nominator has voted non-keep. Mattflaschen - Talk 05:52, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, I believe the article should be kept under Wikipedia:Notability (events). However, the original close was premature and inconsistent with the deletion process. Mattflaschen - Talk 06:01, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the close was premature and also violated WP:WITHDRAWN. But if the outcome was in effect identical to your preferred outcome (and indeed there was already a 2-to-1 [12 to 6] WP:CONSENSUS to Keep), this DRV seems a WP:POINTY and pointless waste of time. You already made your point on the closer's talk page; no need to bring it here when the outcome will remain the same (the same outcome that would have occurred if the AfD had run for a full 7 days). I suggest a speedy close of this DRV (and a reminder to Bishonen to re-review WP:WITHDRAWN). -- Softlavender (talk)
There were as many merge/delete votes as there were keep votes, I wouldn't call it a consensus for keep, but like you said that would have been the end result either way. It's why I decided to just propose a merger on the talk page after talking with the closing admin, rather than another deletion discussion. WikiVirusC(talk) 11:45, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with Softlavender (except for the WP:POINTY part). Wikipedia is WP:NOTBURO and re-opening the AfD wouldn't accomplish anything more than the ongoing merge discussion. Given that the subject has been prominently covered in the news for the past four days, with updated information being released, it is highly unlikely that the merge proposal will succeed and even less likely that a deletion proposal would pass.- MrX 10:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here is closing discussion. The admin did not tell it was closed because of the withdrawal. He tells it was closed as "keep" and withdrawn. That was a legitimate closure. Here is ungoing merging discussion with very clear consensus to "keep". My very best wishes (talk) 12:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment - It was a !vote count as evidenced above when it should have been a decision based on the merits of the arguments. I also question the numbers of new editors that participated in the discussion which has/should have some influence in a close. Common sense and a close review of the comments shows that the consensus was to merge, as even some of the keeps approved a merge if keep didn't fly. This article fails policy on several counts and for that reason, should not have been allowed out of Draft Space the way it was written - (like the review of a spy thriller movie). It is not a stable article, it is filled with conspiracy theories that fail WP:V regardless of MSM's boldness in publishing them (they are allowed to propagandize their news, WP is not). It is clear to see that the article is politically charged and improperly weighted, and my edits to correct that failure were removed making this article even more unstable. It fails on so many counts, including WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:BLP, WP:V, WP:N, and the list goes on. I do not disagree with merging the stable parts of the article to a section in a current article, be it the campaign (which is really where it belongs regardless of when the conspiracy theories began to fly), or Trump "associates" (whatever that means) and Russia. Notabiity is based on the fact that the event incentivized MSM to publish conspiracy theories which are being challenged as we speak. New revelations have come forward overnight. Atsme📞📧 14:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Irrespective of its ultimate validity, this close was woefully premature. Trout the closer and alert AfD participants about the merge discussion, where the merits are being actively debated. — JFG talk 17:11, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Trout and ping per JFG. @Atsme: @Baseball Bugs: @Bishonen: @Casprings: @Classicwiki: @Darmokand: @DarthBotto: @Don1182: @F2Milk: @Hidden Tempo: @I am One of Many: @JFG: @KConWiki: @Laurel Wreath of Victors: @Mattflaschen: @N-HH: @NoMoreHeroes: @NorthBySouthBaranof: @PackMecEng: @Power~enwiki: @Ryk72: @Sagecandor: @Sundayclose: @WikiVirusC: @Wnt: Close was clearly contrary to WP:WITHDRAWN, but given that essentially the same discussion is now underway at Talk:Trump_campaign–Russian_meeting#Merger_proposal, the least disruptive way forward would be to continue the discussion there -- RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure There was no chance that the page would be deleted outright; having a merge discussion on the talk page is the appropriate forum. While technically a violation of the closing rules to have it closed as withdrawn rather than WP:SNOW, I feel WP:IAR applies. Overall, there needs to be some high-level consensus to allow for procedure-based administrative handling of these types of pages (such as a CSD if they aren't approved by a consensus on a WikiProject); the AfD process clearly cannot handle them. Power~enwiki (talk) 19:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The close was improper and to soon. Less than 24 hours on a fairly split vote. Also snow would in no way apply to this situation. It is important to remember the vote is not by number of votes, but strength of argument. With the keep votes only argument being "clearly notable". I am not however advocating for reopening the AFD or a new one, as is it a moot point with the merge discussion on going. PackMecEng (talk) 20:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Though I am all for this being its own individual article, I did not approve of the improper closure of the AfD and would have preferred a declaration of no consensus. That being said, I believe our merger discussion will suffice, so let's keep the AfD closed and assume good faith. DARTHBOTTO talk•cont 21:00, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure And close merge discussion as keep. Whatever the previous arguments, the article clearly meets WP:N as a stand along event.Casprings (talk) 14:10, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    comment - the ongoing updates and disagreements over "allegations vs facts" are proof this article is not ready to be a standalone in mainspace. Some allegations were made, there was an attempt to link the Trump administration with the Russian government, the allegations have been denied, and now it's just MSM hype and big ole nothingburger. There is no harm to the encyclopedia by waiting for the allegations to be substantiated, the MSM frenzy of breaking news to subside as it always does, and then we can create a stable article once the facts have been substantiated. As it stands now, it's nothing more than a few paragraphs in merge. Atsme📞📧 19:16, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, while I think the AfD was uncalled for and the merger proposal currently underway was the best solution (no good reason not to include this content in here), the AfD closure was very questionable. There was a significant number of delete and merge (including my own) !votes, and the discussion was still much too recent to result in closure. But anyway, it's probably a dead horse by now. A merger discussion is already in progress. NoMoreHeroes (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close: AfD is now largely moot due to the on-going Keep vs Merge discussion on the article's Talk page. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per K.e.coffman's reasoning. Classicwiki (talk) (ping me please, I don't watch pages) 07:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure And close merge discussion as Keep. Agree with analysis by Casprings, above. Article subject has only gotten more notable and received more coverage from thousands more sources in more languages in more locations in more places in the world, since the closure. Sagecandor (talk) 20:07, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am unclear on the nature of the 'closure' being discussed: is this a call for closure of discussion and a vote (as in closure in Parliament/cloture in Congress) on retention/deletion? Or are these "endorse closure"s themselves votes for closing (deleting) the page? Or what?
This is a highly notable incident at this point, and there is ongoing journalistic and government investigation (Robert Muller)); it seems clear that it deserves its own page.Mikalra (talk) 23:33, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
They are endorsing the closing of the article for deletion discussion. Not endorsing a deletion of the article. The article was kept, but the discussion was thought of as being closed before it was done, and this review is to see if people want to reopen that discussion or just leave it closed. WikiVirusC(talk) 00:29, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Amend closure to no consensus / Overturn, and immediately re-close as no consensus. Per comments at their Talk page, closer did not assess a consensus; in part due to the difficulties involved in attempting to assess such a fluctuating discussion, where people were talking about all different things; and is supportive of a new AfD. Per K.e.coffman, above, re-opening conflicts with the current Merge discussion. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse closure per Casprings. Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Relist, procedural error which vitiates the closure. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. Probably the best close possible given the fluid situation that developed. Asking for it to be reopened or relisted at this time is process wonkery, given the ongoing talk page discussion. Lankiveil (speak to me) 23:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Request Can somebody please close this DR? At the article we currently list a deletion review, a merge discussion, and a proposed retitling, all pending. The other issues can't be resolved until this DR is settled. And the merge discussion recommended by this closure has been going on for two weeks. Is it just process you are debating here? Maybe it's time for WP:NOTBURO or even WP:IAR? --MelanieN (talk) 00:23, 23 July 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 July 2017[edit]

13 July 2017[edit]

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

I contacted the speedy deletion admin who replied: "The article still met G4 as it was the subject of a previous deletion at AfD and has been deleted multiple times since then. My suggestion would be to try to work on this not in the main space but as a draft and see if you can get enough reliable sources to show he is notable. As it stands now, this was a recreation of a deleted article at a discussion". Below is the content of the contested deletion exchange at (now deleted) Talk:Jonathan Power (journalist):

This page should not be speedily deleted because… greater participation is desirable in such a process. The previous deletion discussion, held more than three years ago, did not come to a unanimous conclusion, attracted participation from only four Wikipedians and was submitted by a user who bears the same family name as the subject of the deletion discussion. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 13:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Roman Spinner: I'm sorry but the article is so obviously written by a COI editor. Almost everything except from the lede is unsourced and dripping with puffery and name-dropping "his exceptional writing" "his old school friend named Paul McCartney" "another record and presentation of his success". The article contains the same unsourced claims that were cited in the original discussion notably the "silver medal" which is taken directly from his web site. The fact that the nominator of the previous deletion discussion has the same surname is neither here nor there. IMHO the motivations are not important if the nomination is discussed by uninterested editors. There was 1 weak keep at the time and this !voter said that sources about the subject and not by him need to be added, and none have been. Afd discussions do not have to be unanimous as far as I know for them to be valid. If this CSD is refused then I'll be happy to take it to Afd again but I think the name should be salted. Someone with the same name as Power's wife [17] has created this page twice under different user names [18] and [19] signed comments on talk pages here and here. Domdeparis (talk) 14:46, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Domdeparis: I appreciate the research you have done regarding this matter and you may be indeed correct regarding the possible conflict of interest on the part of the article creator, while also keeping in mind the possibility of COI on the part of the nominator three years ago. As far as the notability of the subject, himself, a simple google search confirms that he is not a nonentity or someone below the threshold of eligibility for a Wikipedia biographical entry. While the writing style of the article could have used a lighter touch, such is the case with numerous initial phases of articles which are improved when given time to settle. A brief discussion in May–June 2014 was the sole participatory venue this entry has had within Wikipedia. WP:Consensus may change and sufficient time has passed for another evaluation. —Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 12 July 2017 (UTC)
—Roman Spinner (talk)(contribs) 03:20, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please list the new reliable sources (that were not previously considered at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Power) which you would like to use to build the article.—S Marshall T/C 12:58, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, unless there's been some massive leap forward in notability for this person in the previous couple of years since the AFD... which, as far as I can tell, hasn't happened. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the version deleted under G4 (which seems to be what is being contested) was very similar to the AfDed version and was obviously based on it, although some bits had been reworded. More importantly though virtually all the sources cited were just brief profiles of the subject on the websites of news organisations he's written pieces for, along with some obviously unreliable sources such as YouTube and Jihad Watch. If you do want Wikipedia to have an article on this person then I recommend you write a draft version paying particular attention to demonstrating that the subject meets the GNG and then ask for it to be moved to mainspace. Hut 8.5 17:41, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is my opinion as well here, absent any new, not-yet-presented sources. Vaguely waving at "a simple google search" doesn't cut it. I'll also add, request a move to mainspace at the original title: it's hard to take a recreation at an obviously-inferior titles like this unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation (or, worse, Jonathan Power (Journalist), where it was first recreated) when the primary title is salted as anything other than bad faith. —Cryptic 19:38, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse close -- the AfD consensus was quite clear. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:17, 17 July 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 July 2017[edit]

  • Moglix – As much I dislike closing against Cunard's incredibly tireless and in-depth research, there is no way to close this DRV any way other than with consensus to endorse the AfD's "delete" closure. –  Salvidrim! · ✉ 05:34, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Moglix (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
The close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moglix (2nd nomination) as "delete" contained no closing rationale. I asked the closing admin to reconsider the close:

The editors who supported retention were unswayed by arguments that Sneha Banerjee of Entrepreneur was writing a "Paid blog" or that Abhishek Jejani of Business Standard or Umesh M Avvannavar of Deccan Herald were writing "brochure[s] in the media". To say that a journalist is being paid to write an article is smearing the journalist's reputation and should not be done without clear evidence. No evidence was given in the AfD. The quotes I provided in the AfD contained detailed coverage of the company's history, products, and services. It is on that basis that I supported retention. The other editors who supported retention found this information to be sufficient to establish notability. It is not within admin discretion to treat as not being within policy our sincerely held position that these bylined sources from reputable publications meet Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I hope you reconsider your close.

My first post on the closer's talk page was about 48 hours ago. The closing admin has since responded to other comments on his talk page but has not responded to my requests.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 03:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Endorse as the consensus was clear enough; sources were given and analyzed, and were particularly shown to not satisfy our applied policies: WP:What Wikipedia is not, WP:Indiscriminate, WP:Not webhost and WP:Promo versus our minor guideline GNG; it is within policy to discount what would not be acceptable in these policies, whether or not the sources may be informative, which is not a convincing factor here. We would only consider it questionable whether there were some serious technicalities, but there are none shown here. None of the Keep votes, however, cited any policy versus the Delete side which had. SwisterTwister talk 04:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously I endorse my own close which seemed clear enough that it didn't require in depth explanation. I didn't answer your first post because it was nothing more than a statement, and Jo-Jo Eumerus responded more eloquently than I could have anyway. I understand your passion about the article, and you certainly did post a ton of text in that AFD, but arguments aren't weighed by word count. Since asking me to reconsider (your second post) I hadn't seen the post long enough to ponder it, but it's moot as I feel the close was in line with the discussion. Even looking at the previous AFD, many had doubts about the coverage being warmed over PR articles, including those that were in reliable sources. This isn't unusual and is a reasonable concern that I couldn't simply discount. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:21, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since people are asking for more, ok: We start with an article that is three short paragraphs, much shorter than the amount of prose that has already taken place here or at the AFD. While Cunard went to great lengths to explain how it received coverage, it simply didn't overcome the arguments about the company being a small, new and not yet notable company. The nomination mentioned the previous AFD (which I did look at) and the early and late !voters had the opportunity to already preview the sources that Cunard presented, as they were the exact same sources given in the previous AFD. The other keep votes were basically saying "enough sources exist" but didn't explain how those sources were adequate, how they actually went into depth; they didn't overcome the claims of the nominator. SwisterTwister gave a detailed analysis of the sources, which raised a number of issues. Interesting, but the other issues were not decisive, although he did echo the concerns of the nominator when it comes to depth of sources, and the sources being primarily focused on financial issues rather than the company. Light2021's contribution was small, but understandable as they had previously gone into great detail on the other AFD, which I took at face value. Xxanthippe's delete vote was also short, but not every vote needs to go into great detail in order to get the point across, that they were not notable yet, which I took to mean insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. The strongest !vote was the nom, which also talks about depth, plus the insufficiency of the sources. ST's argument was also very interesting, even if a bit meandering. Cunard's input was well researched and I don't question the accuracy but reading it, while staying objective, doesn't scream "independent, thoughtful analysis" by the sources themselves, which themselves describe the company as a "start-up", which would naturally raise questions about their enduring notability at this stage, questions that went unanswered.
I would also note that GNG isn't always a line in the sand where if you get two articles in decent publications, you have a free pass. That might be a rule of thumb, but it isn't policy. In this instance, the delete were more convincing in expressing how the sources were insufficient to meet the criteria for inclusion, even if you could point to several.
And to be clear, I don't consider someone's demeaner when giving weight to their vote, on any AFD. If a jerk is right, he is right. If a nice guy is wrong, he is wrong. Their behavior is a separate issue. Hopefully that will give some insight into my thinking. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
you certainly did post a ton of text in that AFD, but arguments aren't weighed by word count. – no one has made the argument that arguments should be "weighted by word count", so I do not understand why you mention that.

many had doubts about the coverage being warmed over PR articles, including those that were in reliable sources. This isn't unusual and is a reasonable concern that I couldn't simply discount – and many editors likewise disagreed with that view. I am not asking you to "discount" some editors' view that these are just "warmed over PR articles". I am asking you not to discount other editors' view that these are not "warmed over PR articles".

the sources being primarily focused on financial issues rather than the company – even if the sources did primarily focus on the company's financial issues, that does not mean the sources are unusable for establishing notability. But I disagree with that conclusion in that there is plenty of coverage of non-financial issues in the sources I quoted. The sources talked about the company's history, products, services, and client base. A quote from a source: "the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform".

the sources themselves, which themselves describe the company as a "start-up", which would naturally raise questions about their enduring notability at this stage, questions that went unanswered. – many startups are notable. Many startups are not. That a source describes a company as a startup has no bearing on the company's notability, so I found no need to address it in the AfD.

Xxanthippe's delete vote was also short, but not every vote needs to go into great detail in order to get the point across, that they were not notable yet, which I took to mean insufficient sources to demonstrate notability. – you are affording the benefit of the doubt to an editor who supports deletion ("which I took to mean") but not to the editors who supported retention who you say "didn't explain how those sources were adequate" and "didn't overcome the claims of the nominator". "Keep" editors disagreed with the nominator's claims based on the sources I posted. To modify what you said, "not every vote needs to go into great detail in order to get the point across, that they are notable based on deep coverage in reputable sources about the company's history, product, and services."

When editors disagree in sincerity about whether the provided sources establish notability, the result should be "no consensus". It should not be "delete" because the closing admin agrees more with the "delete" editors' view of the sources.

Cunard (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dennis, I'm struggling a bit because the community's attitude to notability, and the text of WP:N, seems to have drifted in a deletionist direction over the past few years. When you closed that, were your thoughts more about WP:SPIP? Or more about WP:CORPDEPTH? Or have I just misunderstood?—S Marshall T/C 17:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Both come into play in at least two of the votes. SPIP is always a concern as an editor, but wasn't really a major factor in my decision making, as the comments were mainly focused on CORPDEPTH and sources in general. The idea that this was spam didn't enter my mind, to be honest. The close was actually made easier by Cunard because I trusted him to provide the most solid evidence of notability, conveniently put on the same page. Unfortunately, each of those entries was rather mundane stuff you would see in press releases, which supported the claims of the nom et. al. Things like "Founded in 2015, Moglix has been backed by VCs and industry leaders" or "Moglix recently raised pre-Series A funding from Accel Partners and Jungle Ventures and the funds are being used to enhance the technology platform" which is specifically what CORPDEPTH calls trivial coverage. Nothing in the quotes made me think "The deletes are wrong". There wasn't any single paragraph that clearly made the case for notability and shined the light on the KEEP votes. The quotes simply talked about the company in the exact terms that CORPDEPTH clearly excludes. I would have been easier (and obviously less controversial) to close as "NO CONSENSUS" but that is kicking the can down the road and doesn't reflect what I saw as a policy based consensus. I would agree that WP:N has probably tightened up when it comes to businesses. I would not call that a drift towards deletionism, I think the community has simply grown weary of the spam and has drawn a more definitive "line in the sand" on notability when it comes to start up businesses, and this is reflected in both consensus and the written policies around WP:GNG. I have to use the policy as it is written today, not 11 years ago when I started. But the tightening isn't the issue here, nor any concern about spam, nor did I apply a higher standard, nor did I need to. The lack of sufficient high quality sources was the issue, and specifically, CORPDEPTH was the specific claim that was not overcome in spite of a great deal of effort. (and pardon my wordiness, I've been rather swamped over the last 24 hour, so my prose isn't as concise as I like when I'm a bit rushed) Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you. Although I don't entirely agree with your thought processes, I'll endorse the close.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • SwisterTwister's view that the GNG is a "minor guideline" is hard to connect with Jo-Jo Eumerus' response on Dennis Brown's talk page. Based on what Dennis Brown says above, I'm going to take it that Jo-Jo Eumerus is the person who's nailed the actual reason for deletion. When I read that debate, my first impression is that it's poisoned with needless and uncollegial naked hostility. To the extent that I would have been tempted to disregard Light2021's contributions entirely, on the basis that they're inappropriate. Nevertheless, Dennis Brown was within discretion to take them into account, so I'm not necessarily leaning "overturn" here.

    My immediate reaction to this is that I don't think it's so clear-cut that it's unreasonable for Cunard to ask for a closing statement that gives reasons and analysis. One should be provided.—S Marshall T/C 20:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Okay, I'm now considering raising Light2021's behaviour during that debate on the administrator's noticeboard. If for any reason you'd prefer that I didn't do that, then please say so.—S Marshall T/C 16:43, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Now that I have the benefit of a full (and very helpful) closing statement I feel that the closer was within discretion and I can't justify an "overturn".

    I don't entirely agree with this close. I've always felt that it's best to take a very simplistic view of WP:N on Wikipedia, where if there are at least two reliable sources then an article is permitted. If we are that simplistic, then any user has a simple test they can apply so they know if an article is permitted. It's what enables users to write content without going through a committee process first ---- it gives them the confidence that their work won't be deleted out of hand. They can tell for themselves. Look, here are my reliable sources, one, two, so I'll go ahead and write.

    But the text of WP:N, and attitudes on Wikipedia, are shifting away from this excellent and laudable approach that we once historically took. Right now, for all practical intents and purposes, the notability police are making it impossible to retain an article about a corporation that isn't based in North America or Western Europe. But, unwise and counterproductive though these developments are, they have happened, and Dennis' close was in line with prevailing thought.

    I still have strong objections to Light2021's behaviour during that debate and I intend to raise that on the drama boards, unless that's a discussion that his target would prefer to avoid.—S Marshall T/C 19:04, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I am fine with your raising Light2021's comments during the debate on the administrators' noticeboard. Cunard (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please add closing statement. I haven't formed an opinion on the actual close, but it's clear that there are enough plausible arguments on both sides that a closing statement going into a bit of detail about how the arguments were weighed is required. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:31, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I've had more time to read this in depth, I've got some more things to say.
    • First, while User:Cunard and I have very different views of what constitutes a reliable, independent source and sufficient depth of coverage to satisfy WP:N, I appreciate the effort he puts into researching sources. Most people seem to be content with whatever google turns up. He obviously goes further than that. Disagree with the sources he presents, if you want, but respect the person, and WP:AGF.
    • Second, I again urge the closer to go back and update their closing statement with more details. It's fine that you've explained yourself here, but the AfD is the archival record and really needs a better treatment for complex closes like this.
    • Third, reading over the sources presented, I'm afraid I have to agree that none of them satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. They talk about a startup which hasn't yet done anything other than secure a couple of rounds of seed funding, and stated some aspirations of what they hope to do in the future. It's obvious to me that all four of the sources presented in the AfD, while exhibiting minor variations in wording and writing style, are all just rehashes of press releases. That's the way the startup world works. You get a round funded, and you send out press releases to all the media that cover startups. They're all hungry for content, so they take the press release and rework it into an article with a byline. The better places might augment it with some additional research, interviews, photos, etc, but it's all just reacting to the press release. That's not a bad thing, but it's not what we're looking for (or, at least in my opinion, should be looking for) in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH.
    • Fourth, while I agree that we need to be vigilant about ethnocentrism and systemic bias, I don't think that's the problem here. Exactly the same situation happens in the US tech world. Startup closes a funding round. Startup sends out press releases. TechCrunch, and a host of smaller blogs pick it up and print something. If you're really lucky, you'll catch the eye of Forbes, WSJ, Barrons, or some of the other big players. But, it's still just reactions to a press release, and in my mind, that doesn't meet our standards.
    • In summary, I endorse the close. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll also add that this fails WP:10YT. Ten years from now, one of two things will be true. The most likely possibility is that the company will no longer be in business (bankruptcy, acquisition, etc). In that case, nobody will care about any of the things mentioned in the article (which I have temp-undeleted for reference). Alternatively, they will have beaten the odds and still be around in ten years. In that case, there's still nothing in the current article which will be of any interest. By that time, they will have secured many (and much larger) rounds of funding. Maybe even an IPO. They will have built business relationships with many other partners, diversified their product line, evolved their business practices, etc. In short, everything in the current article will have become irrelevant. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I voted !keep in the debate but will remain neutral here as far as the closure. What makes things difficult for me is that another recent close here which pretty much trumps the argument of WP:NOT being stronger than WP:GNG. It gets very confusing when the same editors - myself included - argue either side of the debate at different discussions. I think a closing statement would be appropriate to better understand why the !delete arguments were stronger than the !keep arguments in this case. --CNMall41 (talk) 23:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am concerned about the effect of systemic bias if we assume that everything published in India is insufficient to meet GNG. While some concerns were raised about the sources listed, I have a hard time differentiating good-faith source disputation with crypto-racism or ethnocentrism. I suspect we may have some editors who are intentionally trying to raise the bar on the GNG with respect to businesses in an attempt to thwart paid promotion (a reasonably noble goal) but their methods are fraught with the peril of unavoidably ethnocentric outcomes. Jclemens (talk) 01:55, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am concerned about the effect of systemic bias if we assume that everything published in India is insufficient to meet GNG. – I agree that this is a view held by some editors. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/UrbanClap (3rd nomination), an editor wrote, "I usually consider any publication on an Indian internet business in a Indian newspaper as being an advertorial , rather than truly independent coverage . The way to tell is to actuallylook at the content in those sources."

    Cunard (talk) 04:12, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a quote above stating "actually look at the content in those sources" and this is exactly what occurred in the AfD, thus the highlighted vote and others visible at the AfD: The company specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, Fasteners, and Industrial Electricals. In order to cater to these requirements. In order to cater to these requirements, Moglix has partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying, the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform. It has also partnered with manufacturers and distributors from China and Taiwan, specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MRO, fasteners and industrial electricals and which is therefore promotional}} and which specializes in B2B procurement of industrial products such as MROs, power tools, fasteners, electrical devices, industrial lubricants (these last 2 are especially suspicious because of the blatant it's supposedly "independent" yet it's the same exact corporate puffery published twice, September 2016 and October 2016). That alone is enough to show it was not a simple coincidence the one publisher happened to mirror the company words, but instead they were supplied by the company itself therefore covert advertising, as we should treat like any other case. 2 other users at that AfD also cared to mention this so it wasn't a matter of self-imposition at all. SwisterTwister talk 05:28, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The quotes show that the publications have done separate research in that one source mentions the products "MRO, Fasteners, and Industrial Electricals" and the other mentions the products "MROs, power tools, fasteners, electrical devices, industrial lubricants". One source is very specific in saying "start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform" while the other vaguely says, "partnered with manufacturers and distributors across these categories and is working with several large manufacturing companies to completely transform the business-buying". There is some close paraphrasing from a common source ("specialises in B2B procurement of industrial products"), but they have done enough independent research about the company that they include and emphasize different things.

Cunard (talk) 05:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I have appended the close of the AFD to include the two major statements I made here, per a request by RoySmith, including a question by S Marshall to give the second passage proper context. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:26, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse as delete. No adequate sources to support this blatant attempt to use Wikipedia as an advertising forum. I only found out about this DRV by accident. I wish DRV creators were required to ping all contributors to the AfD. I object to the power of corporate interests being used to obtain a result by exhaustion of opposers of their wishes who are unpaid volunteers. Would the writers of the long screeds of support say if they have any WP:COI in this matter? I have none myself. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Endorse as the nominator of the second AfD. The closing statement is correct in calling out the suggested No consensus close as the proverbial "kicking of the can down the road". No reason to keep repeating the same exercise. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:58, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dennis Brown: Nothing in the quotes made me think "The deletes are wrong". There wasn't any single paragraph that clearly made the case for notability and shined the light on the KEEP votes. – the quote that clearly made the case for notability is "the start-up caters to around 20,000 small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) and 100 large manufacturing houses through its platform".

    S Marshall: Right now, for all practical intents and purposes, the notability police are making it impossible to retain an article about a corporation that isn't based in North America or Western Europe. But, unwise and counterproductive though these developments are, they have happened, and Dennis' close was in line with prevailing thought. – I cannot agree that the "prevailing thought" is that it is "impossible to retain an article about a corporation that isn't based in North America or Western Europe". Perhaps that is the "prevailing thought" among closing admins and DRV participants (which I agree would be "unwise and counterproductive"), but there was no such "prevailing thought" at this AfD, in which editors were equally divided.

    RoySmith: First, while User:Cunard and I have very different views of what constitutes a reliable, independent source and sufficient depth of coverage to satisfy WP:N, I appreciate the effort he puts into researching sources. Most people seem to be content with whatever google turns up. He obviously goes further than that. Disagree with the sources he presents, if you want, but respect the person, and WP:AGF. – thank you for your kind words, RoySmith (talk · contribs). It means a lot to me that you appreciate my work.

    RoySmith: Third, reading over the sources presented, I'm afraid I have to agree that none of them satisfy WP:CORPDEPTH. – editors who supported retention at the AfD found the sources satisfied WP:CORPDEPTH. Since editors were evenly divided at the AfD about whether the sources met WP:CORPDEPTH, "no consensus" is the only reasonable close. Closing as "delete" because the closing admin personally thinks the sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH or endorsing deletion as a DRV participant because you personally think the sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH is the wrong approach.

    Xxanthippe: I object to the power of corporate interests being used to obtain a result by exhaustion of opposers of their wishes who are unpaid volunteers. Would the writers of the long screeds of support say if they have any WP:COI in this matter? – I have no conflict of interest in this matter. I am an unpaid volunteer just like you. In AfDs, "keep" participants are frequently accused of being paid. It is tiresome to have to repeatedly deny such aspersions and personal attacks. I do not see editors accuse closing admins like Dennis Brown or "delete" participants like Xxanthippe of being paid by the company's competitor to delete the company's article.

    Cunard (talk) 04:25, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assurance which I accept in its entirety. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Thank you for accepting my assurance. Cunard (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As for catering to 20k businesses, I'm reminded of WP:BIG, but even if you took that at face value, it doesn't overcome WP:corpdepth. That factoid would be found in any press release. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:20, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding "There wasn't any single paragraph that clearly made the case for notability and shined the light on the KEEP votes", I point to WP:INTERESTING and WP:ITSIMPORTANT. No such paragraph is required to "make the case for notability". Only significant coverage in reliable sources is required. It is possible to dismiss every quote provided for any article about a company as a "factoid [that] would be found in any press release". Cunard (talk) 05:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn to NC sources were discussed in the AfD. No consensus was found about the sources or the meeting of CORPDEPTH. There are clearly sources and only the quality is really up for debate. As the discussion was split after those sources became available and both sides had reasonable points. Separately, I really don't like the lack of an initial closing statement. I like and trust the closing admin (really), but if you are going to close something this close, you really needed to have a closing statement rather than adding one only when asked to do so. On the merits, I don't buy that things like coverage of a major round of funding are excluded by CORPDEPTH. I also think that being a "small [and] new" company is irrelevant to WP:N and CORPDEPTH (sources matter, not the topic itself). Also, that nothing really changed from the first AfD makes me think that the outcome of the first AfD is relevant. I'll admit I have no love for company spam and I can't see the original article, but it sounds like it wasn't all that spammy... Hobit (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm curious what you think constitutes a major round of funding. They closed a Series A round. Every start-up does this. Every start-up that does this sends out press releases to every financial media outlet. Some of those will pick up the press release and rehash it into an article. That's the way the VC world works. Our standards are higher than that. WP:CORPDEPTH talks about coverage being significant, independent, substantial, non-routine, and extend[ing] well beyond routine announcements. Rehashed press releases of early funding rounds don't meet any of those. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:19, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I should know more about start ups given that a half dozen of my friends have one. I was looking at the list of things CORPDEPTH specifically excludes (as it was claimed that it was specifically included) and funding wasn't on it. I didn't realize series A round was so early in the process. Hobit (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn to No Consensus per Hobit. Jclemens (talk) 07:36, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per RoySmith's analysis and Denis Brown's subsequent closing statement that was firmly rooted in our guidelines and policies. The keep !votes did not adequately address the critique that the sourcing failed CORPDEPTH. TonyBallioni (talk) 05:12, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Although I find "no consensus" to be the correct outcome here, there's nothing about the close that rises to the threshold required to overturn. I disagree with Dennis' finding, but his logic is sound and he clearly wasn't supervoting. Joefromrandb (talk) 13:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse- it seems to me that the AfD participants who demonstrated having looked at the sources in depth found them unsuitable. This is a reasonable close. Reyk YO! 20:37, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

11 July 2017[edit]

10 July 2017[edit]

9 July 2017[edit]

8 July 2017[edit]

7 July 2017[edit]

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

<RELIST>

@SoWhy: and @Velella: I propose this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/KSL_Capital_Partners to be reopened. I have edited this page, and was never notified... I wonder if others were ever notified as well? This subject of this article is the owner of Squaw Valley Ski Resort, as well as a number of other resorts in the area and is often listed in the press relating to controversial property development issues. Closing without notifying involved editors is not the correct procedure. I only learned of closing today, when wikipeida systems notified me. Yes, the article is poor quality and promotional in nature (likely an involved editor), but that editor (not me) should also have been given a chance to improve the article before deletion. Was that editor notified? Jtbobwaysf (talk) 09:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • User:Zigzig20s was the author notified . I can no longer see the history to ascertain whether this was the founding author or not.  Velella  Velella Talk   09:59, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, Zigzig20s was the author of the first revision, and no, there's no requirement to notify even him, let alone everyone who edited the article - doing so is a courtesy, not the sort of substantial procedural error mentioned at WP:DRVPURPOSE. I can say with absolute confidence that DRV is not going to overturn this deletion on that basis alone. The way to get this article restored or recreated is to present sources that would have been likely to have changed the course of that AFD. —Cryptic 10:28, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy close this DRV as not meeting WP:DRVPURPOSE. As noted above, there is no requirement to notify every editor who has ever touched an article. And, looking at the AfD, I see zero possibility it could have been closed any other way. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the closure was fine and we can assume that the particpants looked at those sources in Google News, as that is generally a pretty common practice among participants (its even linked in the AfD nomination). Consensus was that the article did not meet the inclusion guidelines. TonyBallioni (talk) 17:25, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: @Jtbobwaysf: Next time, just leave me a message first (as per instructions at WP:DRV). The close was of course correct but if you believe the article can be fixed, I could have restored it as a draft for you to work on. Regards SoWhy 18:14, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would an admin move the deleted article to Draft:KSL Capital Partners so the article can be improved with new sources and more content? There was a clear consensus in the discussion for deletion but the company is very likely to be notable. Cunard (talk) 05:40, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. AfD result was clear. The topic does not have independent secondary source coverage that passed WP:CORP. The company appears very engaged in promotion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:42, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse per RoySmith. Notoification isn't mandatory, and consensus doesn't become invalid just because someone wasn't notified. If an article is very important to you, it's ultimately your responsibility to follow it... and remember, you don't WP:OWN articles you write or edit here. Things you contribute to can and will be edited, deleted, changed, summarised, reformatted, moved, etc. If you find that unacceptable, this may not be the site for you. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:30, 12 July 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 July 2017[edit]

  • Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district – Moot. The articles have already been recreated by another editor, so undeleting the original versions is moot. Beyond that, I don't see any consensus on the question of whether the original WP:G5 should be upheld or not. Those arguing to endorse point out that the rule was interpreted correctly. Those arguing to overturn are basically saying that its a bad rule. This seems like a question which needs to be explored further, but this isn't the place for that. I would suggest that WT:BAN would be a better place to continue that discussion. – -- RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Virginia's 31st House of Delegates district (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)


Also requesting a review for the other pages nominated and deleted at the same AfD, specifically:

Virginia's 53rd House of Delegates district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virginia's 77th House of Delegates district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virginia's 86th House of Delegates district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virginia's 97th House of Delegates district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virginia's 98th House of Delegates district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Virginia's 99th House of Delegates district (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Consensus was clearly, and unanimously, to keep, before creator was outed as a sock. Speedy deletion for any reason, including G5, is supposed to be completely uncontroversial, and judging by the clear consensus to keep, it is clear the deletion was not uncontroversial. This is further exemplified by discussion at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#rehashing a perennial issue-- G5, where it became even more clear these deletions were not uncontroversial and should be restored. Since the deletions were clearly not uncontroversial, WP:CSD should not apply with any criteria, and the articles should be restored. As consensus in the AfD was clearly to keep before the revelation of socking, the AfD should be closed as keep per consensus. Smartyllama (talk) 12:55, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment "Uncontroversial" does not apply to G5. In the past the community has been pretty clear about enforcing bans this way. Wikipedia:Banning_policy does leave the loophole, "and which have no substantial edits by others". I checked before deleting these and there were none. Having said that, I would favor restoring those edits not made by the banned editor. Perhaps in some future discussion at WT:Banning policy we can allow for rev del'ing the edits made by a banned user rather than throwing the baby out with the bathwater? I would appreciate input from those who partook in the discussion @ Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#rehashing a perennial issue-- G5. Dlohcierekim (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • So restoring what, exactly? If all substantial edits were by the banned editor, then we either restore them or we don't restore anything. And I'm pretty sure the CCL requires us to keep the edit history if we keep the edits, even if the editor is banned. Smartyllama (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Smartyllama: This is where it gets dicey, and beyond the scope of DRV, I guess. The content is restored but w/o attribution to the banned editor. (Yes, I hear the groans.) OF course, anyone is free to rewrite the thing using fresh wordage that would avoid the attribution headache. There is the deeper issue, of course again, that needs discussion re: banning.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn deletion of perfectly valid articles, and repeal G5, which as this makes clear, harms the project more than the banned editors. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:22, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per policy, banned means banned. Edits by a sock of a banned user must be removed as soon as they're detected. Otherwise a community ban is just totally ineffective and meaningless. I mean, if we were prepared to retain edits by a banned user, then all that a community ban would mean is "unconstructive editing is prohibited" ---- which is already the case for everyone! If G5 doesn't allow this kind of removal then G5 needs to be strengthened.

    Of course, if a good faith editor feels these are valid article titles and wants to create them anew, then there is nothing to stop them, so the outcome the nominator proposes can still be reached. But the edits by a banned user must remain deleted.

    I feel it would be a rather large mistake for DRV to undermine the banning policy, so I really do quite strongly recommend an "endorse" outcome here.—S Marshall T/C 16:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

    • The policy says "may", not "must", meaning there is editorial discretion. Otherwise, a banned user could revert vandalism and force us to revert their edits and restore it. Clearly some discretion has to apply. Smartyllama (talk) 18:53, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • endorse The issue here is not whether or not we agree with the banning policy. The issue is whether or not I followed existing policy in deleting the articles in question. The discussion on how to enforce/modify the banning policy should be conducted elsewhere.Dlohcierekim (talk)
    • Further, the discussion was leaning toward keep, but no consensus had been reached. That discussion did not take into account that the article had been created by a banned editor, and banning policy supercedes the consideration of the notability of the subject. If banning policy only applied to creation of articles about non notable subjects, the policy would be pretty silly.Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse The way to get around the otherwise unfortunate deletion of perfectly valid topics is for an editor in good standing to recreate them. We cannot begin accepting banned editors' edits by WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, not even as DRV. If the community at large wants to fix something here, it can eviscerate the banning policy or unban the editor in question; either would be possible if not advisable. Jclemens (talk) 18:47, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have no objection to restoring the articles temporarily and reopening the AfD if people feel the consensus prior to sock outing was unclear. But there was clearly no consensus to delete. Deleting perfectly good articles for no reason other than that they were created by a banned user is a perfect example of disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Smartyllama (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn - Obviously good articles. This may be against policy, but then again, there is WP:IAR. RileyBugz会話投稿記録 19:39, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, any user who is not banned or evading a block could just recreate the articles. Grinds big toe into sand while gazing at sky and whistling. Innocently. Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2017 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • endorse and close as moot given that someone has recreated and taken responsibility for them. It may be that there is a copyright problem with doing so, but there may be too little creative content for copyright to exist. Hobit (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

5 July 2017[edit]

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

I was still working on this draft and it was suddenly deleted by Athaenara. It was deleted because it was "unambiguous advertising or promotion" (G11). In reality, I literally have zero affiliation with this company and I only know about it because I read a news article about it! And I thought it was notable enough because it already had a German wikipedia page about it. So can someone restore my draft. I would really like my work back. Richboy999 (talk) 16:07, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Can we get a temp undelete so we can see if this is a reasonable G11? I'm not fond of G11's in draft space, but if it's clearly an advertisement, then maybe. But need to see it first. Hobit (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The edit at 15:46, 2 July 2017 introduced a copyvio from http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fuyao-glass-america-celebrates-grand-opening-of-worlds-largest-automotive-glass-facility-300341075.html, which comprised about a third of the article as it existed at deletion. I haven't checked versions from before that to see if they were infringing as well. I'll look later tonight if nobody gets to it before then. —Cryptic 20:21, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • And, no, it also infringed https://www.fuyaogroup.eu/?lang=en starting from the first revision. —Cryptic 20:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could you provide a more specific URL for the text it infringes? I was about to tempundelete the non-redacted versions. I did some searching to see if there were any copyvio problems in those, and didn't find anything. But, maybe your search-fu is stronger than mine? I'll hold off on the tempundelete for now. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • That is the exact url. The first revision of the draft starts copying from the second paragraph there in its second sentence of prose. —Cryptic 21:03, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah, I missed that. Thanks. Yeah, sorry, Hobit, no can do the tempundelete. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
            • Lol you guys sound like you know more about the article than I do -_- . To be honest, I found the first two paragraphs on the German Wikipedia page and thought it would be a good idea to translate it into the English Wikipedia. These are some pretty disappointing results... And so then I added in the third paragraph which was definitely written by me. Except for this one sentence which I copy-pasted which you guys happened to find (I honestly don't know how you found it so fast, and it was definitely not 1/3 of the article). Anyways, can I have the parts that weren't copy-pasted back. I spent like three hours working on this thing. Thanks Richboy999 (talk) 02:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Roy for looking into it. Would it be appropriate to e-mail the text to Richboy999 and then close this? Hobit (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given how much text is a known to be a copyvio, I'm going to have to decline. Some other admin may be willing. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:11, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse G12, Meh on G11 although it does appear possible that the G11 deletion was inappropriate, and the deleting admin should be reminded to be careful about specifying the applicable CSD criterion, G12 has been established by multiple editors. No prejudice about starting a truly original article on the topic. Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 7 July 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 July 2017[edit]

3 July 2017[edit]

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

I created this article as a stub. User:Razer2115 nominated it for speedy deletion per WP:A7, within minutes of its creation. A clear case of WP:DONOTDEMOLISH, if you ask me. In any case, I addressed the A7 allegation by swiftly providing a Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance in the article, and noted my objection to speedy deletion on the talk page. User:Ritchie333 deleted the article regardless. Please can the article, and its talk page, be restored. WP:NOTIFY me if you reply, as I may not be watching this page. Thanks. zazpot (talk) 17:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The sources I spot-checked seemed to be self-published, but I've gone back and looked at a few others published by Apress. Although there's only a few passing mentions, I think actually that there's enough to clear A7 - for now I've restored to Draft:GoodRelations. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 17:38, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie333: thanks for at least partially restoring it: a draft is better than nothing!
Now, in relation to the sources, you said, "I think actually that there's enough to clear A7" (emphasis mine). I would go much further and say there is certainly enough to clear A7. Why? Because of this:

A claim of significance need not be supported by any cited sources, much less by inline citations to reliable sources.

— Wikipedia:Credible_claim_of_significance
So, as A7 was the only objection, and has been cleared, please can we skip the draft step and restore to article namespace? Thanks :) zazpot (talk) 17:51, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we get a temp restore (and/or a quote of the article text if it was small enough) so non-admins can evaluate this? I'm leaning overturn, but I want to see what the credible claim of significance was. Ritchie333, to the extent that you felt that evaluating any sources would give you insight into whether A7 would apply, you erred and should have instead declined the speedy and referred to another deletion process. Copyvio is the only speedy deletion criterion which requires evaluation of the article content against any external source. Jclemens (talk) 18:24, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, Jclemens, I often check external sources when an article is tagged as a hoax for speedy deletion. Too often something seems like an "obvious" hoax, only to prove true. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 05:05, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, and now that I think of it, A1 also needs a search engine sometimes. I clearly misspoke. Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, I made a mistake - in return I have tidied up Draft:GoodRelations, added a few extra book sources, and clarified its importance in the modern e-commerce industry. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's an entirely forgiveable and understandable one, because we want to get things *right*, but speedy is supposed to be speedy for the dispositioning administrator, too, so you were doing too much work. For A7 purpose, simply assume everything said is true and provable, and if so... should it stay? If not, delete it then, if maybe or yes, then decline the speedy and send to XfD if you want. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 07:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The only other comment I would make is now I understand what GoodRelations is, it should never have been tagged as A7 in the first place as the criteria doesn't apply to languages or formal specifications. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:55, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No action. Continue to work on the draft and then move to mainspace. Stifle (talk) 10:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Moot If no one objects to this continuing in draft space, we should close this and let everyone get back to work... Jclemens (talk) 21:22, 4 July 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.
Alif Oil (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

This article was deleted by DGG per CSD on ground of lack of notability. According to the Manila Bulletin website, the director-general of Philippine Economic Zone Authority (PEZA) has said, that Alif Oil intends to invest US$1 billion. His answer on User_talk:DGG#Deletion_of_Alif_Oil was what I see is "intends to put up a palm tree cultivation and oil refinery in Mindanao that could be worth US$1 billion. When they do, and it isevaluated by external sources as being that important, there might be a basis for an article." Sarcelles (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • 'endorse my own close. I do not consider such speculation a serious bona fide claim of significance. DGG ( talk ) 17:14, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse seems a perfectly reasonable decision, if the investment happens and is considered important enough for reliable sources to write about, then there should be no problem with an article, at this point it's simply to early. --86.5.93.103 (talk) 22:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn (with potential list at AfD). "Speculation" aside, the article contained a link to coverage of this in The Philippine Star [20], a reliable source (more coverage here). If reliable sources write about something, this alone is usually enough to indicate significance. Notability is not relevant for A7 and DRV should not be about whether this might have been deleted at AFD. To overturn a deletion, it's sufficient that more discussion was warranted under the speedy deletion policy, which is the case here. Regards SoWhy 09:22, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse. If DGG has considered it unworthy of keeping, it has no hope. Stifle (talk) 10:33, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was an article I had written. The International Business Times website has information concerning the Philippine Economic Zone Authority: PEZA said it will be the biggest investment in the country for the agriculture sector.Sarcelles (talk) 12:29, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • With apologies for editing your comment, Sarcelles: it's not usual for the nominator to add a !vote after the discussion starts. I've indented you.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn. SoWhy has produced two sources ---- so it's no longer within the ambit of a speedy deletion, and needs to go to AfD.—S Marshall T/C 20:10, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
TIL a new word: ambit. Thank you! -- RoySmith (talk) 20:43, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • overturn speedy I stand by the notion that an article with a relevant reliable source has an assertion of notability. We now have 2, so even if you disagree with that statement, it may meet WP:N and so isn't a valid A7. Hobit (talk) 23:50, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
that's a standard with no basis in policy. It depends what the references say. DGG ( talk ) 07:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'll disagree with you here. The standard for an A7 is explicitly a "lower standard than notability". If there is a case for notability of the subject, it's not an A7. There is such a case at this point. Further, a single reliable source about the subject is, IMO, a pretty darn solid assertion of importance. I get that not everyone agrees with this (in fact I think there is an RfC on the subject at the moment). But the bar to overturn a speedy is pretty low and if a lot of people think it's a bad A7, it's a bad A7. Speedies need to be clear. Hobit (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Hobit: For the record, I agree with you. As for RfC, there was a discussion back in May/June whether to start an RfC but I don't think it ever materialized. Regards SoWhy 19:22, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Overturn, I think the sources are pretty feeble and that the article will be obliterated at AFD, but they're good enough to get out from under A7 in my view. 'Weak' because I think that restoration is a service to process rather than common sense, but rules are rules. Lankiveil (speak to me) 06:40, 6 July 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Overturn speedy and restore article. The article text included the statement Malaysia put up a palm tree cultivation and oil refinery in Mindanao that could be worth US$1 billion. That is a claim of significance, and sufficient that an A7 should not be done, even if the article had been completely unsourced. Sources and their quality are not relevant to an A7. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 15:29, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd argue they are relevant (quality sources are an assertion of notability IMO) but certainly not necessary. Hobit (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, it didn't. The article text included the statement Malaysia intends to put up a palm tree cultivation and oil refinery in Mindanao that could be worth US$1 billion. Those two words are pretty relevant. Every startup intends to do something significant. —Cryptic 17:59, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • The line above was copied directly from the version of 04:49, 30 June 2017 (EST I believe), the edit by Naypta -- the version where the CSD tag was placed, and so the relevant version. It may have been an error, but that is what the page said at that time. But I would argue that an intent on that scale is still a claim of significance. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:09, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not going to argue back and forth about whether intentions are significance by themselves... but are you seriously saying that a statement that even the article author says was false is credible? —Cryptic 18:19, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have to admit, i missed that the statement had been changed in a subsequent edit to the one I looked at, and that this weakens the claim of significance. I would still consider the announced intention a claim of significance, but others might well disagree. I haven't gone looking for additional sources, so i have no idea how this would fare at an AfD. But on Hobit's theory or on mine, i don;'t think this was a valid A7. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:06, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn A7 was not clearcut, as can be seen from the disagreement here. Moot, as apparently RS'es have surfaced which discuss the company, so it should be restored and AfD'ed as desired. Jclemens (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, that RS was already in the article at the time of deletion. Regards SoWhy 07:32, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then that makes it simply that much less justifiable an A7, I'm afraid. Jclemens (talk) 06:07, 14 July 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 July 2017[edit]

  • Draft:Hopf algebra of a graph – This draft was, perhaps understandably, deleted as a test page. The creator asserts that it is not a test page. DRV assumes good faith on this point and therefore restores the draft. There is a consensus that this draft will require quite a considerable amount of development before it is suitable for the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 18:51, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Draft:Hopf algebra of a graph (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (restore)

Not a test page. Taku (talk) 22:55, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Restore. This was deleted under WP:G2 (test page), which seems like a stretch to me. But, more to the point, it's in draft space. As an article, it's a disaster, but the whole point of draft space is it gives really bad articles a chance to develop. I've tempundeleted the page for review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would have no objection to userfying it, per SmokeyJoe. -- RoySmith (talk) 10:34, 3 July 2017 (UTC) stuck per my longer comment below.[reply]
  • Restore as per RoySmith above. I couldn't put it better. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:53, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I sure looks like a a couple test edits of formatting a ref. How little content does a page need to qualify as a test exactly? It is a link to a PDF and 8 words. There is no actual meaningful content about what the topic even is about. It was also evidently abandoned. If someone wants to work on it, I've got no objection to undeletion. Legacypac (talk) 01:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think of test edits as being from somebody who has never used a wiki before and is trying to figure out how this all works. Maybe this is early notes for a possible future article, but it's not a test.
The author of this has over 60k edits, spanning fifteen years, and an extensive history creating articles in the field of advanced mathematics. They have earned the benefit of the doubt when it comes to creating new articles. Looking a bit deeper, if I search draft space for hopf, I find a number of drafts on the subject by this author. Some of them (Draft:Graded Hopf algebra, for example) are equally short. Others, such as Draft:Linear algebraic group–Lie algebra correspondence are detailed, well-written, and well-sourced articles. More to the point, if you look at the first revision of that draft, it's a single word (and mis-spelled at that). One might look at that revision and WP:CSD it. And if they had done that, we would have lost the seed of a valuable, well-written draft on an important topic.
I don't see anything in Wikipedia:Drafts which says that early notes for articles you're thinking about need to go in your user space, and you only get to use draft space once your article has reached some threshold of quality. Draft is there to incubate articles, and this author has a long history of using it for exactly that, with the result being many valuable contributions to the encyclopedia. I'll gladly trade in most of the crap we have in mainspace about meaningless contemporary drivel for a one-line draft about a mathematic topic (which I can barely understand) by a long-time contributor with a history of many valuable contributions. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:33, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree with the notion that test edits are "from somebody who was never used a wiki before and is trying to figure out how this all works". I have a fair number of edits yet when I look at my sandbox, I see several tests — one checking out a new functionality relate to ISBN citations, and coincidentally, a test to see how including a PDF in a reference works. Just because one has been earned around a while doesn't mean one automatically knows exactly how to do everything. I disagree with the implication that it can't be a test because the editor has quite a few edits.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:10, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The editor in question opened this DRV by stating that it was not a test. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You missed my point, which may well my fault for not stating it clearly. I'm happy to accept that the creator didn't created as a test page. I'm responding to your comment, which expresses surprise that it could be construed as a test page. I thought it looked exactly like a test page. It is almost identical to tests I've created recently. I'm fine with it being restored, but I think the tagging and deletion were perfectly proper.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:17, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You may also have missed my point, which in turn may well be my fault for also not stating it clearly :-) I agree with you that, at first blush, this looks like a test, so I'm not concerned that it was erroneously tagged as such. What does concern me is that once the author stated that they wanted it back and that it was not a test, that there is still discussion. On the other hand, this really never should have reached DRV. What should have happened was the author should have contacted the deleting admin, stated that the draft was not a test, was useful to them, and requested it be restored. And in response, the deleting admin should have immediately corrected the mistake by restoring it. A trivial error would have been quickly corrected sans drama, everybody would have been happy, and writing the encyclopedia would have gone on. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Undelete and userfy. Not a test page, but neither is it a page to work collaboratively with others. Not with that reference. Surely it is of meaning only to User:TakuyaMurata, and as such it belongs in his userspace, nowhere else. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overturn and restore to draftspace Not an unambiguous test edit, and CSD criteria are to be interpreted strictly. I'll note that the tagger has been dragged to ArbCom for overzealous draftspace cleanup... Jclemens (talk) 18:19, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And I'll note that making personal attacks on me in DRV over a declined ArbCom case is not appropriate. WP:NOTNOTHERE calls out my work of cleanup as necessary and valuable. Legacypac (talk) 02:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Look to me exactly like someone testing out how to create a reference in which the target is a PDF. Our software has changed and improved the way references are handled over the last year or so and I know I've used my sandbox to test out some of these changes. It's obviously not an article, as it has no substantive content. I'm not familiar with the taggers history, and while I can imagine that others might see it as something other than a test that seems like a perfectly plausible interpretation to me. That said, I have no objection to it being restored, but I trust the editor is going to work on it and develop it into something, not leave it as is.--S Philbrick(Talk) 23:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse, yet another of Taku's fire and forget draft substubs. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And what harm does that do? It's not in mainspace, so it doesn't get indexed, so it doesn't clutter up anybody's search results. It's not taking up any non-trivial amount of resources (and, even if it were, deleting it doesn't reclaim anything). It's not promotional, or a copyvio, or hate speech, or any of those bad things which need to be actively hunted down and eliminated. There's some feeling expressed here that it belongs in userspace, but I don't see what problem exists that moving it to userspace would solve. At least in draft space, if some other math-inclined editor comes along and says, I'd like to write an article about Hopf algebra. I wonder if anybody has already started on that?, having it in draft space makes it more likely to be found. I just don't get what the problem is. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What RoySmith just said. If we're going to run a volunteer-driven project, we need to have messy space, and Draftspace should be that common working space with a bunch of trash and some treasure that can be ferreted out and added to someplace in mainspace. Jclemens (talk) 06:03, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • restore It may well have been mainly for testing (don't know), but once the user asks for it back, if there are no other problems (per RoySmith), then it should be restored. Hobit (talk) 23:45, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • When users ask for something back, usually it is userfied for them. I think this should be userfied, not restored to draftspace. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Eh, I guess I'm not up on draft space rules, but to me this seems like a somewhat useful start to an article (a solid, correctly formatted citation). I personally don't see a huge difference between draftspace and userspace and I prefer the user working on it getting to pick. Is there some policy/guideline that says something else? As I said, I'm not up on draftspace rules. Hobit (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • When users ask for something back, it's generally because it was deleted in a valid AfD, which this wasn't. So there should be no reason for somebody to have to ask for it back. We should just unwind the WP:CSD and we're done. -- RoySmith (talk) 11:15, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
        • If Taku wants it in DraftSpace, then ok. I don't think he should choose to have it in draftspace, I think he should choose to have it in his userspace. That's what I think, it is not a rule. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:51, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.

1 July 2017[edit]

  • Livia Nichifor – SNOW endorse as a correct decision, correctly decided per the discussion and the underlying policies. Nominator is welcome to try and create a draft that demonstrates notability and complies with other relevant policies. – Jclemens (talk) 18:31, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following is an archived debate of the deletion review of the page above. Please do not modify it.
Livia Nichifor (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (article|XfD|restore)

article wrongly deleted --213.233.104.225 (talk) 06:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The AfD was unanimous, and suggests that there was WP:COI and WP:SOCK editing involved. Could you give some more specific reason why you believe the deletion decision was wrong? Otherwise, this doesn't comply with WP:DRVPURPOSE and should be closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:COI and WP:SOCK are not real and have not been proven. --213.233.104.225 (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse Given the absence of material on the page to show notability,no other conclusion would be possible. In fact, I would regard it as a valid A7 speedy deletion. -- most of the references are to musical compositions by her son, not relevant to her own notability, and the others routine official certificates of birth, education etc. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse the close. The alleged COI and sock editing are not really relevant, the question was notability. Those discussing did not accept the sources as even coming close to establishing notability. No evidence has been presented that they were wrong. No new sources that they did not consider have been presented. The close was the only one possible on the discussion and evidence as it stood. (I would add that had I found this as an A7 I would have declined the speedy, but tagged for notability. The medal and the directorship are both claims of significance but they did not ripen into notability.) There should be no prejudice against recreation with better sources, if they can be found. I would be sympathetic to a request to restore to draft space, under WP:AFC with an understanding that the requester is not to move it back to mainspace without passing an AfC review. However, no such request has yet been made. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:05, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • A relevant element regarding the notability of Dr. Livia Nichifor: this article[1] appeared in “Viata Medicala” ("Medical Life"), the journal of Romanian physicians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.233.93.65 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  1. ^ Călinescu, Georgeta (19 May 2017). "O viață dăruită pediatriei". Viata Medicala. Retrieved 30 June 2017 (in Romanian).
  • Endorse the close as one of the original AfD participants. Note the obituary by one of the late subject's colleagues listed above by the IP is neither "new" nor "relevant" information. It was already addressed in the AfD discussion and considered not to be evidence of notability in and of itself. There were no other independent sources and I was unable to find any after a fairly extensive search. Frankly, if it goes to AfC, it will simply waste the reviewers' time, but I suppose it would be OK on the off-chance that something does exist beyond the nonsense uploaded at scribd.com. Voceditenore (talk) 09:35, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Endorse by default per lack of reasoning. Nominator claims it was wrongly deleted, but does not supply evidence to back up this position. The AFD was both valid and unanimous, so unless something truly extraordinary happened, the deletion was valid. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:07, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above is an archive of the deletion review of the page listed in the heading. Please do not modify it.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2017_July&oldid=788188174"