Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2018 September

< August 2018	Deletion review archives	October 2018 >

30 September 2018[edit]

TheOdd1sOut – "Delete" closure endorsed. I have to discount the opinion of AwesumIndustrys because they are just attempting to continue the AfD discussion. This forum is for discussing whether a closure was procedurally correct. Sandstein 08:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Despite having reasons for the article to be kept, it was deleted. The real problem with the deletion was that three of the delete !votes were from users. The other five deletes were from IPs, all of which point back to Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. It's very suspicious and some action should take place. Zoom (talk page) 17:12, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The decision being reviewed here is the 25 September closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/TheOdd1sOut. The deleted article has temporarily been restored, may be seen here in 24 September version. --Doncram (talk) 19:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Did you ask the closing admin why the vote was delete? I don't see it on their talk page. Looking through it myself and ignoring the IP votes, there doesn't seem to be a strong consensus either way, though the keep votes seem weak as they are based on the premise sources might exist. SportingFlyer talk 02:19, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- even ignoring the possible socking, it's reasonable to infer that there was a consensus to delete. Those saying keep were all about "there must be sources out there somewhere" whereas the delete side looked and didn't find any. Reyk _YO! 14:05, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I'm unhappy about the result of the AfD, it looks like the closing admin was aware of the possible socking, so I can't really complain there. Ahiijny (talk) 21:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. SPAs are usually here to vote keep rather than delete. It would be worth an admin having a quick look to see if there had been any destructive editing. Thincat (talk) 07:52, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

History Temporarily undeleted for review DGG ( talk ) 16:16, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A review of the SPA contributions shows some minor, quickly reverted vandalism and some minor constructive edits. SportingFlyer talk 02:23, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Weak endorse. The only argument to keep which included sources was from User:Ahiijny, but they don't look like WP:RS, and/or are just passing mentions. The fact that his book hit the best-sellers list doesn't satisfy WP:AUTHOR. On the other hand, this isn't a slam-dunk. I wouldn't have any objection to relisting it for another week to see if that makes a difference.

I agree that it's odd to have anonymous socks on the delete side. On possible explanation is another YouTuber trying to dump on a competitor. Another is that sometimes socks place random delete votes in an attempt to build some kind of reputation as other than a WP:SPA. Yet a third is just plain vandalism.

-- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Irrelevant comment – Just wanted to note that I was displeased to find out that this deletion discussion wasn't listed on the webcomic deletion sorting page, so I was caught by surprise when it was deleted. I don't really have any comments on the socking, however. ~Maplestrip/Mable (chat) 17:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse, process seems fine, the article's sourcing is poor and many of the edits are by WP:SPAs. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Renounce(?) - The article should've been expanded on, not deleted. Call me biased, but I don't like seeing articles deleted as Wikipedia should be a vast repository of information. If it was a bad article, then put up a message asking people to expand it. AwesumIndustrys (talk) 17:03, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word you're looking for is Overturn. See WP:DRV#Commenting in a deletion review. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

relist This one is difficult. If you discount all of the IPs as socks (which I think is reasonable) you have a pretty poor discussion. The sources in the article aren't great, but there are two sources that have some in-depth (one is the high school paper which doesn't appear to have a LOCAL problem the other is mostly an interview). There is also some coverage of the *work* and that wasn't discussed in FoodBeast (three articles, each short). And while being a NYT best-selling author doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR, it is evidence of notability. I'm a hair's breadth from an endorse (I went back and forth a few times) as this not a clearly wrong deletion IMO. But an otherwise ill-attended discussion tainted by so much socking seems like something we should relist (and watch for further socks). Hobit (talk) 12:10, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

29 September 2018[edit]

28 September 2018[edit]

Christine Blasey Ford – Withdrawn by nominator. It should be noted that the original closure was endorsed unanimously. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 15:34, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriately closed as WP:SNOW based on an early pile-on of keep votes. To be precise, the AfD discussion was closed exactly 4 hours and 44 minutes after the article was nominated. I attempted to reach out on the AfD talk page, but to no avail, and now I'm requesting a deletion review. There is reason to believe that a sequence of consecutive keep votes does not imply unanimous consensus, because a very similar AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Judge (writer), had plenty of delete votes at the beginning, but a lengthy sequence of keep votes emerged about a day after the article was nominated for deletion. In this case, there might have been an early sequence of a decent amount of keep votes, but it was likely that more delete votes could emerge after some more discussion and responding to individual votes. Also, I might want to mention that the Mark Judge AfD had a larger number of delete votes even though that article contains plenty of pre-Kavanaugh coverage and sources. I note that the keep vote by K.e.coffman is more snarky than useful, that the keep vote by Inowen might not take several important policies and guidelines into consideration, that the only vote mentioning WP:SNOW has the rationale "Obviously notable.", and that the keep vote by Octoberwoodland might not have taken BLP considerations into account (if anything is a time-sensitive thing, it's BLP). The other part of the rationale for closing, because this is an article that is being read a lot right now, indicates such carelessness about BLP that I wonder how the AfD closure isn't a Supervote. Next, one editor, Koavf, seems to have suggested redirection, which is a valid reason to oppose keeping an article. Last but not least, the nominator's rationale has to be taken into account when calculating consensus, so the consensus in the AfD was definitely not unanimous. That the closer chooses to say "unanimous responses" (instead of e.g. "near-unanimous consensus") suggests a personal point of view in the material in question, but this is not my main concern and I will not nitpick anything else in this request. wumbolo ^^^ 17:34, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I support Sandstein's decision, if only for reasons of common sense. I predict a SNOW close for this review: endorse ~~deletion~~. Drmies (talk) 17:38, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A small detail Drmies but you probably didn't mean "endorse deletion" since the AfD was a snow keep closure. ;) Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 01:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Salvidrim, that is EXACTLY right. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse there's not a snowball's chance in hell this will get deleted while the current circus is ongoing. If there'a BLP1E reason for deletion (or, rather, a merge to the article about the event, Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) it can be argued after the event is over and tempers have cooled. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:42, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am being quite calm myself. If some other editor or discussion participant can't "cool their temper" during these events, it is not my problem. wumbolo ^^^ 17:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to refer to the screaming matches and swearing between United States Senators and members of the press corps, rather than any Wikipedia editors. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying. Although I believe that Wikipedia contributes to that, and it will be too late afterwards. wumbolo ^^^ 17:51, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse WP:SNOW is appropriate here, absolutely no chance it would've been deleted, at most a no consensus may have been possible, with a lot of acrimony and bickering earned along the way; if you really want the article to be deleted Afd in a month or two Galobtter (pingó mió) 18:04, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse I’m generally skeptical on recent news articles. But, I can’t imagine this not resulting in a keep. Anita Hill was a quarter century ago, and her article had 44 edits this month. In any case, AfD was premature. O3000 (talk) 18:14, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There's absolutely no way this could have ended up anything other than keep. The AfD nomination was silly, and perhaps WP:POINTy; nobody's arguing she meets WP:ACADEMIC, and while it may indeed be WP:ONEEVENT, it's WP:ONEREALLYBIGEVENT that's been front-page news (at least in the US) for weeks. As a practical matter, the bar for deletion is higher than the bar for keeping, so it's easier to call a SNOW keep early than to call a SNOW delete early. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying that almost nobody's arguing she meets WP:ACADEMIC. That was my only concern, and now I'm completely convinced that there was no valid keep argument, and the only relevant policy, as you admit, is WP:BLP1E, and only two keep voters even mentioned it. wumbolo ^^^ 19:02, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse I can't see that AfD ending in anything other than a decision to keep the article. I'm sure a few people would have shown up to agree with the nomination eventually, but the AfD got 8 keep comments in under 5 hours and the eventual direction was obvious. I don't see any reason to drag that out for a week on a high profile article, especially as the nomination doesn't contain any reasoning other than links to policy/guideline pages. Even if we did decide we didn't want an article on the subject we still wouldn't want to delete this one. Hut 8.5 19:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Endorse. Good close. Admin decided correctly. Admin exercised proper and sound judgement. It was indeed clear, and is still indeed clear, that the decision would have been, is, and will be, "Keep" for the article. Sagecandor (talk) 20:48, 28 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse As editors before me mentioned, there was no chance that that the article would be closed as a delete. Many of the keep votes discussed policies pointing toward a keep vote (as opposed to arguments like WP:OSE) and there was no question about the quality or quantity of the sources. While the nominator suggested that the article (at the time of nomination) should be deleted by citing WP:ONEEVENT, it was merely an assertion, rather than a thorough analysis of why they thought the subject would qualify under WP:BIO1E. --Enos733 (talk) 21:45, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Good close, for all the reasons stated above. Nothing approaching a suggestion of a supervote. Additionally reasonable given the poor timing on the AfD per WP:RAPID as well as the incorrect reading of WP:BLP1E in the nomination. Regarding this nomination, nobody should need to !vote WP:SNOW, the point is that in the regular course of events the !votes make it clear it wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of ending any other way. Indeed, !voting WP:SNOW could even be considered counterproductive, as it's a judgement on the judgement, not the article in question. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 21:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Obviously. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Sept. 25 closure of AfD by administrator Sandstein. During that discussion, I voted to keep Christine Blasey Ford. In doing so, I specifically cited WP:1E, which states: "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." I stand by that guidance and by Sandstein's correct early closure per WP:SNOW. KalHolmann (talk) 00:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above - agree with a number of people above and nothing new to add. SportingFlyer talk 00:49, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Snow endorse: the discussion would not have closed otherwise, and having an active AfD during a Congressional hearing would have been disruptive. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:10, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse per above. For what it is worth, I believe she meets WP:PROF#1 based on her highly cited publications. See her Google Scholar profile [1]. She frequently publishes under the name Christine Blasey. Thsmi002 (talk) 01:13, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse The close may not have been a Snow keep, but it was certainly a keep. No way should her article be deleted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:55, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Sometimes things are so clearly obvious, and the reasons have already been explained so well, that "Obviously notable" is the only thing one can add. Keep the article. Good close by Sandstein. Are we ready for another SNOW close yet? Bury this contentious issue, and place a large sandstone on top of its grave. Further disruption should be discouraged. Wait at least a year before revisiting the subject, and only if clear evidence of fake sourcing was found to be the entire basis for claims of notability. Otherwise a new AfD would be disruptive. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:03, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@BullRangifer: Does "further" in "further disruption" imply that the AfD or this deletion review is disruptive? Please answer, so I know whether I should propose a temporary BLP ban for you. wumbolo ^^^ 13:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is that a threat to chill the atmosphere here? Really? That you even threaten such an absurd action indicates you are not AGF. You will no doubt interpret my comment as you want, but it can certainly apply to both, and in neither case would my statement warrant a "BLP ban", or ban of any kind. On the contrary, you might get a boomerang response to such an absurd suggestion. My comment plainly means, as stated below by Casprings, that this is a "waste of time". "The lady doth protest too much, methinks." -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 15:36, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, my comment was a boomerang. You were the one accusing this deletion review of wasting time and bad faith, as you put my comment. wumbolo ^^^ 15:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was a "response". My comment about "not AGF" was only about your threat, while this DR and the AfD are indeed a waste of time. You are the only one protesting, so stop digging. This isn't making you look good and makes one wonder about your competence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: AGF aside, if you're compiling a list of those for whom you propose a temporary BLP ban because they consider this Deletion Review a waste of time, be sure to add my name. I concur with that opinion expressed by @BullRangifer: and @Casprings:. KalHolmann (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse The Anita Hill parallel is apt. I know about crystal ball arguments and all, but I also know about good editorial judgment. And it is clear to the levelheaded that this woman is notable and that she will be described by historians for many years to come, just like Hill. Of course an encyclopedia of nearly six million articles should have a comprehensive biography of Christine Blasey Ford. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:02, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Clearly WP:N. Moreover this is a waste of time. Close this discussion per WP:Snow.Casprings (talk) 11:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Casprings: WP:N is irrelevant when BLP1E applies. wumbolo ^^^ 11:34, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, not irrelevant. It presents a higher bar. Also, don’t confuse BLP1E and BIO1E. There are no BLP concerns with this BLP. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@SmokeyJoe: I'm not confusing anything. Your last sentence is a lie. There are plenty of BLP concerns but I'm talking specifically about BLP1E. This article passes every word described in BLP1E. wumbolo ^^^ 12:54, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I shouldn’t have said “concerns” but “problems”. I don’t see, in the article, and certainly not raised in the AfD, any problems let alone violations of WP:BLP. The objection by the nominator was citing WP:PROF, notability, and the ONEEVENT angle is BIO1E not BLP1E. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:44, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: This is the article on Dr. Christine Blasey Ford, without the section on Sexual assault allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. It's still in that state probably one of the best quality and well-sourced articles on academics on Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2018 (UTC) Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC) ~~:*I would forgive your WP:POINT behavior if you weren't being so dishonest. wumbolo ^^^ 13:18, 29 September 2018 (UTC)~~ ~~::*My apologies, I didn't mean to disrupt anything, and clearly didn't as the edit stood for about 1 second. Sagecandor (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2018 (UTC)~~ ~~:::*Like I said, I'm not going to nitpick anything. This is a bad argument and it doesn't take BLP into account even one bit. wumbolo ^^^ 13:27, 29 September 2018 (UTC)~~ ~~::::*Thank you. Sagecandor (talk) 13:28, 29 September 2018 (UTC)~~ Strike sock. wumbolo ^^^ 15:01, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo:, you have made nine responses including a threat to propose a ban to one editor; stating a second editor told a "lie"; and stating a third editor was being pointy and dishonest. Friendly advice: drop the WP:bludgeon. O3000 (talk) 16:06, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wumbolo, stop digging. This isn't making you look good. That you still don't see this as an OBVIOUS KEEP makes one wonder about your competence. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 18:48, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the close by Sandstein. WP:BLP1E states that we should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions are met, of which #3 states "If the event is not significant or the individual's role was either not substantial or not well documented". The event in this case is a highly contentious and political supreme court nomination and confirmation battle in the age of the MeToo movement with high stakes consequences for the next generation or two in the United States over the disposition of one of its three branches of government. Ford's nationally televised sworn testimony alleging the sexual assault was among the most significant sub-components of that event and was watched live by millions. If we would retroactively consider the Clarence Thomas/Anita Hill Senate confirmation hearing showdown to be a significant event with regard to WP:BLP1E, the Brett Kavanaugh/Christine Blasey Ford showdown equals or exceeds that event, and Ford's role was undeniably substantial just as Anita Hill's was. Since condition #3 of WP:BLP1E has not been met, deleting the Ford article over WP:BLP1E concerns would be a mistake. AzureCitizen (talk) 16:00, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the close. In my opinion, this person wasn’t notable when the article was created (hours after her name was released and minimal information known about her), but at this point there is no question she is notable. I don’t think this falls under WP:BLP1E any longer, 20 million people watched her testimony and she is a driver of an international conversation. For the record, I argued that the article should be deleted due to WP:BLP1E on the article Talk page before her testimony, but no way that’s true now. Rikster2 (talk) 20:51, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is all a bit silly isn't it? GMG ^talk 21:07, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You can call following the BLP policy silly if you want. wumbolo ^^^ 21:41, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Wumbolo: please find something other to do than badger people who post here. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I envy your enthusiasm. I wish I still had it. We've worked together before, and it's an exceptionally valuable asset when it's applied in the right direction. But ain't nobody gonna delete this right now, and if they did, there'd be a small mob calling for their head, and they might very well get it. No matter how deep your convictions run that this is another round of unabashed NOTNEWS RECENTISM, the fact of the matter is the best thing we can do is let people have their fun, and revisit it in six months to see if it's still worth keeping. Ain't nothing gonna change that and the best it's gonna do is waste even more time. GMG ^talk 02:05, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, @Wumbolo:, I think you should withdraw this, since it's clearly a losing battle. But I would welcome your help on working on getting No Ashes in the Fire onto DYK if you're interested. GMG ^talk 02:14, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Close was correct on timing, summary and write-up. As this is a review hereby my praise for Sandstein for a job well done! gidonb (talk) 03:28, 30 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse closure. I voted Keep in the AfD with reluctance because I guessed that the subject had no wish for further publicity. However, I thought it necessary to point put that the subject passed the WP:Prof notability criteria quite independently of the event she is involved in. I seem to have been the only person to do that. The only criticism of the closure that could be made is that it was early. I see no problem, the trend was quite clear. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:17, 2 October 2018 (UTC).[reply]

If there's any criticism to be made of the close, it would be how early it was. I'm not saying it was wrong, or that it shouldn't be endorsed (as I did, above), but that not being so eager to close it would have saved everybody this silliness. Instead of 8-1 after 4 hours, had it been closed a day later, it would have been 20-1 and this would have been put to bed. Early closes tend to cause more problems than they solve. Don't just avoid impropriety. Avoid any appearance of impropriety. And, Wumbolo really should drop the WP:STICK and withdraw this. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse per Xxanthippe. Really no other way for this to have been closed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 13:25, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw as nom. I am not convinced that anything will change, tomorrow, next week, or anytime in the foreseeable future. wumbolo ^^^ 14:09, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Lola Lennox ‎ – Void close per WP:BADNAC case #2 (outcome is a close call). It's not just that the nose count is close, or that the keep arguments are self-proclaimed to be weak. The biggest thing that makes this unclear is that one of the delete arguments does a good job of explaining, in detail, why the sources are inadequate. I'm going to back out the close and relist this for another week. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Inappropriate Non Admin close. There was no clear consensus for Keep and there was contentious debate among participants. Whilst the headcount was ahead 4-2 afds are not decided that way, they are decided by the arguments. "Weak keep" per policy is not a strong argument when others go into details. There was only one keep worth considering and that was from someone with a vested interest who lied about what the sources said. Clearly no consensus, let alone a clear one. This was relisted by an experienced admin (User:Northamerica1000) who considered that there was no consensus yet. A throwaway week keep per policy after does not change things from no consensus to a clear consensus. A cursory closing statement which in no way attempts to explain or justify the close is damning as is the failure to provide the slightest explanation when questioned on their talk page. This falls well outside the purview of NAC and should at the least have been left to run a full week after the relist. duffbeerforme (talk) 13:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

27 September 2018[edit]

26 September 2018[edit]

VOX Cinemas – Restored by deleting administrator. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Page was deleted instead of redirected without an AFD discussion Jax 0677 (talk) 20:19, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are three comments about this. I think the first one is the fundamental point, but the others are relevant too.

Yes, I deleted the article without a deletion discussion, in accordance with the policy on speedy deletion. That is not a reason for undeleting. Jax 0677 seems to think that deletion discussion is the only route to deletion, apparently unaware that there are also other routes to deletion, of which speedy deletion is one.
Jax 0677's objection is that the article was "deleted instead of redirected", but since he has now created a redirect at the same title, it is not clear what the problem is.
Jax 0677 initially took this to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion without first consulting me. An administrator answered, saying "there isn't a value to Wikipedia to restore promotional material", and also told him that he should contact me as the deleting administrator. He duly did so on my talk page, and I asked for clarification, because it was not entirely clear to me what he meant. Instead of answering my request for clarification he brought the matter directly here. Near the top of the page Wikipedia:Deletion review there appears the text "Before listing a review request, please: Discuss the matter with the closing administrator and try to resolve it with him or her first. If you and the admin cannot work out a satisfactory solution, only then should you bring the matter before deletion review." Mentioning it on my talk page and when I try to discuss it just ignoring my questions and coming straight here is not "Discuss[ing] the matter ... and try[ing] to resolve it" before bringing it here. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 21:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar experience with Jax 0677, regarding 2017–18 North American cold wave. He asked me a question on my talk page, I responded, and he took it immediately to DRV. I came away with the impression that there was no real attempt to engage in discussion, just to meet the letter of the law. I'm also not sure what Jax is requesting here; what action do you want to see happen? All that being said, looking at the deleted text, I'm not convinced WP:G11 applied. The sources are low quality, but that's a WP:N problem. Listing this at AfD for a full discussion would be the right thing to do. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Was it a clear cut G11?

20:30, 4 September 2017 Wgolf (talk | contribs) marked VOX Cinemas as reviewed

When speedying a reviewed paged, should you mention it to the reviewer?

Two people would seem to think the page was ok. Speedy list at AfD. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:52, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The history of VOX Cinemas was deleted, and in my opinion, it should be kept in tact, as RoySmith questions whether G11 applies. I know that AFD is not the only method that should be used to eliminate an article. However, if there is an objection to a speedy deletion, it should probably go to WP:AFD. I felt that my discussion with JamesBWatson was not going to be resolved, so I brought my concerns about VOX Cinemas here. To be clear, I approve of this being listed at AFD, but also support either redirecting the article with history, or keeping the article. --Jax 0677 (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you RoySmith for actually raising relevant questions, as opposed to such nonsense as "deleted instead of redirected without an AFD discussion" being given as a reason for undeletion. Prompted by RoySmith's comments, I have looked back at the article, and although it was somewhat promotional, it was not so much so as to justify speedy deletion, and the deletion was clearly a mistake. I have therefore restored it. As for Jax 0677 saying "my discussion with JamesBWatson was not going to be resolved", perhaps he should have first tried answering my questions in order to find out whether it would "be resolved" or not. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

25 September 2018[edit]

Joseph Kropschot – restored by deleting admin. Can be taken to AfD again by any interested party. Hut 8.5 06:42, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The Joseph Kropschot page was originally deleted with the reason that non-professional fighters are not notable. That reason was used as the reason for the current deletion, but is no longer valid. Joseph Kropschot is now a professional fighter and is definitely noteworthy. He is fighting in a nationally televised card this coming Saturday, EBI Combat Jiu Jitsu 17, available on PPV and UFC Fight Pass. If there is a reason he is considered un-noteworthy, I would like that reason updated, ie not enough professional fights, not enough national exposure, not ranked highly enough, etc. But quoting the original deletion, when the reason for the original deletion is no longer valid, doesn't make sense. Thanks. NorCal4Life (talk) 19:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is not clear in deletion review header info what is the decision that is being reviewed. In this case there is not even an XfD link in the header (at least none shows currently). I think the decision being reviewed is the 21 September 2018 deletion by User:Athaenara of page Joseph Kropschot, with reason "G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: ref Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kropschot, more at User talk:NorCal4Life". It relates to 2017 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Kropschot. It seems this cannot be discussed properly, at least by non-administrators, if the recently deleted version is not made available for consideration. --Doncram (talk) 21:35, 25 September 2018 (UTC). ~~Could someone please provide a version of the deleted article for review, at least temporarily, during this DR.~~ --Doncram (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2018 (UTC) --It was provided to Wikipedia talk:Deletion review/Log/2018 September 25, thanks. --Doncram (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. It seems the deletion review nominator has a point, that the re-created article does not suffer the faults of the article which was deleted in 2017. --Doncram (talk) 21:38, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the deletion review nominator NorCal4Life did very politely contact the deleting administrator at User talk:Athaenara#Joseph Kropschot page, where one cursory response was given (""Going pro in 2018", had his first professional fight and won it. I don't know why you're promoting him. My best advice is to wait until he acquires (if he does) sufficiently more notability to survive another AfD"), then NorCal4Life provided substantial more information, then they were advised "I recommend posting your concerns on Wikipedia:Deletion review." Offhand, this instance of behavior seems rude and verging upon, if not over, the line for conduct unbecoming an administrator. It is quite onerous to force a regular editor (newbie-ish?) to figure out deletion review process which is obscure and dysfunctional (for example the deleted article is available only to administrators), when restoring the new article and allowing development or opening a new AFD would be very reasonable as an option. Instead, this is unfriendly and obfuscatory. My 2 cents, i am not an administrator myself. --Doncram (talk) 22:09, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see Wikipedia disagreements about deletion as one-on-one contests between editors and administrators, because we're a large fairly well-coordinated project with active venues for community review. Whether or not you think I behaved badly, NorCal4Life followed my recommendation to post here, initiating a potentially productive discussion which can lead to a reasonable outcome. – Athaenara ✉ 22:45, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, I posted a temporary copy of the article on this page's talk page. – Athaenara ✉ 22:58, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for that. I appreciate your polite reply here, but I disagree that it is reasonable to suggest a new(ish) user with about 50 edits should undertake to figure out deletion review, which is a minefield. It is not one-on-one, rather it is one-against-many. In practice DR is about reviewing administrator actions in order to criticize them, as opposed to fixing editing situations, and is highly biased against finding any problem. It is more about circling the wagons and reaffirming among administrators that fellow administrators are reasonable. The percentages are highly against the new editor, who doesn't care about the administrators but rather is just plugging along about a content topic of interest to them, where they patiently waited for a year after getting feedback in a previous AFD about what mattered. NorCal4Life is lucky here that I happen to have taken up their case, facilitating it along I think rather unusually.

Okay, given the new version and the direction given in the previous AFD, it seems reasonable to me that the editor thinks the new version is okay/good. So, I affirm my "Overturn" !vote. It should be restored to mainspace. It could be AFD'd, sure, and that would be the appropriate way to deliver refined feedback to the editor about notability of MMA fighters, as opposed to having irrelevant-to-the-editor discussion about whether an administrator was justified or not in some decision which provided no good feedback to the editor. They also could quite likely benefit from friendly editors helping to develop the article that is under attack. And it would be reasonable to let the upcoming fight happen and get more coverage, too, before a new AFD. The point made to the editor was that amateur=not-notable, and the subject is having their 2nd pro bout now. Any further refinement in feedback, perhaps that pro doesn't suffice but quality of coverage matters, is in effect pointing out that the first AFD was wrong. Let the editor have a chance with the article being developed, and with a 2nd AFD involving potentially friendly editors. Otherwise this is coming down too hard. --Doncram (talk) 00:08, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I undeleted the page (referencing the discussion here), removed the speedy deletion tag, and left a message on User talk:PRehse#Joseph Kropschot as that was the user who had tagged it for WP:CSD#G4 deletion. I do think a ~~third~~ *second AfD might help settle the notability question more fully. – Athaenara ✉ 02:20, 26 September 2018 (UTC) ( *Self-corrected. A. 06:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC) )[reply]

Thank you, again. I think this is quite reasonable, and I think this should end this deletion review. Like I said I don't think the DR nominator wants to criticize, I think they just want a chance with the article. And I think they need to be willing to discuss notability beyond what was covered in the first AFD, and perhaps the article will be AFD'd again, I hope with some delay for the 2nd pro bout supposedly happening this coming weekend. The restored article was immediately Twinkle-tagged for PROD deletion which I removed, and also I removed a BLP PROD tag, after easily creating an inline reference. I myself am not knowledgeable about notability standards for athletes like this; I arrived here just from browsing at DR and perceiving this to be an unfortunate situation, until now resolved. However, the guy delivered "a clinic in mixed martial arts" in just 42 seconds, in this YouTube video of their last amateur bout, perhaps the first MMA bout I have ever watched, pretty interesting. Thanks, sincerely, --Doncram (talk) 05:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

24 September 2018[edit]

23 September 2018[edit]

22 September 2018[edit]

21 September 2018[edit]

1433 in philosophy – Speedy relisted as original (non-admin) closer, since the AfD was on substantially different article.Alpha3031 (t • c) 18:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I am requesting that the AfD is reopened/relisted on the grounds that the original close is being misunderstood/misused. The situation has significantly changed since the close. This page, along with a large number of other years in philosophy pages, have been taken to AfD with the rationale "list with one entry". The decision has invariably been to merge to a century in philosophy article because one fact is not enough to support a standalone article. I looked into a number of these to see if they could not be retrieved and expanded and for this one produced this version (compare the version at AfD). My work was merged into 15th century in philosophy claiming this was the consensus at AfD. I have every reason to believe that the AfD would have reached a different conclusion if presented with my version. As evidence for this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/1623 in philosophy, which was nominated for an identical reason, was recently closed as keep. I had expanded 1623 in a similar way with a similar anount of material. The difference to 1433 was that in this case the expansion happened before the AfD closed. SpinningSpark 17:51, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alpha3031 has reverted their close. SpinningSpark 18:26, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Suicide of Katelyn Davis – No consensus. There is no consensus to overturn the "delete" closure, which is accordingly maintained by default. Given that the AfD was unanimous (if brief), I do not think that relisting it would help us arrive at a clearer consensus. Sandstein 10:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted less than 17 hours after it was first nominated. Deletion discussions are supposed to last at least a week. I didn't get a chance to vote "keep" before the page disappeared, and others are known to support the page too. For example, in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_231#Wikipedia_articles_on_teen_suicides another user said, "The case is clearly notable. The free speech angle alone makes it worth covering". It received international coverage in reliable secondary sources such as: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/katelyn-nicole-davis-12-year-old-kill-herself-suicide-livestream-video-live-viral-cedartown-georgia-a7523666.html. Because millions experienced her video(s), this event should be at least as notable as all the other pages in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bullycide. There is criticism of some of the page's sources being YouTube, but those are just references to primary sources (which are allowed in moderation) directly proving statements made in the article (and they're easily adjusted/removed if necessary). Some feel the page is "too sensitive" or "immoral" and shouldn't exist on those grounds, but WP:NOTCENSORED covers that. Some claim the event didn't have far-reaching effects, although it did push Facebook and other social media sites to increase detection and reporting features, in order to more quickly catch and better prevent livestreaming events like this from happening in the future. Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 11:50, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IMO it is not clear in deletion review info what is the decision that is being reviewed. In this case it is this AFD about "Suicide of Katelyn Davis" article. --Doncram (talk) 03:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

side-discussion about how XfD header works

Why on earth doesn't Deletion Review automatically provide a link to the decision being reviewed? In this case it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Suicide of Katelyn Davis. --Doncram (talk) 13:15, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It actually does, but it's in the rather obscure link above marked "XfD". — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I have edited for more than 10 years and participated occasionally in deletion review, and don't think i ever noticed that. And it is still not identified as the decision being reviewed, and I am not sure that XfD link is always that. The salient/primary/first link given there is often/usually to a deleted page or to a redirect, whose history might or might not be any help. Thanks though. --Doncram (talk) 13:45, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Like so much software, wikipedia is like a video game. You learn the rules by playing a lot, and sometimes, even after years, you discover something new :-) In theory, the XfD link points to the discussion page. But, that assumes the header is formatted correctly, which isn't always the case. See WP:DRV#Steps to list a new deletion review.

Overturn and re-open. The discussion was prejudiced by prior discussion at the BLP noticeboard. The full seven days should be allowed to enable other readers and interested parties to participate. The claim that there is some pressing BLP issue seems fanciful because the subject died over a year ago and the case appears to be closed. Andrew D. (talk) 14:57, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse the sourcing in the deleted version was awful - the article is based on YouTube videos, blogs, tabloid newspapers, self-published websites, local news and only a few respectable news outlets. You can use self-published sources for some things, but you can't base an article on them and you can't use them for material which is this sensitive. The article made several claims against family members which would absolutely be covered under WP:BLP, and that policy can cover people who died within the last two years in some circumstances. The OP also hasn't addressed the central point of the nomination that the subject is only notable for one event (WP:BLP1E / WP:BIO1E). Appearing in news articles as a news event doesn't give an event notability if it didn't generate any lasting coverage. If you really think that Wikipedia should have an article on this person then I'd suggest writing a draft one which addresses the issues in the AfD. I absolutely do not think this one should be restored. Hut 8.5 10:11, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Closer comment - (noting that this issue wasn't discussed with me before the DRV was started, as it should have been per the rules). I don't think the article stood a snowball's chance in hell of surviving the deletion discussion, and given the sensitivities of the issue and the points raised about multiple serious BLP issues involving a minor and her family, as well as possible breach of laws in the US and/or the EU I decided to take the rare step of deleting the article early. As Hut says, this could be a candidate for a WP:TNT fresh start, and if such an article or draft were created which didn't breach BLP, then it could be considered for deletion/keeping again in light of whether it satisfies WP:BLP1E. I stand by my decision to nix the original, although I'm happy to be overruled if enough experienced users feel I erred. — Amakuru (talk) 14:21, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OP comment - Oops, my apologies to Amakuru, as it looks like I did something prematurely too! ;-) More seriously, we should remember that "deletion review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process". In other words, we should save our opinions about article content or what we personally feel should be done with an article for its talk page or an appropriate AfD discussion. If one believes that the existence of an article in the first place violates a serious policy, and therefore needs to disappear quickly without an appropriate length AfD discussion, then it should be WP:SPEEDY deleted. However if one just feels certain statements within an article violate a policy, then it's better to just be WP:BOLD and edit/delete the text in question (and hopefully discuss the matter on the page's talk page for the ongoing improvement of the article). Thanks, Cruiser1 (talk) 22:35, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist there's no way to know from the material at the early close if better sources might not be found during the AfD. Additionally, the key BLP questions needed further discussion. Other people than the original participants needed a chance to see the discussion DGG ( talk ) 00:18, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

20 September 2018[edit]

Cruise1st – Speedy close. I've taken the unusual step of deleting the text of the nomination due to its highly promotional nature, including a copyright assertion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

(text elided) 148.252.229.178 (talk) 13:46, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

19 September 2018[edit]

18 September 2018[edit]

17 September 2018[edit]

Eliot Cutler – Relisted. Opinion is divided and the AfD discussion was relatively brief, so this is the best way to get a clearer consensus. Sandstein 10:26, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I asked the closing editor to reopen the discussion, which was refused. I also asked for the page to be userfied, which was ignored. The deletion discussion featured only 4 comments, only one of which made a policy-based argument. None of whom were members of Wikiproject Maine or regular editors to Maine political articles. There have been a number of in-depth sources that covered Eliot Cutler during and after his two high-profile runs for Governor of Maine, including but not limited to [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. Cutler was a two-time major candidate for Governor of a US state and in 2010 he was nearly elected Governor. It should surprise no one that multiple sources covered he and his campaign in-depth, which is what WP:GNG is supposed to be about. Just today, another editor attempted to restart the article, which speaks to the notability of the topic as well. TM 23:08, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why on earth doesn't Deletion Review automatically provide a link to the decision being reviewed? In this case it is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler. --Doncram (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn - The original article was evidently pretty poor (can't see it myself, so I can't verify), but I don't see how he isn't encyclopedic. There was little discussion or participation in the original AfD, so at the very least this could use more eyeballs on it before making a call. Admittedly, minor candidates for state office who receive 2% of the vote don't belong here, but Cutler received about a quarter million votes and 38% of the total, much more than the Democrat, in an election for governor. The current redirect is also flawed, as it goes to the 2010 election, even though he was also a candidate in 2014 (he didn't do nearly as well, but got over 8% - more than enough to once again play the spoiler). We have many articles on much more minor individuals. I just want to say that when I, who was at one time one of the most active deletionists on the site, think that an article is warranted, it tells you something. -R. fiend (talk) 23:28, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn For a losing major party candidate for a position like this, there will always be enough press, and it's time we just accepted the articles. DGG ( talk ) 02:18, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse Absolutely nothing wrong with the close. We typically do not keep articles for unelected candidates for a variety of different reasons. SportingFlyer talk 05:14, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't we? Major candidates in gubernatorial elections? I haven't done a thorough search, but it seems we have articles on second place finishers in any such election I've looked at, and this guy's run twice. In fact, in a quick search I'm seeing articles on quite a few less significant politicians who didn't even win their gubernatorial primary, let alone get almost 40% in the general election. Man, there was a time when you couldn't get articles on guys who got 2% of the vote in a House primary deleted (not that I want to return to such a time, but still). -R. fiend (talk) 12:06, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD had only four votes, but you've got one in front of you where only one keep existed, which was weak and based on a false assumption. Furthermore, politician articles tend to be deleted more often than not: [[8]] SportingFlyer talk 14:45, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist or draftify. The AfD could have used could have used more participation, and the arguments to delete weren't very strong. If a redirect was an appropriate ATD, I'm not sure if deleting the revision history was necessary. If people are willing to work on the article, I think it could be possible to treat the result as a soft delete and draftify the article as if it had gone to WP:REFUND. — Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:12, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The re-started article was redirected with an edit summary linking to the AFD. I reverted that. The fact of an AFD does not preclude an article being re-started, and the current version might have different content, sources, than before (I can't tell). --Doncram (talk) 13:13, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, an editor re-redirected it, inappropriately IMO, and I just restored it again. Discussion about that, which is not about the AFD decision but rather is about the new article, should be at its Talk page, Talk:Eliot Cutler.

REQUEST: COULD SOMEONE PLEASE RESTORE THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE TO DRAFTSPACE for purposes of informing this deletion review discussion and for purpose of separate discussion about the new version. I can't tell if there are new/different sources in the new version. IMO it is abuse of admin tools to simply delete a new article, just because there was a previous AFD on the topic, if there is anything different in the new article, which I believe to be the case.--Doncram (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Relist or draftify or merge edit history to new article~~ [see my vote below]. I agree with sentiment expressed by User:Alpha3031. The AFD discussion was weak, with only the nominator asserting that GNG was not met but no others attempting to discuss sources, e.g. just asserting "a clearly non-notable candidate". The close as "Delete" was not clearly wrong, IMO, but would have arguably been wrong if the immediate creation of a redirect was part of it (because it would be better to keep the edit history in the redirect, for all the good reasons that usually apply, i.e. to enable creation later if/when better sources are provided, etc.) It seems the redirect was separate though, was created by someone different than the closer. But also it seems clear enough to me that the person is in fact notable.

Anyhow, I believe the new article is okay, though it is being contested (and there is now a new, 2nd AFD, which i think is not helpful). IMO, the new article should be kept but the edit history of old article should be merged. This could happen in mainspace or draftspace, just someone should fix the bad outcome of it having been deleted (though not the fault of the closer) somehow. --Doncram (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Usually a deletion review should not be about basic notability, but I cannot see how this person does not meet NPOLITICIAN, they are discussed in numerous independent sources e.g. for their use of television advertising in book "Campaigns on the Cutting Edge" and there is passing mention in book "Election 2014: Why the Republicans Swept the Midterms" and that is just a couple hits in Google books, and there will be many other mentions in newspapers, and there are already a number of incoming links from Wikipedia articles including one on spoiling elections. Wikipedia should provide the reference function about who is this guy. The 2010 Maine gubernatorial article does not provide that. The remedy is not to say the close was wrong, but to acknowledge the topic is probably notable and to fix the edit history. I'll stop now. --Doncram (talk) 18:06, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

’’’WP:BLP1E’’’. Just one event, an independent candidacy that spoiled an election. Second candidacy didn’t do anything—it was 8% not almost 38%. Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 18:41, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify/overturn since the original AfD didn't get too much participation. This is a borderline case of someone who might merit an article. Also procedural close the new AfD and merge the histories. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:52, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse While the discussion did not have the greatest of participation, there was no question about whether the close was proper and within the closer's discretion. In fact, if the closer made another decision, there would be much more discussion. There were three arguments made for delete and the only editor for "keep" described their argument as weak. The AfD was open for a week. While we could use this forum and WP:IAR to reargue the merits of the AfD or how the community generally feels about WP:NPOL, there is nothing to suggest that the closer's decision was incorrect based upon the discussion. --Enos733 (talk) 04:27, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative notes: I've closed WP:Articles for deletion/Eliot Cutler (2nd nomination) to let this discussion run its course. I've also undeleted the earlier history so it can be reviewed and compared to the current version; this looks like the most recent deleted revision. People are free to continue to edit the current version, but please don't revert it back to the redirect until and unless that's the outcome of this discussion; just treat this as a draft for now, minus some bureaucratic renaming. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. I'm old enough to recall Eliot (sic.) Cutler being in the news and being very notable. He is notable because he was in the news all the time for a while when Jimmy Carter was president -- Cutler was controversial. Then, years later, he ran twice for governor of Maine, doing very well for an indpendent. Once notable, always thus. Bearian (talk) 16:56, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When you say "endorse" you mean you endorse the deletion of the article, yet your argument seems to say you think his article should be restored. Can you clarify? -R. fiend (talk) 02:36, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Bearian to make sure he saw the above question. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify - I think it should have been kept, and the admin made an honest mistake, as I did here, but it needs work, so send it back to use space for fixing. Bearian (talk) 00:33, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify revision that was deleted in August until notability is 100% established. As of now, it doesn't appear to be. I don't see sufficient coverage for WP:SIGCOV Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 02:29, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. I commented above before a copy of previous version of article was made available (thank you to User:RoySmith for providing that). Informed by the previous version, I say "overturn" the deletion decision, or "relist" would be okay, because it was clear enough that this was a notable topic from (a) the poor quality of discussion in the AFD (mainly unsupported assertions, no discussion of sources), yet (b) 24(!) reasonably high-quality references in the article itself, and (c) the obviously state-level importance of the person (because he was a major governor candidate and he is obviously covered again and again in all of the state and regional newspapers and magazines and so on, already evident in the article, not even requiring looking at other sources provided in this deletion review, and not requiring looking for CNN and other national-level coverage about him that exists). A couple times above it and/or in the AFD it was mentioned that he got 38% in one state-wide election but only 8% in another, with sneering at the 8%, and the article was redirected to one about the 38% election. However that 8% was more than the difference between the other candidates, it has been pointed out, and he had history and momentum and importance, and it is relevant/interesting/important to provide some room for coverage of how he nonetheless failed _and_ was a spoiler of these elections.

A note: it is not taboo to note that an administrator made a mistake. It doesn't have to be a big deal. Administrators do not need to circle the wagons and insist that a decision was reasonable. Right, it could be you next time who is criticized in effect, by others saying you neglected to consider some important stuff. So what, that is NO BIG DEAL. It is a big deal, though, for the process of deletion review to be accurate and to say it like it is. Because otherwise, what the eff is this for. --Doncram (talk) 20:53, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

16 September 2018[edit]

15 September 2018[edit]

14 September 2018[edit]

13 September 2018[edit]

John Iadarola – No consensus to overturn. It's not entirely clear what's being asked here, but there is at any rate no consensus to overturn the deletion. What else to do with this topic can continue to be discussed elsewhere. Sandstein 12:33, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

When the 2nd AfD closed, on a 3/3 !vote, one of those !votes being from the closing Admin, the closing statement was Suggest that interested editors incubate it there, and wait until coverage of his career gains a little more heft before hoping to move it to a freestanding article. During the AfD another Keep voter said Iadarola was about to release a new series. After that series was released, in July, I improved the article with the addition of that series on go90 AND a new daily show Iadarola was starting on the TYT Network, which had already been picked up by YouTube OTT. I also notified the NOM, the Closer and the two negative !votes 1, 2 when I restored the article. The nom had no objection, none of the others chose to comment. Today, three months later, the article went through a redirect (this editor apparently pre-determining this move and result two weeks ago, revert and revert (I was uninvolved) and finally the NOM, who has already been active on THIS page today, redirected it away and salted that decision by adding indefinite admin access. Some people are more equal than others. Iadarola is the co-host of the flagship show of the The Young Turks, a youtube channel that gets 2 million hits a day. Other lesser talent on the network have their own articles. It is illogical and uninformed for his article to be redirected. At a minimum, the discussion should be reopened. Obviously, based on my improvements to the article, it should be restored. Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Trackinfo (talk) 05:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck doesn't Deletion Review automatically link to the decision being reviewed? Here, it is confusing because the AFD was a while ago and there has been subsequent back-and-forth about restoring or re-starting the article. I think the decision being reviewed is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Iadarola (2nd nomination), from a while ago. --Doncram (talk) 13:20, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The above is kind of confusing. The events described all happened, but the mapping of who did what is random. The quoted closing statement, for example, was actually part of an argument by User:E.M.Gregory, one of the AfD participants. And, User:Johnpacklambert was the nom for the AfD, not me. I closed it. I also protected the redirect. Be that as it may, I have no opinion on whether this should be redirected or not. My protection of the redirect was just to stop the edit warring going on. If, after a discussion, there's a consensus to remove the redirect, I'm fine with that. The normal place for such a discussion would be Talk:The Young Turks, but since we seem to be here, that's fine too. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:05, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. Good close, a squarely correct reading of a fairly clear reading of the rough consensus, if you read it through, to redirect with history intact. The content in appropriate in the target article and not spun out. The protecting of the redirect was the right thing to do, leave it protected. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:00, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond the initial decision, did you address the subsequent additions to the article, two additional programs he hosted, one for a different network, as further claims to notability? Trackinfo (talk) 09:07, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, that’s out of scope for this review. If you are making an argument for a spinout, make it at Talk:The Young Turks. I see nothing there. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:20, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how a discussion on THAT page can reactivate an article that has already been deleted. Because it has already been through the deletion process, that is why I brought it here. Trackinfo (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a couple of different questions intertwined here. I'll try to address them all.

First, the project has a weird tension between empowering people to act on their own and requiring people to agree as a group. It's fine to undo a redirect on your own. But, after a few cycles of somebody else coming along and putting it back, it's time to step back from that and work with other people to build consensus. That's where we are now. My protecting the redirect was not me expressing an opinion on whether it should be redirected or not. It was just me enforcing the consensus building.

We have lots of different places where discussions can happen. The article talk page is one. DRV (where we are now) is another. Having the discussion happen and some consensus emerge is the important thing. Which forum that happens on is less critical. In general, content issues (which this is) generally get hashed out on article talk pages.

Another possibility is WP:3. I've never actually used that myself, but from what I can see, it's a quick, lightweight, way to resolve disagreements about content, and I think this would qualify. My only concern about mentioning it is that you might post a request there and have it kicked back as not appropriate for that venue, which would be a sad example of WP:BURO.

Trackinfo, I believe the issue you're raising here is that now that the redirect is protected, it requires an admin to unprotect. So, if you had a discussion on the article talk page, and consensus emerged to eliminate the redirect and spin this back out as a stand-alone title, most users wouldn't be able to implement that. That's not really a problem; if you generated a consensus, you could just post a note to WP:RFP saying, "we've got consensus, can somebody please implement this", and you'd be all set. Or ping me, if you prefer (fair warning: you'll need to demonstrate consensus).

Alternatively, if the discussion happens here, whoever closes this DRV can implement it. But, again, the important thing is the discussion and the building of consensus. Which page the discussion happens on is less important. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:25, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I realize the requirement is to build a consensus, the question appears to be place. WP:BRD I improved the article addressing the previous concerns and took it to mainspace, with notification of the objecting parties. Some other editor came in to use the previous closure as a premeditated excuse to wipe out this content. There certainly is a contingent who object to the content of the TYT Network and will snipe at any opportunity. You can tell from the crap posted -vandalized- and regularly reverted across the swath of related articles. Since you had salted article based on the original AfD decision, this looked the only avenue to open the discussion, hidden from public view as this is. I put a notice on the TYT article directing (nobody so far) here. I'll convert it into the discussion and see if anybody notices it there, or if their foes overwhelm the process. Trackinfo (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trackinfo asked “Please explain how a discussion on THAT page can reactivate an article that has already been deleted. Because it has already been through the deletion process, that is why I brought it here.”

Trackinfo, you are getting ahead of yourself. At Afd, a decision was made. Based on the discussion, the close was correct. The talk page of the redirect target is the most likely place that you’ll find others interested in John Iadarola. I expect to see at least an attempt to start a conversation there. You mention BRD. Where is the discussion. This page, Deletion Review, is not for proposing a spinout, although you may here present information not known at the time of the AfD. This information has to link to reliable sources, not Wikipedia links. If on the talk page, no one else is there, try WP:3O, or WP:Pinging the AfD participants. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:51, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have opened the discussion on the redirect page. When I did the BRD, I notified the talk pages of the opposers directly. Trackinfo (talk) 08:20, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including the link for convenience: Talk:The Young Turks#John_Iadarola -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. When reversing a redirect, it is not obvious where the discussion should be. I'm not sure if it is written anywhere, but I think the discussion should, as a rule, be at the talk page of the redirect target. That is the page where the most subject-interested editors should be watching. I see you have received one blunt response already. My advice: Instead of stating "a new daily show Iadarola was starting on the TYT Network" provide the source that says this; instead of stating "Iadarola is the co-host of the flagship show of the The Young Turks", provide the source that says this. It's about being discussed in reliable sources, it is not about facts that can be asserted. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols – "Delete" closure endorsed. Sandstein 07:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

No consensus. I don't believe there was consensus to delete this article. In addition, I don't think it falls under the heading of "too trivial". The opening credit symbols in Ozark are a unique part of the show and set it apart from similar programs. I created a separate article because I thought the show's main article would become too big if these details were included there. I don't see any reason why the information on the opening credit sequences can't exist as a separate article. Billmckern (talk) 05:13, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse deletion- I think consensus was completely clear. Substantial nomination, with complete unanimity from everyone who commented. There's no other way this could have been closed. Reyk _YO! 08:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse and speedy close. The deletion decision was unanimous with no opposition; the discussion could not possibly have been closed any other way. Stifle (talk) 14:23, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Well attended and unanimous AfD. Nom fails WP:DRVPURPOSE. This should be speedy closed. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (own close). Clearly no other way to close the AFD and since no new sources are presented here to indicate that the AFD !voters were wrong in their assessment, this should be speedily closed. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 17:15, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. I guess the comments on the article's talk page that endorsed keeping it BEFORE it was proposed for deletion don't count then. Good to know.
Billmckern (talk) 17:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Talk:Ozark (TV series) Opening Credit Symbols (which I've tempundeleted), I see three comments in favor of keeping, one by you, one by TheMovieGuy, and one by Tealirish. Plus one in favor of deleting. Had these comments been made on the AfD page, the person who closed the AfD would have seen them, but I doubt it would have made any difference. Tealirish, in particular, would have almost certainly been discounted as an obvious sock. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. It's not reasonable to expect closers to consider talk page comments, unless someone points out there was prior discussion there. Either way, there's a clear consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 18:06, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse could not have been closed any other way. SportingFlyer talk 02:39, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. Could not have been closed any other way. It looks like an obviously inappropriate WP:SPINOUT. Encourage discussion of the content to continue at Talk:Ozark (TV series), but if it is not appropriate for inclusion in that article, it is less appropriate for a spinout. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. There clearly isn't even consensus to have the content included in the article, let alone stand on its own. Better suited for the show's Wikia page or what-have-you. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 19:57, 19 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, clearly I'm on the wrong side of this discussion. I guess delete is the answer then. Billmckern (talk) 05:48, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev – We don't entertain socks -- RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

There was no consensus in making conclusion about the article of Oleg Viktorovich Maltsev. At the first nomination, the nominee was blocked by the duck test, which in my opinion was not enough. The re-closing of the nomination does not fall under WP:SKCRIT#2 as I want independent participants to reach the consensus, because I have questions about the interest of the participant - User:Wumbolo in attempts to keep the article. Instead, he closed the nomination again, which confirms my suspicions again. I ask the decision to be done by an independent participant - sysop in order to maintain neutrality. I ask to pay attention to a large number of participants who resemble sockpuppets, voting to keep the article. Although the verification did not confirm this, they might have relation to each other outside Wikipedia. Also, in the discussing one of sysops confirmed the presence of advertising, but this has not been fixed. I just want everything to be done according with the rules. I see that there were done edits of the article, but I believe that the consensus should be made by a neutral participant. Marsellus W (talk) 03:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

12 September 2018[edit]

11 September 2018[edit]

Crescent Electric Supply Co. – Endorse-ish, but Relist. There's good consensus here that, while the close wasn't wrong per-se, the sources presented near the end of the AfD discussion, and here, deserve another week to review. I'm going to back out the deletion and the close, and relist the existing discussion. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 17 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

From the closing admin's talk page:

Extended content

Hi Patar knight. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Crescent Electric Supply Co., only one editor commented after I cited multiple sources including a 1957 profile in BusinessWeek that called Crescent Electric Supply "the midwest's largest electrical distributor". That editor did not address why the sources I provided were insufficient to establish notability. Please reconsider your close as "delete". Thank you, Cunard (talk) 00:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While I think you often do good work in digging up sources and trying to rescue articles, I think I must decline to revisit the close in this case. The other !voters and the nom all indicated that they had also done a survey of the available sources and found them unconvincing. There was also nearly three days for those editors to change their minds between when you posted the sources and the AFD close. Instead, during that time, another !voter thought that the available sources were lacking. Of the five best sources that you found, only the BusinessWeek article seems to truly cover the company in-depth, and none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject. This assessment seems borne out by the state of the article. While it's certainly better than how it was before you worked on it, the material is utterly mundane, except for the stuff sourced from the BusinessWeek article. I appreciate that it's frustrating to work on an article during AfD and have it deleted, but in this case you'll have to go to DRV. Sorry, ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 06:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin wrote, "The other !voters and the nom all indicated that they had also done a survey of the available sources and found them unconvincing." In their searches for sources, the AfD participants did not mention the extensive 1957 profile of Crescent Electric Supply in BusinessWeek. Had they found that profile or the other sources, I expect the participants to have mentioned them.

The closing admin wrote, "There was also nearly three days for those editors to change their minds between when you posted the sources and the AFD close." It is wrong to assume that silence from previous participants means they have reviewed the new sources and rejected them. Closing admins generally give less weight to AfD participants who have not addressed significant new information that has come to light in an AfD. The sources cannot be discounted implicitly through editors declining to discuss them.

The closing admin wrote, "another !voter thought that the available sources were lacking". That editor said the article failed WP:NCORP and was promotional. But that editor did not specifically explain how the article was promotional and why the sources I provided were insufficient to establish notability.

The closing admin wrote, "Of the five best sources that you found, only the BusinessWeek article seems to truly cover the company in-depth, and none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject." It is incorrect that aside from the BusinessWeek article, "none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject". As I noted in the AfD, there are two other sources that provide significant coverage of the company:

A 2,584-word article titled "Crescent Electric Supply Profile: Orchestrating Change". The profile was written by Jim Lucy and published in 2013 by Penton's Electrical Wholesaling article.
A 1,273-word article titled "Delivering solutions; Crescent Electric Supply uses service and knowledge to sell automation and control systems to industrial customers". The article was written by Victoria Fraza Kickham and published by Reed Business Information's Industrial Distribution.

~~I also disagree that "the material is utterly mundane"~~:

Founded in 1919, Crescent Electric Supply was the biggest electrical distributor in the Midwest according to a 1957 profile in BusinessWeek.
Crescent Electric Supply became a distributor for General Electric in 1925 and in 1957 was GE's "largest independent full-line distributor".
A 2018 article in The Wall Street Journal called the company "one of the largest electrical suppliers in the U.S."

I had expanded the article with this information.

There was no opportunity to respond to the closing admin's arguments that aside from BusinessWeek "none of the others seem to spend more than two paragraphs on the subject" and "the material is utterly mundane" because these arguments were not made in the AfD.

Overturn to relist or overturn to no consensus.

Cunard (talk) 06:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- Aside from an extraordinarily long filibuster by Cunard, there were no arguments to retain the article. Plenty of other editors examined the sources and didn't find them sufficient for an article, so I agree with Patar knight that the consensus was to delete the article. Reyk _YO! 13:14, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist. Patar's close was correct. We can only judge consensus based on the opinions that are in front of us. Making assumptions about what sources were and weren't consulted by which editors, or why participants did or didn't respond to later comments, is a slippery slope. But Cunard did raise a lot of new material and relisting for another week is a reasonable request. – Joe (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy relist. Give us several days to digest Cunards points. This is worth considering, and the points go to AfD discussion points, not close review points. Criticise the close for its excessive brevity for a contested discussion. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:39, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist without prejudice per both Joes. The close wasn't ~~horribly~~ wrong per se, but there really was no engagement with the substantive analysis of Cunard; it seems reasonable to allow such engagement to occur. (Where Reyk sees a "filibuster", I see a thoughtful and comprehensive rebuttal of the arguments for deletion...which may or may not stand up to further debate but need to be engaged with!) Martinp (talk) 01:53, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Strengthening to Speedy relist or at least undelete the article during the discussion here. After a day we seem to have fairly strong consensus here that Cunard found one or several significant sources, a plausible assertion of notability, and improved the article. The one !voter in the AFD after his contribution does not seem to have engaged with that. So let's cut bureaucracy and finish a reasonable evaluation. This would best be done by just relisting (as if the AFD had just been extended), or, failing that, if the proper venue to debate the merits is here, we need to see the article. Noting I struck through "horribly" above since it cast unintended aspersions - I wasn't trying to imply "wrong but not horribly". And the whole situation reminds me of Arch Coal 10+ years ago - due to COI issues, we seem to have a hard time recognizing and writing about notable companies. NCORP is fine; we just seem to have a bias to assume a not-very-good article about a company must be nonnotable, and assume there are no RS rather than looking for them! Martinp (talk) 10:50, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist While a correct reading of consensus, only one person voted delete after the keep post discussing sources and the article improvement. Three days and one additional delete comment isn't quite enough time to evaluate an improved article, and I think a relist is proper, though I would probably read consensus as a delete if no additional comments were received after a couple weeks. SportingFlyer talk 06:59, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (own close). I stand by my close and my exchange with Cunard on my talk page. Unless there's strong evidence to the contrary, we should not throw out !votes and nominations of users that either explicitly cite a lack of independent, reliable sources or policy/guidelines that mandate such sources to exist, merely because they did not respond to another user's 10k byte post. And judging by the quality of the sources, all of which except for the BusinessWeek article (from 1957!) lack the type and depth of coverage sought in WP:CORPDEPTH or the independence required by WP:CORPIND, they were correct to do so. Since many !votes here are against my close, I'll just note that relisting would obviously be preferable to overturning to no consensus, given the !vote distribution. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 15:51, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for temp-undeleting, Patar Knight. I agree with you that the article, even as quickly improved by Cunard during the AFD, is still pretty basic and stubby. But it doesn't seem horribly promotional or vacuous. I've taken a quick look, and in addition to the sources already identified, it seems there is a Hoover's profile (behind a paywall for me, but usually a useful independent source for data and a brief description), a very brief Bloomberg profile, and also quite a bit of material at [9], which while wikiformatted seems to be a stable, likely unbiased/independent secondary source with additional info that could be incorporated, as well as additional sources in its reference section. So I don't think finding RS to expand would be a problem. A more relevant Q is (I think) whether the company is notable enough. The old BW claim of significance is something, but not overwhelming. According to Hoovers, annual revenue is about $1.2B, which is not small but not huge either. Not sure where/how we should be having that discussion, whether here, or at a possible (eventual) extended/relisted AFD. Martinp (talk) 16:49, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Our notability guidelines rely on having significant, in-depth coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. The presence of passing mentions in reliable sources can create a presumption that the guidelines are met, but doesn't in and of itself meet those guidelines. The only reference that seems to meet our guidelines is the excellent BusinessWeek article, but no other such sources seem to exist. The article content not sourced to the BusinessWeek piece is just acquisitions, a regional personnel change, and office/product numbers, all of which are explicitly barred from granting notability per WP:CORPDEPTH.

It's perhaps telling that of the five sources by Cunard as providing significant coverage, the two Penton sources were not even used during their revision of the page. The Wall Street Journal source is a single sentence name drop to reference the vague statement that the company "one of the largest" of its kind in the United States. And the Industrial Distribution article is only used to source that the company grew through acquisitions in the 1970s, a fact covered by only twelve words out of 1273 in the article. Given how this discussion is proceeding, I would be able to explain why any of the provided sources are insufficient in a re-opened discussion, so I won't waste more energy doing so now. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"the two Penton sources were not even used during their revision of the page" – in the Wikipedia article, I included the two sentences: "Schmid had been dissatisfied with the length of time electrical manufacturers needed to deliver goods through the river from St. Louis or Minneapolis to Dubuque. He founded Crescent Electric Supply to speed up the delivery for electric contractors."

These sentences should be cited to the 2013 Penton article, not the BusinessWeek article. I copied the wrong citation over.

I could have expanded the article with more information from the sources but did not do so because I was limited on time.

Cunard (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Cunard is blatantly misrepresenting my words by taking "utterly mundane" out of context. I said that the material cited to BusinessWeek as not mundane, but the rest of the article was. Here, Cunard is misrepresenting me as saying that the entire article is mundane and then lists three non-mundane things, two of which were cited to the BusinessWeek article, which was absolutely not my position. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:17, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have stricken that statement from my nomination. My mistake. I apologize for taking "utterly mundane" out of context.

Cunard (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relist no harm in some more time for discussion of the sources, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relist The new sources need wider discussion. Hobit (talk) 20:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve reviewed the sources and the article. At AfD I would/will !vote “delete”. Cunard and I have had this difference before, but my position is that he is light on “independence” of the sourcing. I find myself source by source repeatedly discounting them as independent due to things such as reliance and faithful reproduction of company information, featuring interview material, reporting company facts. I am suspicious, though not alleging, that each of the publications has financial non-independence, but for the real test what I am looking for is transformative content in the source deriving from the source’s author, as required to be a secondary source, and not appearing to originate from a conversation with the company, it’s owner or it’s spokesperson. I am not seeing that in any source. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to not be finding the extensive 1957 profile of Crescent Electric Supply in BusinessWeek. Can someone help me with that? It sounds like it was the best source? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I just assumed good faith that the sources does exist and based my assessment of the source as a good one on the quotations posted by Cunard at the AFD, its use as a source on the article, and that most of what it said seemed corroborated by other sources that are accessible, but seemingly less in-depth. My institution's EBSCO subscription only has BusinessWeek issues from 1996 onwards, so I assume Cunard must have found a physical copy somehow. ---- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 05:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 1957 BusinessWeek source is available in Google Books here. It can be found through a search for the article's name ("Expanding in the Face of a Trend").

Cunard (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here are more sources about Crescent Electric Supply:
1. "Crescent Electric Supply Company". Hoover's Company In-Depth Records. 2018.
  The profile notes:
  It's certainly no surprise what business Crescent Electric Supply Company is in. The company distributes more than 200,000 electrical products from 600 leading vendors, including GE Lighting, Hubbell, Siemens, and Thomas & Betts. Main products include lamps, light fixtures, switchgear, door bells, and power distribution controls. Customers include Caterpillar, Deere, and clients in the agriculture, construction, data communications, energy, government, health care, hospitality, and industrial sectors. Crescent Electric has more than 140 locations in some 25 states.
  Under the "Strategy" section, the profile notes:
  Crescent continues to invest in marketing and e-commerce initiatives that can extend its reach to new customers, as well as focus on markets such as government, education, and lighting retrofits for growth. It also makes strategic acquisitions to fortify its core operations and extend its geographical scope. In 2013 it opened a new location in Arizona and Montana to attract additional clients within those states.
  This provides transformative analysis of the company.
  Here is more information from the profile:
  1. It was founded by Titus Schmid in 1919.
  2. In 2012, it acquired Stoneway Electric Supply, which operated 15 branches in the Pacific Northwest, and McCullough Electric Company, which was based in the "key major metropolitan region" of Pittsburgh.
  3. In 2013, it purchased Lake Electric Supply, which operated in Iowa, and Interstate Electric Supply, which operated in Idaho and Oregon.
  4. Regarding the company's clients, it sells to "contractors, original equipment manufacturers, and to the maintenance, repair, and operations needs of commercial, industrial, institutional, and utility clients".
  5. The profile lists 15 competitors. Some of those competitors are Mayer Electric. Cape Electrical Supply, W.W. Grainger, Kirby Risk, and Graybar Electric.
2. Hogstrom, Erik (2006-09-24). "Crescent founded in Dubuque". Telegraph Herald.
  The articles does not have any quotations or interviews with the company's representatives.
  The article notes:
  By 1925, Crescent had been appointed a General Electric Lamp agent.
  The company experienced steady growth, expanding to five locations in 1930, eight by 1940, 25 by 1970.
  Crescent supplies a range of electrical contractors, from one-man shops to those capable of designing and installing multimillion-dollar systems.
  Other customers include investor-owned utilities, rural electric cooperatives, municipal utilities, industrial firms, schools, hospitals, colleges, hardware and appliance stores as well as discount stores and supermarkets.
  The article also notes that the company was founded by Titus B. Schmid in 1919 in Dubuque, Illinois. The article further notes that the company's corporate office is in East Dubuque and that it has more than 120 distribution locations in 25 states including New York and Alaska.
3. Dale, Bert (1952). "Fixture Sales Zoom at Crescent Electric". Electrical Consultant. Vol. 62. p. 42. ISSN 0361-4972. Retrieved 2018-09-12.
  The article notes:
  SOMETHING is going on, in the 16 branches of Crescent Electric Supply Company which cover all of Iowa and large portions of Illinois, Wisconsin and South Dakota. It's a big increase in lighting volume, largely on the commercial side: 90% over 1951 for the first quarter of this year — the latest figures available now. This substantial increase has been a continuing trend since a separate lighting department was established in the firm in 1945, under the supervision of Lighting Engineer Carl O. Christensen. Figures reveal that in 1941, lighting was only 5.8% of Crescent's full-time volume; in 1951, despite zooming figures in other departments, lighting fixtures accounted for 7.5% of all Crescent's business, including major appliances.
  The article further notes:
  Crescent was founded by Titus B. Schmid, its present president, in 1919. The original house at Dubuque has grown to include a manufacturing plant and 16 branches in four states, including among other employees 76 outside salesmen and 19 city counter-salesman.
  Lighting fixtures were always considred an important phase of the business by Mr. Schmid, but it was not until the establishment of a separate department that considerable advances were made. As in other full-line houses, all the salesmen sell some lighting at one time or another; but until Christensen 's advent such sales were often the result of demand or accident.
4. "The Top 200 Electrical Distributors" (PDF). Electrical Wholesaling. Penton. 2017-07-25. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-09-12. Retrieved 2018-09-12. {{cite news}}: |archive-date= / |archive-url= timestamp mismatch; 2018-09-13 suggested (help)
  The page lists Crescent Electric Supply in 2017 as the eighth largest electrical distributor in the United States with a revenue of $1.035 billion, 1,825 employees, and 143 locations.
5. "A Look At the Largest". Electrical Wholesaling. Vol. 97, no. 6. Penton. 2016. p. 18. ISSN 0013-4430.
  The article provides summaries of some of the largest electrical distributors in 2016. Crescent Electric Supply in 2016 is listed as the tenth largest electrical distributor in the United States.
  The article notes:
  Crescent Electric Supply had a quiet year, news-wise, with a steady flow of new personnel making up the bulk of their announced changes. Earlier this year, the company's Elk Grove Village, Ill., branch helped supply electrical products for the renovation of Chicago's Wrigley Field, and Electrical Wholesaling's May, 2015 issue featured the story of how Crescent and Service Wire worked together to supply a custom wire order for the project. Crescent Electric Supply was also the subject of a July, 2013 cover story in Electrical Wholesaling. Another big news story over the past few years at the company was the big investment it made into e-commerce two years ago when it launched an online store at www. cesco.com that offered access to more than 200,000 products.
Cunard (talk) 07:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse This was my afd nomination, and sometimes in response to my nominations Cunard succeeds in finding references that meet our standards--and I have accordingly sometimes withdrawn an afd nomination or changed my !voe to keep. . But t his is not one of those times. Taking the primary examples, the listing in Hoovers, the profile in Electric Wholesaling are magnificent examples of routine coverage--these are individual items in a series in those publications that includes every possibly significant company. That's exactly thedefinition of directory information. They are accurate directory information, but they do not show notability. Nor do they show thatthe firm is so importantthat it should necessarily be covered: they do not show it has the major market share. DGG ( talk ) 01:23, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DGG (talk · contribs), those are not the primary examples of notability. I have listed the primary examples below (including two new sources I found today).
Regarding "they do not show it has the major market share", a 1957 profile in BusinessWeek and a 1969 cover story in Iowa Business & Industry magazine say it was the largest electrical distributor in the Midwest in that era.
Sources published in the 2010s say it is the eighth largest electrical distributor in the United States today.
Cunard (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ordered by date of publication (from oldest to newest), these are the five strongest sources about Crescent Electric Supply:
1. 20 April 1957 profile in BusinessWeek
2. April 1969 cover story in Iowa Business & Industry magazine (link to cover^{Internet Archive}). The cover notes:
  Crescent Electric Supply Company has fanned out over the midwest with a "localized" service concept that has boosted it to the largest distributor in this area. It took Crescent 50 years to establish 29 branch outlets and — one by one — put its inventory, services and helping-hand concept. This April the company celebrates its golden anniversary. The four sons of the founder Titus B. Schmid are shown on the cover. They are, left to right, Thomas B. Schmid, president; William T. Schmid, James A. Schmid and John Schmid. The Crescent territory now serves electrical utilities, contractors and dealers in parts of nine states. Electric supplies are its largest volume division. Major appliances are another. Household appliances are another and a growing segment is its lighting division. For a story about how a company started with a young man's idea in 1919 and blossomed out into a giant distributor, please turn to Page 24.
3. February 1972 cover story in McGraw-Hill's Electric Wholesaling magazine titled "Crescent's information system: The Key to Controlling 29 Branches" (link to cover^{Internet Archive}).
4. 24 July 2006 profile in Telegraph Herald titled "Crescent founded in Dubuque".
5. July 2013 cover story from Penton's Electrical Wholesaling magazine titled "Orchestrating Change: How Crescent Electric Supply is blending its proud history with 21st century sales, marketing and maanagement strategies" (link to cover^{Internet Archive}).
The articles were published in 1957, 1969, 1972, 2006, and 2013. Crescent Electric Supply has received significant coverage in reliable sources over many decades.
Cunard (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

10 September 2018[edit]

Desire (Paulina Rubio song) – Redirect endorsed, no action taken. There's a few things that could potentially happen here.

The close could be found to have been in error. Given that it was unanimous, that's obviously not happening.
It could be determined that the close was fine, but the situation has changed since then. Since no evidence of that was presented here, that's not happening either.
You could be WP:BOLD and just recreate the article on your own, if you had additional sources that show new evidence of notability. But, be aware, if the new version doesn't demonstrate notability, people will not take kindly to that. I don't recommend that option.
You could start a new draft at Draft:Desire (Paulina Rubio song). That way, you can work on the article at your own pace and only submit it for review when you've gotten things in shape. And by "in shape", I mean you've located sufficient new sources to demonstrate that this now passes WP:N. This is probably your best option. If you want, I (or any other admin) can move the previous text to draft space, so you can start with that. Please note that, as mentioned below, the copyright violating text has already been elided, and isn't coming back.

-- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Allow recreation

I'm sorry if I'm submitting an entry in the wrong way, but for some reason I don't understand how to do the format thing.

Hello! A Paulina Rubio single page under the name Desire (Paulina Rubio song) was recently directed/deleted because some of its content was copied and pasted from other links. The user who deleted the page told me that I should write page content in my own style, then add links as sources. I asked for the page to be back again and I'll write its content in my own words, not copied from sites, but they wouldn't do that and they suggested that I go to the Deletion review page. What can I do to have the page back? LoveAndArt (talk) 17:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC) -->[reply]

The article was turned into a redirect as a result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desire (Paulina Rubio song). I cleaned the copyright violations and restored the redirect because the new version was pretty much the same as the version that was the subject of the AFD. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. "What can I do to have the page back?" You can find it here

Consensus was to redirect. To reverse that, establish consensus to WP:SPINOUT at the talk page of the target, at Talk:Paulina_Rubio_discography. I don't personally see a good case to even spinout from a prose-free article. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's just that most singles' pages are built that way. I only reversed the redirect and had the very same content on it because I didn't want to create another new page of the song. I think the moderator should've just erased the copyrighted material from the page, and not delete or redirect the whole page. If that's how things work here then I imagine most pages would be redirected or deleted. I want the page back and I will write it in my own words/style without copying from sites. I'll even use Spanish sources because there are much more information on the song in Spanish as Paulina Rubio is a Mexican singer. It'd look like a whole new page. Pus the old ones in my opinion looked alright because it had links and references to it. Barely anyone checks into the Paulina Rubio discography page so I imagine that it would be pointless to write anything there. I say you just let me reverse the redirect and have page back and let me work on it in my own style. LoveAndArt (talk) 05:38, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LoveAndArt: You are conflating two separate issues here. We always delete copyright violations and we will not restore them under any circumstances, because it is illegal for Wikipedia to host copyright-infringing content. In any case, if you intend to rewrite the article in your own words, why would you need it?

But the copyright violation has nothing to do with the article being turned into a redirect. That was because the community had already discussed the subject here and decided that there aren't enough sources for a standalone article. You don't need an administrator to turn the redirect back into an article—any editor can do that—but on Wikipedia we make decisions by consensus and unilaterally reversing a decision reached just two months ago is inappropriate. If you want to convince the community to change its mind, then you need to present some evidence that the song meets WP:NSONG and that there are enough independent, reliable sources to write an article about it. – Joe (talk) 18:41, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Joe Roe: How and where can I present an evidence that the song deserves a page? LoveAndArt (talk) 14:10, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here. That's one of the things WP:DRV is for. Try to focus on anything that was overlooked in the original discussion, rather than rehashing arguments there. – Joe (talk) 18:42, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

9 September 2018[edit]

Ammar Campa-Najjar – Deletion endorsed, recreation allowed if there is good new sourcing that clearly makes the subject pass WP:GNG. Sandstein 07:09, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

After an AfD discussion, Ammar Campa-Najjar page was replaced with a redirect link to 'United States House of Representatives elections in California'. The situation and notability has significantly changed since that discussion. Following the indictment of his opponent, Campa-Najjar has received a boatload of national and international news coverage. The latest polling indicates that he is tied with the incumbent in what was formerly thought to be a guaranteed GOP district. Please just take a look at some of the many articles published about him in the past few weeks. It is getting rather ridiculous that he does not have a Wikipedia page at this point. User 'Butwhatdoiknow' therefore tried to start a new version of the article, but edits were then blocked by an administrator. That administrator 'Luk' and the user 'Ansh666', who closed the AfD discussion, both recommend the page for a 'Deletion Review'. B P G PhD (talk) 17:10, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting from the first AfD, Unelected political candidates ... must be able to achieve widespread coverage independent and unrelated to their campaign or candidacy. It would be useful if you could translate, a boatload of national and international news coverage into a list of specific references which meet that requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse the outcomes of the first two AfDs. They were clearly closed correctly. If there's been new coverage since the second AfD I'd have no objection to it being recreated, but we would need to see those sources first. Reyk _YO! 07:44, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse clearly correct outcome, no prejudice to a sourced draft if there is genuinely new and significant coverage that's too big for the article on the election race itself. Guy (Help!) 08:15, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A short list of really good references would be better than a boatload of anything. Thincat (talk) 08:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The deletion discussions have been closed correctly. Let's see the new coverage. Stifle (talk) 10:09, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. WP:NPOL has consensus. Candidates not subject to independent reliable secondary source coverage do not get their own page, regardless of mentions in newscoverage, abundance of promotional material and interviews, and reliable sources showing that they are running, and what their previous job was. I wondered, see Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(people)#A_resource_for_political_activists_and_candidates?, whether people wanting to document candidates could be sent somewhere, but I am not finding anywhere suitable. Incumbency has advantages, sorry, but Wikipedia does not right these wrongs. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Challenge any interested authors to present 2-3 good sources that are independent, reliably published, and contain at least 2 sentences of secondary source commentary about the subject. To pass Wikipedia-notability, no amount of facts will do, and WP:Reference bombing doesn't help. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:59, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn There is now enough coverage. Even in an ordinary election year,the candidates of both major US parties will always get substantial coverage, even if they are not the incumbents. DGG ( talk ) 19:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I voted in the AfD, but I looked for news sources. His opponent was recently indicted, which generated some coverage of his political race. I don't see why there's a fight for this article when there's no additional coverage of the campaign in the place where the article was redirected toward, especially considering the WP:PROMO concerns we have for candidates who have not yet participated in a general election. SportingFlyer talk 07:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse, with no prejudice against recreating the page in draftspace, or in mainspace if sourcing clearly meets Notability guidelines. The AfD seems to be closed correctly, though if notability has changed then recreating the page is in order. Taking it through AfC, or some other peer review process, may remove doubts as to the state of its notability.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:00, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

8 September 2018[edit]

7 September 2018[edit]

Bad-faith nomination by (amazingly) yet another sock. – Decision endorsed Guy (Help!) 08:22, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

I discussed the matter with Bilby before coming here, and I got nothing except accusations and paid editing jobs that have no evidence. The closing administrator original claim stems from that he thinks the 'Keep' votes were done for pay and that many other editors are going to get hired, so he thinks he should close the discussion before the 7-day period to avoid that. I have asked multiple times for evidence to his claim, but I got nothing except him believing so. None of the editors is blocked for undisclosed paid editing, and the discussion should run normally till the end. A discussion in this form should end in 'No Consensus', or at least that's what I believe. I voted a 'Delete' myself, but I think Bilby is overriding the deletion discussion consensus to his favor. What I would suggest is to reopen the discussion, stirke out votes for paid editors(if any) and let the discussion end normally. Bradgd (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that I wasn't notified of this. At any rate, the AfD had been extended three times, so it had been running for almost a month when I closed it. I closed it after it became clear that the client was continuing to hire editors on Upwork to vote at the AfD, and no new arguments had been offered for or against the article in the last two weeks. I note that the creator of the article - User:Gharee - was blocked by User:MER-C, and was later identified as a sock of the blocked paid editor User:Strizivojna. Thus it was a valid G5 candidate when nominated. Only two other editors had made substantial contributions to the page - one of which was User:WikiSniki, a sock of the paid editor User:Jkmarold55. Accordingly, with the increasing number of undisclosed paid editors involved, no new arguments being offered, and the AfD having been open for over three weeks, I thought it was time to close it. - Bilby (talk) 14:57, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
<ec>Without comment on the paid editing problem, the subject appears to be borderline notable ([10] looks like the best source, one can make a "local" argument, but the new source itself is international (but known for covering each market as its own thing)). I'd have argued to keep based on the sources, but it isn't clear cut. Given the paid editing issues raised by Bilby above, I think delete is a reasonable closure. endorse Hobit (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hobit, we don't actually have any tangible evidence that votes were done for pay. These are wild claims, and when they not backed up by evidence, I think it makes the case worse. That's IAR card fired by Bilby's intuition that their argument that the article should be kept isn't sufficient Bradgd (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

They really aren't that wild. We know that one or more people were paid to edit the article. Some of the !voters are appear to be socks. So yes, it's a pretty good case that the AfD had issues. And honestly the notability is very borderline. Hobit (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I temporarily undeleted the article history. DGG ( talk ) 23:09, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reopen for a minimum total open time of 168 hours. Do not make administrative shortcuts to save time, that’s not what works. Weekend editors need a chance to contribute, for example. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- At AfD I would start Leaning “Delete”, as the article has zero secondary source content except for “best player in the National Championships as a 17-year-old”. I.e. it was a CV. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:16, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - SmokeyJoe, I'm afraid that the OP was a bit misleading. The AfD was open for 26 days before I closed it. There had only been one new comment (other than that of a very likely paid editor) in the last 11 days. - Bilby (talk) 07:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry, I was confused, thought the nom and the closer had said they closed it early, and I misread the dates. Pointless relisting annoys me. I wasn't closed early, any closer can ignore a relist. I'm still confused. Are the "keep" !voters Govvy (talk · contribs), Crazy Cat Person (talk · contribs), Gprscrippers (talk · contribs), JC7V7DC5768 (talk · contribs) being alleged to be WP:UPEs? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:44, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - No, but the original creator, Gharee (talk · contribs), was. When it was nominated for AfD WikiSniki (talk · contribs) was hired, then edited and voted as a UPE. In the last few days, the client hired three more people - one was Kevroby (talk · contribs), another is unknown, and a third was hired for off-wiki research. Others may have been hired during this period outside of Upwork. - Bilby (talk) 10:43, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        OK. I don’t like the notion of closing “early due to issues with undisclosed paid editors”, but that is not what happened. It was a close but a good call. Endorse. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I take offence if you're calling me a paid editor, I only reviewed what I saw, and I it was so long ago I don't remember what the article looks like, I would also like to know what page cite 19 was that I pointed out!! Govvy (talk) 12:11, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I have no reason to think that you were paid. I'm sorry if I gave that impression. - Bilby (talk) 13:54, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse- I probably would have voted to keep this if I'd participated in the AfD. But it had been open plenty long enough and, with misbehaviour startig up and no new opinions being offered, I don't see a reall issue with cutting the third relist a bit short. Reyk _YO! 10:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The combination of known socking, multiple non-policy keep arguments from users who I shall charitably describe as having limited editing experience, and highly promotional content, adds up to delete being a perfectly reasonable close. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse due to the paid editing Atlantic306 (talk) 19:52, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comments I thought the article wasn't that brilliant or that bad, I saw the history of the article is still there, I had a another look. There were 30 citations on the page, and I thought only 8 of them were really helpful for the article. But the guy had one of his articles published in the heraldsun, which is also a published newspaper, and the fact he wrote a published book. That's why I went with weak keep. Govvy (talk) 10:22, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

6 September 2018[edit]

Cultural Marxism – No consensus to overturn. This is a contentious matter, so I think it will be helpful if I explain my rationale in some detail. First, I don't think this is necessarily the wrong venue for this, as the OP is putting forward what they believe to be "significant new information [that] has come to light since a deletion". The deletion discussion which took place in 2014 was closed with consensus to delete and redirect. Since it was a lengthy discussion, closed by three administrators, I would judge that outcome as representing firm consensus. Overturning this requires firm consensus in the other direction. There are some persuasive arguments put forward here in favor of undeletion, chiefly that new sources covering this topic as a conspiracy theory. In light of those, arguments that the redirect should remain because the article could promote a fringe POV must be given less weight, because the OP is explicitly about documenting this as a conspiracy theory. That said, there is enough support for the arguments that the material can be covered at Frankfurt school, and that the new sources are not particularly weighty, that we do not have the strong consensus required to overturn the original decision. This does not, of course, preclude further discussion elsewhere. Vanamonde (talk) 20:22, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Copying in part from here: "I've read the discussions that took place in 2014 that led the term Cultural Marxism to be redirected (and salted). At the time the discussion concluded, this is what the merged section looks like. Presently, it looks like this. There appear to be additional mainstream sources about the term since 2014, such as Jeet Heer writing about it in The New Republic as seen here. Since on Wikipedia, consensus can change, I would like to propose for there to once again be a standalone article about this term, which has continued to amass coverage (especially coverage more relevant than what may have existed in 2014). It seems to meet WP:NFRINGE at this point. WP:PAGEDECIDE says, "Fringe theories, for example, may merit standalone pages but have undue weight on a page about the mainstream concept," and the content seems to be getting bloated in its section under a broader topic. Judging from the additional content, especially in regard to contemporary political matters, a standalone article is warranted to talk about the term and its use historically and in today's world. I would suggest Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory for the article title, (which is not salted, but I figured judging from the three-admin closure that a preliminary discussion is warranted). It should go without saying that such an article should follow WP:FRINGE in how it handles the term."

My general assessment of sources in the last few years is that sources writing about the term exist, especially in regard to contemporary political matters, and I think readers are best served by a standalone article discussing the conspiracy theory based on such sources. The topic standing alone would also allow for more transparent collaborative editing, as opposed to being a bloated section under a more general topic. I have no illusions that the editing process will be messy, but I believe that such a process will lead to Wikipedia having a well-vetted article about the conspiracy theory. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 19:37, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a good way to start the discussion would be to explicitly list the sources which have emerged since the last AfD, and inviting people who participated in the various prior AfDs to evaluate them. I suggest using Talk:Cultural Marxism for this. DRV seems like the wrong venue; the general rule is that after sufficient time has gone by (four years qualifies), you don't need DRV involvement to recreate a title if the issues found at AfD are no longer valid. But, given the history here, I agree that discussion and consensus building is the way to go. DRV's just not the right place. Hmm, wait, I see that's where you started, and got pointed here. In any case, the key point is I'd like to see you explicitly list the new sources so people can evaluate them. Whether that's done here or on the talk page is of less importance. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I assume Huon pointed me here because of WP:DRVPURPOSE #3: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". I'm listing some sources below. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sources since 2014

Heer, Jeet (August 15, 2017). "Trump's Racism and the Myth of 'Cultural Marxism'". The New Republic.
Oliver, Scott (February 23, 2017). "Unwrapping the 'Cultural Marxism' Nonsense the Alt-Right Loves". Vice.
Gallagher, Brenden (July 6, 2018). "What Is Cultural Marxism—and where did the term come from?". The Daily Dot.
Wilson, Jason (January 18, 2015). "'Cultural Marxism': a uniting theory for rightwingers who love to play the victim". The Guardian. (op-ed, so not sure about this other than being in The Guardian)
Zappone, Chris (November 10, 2017). "Cultural Marxism – the ultimate post-factual dog whistle". The Sydney Morning Herald.
Blackford, Russell (July 27, 2015). "Cultural Marxism and our current culture wars: Part 1". The Conversation. (Part 2 here)
Note: This mentions Wikipedia's role in presenting about the topic. Based on the author's thoughts, perhaps it is worth having a Cultural Marxism article separate from Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:43, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Calton, Chris (June 21, 2018). "What Is Cultural Marxism?". mises.org. Mises Institute. (not sure where Mises Institute stands as a source)
Jamin, Jerome (February 6, 2018). "Cultural Marxism: A survey". Religion Compass. (can't tell if this journal is credible)
Jamin, Jerome (2014). "Cultural Marxism and the Radical Right". In Jackson, P.; Shekhovtsov, A. (eds.). The Post-War Anglo-American Far Right: A Special Relationship of Hate. pp. 84–103. doi:10.1057/9781137396211. ISBN 978-1-137-39619-8.
Copsey, Nigel; Ricardson, John E. (2015). Cultures of Post-War British Fascism. Routledge Studies in Fascism and the Far Right. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-317-53936-0. The 'Cultural Marxism' thesis did not originate in Britain, nor is it invoked solely by the BNP. Since the conspiracy theory was first coined by American 'cultural conservatives', it has been re-interpreted, adopted and circulated by a wide range of right-wing individuals and political groups.

Please feel free to evaluate. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:35, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You could spin off Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. The problem with calling the article "Cultural Marxism" is that it was a fork of the "Frankfurt School" article, with conspiracy theories presented as criticism. TFD (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What about having Cultural Marxism and Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory as separate articles? From what I've read, it seems like the first one should be a dry academic sort and the latter focusing on the conspiracy theory. Sort of like having the 9/11 attacks article and the conspiracy theory one separately. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 23:49, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory. There are no new sources that did not exist when the AfD for Cultural Marxism was held. TFD (talk) 00:54, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my point is to have a standalone article about the conspiracy theory as reliable sources have covered it. Do you disagree with that? I only focused on finding mainstream coverage of that fringe topic. I'm not that familiar with the general academic concept of cultural Marxism, but my impression is that another article focusing on just that could be had. What do you think? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 02:37, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn in some form. Undecided on the title and exact scope, but the general topic clearly meets WP:GNG. I must note, however, that the title "Cultural Marxism" is ambiguous and could be easily misinterpreted. I'm pretty sure Karl Marx or other major Marxists have thoughts on what a good culture looks like. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 00:45, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not restore The article was deleted with good reason and no new sources have been introduced since the AfD. However, I do not think that prevents a spinoff of Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory. However, that is an issue that should be decided on its merits at the Frankfurt School talk page. TFD (talk) 03:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces, I introduced post-AfD sources above. Did you overlook them? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I did not overlook them, but wrote, "All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory." The deleted article was about "Cultural Marxism," not the conspiracy theory and since no new sources have been introduced to justify restoring it, it should remain deleted. TFD (talk) 16:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Four Deuces, the problem is that Cultural Marxism as an academic concept and the conspiracy theory are being collapsed together. "Cultural Marxism" redirects to a "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory" section. I did not list my sources to advocate for a standalone topic that is not about a conspiracy theory. Do you suggest that I just overwrite the unsalted Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory redirect? I didn't do that because everything is mixed up together here and seemed to warrant a discussion. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Erik, you could do that but I strongly suggest you get consensus on the Frankfurt School talk page, or it would be considered disruptive. I don't think this forum is the place for that discussion. TFD (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse (do not restore) -- the AfD was closed not by just one, but by three admins: "This AfD has been closed after consensus was judged independently by 3 uninvolved administrators"; with the close warranting its own talk page here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Cultural Marxism (2nd nomination). In any case, the topic is already suffiently covered in Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory; a stand-alone article in not required at this time. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:28, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD was closed in 2014, and consensus can change. You are just repeating the outcome. Why not respond to the new sources and the reasons why not in response to my suggestion? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. One of those rare cases where three admins jointly reviewed the debate. Yes, we know that a small number of people desperately want a separate article, but the case was made and was not compelling - and new "references" from hyper-partisan sources like the Mises Institute do not change that. WP:GETOVERIT applies. Guy (Help!) 08:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We can drop the Mises Institute source. I questioned it myself. But what about the other sources? Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 11:33, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I refer the hon. gentleman to my earlier answer. Guy (Help!) 16:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. This is a clearly notable topic which is simply bursting out of Frankfurt School. Plenty of sources are given both on that page and in this DRV. The users above me seem to be endorsing the admin's decision at the time; I think this is a confusion caused by the incoherent nonsense that is WP:DRVPURPOSE, but reformulating those rules is a different discussion for a different time. In this case, DRVPURPOSE #3 applies and some of the !votes above would apply only if the nomination was alleging DRVPURPOSE #1, and they should therefore be discounted by the closer. And just to make it clear what I'm !voting for: I think the article should be recreated or sent to draft space, or at the minimum for recreation of the page to be permitted (and for this to only be overturned by a new consensus). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add: I do not care whether this topic is housed at "Cultural Marxism" or "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory", and I'm treating them as the same subject because I cannot see how one would view them as two separate topics. Article titles are not a DRV concern AFAIK. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 16:56, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Cultural Marxism" was a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. The request is to restore that fork despite no new sources being provided. I suggest that before commenting editors read the AfD and explain why they think it was wrongly decided, whether because the arguments were wrong or sources were overlooked or did not exist at the time. TFD (talk) 18:36, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I count ten sources provided in this DRV. I did look at the AfD, but I didn't read it in its entirety because as I said, no-one is alleging that the closer's decision was wrong at the time. The sources given above all post-date 2014, so did not exist at the time; the AfD wasn't wrongly decided but it should now be overturned as new information has come to light (DRVPURPOSE #3). — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 18:47, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All your sources since 2014 are about the conspiracy theory, not cultural Marxism per se. There are no new sources that did not exist when the AfD for Cultural Marxism was held. "Cultural Marxism" was deleted as a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. While that does not prevent a spinoff of Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory, that is an issue that should be decided on its merits at the Frankfurt School talk page. TFD (talk) 02:51, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said I wasn't making a distinction between the conspiracy theory and the topic—I don't see how you can be when the section at Frankfurt School in question is entitled "Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory". The nominator tried to start discussion on a talk page and was sent here, so you can see how trying to send them back is unproductive and contradictory. — Bilorv_(c)(talk) 09:23, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of the archived AfD. This is the correct forum to ask whether or not the deleted article should be restored. However, the nominator has provided no new sources about the topic of the deleted article or any explanation why it is not a POV fork of the Frankfurt School. If they want to spin off Frankfurt School#Cultural Marxism conspiracy theory into a separate article, that should be discussed at the Frankfurt School talk page. TFD (talk) 14:36, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Send the question to Talk:Frankfurt_School. Reversing a redirect consensus should be made by consensus at the talk page of the target. The question is "Should Frankfurt_School#Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory be spun out into its own article. The governing principle is at WP:SPINOUT. The most important content policy is WP:DUE. Endorse the 2014 AfD. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You made me log back into my Wikipedia account after a long and rather pleasant Wikibreak just to say "retain protected redirect". It's a term with two referents. There's a rare but genuine use from certain academic sources in the 1990s and a much more common use that's framing, largely but not exclusively by crackpots of the American religious right. POLA says the redirect should point to where we cover the framing. The closer will, I hope, consider why there's been so much pressure over the years to allow a Wikipedia article that takes the term seriously... you can bet it's got nothing to do with the occasional academic use from the 1990s.—S Marshall T/C 01:14, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"You made me..." Sorry! :( The goal of the discussion was to have a standalone article discussing the conspiracy theory in a serious-minded manner, like Wikipedia has tackled other conspiracy theories. "Cultural Marxism" redirecting to a conspiracy-theory-titled section where both the academic concept and the conspiracy theory are discussed seem messy. The conspiracy theory should be separated out per WP:PAGEDECIDE. I have no interest in peddling the conspiracy theory and would want an article about it treated seriously. The growing mainstream coverage tells me that Wikipedia should structure its summary of such content better, in this case having a standalone article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 14:11, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse in examining the sources presented here, I see nothing substantively "new" just various iterations/reiterations of what existed in 2014, the Frankfurt School article is the needed context -- sure, trim/streamline/emendation of the section may be of benefit to readers, but that's just, say the same things shorter and clearer (even adjust sourcing), not longer. I specifically read with interest the Wikipedia editor Blackford's critique of Wikipedia (in which he identifies himself as opposing the 2014 decision in Wikipedia as a Wikipedia editor), but from a substantive point, it is difficult go along with that critique because his critique, mistakenly in my view, begins with "deleting" cultural marxism, for what was actually in effect Wikipedia merging/redirecting/re-organizing, and then the Blackford critique performs a similar merging, that is, discussing the academic, while also discussing the connections, etc., to fringe/populist use, largely in the same vein as Wikipedia does, now - so in the end, for me, it reinforces the current structuring (which does the same thing). Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:15, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Baggalútur – The result was overturn speedy deletion. There is a consensus that G12 was applied in error, and G11 is at least debateable. No prejudice to listing the article at AfD, as suggested by several editors. – Joe (talk) 18:18, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

See also previous discussion at the deleting admin's discussion page. This article was speedily deleted citing WP:CSD#G11 and WP:CSD#G12. To quote myself from the other discussion: "Doesn't look like a copyvio to me, as the potential "sources" apparently have taken the text from Wikipedia, not the other way round. I think you know that it's very common that text from Wikipedia articles that have been around for some years is taken for sites such as Google's Play Store. E.g. the first "source" (as mentioned above) explicitly states this, and also if you look e.g. at the "ismus" site, they state "From a Wikipeida-page on Baggalutur" as their source. So I think we can pretty definitely rule out WP:CSD#G12. This is a years-old article and the text has ben used by other websites in the meantime, a common case. What remains is WP:CSD#G11. And though one could say that the article focuses a lot on the successes of the band, I think this is something we often see in smaller articles in an attempt to emphasize notability, so the article doesn't get deleted as non-notable. I still don't think it's extremely promotional." And in any case I find it a bit strange to speedily delete an article that has been around for years; I think in German-language Wikipedia (where I'm more active than here), we would have asked for a regular deletion request. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn and list at AfD. I'm not seeing the WP:G12. The text does indeed appear in many music sites (Ismus, Google Play Music, Discogs, etc), but all of those attribute the source back to us. The WP:G11 is more of a judgement call, but I don't see the text as being so irreparably promotional as to trigger G11. The requirements for G11 use strong language: unambiguous ... exclusively promotional ... fundamentally rewritten. The text could use improving, but I don't see it meeting that high bar. As for notability, that's for AfD to consider. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PS: How long the article has existed, or what practices other language wikis employ, aren't factors. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn clearly not a copyvio of that source as the link attributes Wikipedia as the source of the information. G11 is much more arguable but if a few sentences were trimmed I think it would be just about acceptable. If they really have topped the Icelandic music chart as claimed then they would presumably meet WP:NMUSIC. Hut 8.5 17:38, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Restore content: Clearly the speedy deletion is not justified on both grounds cited in the deletion (copyright violation and promotional content). Restore article and tone down content (if necessary) leaving basic info and the discography list as this is a very notable Icelandic band werldwayd (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn - Speedy deletion should be uncontroversial; when reasonable doubts about applicability arise, there is no harm in restoring and allowing anyone who wishes to seek deletion to do so at afd. That aside, G12 has been shown to be inapplicable in this case and G11 is subjective. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 05:13, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy list at AfD. There are more than enough words here to warrant a discussion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Unbox Therapy – Wrong venue. This is an unprotection request; it should have been made first to the protecting admin, and if that is not possible, to WP:RFPP. I am personally willing to grant this, but please ask BethNaught, who protected this, first. This venue is for requesting the reversal of an XfD discussion; and that is not what you are asking for. Vanamonde (talk) 19:48, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

This page was deleted and can't be re-created. However, there are clearly now multiple major reliable sources providing substantial coverage of both YouTube channel, and the person Lewis Hilsenteger (which is also deleted and protected). For example The Toronto Star, The Huffington Post, Global News, AP/CTV. He ranked #5 Tech/Business social influencer by Forbes. There's a large amount of relevant hits in Google Web and News searches (going by channel or personal name), where he's both the subject and and source for articles. Perhaps the articles previously written didn't cite enough sources, but that's not a good reason to delete an article and prevent re-creation. Rob (talk) 17:17, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you're saying there was something wrong with the deletion in 2016, this belongs at WP:RPP or WP:RM. The draft at Draft:Unbox Therapy is significantly better than the last deleted version. – Joe (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hard call here. Sources are mostly moderate (looked like one good one). Draft creator blocked as a sock. I'd want to see what the nom thinks are the best few sources. Honestly the draft seems pretty fair and balanced and certainly wasn't a puff piece. Hobit (talk) 15:13, 7 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say the The Toronto Star source is perfectly sufficient to justify creation of a new article. The article should be re-started as a simple mini-stub, that can be expanded after. I didn't see the draft before posting here. A number of sources in the draft seem inadequate, especially in the iPhone section, which could be a potential BLP violation. --Rob (talk) 02:38, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, that was, IMO, the only good source. It's really quite good where the only issue with one of being local (which I largely don't worry about especially in such a large market). But there isn't much after that. Could you identify the best 2 or 3 sources after that? Hobit (talk) 03:14, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - The best sources are the ones I gave in my original post. I would say the Toronto Star counts as a national source. I also think if you look at the vast number of Google hits, there are a lot of articles by lessor known online-only publications, which are independent, and provide substantial coverage. For example Polygon. Also, there is a huge amount of coverage over the whole "iPhone bending" or "bendgate" thing. While not specifically about him, he does play a central role in the story according to sources like Business Insider. Bendgate also got coverage from The Telegraph. So while personal profiles of the Lewis Hilsenteger seem to be limited to national sources, the YouTube channel does get it's fair share of international coverage. Unfortunately, it will take a long time to go through the many sources, to pick what to include. I could create the article at Lewis Hilsenteger, but it seems like Unbox Therapy is most appropriate title of the article, since that's what's most famous. Maybe we don't have enough to really have a good biography, but we easily have more than enough coverage for an article about the YouTube channel. -Rob (talk) 06:00, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Consider Lewis Hilsenteger. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Hilsenteger (2nd nomination). "Delete", November 2017. Ping closer User:Malcolmxl5 and nominator User:Bearcat. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:04, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not recreate. I don't understand Hobit's statement, Draft creator blocked as a sock. I think you're talking about Personale, who edited the draft, but didn't create it. In any case, looking at Rob's four sources, they're all largely interviews, which we downweight for WP:N purposes. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:01, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unsalt and allow recreation using Draft:Unbox Therapy without prejudice against a new AfD. The DRV initiator is an established editor who is asking in good faith for unsalting and allowing recreation. Draft:Unbox Therapy is a balanced article.
I have reviewed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Unbox Therapy, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Hilsenteger, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lewis Hilsenteger (2nd nomination). I do not see any explicit mention of "The Toronto Star", "The Huffington Post", "Global News", "AP/CTV", "Polygon", "Business Insider", or "The Telegraph". This indicates most (if not all) of the sources presented here have not been discussed at AfD. I therefore support unsalting and allowing recreation without prejudice against a new AfD to discuss these previously undiscussed sources.
Had the article not been salted, any editor could have moved Draft:Unbox Therapy to Unbox Therapy and {{db-repost}} would not have applied owing to the new sources and new content.
Cunard (talk) 09:53, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

5 September 2018[edit]

4 September 2018[edit]

Mooji – Draftify. This is basically being treated as a WP:REFUND. I'm going to restore this to draft space, where the nom can perform the work described in the nominating statement and then move it back to mainspace. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:57, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

Mooji is a well-known public figure in his area of spirituality. He has published 5 books, most notably with Hodder&Stoughton UK^[1], New Harbinger US^[2], and Sounds True US^[3]. He is listed by Watkins at #42 in the "Watkins Spiritual List 2018"^[4]. He has had articles published about him in Happinez Magazine^[5], "Excellence Reporter"^[6], "Lift Your Mind Magazine"^[7], and "Esprit Yoga Magazine"^[8] Mooji regualrly gives interviews, such as with Tami Simon from "Insights at the Edge"^[9], Brian Rose from "London Real"^[10] and Patrick Kicken from "NonDualiteit"^[11]. I request an undeletion to allow for editing to take place to bring the page back in line with wikipedia community standards, especially in regard to tone and reliable sources, which were previously lacking. Sumantra1 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Vaster Than Sky". Hodder&Stoughton. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ "Mooji". New Harbinger. New Harbinger. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ "Mooji". Sounds True. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Watkins. "Watkins Spiritual List 2018". Watkins Magazine. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Tangermann, Hidde (July 2017). "Worden wie je bent (Becoming who you are)". Happinez magazine: 101–107. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Tanase, Nicolae (6 January 2016). "The Meaning of Life". Excellence Reporter. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Wedendahl, Lisbett (21 August 2016). "Meet Mooji". Lift Your Mind (1): 12–15. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Chadelat, Céline (August 2018). "Living in the Joy of Our Natural Being" (PDF). Esprit Yoga Magazine: 32–33. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Simon, Tami. "Vaster Than Sky, Greater Than Space". Sounds True. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Rose, Brian. "An Invitation to Freedom". London Real. Retrieved 4 September 2018.
^ Kicken, Patrick. "A Spontaneous Meeting with Mooji". NonDualiteit. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

Sumantra1, have you considered ~~asking the deleting admin, Spartaz,~~ to restore the page as draft? That would usually be the most expedient way of getting the article back to improve, and once it's found to meet community standards, it would be moved back to articlespace. (edit: it looks like the admin in question has left. WP:REFUND would also be faster, but it's kinda a moot point. In any case, I support draftify)— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was closed correctly based on the discussion, but I agree with the suggestion to draftify. DGG ( talk ) 05:19, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify would be a good start though I'd be very surprised if a well written article couldn't demonstrate notability. The nomination rationale was extremely weak so maybe people commenting didn't feel challenged to make cogent replies. I'd have preferred a close of "no consensus" (I think only one "keep" vote was from an SPA) but delete was within discretion. As Alpha implied at the AFD, a few strong references are far better than a load of mediochre ones. Thincat (talk) 09:28, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

3 September 2018[edit]

2 September 2018[edit]

List of cottages in Dorset – Restore. There is strong consensus here that while the creation of this page may have been pointy, the deletion was not strictly within process, and that this redirect should be restored for the moment. Editors are free to pursue an RfD, and to pursue, if they feel it necessary, other methods for dealing with problematic creations. Vanamonde (talk) 19:26, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

The page in question was a redirect and tt was deleted without discussion. The administrator who deleted this was involved as they had created this as a red link in a discussion about a different topic. The point of red links is to encourage editors to create the corresponding pages. My creation of the redirect was in good faith as I'm interested in that topic, having holidayed in a cottage in Dorset in my childhood. There are notable examples such as Thomas Hardy's Cottage or River Cottage. I have demonstrated further good faith by creating an article about another interesting example: Old Came Rectory. In the course of this work, I see sources which indicate that a list of such cases will pass WP:LISTN. In any case, the page in question was just a redirect to a category like Buildings and structures in Dorset and that seems quite reasonable as a starting point. If there is doubt about the validity of the redirect, this should be discussed at RfD in the usual way. Andrew D. (talk) 23:06, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse Andrew Davidson should stop making these WP:POINTY DRV requests, before the incompetent admin comes back and restores it just as like the non-notable shit that he restored.. » Shadowowl | talk 10:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NOTPOINTY, "making a point does not mean that they are disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate that point". The essence of WP:POINT is making an edit which is insincere, such as creating a red link when one doesn't actually believe that the link would be valid, while my edits in this case have been 100% sincere. There is good evidence that both villas in Naples and cottages in Dorset are reasonably notable and so my edits in support of that position are consistent with both the evidence and my views. Note also that the previous DRV that I started was successful in overturning the close. Andrew D. (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse- Peevish, borderline disruptive nonsense. How petty does a person need to be to waste time writing a non-article just to spite another AfD participant? Reyk _YO! 12:05, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So far I have created nine other new pages in support of my position. None of them have been deleted nor does it seem likely that they will be. The page in question is a reasonable part of this set and I could easily recreate it but it is better to discuss than edit-war. I also think it is important to uphold the principle of WP:INVOLVED – that admins should not abuse their powers without due process. Peevishness is not in my nature; "it's being so cheerful as keeps me going". Andrew D. (talk) 13:45, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn. Out of process deletion. Use RfD to discuss or delete. If WP:POINTY, give a usertalkpage warning. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 14:10, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. No opinion on the redirect itself, but WP:POINTY is not a WP:CSD. Also, being WP:INVOLVED is a prohibition to CSD. Take the redirect to WP:RfD and/or the editor to WP:ANI if you must. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse. The creation was POINTy, the deletion was out of process, but per WP:SNOW this doesn't need to go to RfD. Brad v 16:48, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn. Regardless of Andrew's motives in creating it, this page didn't meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion and Spinningspark was WP:INVOLVED. If someone wants they can send it to RfD, but I think it's a reasonable redirect. – Joe (talk) 17:46, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep deleted not endorsing this because it was out of process, but the creation was obviously intended to make a point in an AfD and doesn't make any sense otherwise. I don't see any good reason to restore it. Hut 8.5 18:52, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn one of the purposes of this page is to deal with out of process deletions. There's a reason for process: it provides an opportunity for discussion, and a framework for judgement, allowing for the variety of options now accepted at AfD to preserve content--and, in the other direction, allowing others to see efforts to misuse WP for promotion or advocacy and be alert to similar attempts . If something needs to be deleted, it can be deleted in process . There is in my experience rarely or never a need to bypass it. Such attempts, however well intentioned, can very easily be misused. I take INVOLVED very seriously--it an editor is right about something, others will agree, The temptation to proceed on one's own is indeed there, but it needs to be resisted. And if we do want to deal with the merits here, I think this an obviously useful category, as the examples demonstrate.

Normally at deletion review, Stifle could be counted on to argue for the need to follow process, not reargue the merits. I've frequently opposed him, but he often had a valid case, and decisions here have been more rational when we need to meet his arguments. ~~He has, unfortunately, chosen to leave us for a while, apparently over disappointmentr over a recent result here.~~ iI wiash he'd return; we need his viewpoint also. , DGG ( talk ) 09:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You can’t get rid of me that easily. I haven’t gone anywhere :D Stifle (talk) 19:16, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My error. Glad you're still here. And we have been agreeing more recently in the past year, I think to our mutual surprise. DGG ( talk ) 05:22, 6 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn; deletion does not appear to have been performed under the WP:DPR. RFD is not exactly overrun, let’s do it right. Stifle (talk) 19:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn I'm not following the WP:POINTY issue, but out-pf-process deletion isn't generally a good remedy to behavior problems (and frankly I'd argue it's almost always a poor reaction unless the issue is highly disruptive). If there is an behavioral issue (and as I said, I've not figured out what was going on) deal with it using our standard procedures for doing so. Out-of-process deletions should be rare and clear to anyone that they are the right way forward (even more than most IAR actions). This isn't that. Hobit (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn because it was an was out-of-process and involved deletion. — Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 06:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Overturn deletion was likely proper, but didn't follow protocols. SportingFlyer talk 23:28, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To closing admin : We do not need to go through another bureaucratic process just to delete a disruptive page. It is close to G3 material. » Shadowowl | talk 17:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. There was no consensus to delete the villas in Naples and the cottages in Dorset are coming along fine too. WP:G3 is quite irrelevant, being for "pure vandalism and blatant hoaxes". Andrew D. (talk) 19:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn because the topic of cottages in Dorset is not obviously non-notable and the existence of a redirect allows expansion into an article by non-autoconfirmed users, therefore the page is potentially useful and should not be deleted without discussion. Also the redirect target is perfectly plausible. James500 (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

1 September 2018[edit]

SmartGit – Original deletion endorsed, advice regarding recreation provided. Sandstein 08:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

new information Code18 (talk) 15:04, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand, the page was deleted because "No indication that this software is notable".

Not sure what the situation was back in 2013, but currently it is rather easy to prove the opposite. Git is currently super popular among developers of all sorts. And SmartGit seems to be one of the most popular UI for Git, for example:

Google search shows it in quick answer box
slant.co lists it as the best available option with many user reviews
Another slant.co review declares it the best option in 2018
git's official website lists it
and so on, just click through the links in google search.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Code18 (talk • contribs)

Yes, Git is very notable, but this isn't Git. What we really need is significant coverage in third party reliable sources, and what you've listed above isn't that. You need sources with a reputation for accuracy and which discuss the subject in detail. Slant appears to list user reviews, which aren't reliable, and the mention on Git's official website isn't significant and appears to be user-generated content as well. Hut 8.5 16:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to find some reliable sources according to wikipedia standards. Does this reference count as one of them?

An article from techrepublic.com from award-winning writer for TechRepublic that describes SmartGit as "some of the popular GUIs", that is, "assert notability"

Code18 (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well it certainly doesn't meet the "significant coverage" standard. SmartGit is just namechecked in a long list of similar products. We need to have a reliable source which covers the subject directly and in detail. Hut 8.5 18:20, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfD was from 5 years ago. That said, I agree, there just aren't sources there to meet WP:N (at least not that you've provided). Hobit (talk) 09:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Common sense tells me that if tens of thousands of people use some software daily, it is notable. However, it's not usual to write scientific articles on software. And if it's simple enough to use, it doesn't need books or school studies explaining the use of this software. On top of that, it's very typical that community-generated content is used to describe available choices and best software in the field. With all that, do you have any advice where to find WP:N confirmations? Code18 (talk) 10:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to find scientific articles, books or school studies. Magazine articles or reviews from respected tech websites should be fine. User generated content (including Wikipedia itself) isn't considered reliable here as it can be written by literally anyone. Hut 8.5 16:24, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Code18: I assume you have some connection to SmartGit. If so, you need to declare your conflict of interest. Also, note that when we say notable, we mean in the very specific way our Notability guideline talks about. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about WP:COI policy. I have been using SmartGit for many years and managed it in my company. I actively participated in its community and eventually I was hired to work for SmartGit. However, I'm not paid to edit wikipedia and doing it because I noticed that while a lot of other products have pages, SmartGit has it deleted, which puts it to unfair disadvantage. I will try to find some other article that it suitable for WP:N. Code18 (talk) 17:33, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given how old the AfD is, there isn't really any point in asking here at DRV. If the situation has changed, you can just recreate the article as a draft and work on it until it's a good article. It doesn't look like we have any articles on Git GUI clients though, and it's hard to find secondary sources for them: there are some reviews out there, but not really enough in terms of substantial coverage.— Alpha3031 (t • c) 03:23, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Vaster Than Sky". Hodder&Stoughton. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[2] "Mooji". New Harbinger. New Harbinger. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[3] "Mooji". Sounds True. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[4] Watkins. "Watkins Spiritual List 2018". Watkins Magazine. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[5] Tangermann, Hidde (July 2017). "Worden wie je bent (Becoming who you are)". Happinez magazine: 101–107. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[6] Tanase, Nicolae (6 January 2016). "The Meaning of Life". Excellence Reporter. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[7] Wedendahl, Lisbett (21 August 2016). "Meet Mooji". Lift Your Mind (1): 12–15. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[8] Chadelat, Céline (August 2018). "Living in the Joy of Our Natural Being" (PDF). Esprit Yoga Magazine: 32–33. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[9] Simon, Tami. "Vaster Than Sky, Greater Than Space". Sounds True. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[10] Rose, Brian. "An Invitation to Freedom". London Real. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[11] Kicken, Patrick. "A Spontaneous Meeting with Mooji". NonDualiteit. Retrieved 4 September 2018.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]