Verne E. Rupright ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Multiple reliable sources have verified notability at User:Ism schism/Verne E. Rupright. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion per recent expansion and multiple reliable sources verifing notablity concerning WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 23:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Deletion per the post-AfD start addition of multiple reliable sources confirming adhering to WP:POLITICIAN. Additionally the nom claimed the population of Wasilla was around 5000 but was going by the 2000 census. The 2007 estimate is near 10,000. [1] -- Oakshade ( talk) 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per new sources found. MuZemike 02:18, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Endorse original deletion as correct but now restore in the light of the revised sources. Stifle ( talk) 09:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• I cannot confirm the validity of the previous deletion as I never saw the page, but I would support recreation of the page based on new sources which allow it to pass WP:POLITICIAN. Ironholds ( talk) 21:42, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Update The userfied article has been expanded and now includes more reliable sources of which Rupright is the subject. These sources, along with the others, clearly verify his notability per WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 21:45, 25 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Comment Whether the deletion is Overturned - or - Endorsed (with the clause of Restore per recent additions) - these options are very close to consensus. Both votes endorse the present state of the userfied version of the Rupright article. As such, there is consensus to restore and/or recreate the article based on the new sources in the userfied article that verify WP:POLITICIAN. Thanks. Ism schism ( talk) 00:59, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Indeed, and that decision will be implemented at the end of the standard five-day listing period. Stifle ( talk) 10:26, 26 March 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for explaining that. Ism schism ( talk) 00:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC) reply

Royal Confraternity of Sao Teotonio ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am challenging the keep closure. One of the keep votes was a SPA. The keep votes were basically not on policy. But the most important thing is that I have discovered new information (I didn't know about the AfD). One of the basic sources was Catalogo De Ordenes Extranjeras En Espana, "by Jose Maria de Montells y Galan and Alfredo Escudero y Diaz Madronero, 2007, published by the Academia De Genealogia, Nobleza Y Armas Alfonso XIII en colaboracion con la Sociedad Heráldica Española, Madrid, Kingdom of Spain". It turns out that the Sociedad Heraldica Espanola has no official standing and is a private venture (and part of a network of similar private ventures). see [2] and [3]. The Spanish Heraldry Society was founded in the 1980s-"La Orden se reúne anualmente en el Alcázar de Segovia, España, lugar donde habitualmente se realizan los solemnes actos de investidura de nuevos miembros. Para su ingreso no se exige prueba de nobleza, aunque la condición de noble puede acriditarse por el pretendiente que la poese, pero sí y de forma muy estricta, se precisa ser persona honobrable y distinguida con méritos suficientes, a juicio de los órganos rectores del orden para integrarse al elenco de la misma. The Order meets annually at the Alcazar de Segovia, Spain, where they usually performed the solemn act of investiture of new members. For your income does not require proof of nobility, although the condition can acriditarse by the noble suitor that poetry but in a very strict and is honobrable person and needs to be distinguished with sufficient merit, in the opinion of the governing bodies of the order to join the cast of the same" from here [4]. It also appears that the claim in the article for humanitarian works is fraudulent. I think on the basis of this new information, the SPA, and the weight of the policy arguments that the Keep decision should be overturned. I have discussed this with the closing Administrator who is happy for this to go to DRV. dougweller ( talk) 19:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. The keep !votes, DGG's excepted, were quite poor — Necrothesp freely admitted that his opinion was not grounded in any policy whatsoever, and the two keep !votes after the relist were from SPAs. As such, deletion would be the correct closure. Stifle ( talk) 20:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Closing admin I sent Doug here because even with the poor quality of the article, I as the closing admin couldn't discount the comments of the various SPAs to a Delete. But I agree that the quality of the article is so poor that deletion would be the best course of action. MBisanz ^talk 00:22, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist. While I would probably vote to endorse a "delete' close of the AfD, I don't want to hobble admin discretion in such cases by overturing every close call that I might disagree with. On the other hand, dougweller has alleged that he has new evidence making an even clearer case for deletion than was present at the AfD. This evidence should probably be evaluated in a new AfD rather than at DRV in the first instance. Eluchil404 ( talk) 00:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist per above. I think it would benefit from some fresh eyes looking at it. MuZemike 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Relist if you like. It will be an interesting discussion, and here is not the place to have it. I have been removing listings of distinguished people whom this organization lists as their officers unless there is sufficient evidence that the people themselves acknowledge their membership in RSs, because i regard it as questionable BLP to assert that someone is a member of group like this. For similar groups, memberships are sometimes offered people, and they are then listed, regardless of whether or not they have actually accepted membership. DGG ( talk) 14:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Thank you, that is good and I think important work. We need to be aware of organisations like this (including some of the 'degree' granting ones). dougweller ( talk) 14:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom; note: the google translation is not particularly good; "ingreso" in this context means "admission" or "admittance", and that's just the first error, but I think you all get the gist of it. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC) reply