Richie Branson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was posted under the name of an article that was previously deleted. Despite the fact that this article is entirely different, and much more substantial in both content and sourcing from the previous one, it was speedily deleted. The fact is, this is a nerdcore hip-hop artist with as much, if not more, press exposure in the genre as other nerdcore artists with long-standing wikipedia pages. On top of that, he is a billboard-charting record producer/composer. He is verified on BMI, (short for Broadcast Music, Inc. a de-facto source of imformation as to who has ownership rights in a particular musical work) as a composer/songwriter on the record. BMI's official repertoire not only verifies (by his birth-name Marcus Brown II) as a composer on the work titled Homegurl (He Gotta), it also verifies Bone as the performing artist. ( http://repertoire.bmi.com/title.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&page=1&keyid=10104396&ShowNbr=0&ShowSeqNbr=0&querytype=WorkID ) Also, Bone is on record by a reliable news source, San Antonio Express-News, himself stating Branson's involvement as a composer on the song ( http://www.mysanantonio.com/default/article/Hip-hop-producer-beating-a-path-to-success-789593.php ).

The BMI source is satisfactory to me, and Bone's confirmation on record with a notable newspaper gives me no reason to doubt Branson's role as a composer in that song. Looking at the previous AfD discussion (which I agree was full of sockpuppet responses), editors cast doubt on the fact that the song charted because no page was cited directly from Billboard showing the song ever charted. The author provided a paywall restricted page from billboard.biz, which only further created doubt. In this incarnation, I provided a direct source from Billboard's official site shows the song charted. It clearly shows Homegurl (He Gotta) holding position 22 on the chart. ( http://www.billboard.com/charts/r-b-hip-hop-songs?chartDate=2010-03-06&order=gainer#/charts/rap-songs?chartDate=2010-02-27&order=gainer ) One of the editors claimed Billboard.com as the de-facto source of information as to whether a song charted or not. I agree with him, and thus I presented evidence from the de-facto source and not a paywall site.

Based on that, I'd argue that Branson meets criteria number 1 in WP:COMPOSER, because there is a de-facto source showing he as a composer on a song that another de-facto source verifies as having charted on a national level. Since the composition charted, I believe it to be notable. I feel even stronger about the subject's meeting criteria number 3 in WP:COMPOSER. Bone's page on the official Island Def Jam website verifies the composition was used as a basis for future recordings by three highly recognized grammy-award winning artists: Bun-B, The-Dream, and Rick Ross. I provided a source for that as well: http://www.islanddefjam.com/artist/discography_single.aspx?artistID=7410&productID=12297 That fact also wasn't present in the previous AfD discussion. It defies WP:COMMONSENSE to have any reason to doubt that 1) Branson was involved in the composition of the song "Homegurl (He Gotta)" and 2) The song charted on billboard. Two De-Facto sources and a reliable news source attest to that being fact.

I also believe the things he's accomplished in the nerdcore genre (none of which had occured prior to the previous article) further suggest notability, if not as a composer than certainly as a nerdcore hip-hop artist. His own music performed as an artist, completely unrelated to the billboard-charting song he produced, has been featured on a variety of notable anime and gaming-related web publications and shows, including Crunchyroll, Joystiq, TheForce.Net, The Jace Hall Show, Rich Johnston's BleedingCool, ComicsAlliance, Kotaku, io9, Anime Vice and more. I have included all those as sources in this article as well. None of those accomplishments had even happened when the previous article was created. Comparing my sources to those presented in long-standing wikipedia articles of other nerdcore artists, I'd confidently argue that Branson is no less notable than most other artists in the genre. This article should not have been a candidate for speedy delete as it was not at all similar to the identically-named one previously deleted beforehand. ZachBrenner ( talk) 21:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC) — ZachBrenner ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Comment - I've asked the editor about significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, but the only thing he provided was a link to a primary source that didn't mention Branson. The AfD was indeed plagued with WP:SPA fans who couldn't provide reliable secondary sources either. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:51, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Here goes:

Televised Story on [Fox Network] affiliate KABB duscussing Branson's nerdcore endeavors: http://www.foxsanantonio.com/newsroom/features/streetscorner/videos/vid_213.shtml

Aside from the previous article discussing Branson's success as a producer, another San Antonio Express-News was written, also verifying Branson produced for Def Jam and discussing Branson's nerdcore endeavors:

http://www.mysanantonio.com/life/article/Artist-trades-hip-hop-for-nerdcore-3455835.php

Crunchyroll review of Branson's recent nerdcore work. Crunchyroll is a notable source of anime news and a major supplier of streaming anime:

http://www.crunchyroll.com/anime-feature/2012/03/17/feature-richie-bransons-the-wing-zero-ep-review

A piece by notable anime news site Anime Vice (parent company: Whiskey Media discussing Branson's latest nerdcore work and describing him as the most successful artist in the nerdcore genre:

http://www.animevice.com/news/listen-to-the-entire-gundam-rap-album-for-free/5928/

I've also confirmed repeated coverage of him on notable newsmagazine site Gawker and notable video game news show The Jace Hall Show as well. I can provide links to those if this isn't sufficient to determine that he is, in fact a notable nerdcore artist. I might also mention when you google "nerdcore", his site appears on the first page. In fact, as a nerdcore artist, his official site appears second only to MC Frontalot, the founder of the genre. My motion is to approve his article under the guideline that it he is specifically mentioned as a nerdcore hip-hop artist, given that he shares the same amount of notoriety, if not more, than the 'notable' nerdcore artists listed on the wikipedia page for the genre. In fact, the very wikipedia article for nerdcore seems to set the standard for a nerdcore artists's "notability" in the following sentence: "notability is somewhat hard to define in a nerdcore context". ZachBrenner ( talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore new article I remember the previous AfD discussion on this. In hindsight, the previous article probably should have been deleted. But, with the additional nerdcore success that occured since the last article, I'd say the author's updated article suffices. If anything, "Richie Branson" fits the notability guidelines inherent in the nerdcore article. I did a google news search ^[1] on the term "nerdcore" and Richie Branson showed up more than any other artist. That, plus a lot of recent media coverage, seems to indicate that Richie is indeed a notable character in the context of the type of music he's making. Admittedly, nerdcore music appears to be an obscure sub-genre of music, but it is notable and it's difficult to see how this guy isn't one of the faces of that movement. That would allow him to qualify under #7 of WP:BAND. Because of that, I'd say restore under the author's pretense that he is notable in the context of nerdcore. In addition, the non-trivial press coverage he's received of his nerdcore work would qualify him under #1 in WP:BAND, also see note#1 there, it lists the BMI repertoire as an acceptable method of determining composition/ownership of a song. UncommonlySmooth ( talk) 23:25, 6 April 2012 (UTC)— UncommonlySmooth ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply
• Comment In addition, I've found the following englinsh and non-english non-trivial Richie Branson coverage from online secondary sources via Google News. BigShinyRobot's review of Branson's nerdcore work in their 'Spring Music Picks' article ^[2]. Geeks of Doom's coverage of Branson's "Wing Zero EP" ^[3]. io9's coverage of Branson's "Wing Memories" song ^[4]. Additional coverage of a nerdcore music video by Branson on San Antonio Express-News ^[5]. Non-english coverage of Branson's "Cold Republic" on Polygamia.pl ^[6]. Non-english coverage of Branson's music on onlinewelten.com ^[7]. Playstation news site PSXextreme's coverage of Branson's "Letter to Squaresoft ^[8]. Playstation Universe's coverage of Branson's music ^[9]. Gawker media's Kotaku news coverage of richie's work ^[10]. non-english coverage from notable magazine in france "Brain Magazine" (they have a fr.wikipedia.org article) featuring Richie Branson ^[11]. This further supports his eligibility under WP:BAND UncommonlySmooth ( talk) 01:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - this one was a mess last year, and it still appears to be so. You have too many conflicting sources and stories - is his name Branson or Brown? This is offered as proof of notability, yet it doesn't mention Branson at all. Did he write the Bone song or not? Or which version? According to Billboard, the song never charted, and doesn't list any of these names as a writer. And of course, there were numerous sockpuppet accounts that plagued the original AfD (which ZachBrenner must have been involved in under another username, given his comments), something that appears to be happening again - it's certainly interesting to me that UncommonlySmooth hasn't edited at all since the AfD last July, but magically appeared on this page less than an hour after ZachBrenner finished filing it? I'm still not seeing significant coverage - mostly minor or passing mentions, or coverage from questionable sources, and as such, I cannot support the recreation of this article. MikeWazowski ( talk) 14:45, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Actually, accodring to Billboard, the song Homegurl (He Gotta) did indeed chart. It shows the song was in it's second week on the chart as of February 27, 2010. Your link shows that the "explicit" version of the song didn't chart. You do realize that explicit versions of songs don't play on the radio due to FCC regulations, and therefore would not chart? On top of that, if you're at all familiar with the recording industry, you'd realize that billboard only lists the performing artist's name. Producer and writer information is found by looking at the repertoire of the PRO (Performer's Right's Organization) where the writer or producer is registered. In fact if you read the guidelines in WP:BAND, the "resources" section says just as much (even going as far as to specificially mention BMI's repertoire). According to BMI, the PRO that Branson is registered under (As Marcus Brown), he is indeed a writer/composer on the record. Also this source from the same newspaper you cited as not mentioning Brown as "Branson" shows that Branson IS Brown. Is there really reason to believe that "Richie Branson" isn't Brown's stage name? ZachBrenner ( talk) 15:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Abdur Raheem Green ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is absolutely preposterous. I may not be a hugely experienced Wikipedian, or great at finding secondary sources or other jargon/tasks you can throw at me, but this man meets the notability criteria. He is a hugely influential figure in the Muslim community, famous around the world for his speeches, he is a famous presenter on Islam Channel and Peace TV, he founded an important Islamic Academy, he is a frequent guest speaker on shows such as The Deen show, he is a key lecturer in the education academy he founded, and he is simply a renowned public speaker, one only needs to do a quick search on YouTube for his hundreds of talks and speeches which are given in front of audiences of thousands and are also televised. Googling his name in speech marks (so you get pages that list his exact full name) and you get 1m+ hits. Another editor informed me "One of the pages had 183 edits over 3 + years." and "It had a long edit history with a range of editors". Type his name into the google box and the first two predictive suggestions you get are "Abdur Raheem Green wiki" and "Abdur Raheem Green wikipedia" (that says it all, really). And you dare tell me he cannot have a Wikipedia article? I can't help but think that it's damn well obvious that this man would have an article if he was a Christian, Jew, or atheist speaker. http://www.peacetv.in/sp-abdurraheem_green.php http://www.islamessentials.org/instructors/abdurraheem-green/ http://islamevents.com/speakers/speaker_detail.php?spid=10 http://www.iera.org.uk/speakers_arg.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1239543/The-fanatic-invited-jihad-cleric-address-British-students.html?ITO=1490 http://www.islamsgreen.org/ http://www.halaltube.com/speaker/abdur-raheem-green Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 20:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Userfy and improve I performed a search of the Google news archives and got 890 hits for Abdur Raheem Green (some are foreign language which doesn't really matter since we all have Google translate now). Based on what I'm seeing, the subject appears sufficiently notable for a Wikipedia article and the article should be undeleted and userfied so it can be brought up to proper standards. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 20:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Firstly, LGF needs to stop with their constant accusations of anti-Muslim bias aimed at Wikipedia-at large, which have been expressed both here and at ANI. Secondly, the state the article was in deserved a deletion, but I'm in agreement that we should userfy it, allow it to be impoved, and then moved back into mainspace when it's in a more suitable state. Giant Snowman 21:14, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment. LGW is apparently unwilling or unable to provide any reliable secondary sources indicating that this individual meets the requirements of WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:52, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

If I'm allowed to reply and comment here.. Let's give an example. Imagine a hypothetical article about X, made by a contributor Y. Just because Y may not have the skills/experience/patience to find lots of "reliable secondary sources" doesn't affect whether article X is or isn't notable, surely. So I can only apologise that I do not have the knowledge/experience/acumen to find you what it is you are looking for, but I don't believe that in any way reflects on Green's notability Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 22:19, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Of course you're allowed to reply, you should participate in the discussion, after all this is an article you want created. I've found a lot of reliable secondary sources covering Green and added them below, this should be plenty to get started with. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:31, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Maybe not but let's forget about that for a second, stop commenting on contributors and look at the article's subject. I found a number of Google News Archive articles on him, so if we're purely objective then I think we have an article here. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:04, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

The issue is that we don't actually have any such sources yet; we would need to actually see them to make a decision about whether the subject meets WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Sure, here's a link to a full bio in Republika [1], Here's an Australian ABC transcript of a TV broadcast with a phone interview of Green [2], an Australian.com article about Green [3], New Zealand Herald article about him [4], a Malay language article about him [5], and a short Jamican news article about him [6]. Note these are just articles that directly cover Green and don't include all the other ones that are about him or discuss him in connection with other subjects. The foreign language articles are easily translated into somewhat understandable format with Google translate. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Comment - if this is undeleted could someone userfy both versions of the article (the original one and the newer one) so I can merge both and build something appropriate? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 22:27, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Undelete – A search in Factiva finds 91 articles in the press from 2005 to 2012, many primarily about this person. This is enough to establish notability, the rest (proper writing and sourcing of the article) is up to the interested editors. I see no reason to keep it deleted. Zero ^talk 09:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Undelete both versions and let them work on it. Article has a long multi-editor, multi-year edit history. Secretlondon ( talk) 16:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Yup, those are sufficient sources. I see a strong argument for undeletion in this case.— S Marshall T/ C 16:20, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Thank you for undeleting Leaf Green Warrior ( talk) 21:24, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Undelete  As per WP:N, it is necessary that sources be likely, not that they be cited.  It is only once an article is written that WP:V comes into force.  I've noticed once before that Wikipedia seems to have some mysterious undercurrent of objection to considering people known for public speaking as notable.  Unscintillating ( talk) 23:36, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Template:Support ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I discovered this in the "perennial requests" page so you could say I found it in a manner that suggested that I should not be attempting a DRV for this template. However, after finding that this and its variants are often used in the Japanese Wikipedia and probably many other language Wikipedias, I found them very useful in understanding what they are saying, and was wondering why there did not exist a version on the English Wikipedia, so the perennial requests page notified me that it did exist some time in the past, which is why I am filing this DRV right now.

In any case, the major reason why I find that there is a usefulness to comment icons that outweights the disadvantages, as well as the Template:Oppose as well as the theoretical Template:Comm (short for "comment," a much better name than Template:Object) is that to those who are not so good at English, it enables people to follow the discussion much more easily than if they were not there. Although this is the English Wikipedia, we cannot expect everyone to be native speakers in English, just like how the Japanese Wikipedia cannot expect all of its users to speak perfect Japanese (I can understand about 50% of Japanese writing, and did not know the word for "support" in Japanese, but the image definitely helped). For example, on page here in the Japanese Wikipedia, even if you do not understand what they are saying at all, you can at least know where they are making a comment supporting or opposing a certain suggestion. As can be seen on that page, the icons especially help in understanding the gist of what is said―they are not used for voting, but merely elucidate the conversation.

In terms of encouraging voting and such, I would say these icons encourage voting no more than simply writing "support" or "oppose" (or any of the other phrases like "keep," "delete," etc.) in bold, which we do already, and which newcomers quick come to copy in discussions. If we truly want to get rid of voting, we should all stop engaging in that practice - as long as we continue, this is only to make it more clear, especially to those who are not native in English. Thus, they do not perform any function other than something similar to the icons commonly used in the sockpuppet investigations pages, which I find useful in summarizing what is said. Furthermore, even if they do not need to be used in AfD discussions, they clearly (as in the example I have given previously) have a positive usages in article talk pages, where the argument that "they are useless unless everyone uses them" is invalid since they are not used in an vote-like sense on the talk pages in the first place.

The more major reason given in the previous discussion was the load time. Given that the images themselves are small, I do not think that this is an issue - the bigger issue is the pages themselves getting long. That is what tends to slow down my browser, not small images like this. I have experienced no problem with loading times in my experience of pages that have used these icons.

(For references, the Japanese Wikipedia does currently use two sets of templates, one for comments on talk pages listed in the documentation here, and one for AfD discussions listed here.)

Comment With regards to AfD discussions, I found them extremely useful since I did not know a significant number of the Japanese words used there, like "speedy delete," "keep," or "delete a particular revision" until I saw the words used next to the icons, as in the page here.-- New questions? 18:54, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• It's not just the Japanese Wikipedia, actually; of the languages I speak, fr.wiki uses these templates but de.wiki doesn't. Personally I don't see a good reason to object to these templates being created, but I don't care strongly either way.— S Marshall T/ C 16:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Your only new argument - that bolding keep and delete already encourages vote-like behavior, so it's ok that these templates that encourage it even more are ok - isn't particularly persuasive. Yes, vote bolding is tolerated. So is exceeding the speed limit by five or ten miles an hour. That doesn't mean it's ok to drive 120 in a 35. (Bolding comment, as you do above, is particularly counterproductive - by doing so, you're drawing more attention to the simple fact that you made a comment than you do to what you actually said!) 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 20:01, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• The nominator presents more arguments than just that one, actually.— S Marshall T/ C 20:18, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • But no other new ones. Both the language and load-time arguments were addressed in the very first tfd. (And he misses the point of the load-time argument anyway. What slows things down isn't an image being displayed a thousand times on an afd log page, it's another template being transcluded an extra thousand times.) 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 20:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • And, looking closer at the tfd, I see that the bolding was addressed there as well. Speedy endorse; nominator provides no new arguments, just asserts that the previous consensuses were wrong, exactly as Perennial requests says not to do. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 20:49, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I gave you an example showing that it is not encouraging vote-like behavior - on that Japanese discussion page that I linked to, it is used to highlight discussion points, not to "vote" for anything, and it certainly did not slow down my loading time.-- New questions? 21:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
        • I'll see your ja:WP:VFD and raise you commons:C:FPC. This particular argument, that they encourage the perception that discussions are a vote, is the single most discussed issue about these templates; a single counterexample is patently inadequate to overturn on this basis. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
          • Commons is different from Wikipedia, since commons can be about voting, without adding a rationale. Perhaps the previous discussions were based on the perception of how they were used in commons, without looking at how it would be applied to Wikipedia itself. When it was used on Wikipedia itself, as on the Japanese Wikipedia, and as well as the French Wikipedia that I looked into, it was not used for drive-by voting. Rather, they all had reasons attached to them. These are not just "a single counterexample," but rather the more applicable examples than commons, since commons has different practices about voting.-- New questions? 02:08, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • Also, I did not find the language issue addressed adequately in the previous TfD - just brought up a tiny bit, and ignored.-- New questions? 21:59, 7 April 2012 (UTC) reply
        • It was directly addressed by Cryptic, ALoan, Silversmith, and Fir0002 in the first tfd, by Grappler in this truncated tf in 2006, by O in this tfd in late 2007, and by Metroplitan90 in the 2008 September 10 drv. Exactly how much discussion would you consider adequate? 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
          • It seems like those were arguments saying "everyone who comes here can perfectly understand English," which strongly rang as a false statement to me since I went to the Japanese Wikipedia without knowing Japanese very well and found them very helpful, and I suspect that there are many more people who cannot speak English very well on en.wiki than people like me who go to ja.wiki without speaking Japanese very well.-- New questions? 02:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Hm. I'd thought the last drv was more recent than that. (There was one on 2009 January 14, but that's hardly better.) There have been much more recent deletion discussions for substantially identical templates, though; the latest I can find is Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2011 April 19#Template:Rfasupport. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 00:22, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Well, after looking through one of these discussions, I found the comment, "the bigger underlying reason for these kinds of templates being deleted over and over again is because the English Wikipedia is not multilingual and therefore not useful." I somewhat laughed at that comment - English Wikipedia, not multilingual? I know that there are more than just a few here who are not so good with English, and my experience at the Japanese Wikipedia would have been much more confusing without those kinds of templates.-- New questions? 01:50, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• That's a strawman, you've picked on one comment made (I can't see it in the two discussions listed in the previous post) and basing and argument around that. The reason for deletion has as far as I know nothing about being multi-lingual, so knocking down that strawman isn't helpful. I'd actually argue your point about making it easier to understand if not native in the language is just a reinforcement of it being about voting. If you can't even understand enough of the language to see a general sentiment being expressed, then the chances of you understanding the detail of the argument, any nuance etc. is pretty much non-existant, you are wanting to boil their argument down to a tick or a cross. If you take it one step further look at a typical DRV here, there are huge numbers of different sentiments bolded, certainly more complex that can be shown with a simple graphic. However for the sake of argument let's assume if can be a tick or a cross, then without actually understanding the language and the argument what would a tick mean? Would it mean I support the argument of the nominator or would it mean I support the result of the deletion debate? Who's not to say they are used ambiguously - indeed within DRV I've see people say to support undeletion, or to support outcome of the debate, without actually understanding the expression of the words the ticks and indeed bolded sentiments are meaningless. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 09:36, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• To repeat, as I said from the beginning, my Japanese is 50% good enough so I can understand enough most of what people are saying in their comments, but I did not know certain vocabulary words like "support," "speedy delete," etc. so it helped in that way. It allowed for me to more quickly understand the more general idea of the rest of the comment without danger of misconceiving what they were saying.

• That makes no sense to me, either you can "understand enough most of what people are saying" or not. If you don't understand their general sentiment, or key vocabulary terms for such debates (like "support") without a little graphic then I'd suspect it's the latter. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure how many times I need to explain myself to make myself clear, but as I said previously, yes I can understand most of what they are saying, but the graphic helped me understand it more quickly and prevented misconceptions since I did not know vocabulary words like "keep" or "support" etc.-- New questions? 16:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Still not clear, I cannot understand how you can understand most of what is being said, without being able to work out if the view is one of support, keep, whatever... If you don't, I don't see how your misconceptions are being helped, as above people can say "support" and put various marks to indicate that meaning something different to a person in the same discussion. "Support" -original deletion was fine, or "Support" - should never have been deleted. This is the very objection, it's not voting, you can't boil the opinion down to a little tick, cross etc. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 14:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• In general, even in English, it can be hard to tell if a view is in support or opposition to a view even if you understand what the comment is saying due to ambiguities with written language and the lack of conveying things like tone and sentiment in written language. It is not about boiling it down to just "support" or "oppose" but rather, making one's position unambiguous, since if a comment begins with "support," readers know to read the following comment as a comment in support of an idea rather than a simple comment. This is especially true in a language you are not native in. For the case of DRV discussions, it is obvious as can be seen on the Japanese DRV page that "support" (with the plus mark) means "support page restoration" and "oppose" (with the minus mark) means "oppose page restoration, endorse deletion." If more DRV specific text is desired, then by all means, more specific text like "overturn" and "endorse" can be used, but the symbols are pretty unambiguous in DRV discussions.-- New questions? 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Even unrelated to the language issue, I think there is another reason why saying "support" and "oppose" in bold is a good idea and it has nothing to do with voting. It is because written language is ambiguous in tone and sentiment, and this practice prevents comments from being interpreted more positively or negatively than they should be. For example, saying "comment" rather than "oppose" lets the reader know not to interpret the comment more negatively than necessary. If someone can at least understand the general idea of what is said in the comments, but does not know certain vocabulary words like "support" or "speedy delete," (as was my case on the Japanese Wikipedia), the graphic can help prevent misconceptions in that regards.
• If you would like to say that "multi-lingual was not the major argument," I would like to say that it seems like the more major argument in them so far has been "I don't like it."-- New questions? 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Again another strawman, no one is saying not to bold sentiments, in fact it's pretty standard practice. Maybe the argument is ultimately an "I don't like it" coupled of course with the reason why people don't like it, which is a perfectly valid argument in such debates about the mechanics of the way wikipedia works, the preferences of the community is significant. Your argument seems to be "I like it" and "I want to use wikipedia to help me believe my understandanding of foreign languages is better than it is". -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 15:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• If you are saying that I am arguing against a strawman that was not the main point, then please at least point out what was the main point, since I believe I addressed all of the points raised in previous discussions, not just one. I was simply saying that even bolding "support" and "oppose" is not really voting as much as it is simply making one's position unambiguous and clarifying how negatively/positively the comment should be interpreted in terms of tone and sentiment, so these icons would simply perform the same function, but more clearly. Also, I am not sure what you are trying to interpret my argument as, but if I was unclear, then to make it more clear: my argument is that these icons can help people who can generally understand English but do not know of certain vocabulary words like "keep" or "speedy delete."-- New questions? 16:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• " I believe I addressed all of the points raised in previous discussions" that's the problem, you are simply rehashing old arguments and saying the overwhelming consensus is that past is wrong and you know better. That's the whole point in having a list of perennial requests to avoid people simply rehashing old ground, you need to come up with something new and substantive. As above the support, oppose etc. do not make things unambiguous "Oppose" deletion is completely different from "Oppose" recreation. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 14:33, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• No, I do not believe I am simply rehashing old arguments―please at least back that up if you want to insist on that claim. With regards to deletion discussions, that is why to be unambiguous there, we use "delete" and "keep" and correspondingly the symbols are a cross and check mark (as can be seen in the Japanese AFD template I linked to from the beginning of the request) rather than a plus and minus.-- New questions? 16:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• It's you who I quoted "I believe I addressed all of the points raised in previous discussions" - that is rearguing the original debate, it is not adding new arguments. The nature of the graphics is unimportant, and you are missing the point, a check or cross is ambiguous without the context of the comment. I'll give up here since we are quite clearly largely at odds that you can understand most of the important parts of a comment in a discussion without being able to summarise the overall sentiment - that is not my definition of understanding. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 22:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• I am getting a feeling that I am getting trolled here, but in any case, addressing all points in previous discussions does not mean that I am "not adding new arguments." Also, a check or cross is pretty unambiguous in deletion discussions―check means keep, cross means delete. Also, it is one thing to logically understand what is being stated, and another to understand the intent of the argument, and "support" or "oppose" is there to make it unambiguous. Moreover, even if it could be worked out from the comment that it is in support or in opposition to something, having "support" or "oppose" makes it easier to understand the rest of the comment more quickly since you understand the intent of the comment beforehand.-- New questions? 00:58, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted - I see no reason to revive a long-dead practice such as vote icons. I'll quote DGG (that's certainly not something I say every day) from the 2008 DRV; "The argument was that they impeded rational discussion, and that holds for any substitute also." The simple matter is that not everyone will make use of these things if they were available, which will make it even more difficult for closing admins to scan a discussion, picking out the text amidst the tacky icon forest. Leave the decadent, outmoded concepts to the Commons, it suits them. Not us. Tarc ( talk) 16:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • When it comes to evaluating whether they impede rational discussions or not, I think it would be better to base it off of whether they actually did or not when they were used (i. e. let us be empirical about this). In the Japanese and French Wikipedias, they have not. I also stated previously that even if they are not used in deletion discussions or requests for adminship or things like that, they can still be useful for ordinary purposes in article talk pages, where they don't have to be used by everyone to be useful.-- New questions? 17:50, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • It would be an even worse idea to use in article talk pages. Editors barely register sensical opinions on such matters as it is, I'd rather not reintroduce a shortcut. Tarc ( talk) 18:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • I am not sure what you mean by that, if you mean to say that "sensible opinions" is something most editors already do not have much of and therefore editors shouldn't try emphasize their opinions that much, or if you think a shortcut would make it easier to express nonsensical opinions that are otherwise unexpressed. Using this template is no more or less difficult than simply bolding "support" or "oppose." Also, even if nonsensical opinions can be expressed, that does not mean that sensible opinions are not also able to be expressed.
      • Also, again, it is better to be empirical about judging its merits on its usage on talk pages. On the talk page at ja:ノート:東方Projectの登場人物, for example, I do not see the templates being used to "register nonsensical opinions," but to clarify their positions―sensible opinions at that. To the contrary, I would say that using such templates encourages people to give good rationales for their support or oppose when it is used on talk pages since they are highlighting that they support or oppose something, which would of course create the expectation that there should be a good reason for it.-- New questions? 19:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Additionally, I would like to note that as an empirical and practical example, on this page, not everybody uses the icons, and it has not made it more difficult for closing admins to scan a discussion at all. (Also, this is probably the reason why Tarc found out aobut this DRV request).-- New questions? 18:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, it is. Tarc ( talk) 18:36, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Additional comment As for an additional reason why these icons are useful, it is because they are useful for visual organization. These icons have different colors, which makes them easier to tell apart than simply text like "support" or "oppose" even if they are bolded. It is not so much about voting as it is a way to let the reader know, in a color-coordinated way, "this is where a support comment is" and "this is where an opposition comment is" etc., as can be seen in the Japanese talk page that I linked to. When talk pages get long, colors are a good way of identifying which comments are which, and lets the reader more easily re-find a comment that they read earlier since it is a distinctive visual cue.
• Moreover, based on the examples of its practical usage on the Japanese Wikipedia, I think that those examples demonstrate that it can be of practical usage even if not everyone uses it. Therefore, I think the usage of these should be left to individual choice―I do not think there is a need to impose on everyone, the command "thou shalt not use commentary icons."-- New questions? 19:57, 10 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep Deleted as it encourages vague and confusing votes. For example, in a deletion discussion, does "support" mean they support the article or support deletion. Support and oppose are inherently confusing in most discussions, and the votes should take the form of what the user wants to do (thus the "keep" and "delete" used at AfD, or the "move" and "don't move" used in move discussions. D O N D E groovily  Talk to me 15:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment As noted from the beginning of the request, that is why in AFD discussions, different templates are used, as in ja:Template:AFD, not "support" and "oppose."-- New questions? 15:43, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted Using Tarc and I, two people who frequently engage at AfD, as an example: it is good to continue the process we have of dealing with disagreements there (and elsewhere) by discussing the issues. As he indicates, that the two of us frequently disagree, doesn't mean discussions are useless; rather, by presenting different views, as many people as are interested can be encouraged to give their own, and the decision can be closed as it usually is, on a rational basis. If all he and I did was place symbols or bolded deletes/keeps, we could make life easier by simply getting a bot to place the pair of them on every discussion and cancel each other out, thus turning afds into a sort of popularity contest, or more exactly, an increased and probably irresistible temptation to canvass for votes. It was mentioned above that the symbols are no more useless than bolded keeps or deletes, but such keeps and deletes without giving a reason at least encourage someone to go on and make a sentence out of it by saying why. And, by themselves, they are close to useless--it's been proposed from time to time to require a reason. Now, that would be progress. Restoring the symbols would be the opposite. DGG ( talk ) 17:02, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • I think you are basing this opinion off the idea that everyone needs to use them if it were restored, whereas it is more of a personal preference. I additionally think that having the symbols encourages people more, not less, to give reasons for them.-- New questions? 20:00, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
    • That's not the point, no. If we have some using it and some that do not, the "not" entries will tend to get overshadowed by this big, ugly icons.
    • As a side note, will you please stop using them in current discussions? I already tried reverting your usage of it in the Muhammad discussions to no avail and would hate to have to start up an WP:ANI filing over it. This is WP:POINTy behavior on your part. Tarc ( talk) 20:08, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • No, it is not pointy behavior. It is simply my preference to use them. (Of course, even if this template does not exist, they can still be used since they are mere images.) I do not see how usage of these images, nor any other small images for that matter, should be an issue.-- New questions? 22:06, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
      • It's a pity these patronizing icons have gotten so entrenched in the WP:RFCU bureaucracy; they should have been locally salted with blank images years ago. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 22:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
        • Are you referring to templates such as Template:Inconclusive Template:Confirmed Template:Cu-endorsed Template:Denied Template:Likely Template:Unnecessary Template:Unrelated etc.?-- New questions? 22:51, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
          • Yes. RFCU can use whatever templates they want; I have no objection to that. But since they went with this icon set, we can't enforce the consensus against the images' use in deletion and generic discussions by blanking them. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 23:11, 11 April 2012 (UTC) reply
            • Not just that; it also happens to be the very same image used for "good articles."-- New questions? 00:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Very Weak Keep Deleted. On the one hand, the length of time since the last full TfD discussion means that the current consensus is not well tested and the nominator makes a cogent argument. In such cases relisting for a new debate is generally best. On the other hand, no one but the nominator has argued in favor of the templates and I, personally, remain strongly opposed to their use on en.wiki. Unless there is some sign that a new TfD has a chance of showing a new consensus the prior one can be endorsed, but given the amount of time the bar to a new listing should be low. Eluchil404 ( talk) 03:43, 14 April 2012 (UTC) reply

Dub FX ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Dub FX is a notable artist who sells out gigs in many countries (I'll just add one example - Athens, Greece, Oct '11 ). He has 440,000 followers on Facebook - DubFX (compare Wax Tailor, who 'only' has 170,000 followers ( here) yet has a Wikipedia page), and has released several albums - albums list. All this, yet the page was deleted due to "lack of notability" ( here). I'm sorry, I could not find the deletion discussion, but I would be interested to see who participated, how long it lasted, and the reasons. In any case, I feel the figures I provide speak for themselves, so please re-create the page! Thank you :-) BigSteve ( talk) 10:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• The deletion discussion is Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dub FX. The closing admin, Martijn Hoekstra, has indicated that he will restore the article per WP:SOFTDELETE on request, maybe you should ask him first? Procedurally, I endorse the AfD closure (nobody opposed deletion), but could support a relist or restore if somebody in this DRV finds reliable sources that could make this person pass WP:BAND. The Google News archive search indicates that there may be non-English sources about him. The above links however are unhelpful, as commercial success and Facebook followers are not relevant in terms of our inclusion requirements.  Sandstein  10:20, 6 April 2012 (UTC) reply

• Allow sourced recreation If it is re-written using sources, there won't be any discussion of notability. Entirely OR here: taking a look at industry sources, the cat is marginal by WP standards. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
• Endorse deletion. Perhaps userfy I was the original nominator for deletion. This group fails WP:BAND, and even my scan of foreign sources could not establish any notability as per Wikipediai standards. Facebook followers is NOT a sign of notability, it's maybe a sign of local popularity. ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 12:15, 8 April 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment as closer: I closed as no quorum, which means a full AfD hasn't ran, and I treated this like I would treat an expired WP:PROD. You only need to ask and I'll undelete it. If it is undeleted, I think it's a good idea to relist as a new AfD. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 01:05, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Undeletion has been requested on my talkpage, and I have undeleted the article, and started a new AfD on it, with the understanding that it can be seen as a relist of the original AfD. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:36, 9 April 2012 (UTC) reply