Lisa Lavie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) * AFD1

• Overturn+Restore: I am requesting that this June 2, 2013 version be restored. Background: On June 2, 2013 I posted the new version as an improved version (not a recreation) of this 2009-2013 article which was deleted by AfD on April 1, 2013. Unfortunately the new version was summarily speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4 even though it is definitely "not substantially identical to the deleted version." I've since communicated with both the April 1 deleting admin Spinningspark ( here) and the June 2 speedy-deleting admin RHaworth ( here); RHaworth recommended DRV. Reasons to restore: The June 2 version should be restored as being improperly speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#G4, since at 16KB the June 2 version is not a mere "recreation" of the ~65KB article from 2009-2013. Significantly, a list of differences between the two versions is provided below ("Changes") to conclusively demonstrate that the June 2 version is not an " identical and unimproved copy" of the article deleted on April 1. Substance: More relevant to the April 1 AfD: Consensus was that the article had puffery and bombardment; there was substantial disagreement (no true consensus) whether puffery and bombardment masked notability or masked lack of notability. See list of notability-related occurrences in Table N (below) and list of AfD Delete commenters' factual and reasoning errors in Table E (below). RCraig09 ( talk) 23:07, 8 June 2013 (UTC). Updated 19 June. reply
• I have restored the edit history and replaced the redirect with a temp undelete. The difference between the version deleted at AFD and the one G4 is here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:03, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• This content has a distinct whiff of advertisement about it and the content is not neutrally-written. The references are wearisome to check, so I only checked a random sample of them; whenever I did finally track down the passing mention of Lavie somewhere in the showbiz page linked, it seems like----without actually falsifying anything----the passing mention has been stretched to its absolute limit. The effect overall is to make Lavie seem far more remarkable and successful than a close examination of the references would support. I'm of the view that this page fails WP:NPOV too egregiously to allow inclusion in its current form. However, I would be minded to permit creation of a much shorter, much less promotional article a few lines in length.— S Marshall T/ C 19:58, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Esp. to S Marshall: A subtle but important point missed by many passers-by is that the subject's way of music promotion—outside major music labels—was part of what subject was notable for early on, and therefore describing such promotion and its results is 100% permissible here. If by "showbiz page" you mean ET Canada then I understand your concern that the quoted language is open adulation; I included it as showing a result of the subject's music promotion and not for its truth value: that is, I included that particular tv coverage to help establish threshold notability ( Table N). Nothing in this article approaches "falsification." RCraig09 ( talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Sure, I understand that. Part of the problem we have on Wikipedia (or more accurately, part of one of the problems we have on Wikipedia) is that AfD has a constant and obsessive focus on notability, often to the exclusion of all else, so that the only way to re-create an article that's been deleted on notability grounds is to establish the subject's notability once and for all. Achieving this sometimes involves NPOV issues. I was careful to say that you hadn't falsified anything. I do think you've stretched the references to their limit and I think overall the article gives the impression that this lady has been a great deal more successful, and attracted a great deal more attention, than is really the case.

      We could allow this exact content because it's fixable, but to do so is to elevate the notability guideline above the NPOV policy (because on Wikipedia notability issues lead to deletion but NPOV issues don't). Rather than permit that I'd prefer this review led to the creation of a short and neutrally-worded stub that can be expanded based on her subsequent achievements (if any).— S Marshall T/ C 07:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply

      • Thanks for a thoughtfulness that's somewhat rare. After notability is established, I certainly can see removing ETCanada's quoted adulation, the phrase "following in the footsteps of ... Arcade Fire", mention of Yanni's CD being Billboard #1—which I added for completeness and for notability reasons ( Table N). RCraig09 ( talk) 14:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC) My procedure for this rewrite was to start with notability-endowing facts (movie soundtracks, YouTube music pioneer, We Are the World remake, Yanni tours/CD/DVD/PBS) and find reliable references for those facts; with all respect to your perceptions, in fact I wasn't "stretching" the references; the intangible NPOV tone can be improved through normal editing. RCraig09 ( talk) 13:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Procedural question for admin. At this point, should we be talking only about reversing the WP:CSD#G4 speedy delete (see "Changes"), or also about notability ( Table N)? RCraig09 ( talk) 21:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Nothing is out of scope at DRV. Not that I'm saying either applies here but just to illustrate my point, If the process of deletion was wrong but the article sucks then editors can say so and that gets factored into the final close. Spartaz ^Humbug! 01:41, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
    • What Spartaz says is exactly my understanding of the process here. It goes the other way too: if the process was technically right but substantially unfair because the article has very clear merits, we find some device for permitting it. DGG ( talk ) 20:46, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The close is also my reading of AfD2, although I ask the closer to give more explanation. Also as per S Marshall. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:58, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Procedural ——> Substantive discussion. Since this DRV has moved from procedural ( WP:CSD#G4) to substantive (AFD2, notability) considerations, and commenters do not appear to have considered Table N, I have pasted it below. Errors in AFD2 Delete comments are still at Table E.

The following chart shows occurrences corresponding to various notability provisions.

RCraig09 ( talk) 14:08, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Allow restoration to version requested by RCraig09. The woman meets are our notability requirements several times over for multiple reasons, per RCraig09's table. Huh, she's highly notable even for her secondary contributions, like her outstanding work for hunger relief. I note that the article on We Are the World is the only FA class article in our Hunger relief portal. This is despite there being libraries full RSs on other hunger relief topics. Most of the other topics have none existent or at best C class articles. Unlike We are the World , they haven't been blessed by the leadership of a crowd sourcing trailblazer like Lisa Lavie. Here's an ABC source for an interview with Lavie, just one more example of the dedicated coverage she gets from global media. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 23:25, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow restoration This is sufficiently improved to overcome G4, and there's at least a reasonable chance at notability. If anyone feels that the notability has to be discussed again, another AfD is the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 20:44, 11 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Per DGG. If it's debatable, it's NOT speedyable. All speedy criteria only apply to unambiguous situations, period. Really, a DRV of a speedy should be closed as 'overturn' as soon as there are multiple editors in good standing who agree that speedy was improperly applied. Jclemens ( talk) 06:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Not sufficiently improved from the version originally deleted by consensus. The original article used WP:BOMBARD tactics to disguise the underlying lack of notability. Lightening up on the BOMBARD is not enough to cure the more important notability problems, unaltered from the originally deleted version, as S Marshall quite accurately points out. And certainly no sound reason has been advanced to undo the redirect; this is fundamentally a BLP1E-type situation, and nothing in the newer version is sufficiently improved to rebut that conclusion. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • A specific refutation is called for. ● Improvements are noted in "Changes" list, below. ● Notability is outlined in Table N, above. ● Consensus (5 Delete versus 3 Keep/SpeedyKeep/LeaningtoKeep comments), not commented on by the April 1 closing admin, was filled with factual and legal errors noted in Table E, below. ● Shortening content & references by ~75% is not "lightening up"; it's a from-scratch rewrite. ● Notability (movie soundtracks, YouTube music pioneer, We Are the World remake, Yanni tours/CD/DVD/PBS) is not BLP1 (BLP1 being H.Wolfowitz's theory, and not consensus) ● S Marshall brought up NPOV concerns, not notability concerns. RCraig09 ( talk) 14:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Changes. Some participants don't appear to be reading the ("Changes") linked above, so I paste them here:

The June 2, 2013 article is "redone from scratch" per a Delete commenter's suggestion. Changes present in the June 2 version:

1. Content has been trimmed by about 75% to avoid assertions of "fluff" and "peacock"
2. Sourcing is limited by about 75% and of prime quality to avoid assertions of "bombardment" and "dubious sourcing"
3. The brevity of this new article should make subject's notability apparent, especially through WP:MUSICBIO § 10 which was not previously considered.
4. New content from sources, including ET Canada, eTalk and Canada AM (not merely stating that "subject received coverage" on these tv shows).
5. New sourcing in June 2 version includes: (fn 2,3) Allmusic for two movie soundtrack listings; (fn 16) eight sources establishing 2010-present affiliation with Yanni on tours; (fn 17) Allmusic for Yanni Live at El Morro credits; (fn 18) Allmusic for Yanni Live at El Morro awards; (fn 19) PBS and MLive, for Yanni's PBS special.

RCraig09 ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Errors in AfD2. Some participants don't appear to be reading Table E so I paste it here.

The 2009-2013 article was deleted on April 1, 2013 (five "Delete" comments, versus three comments of "Keep" and "Speedy Keep" and "leaning towards keep").

To curtail factual misunderstandings, the following chart shows some of the errors made by the "Delete" commenters in the deletion discussion for the 2009-2013 version.

RCraig09 ( talk) 14:16, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• RCraig09, it would be helpful if you could refrain from: (1) posting huge replies to absolutely everyone you disagree with, individually; (2) posting tables three or four times as long as the post you're actually disagreeing with; and (3) using copious amounts of bold text to emphasize your points. Thanks.— S Marshall T/ C 17:24, 12 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per lack of reasoning that notability or verifiability has substantially changed since April. There's a troubling trend at Deletion Review lately where someone will fight a supposedly invalid G4 deletion claiming they improved the article, which is usually technically correct but since the subject still isn't notable it just gets re-deleted at AFD again anyway. This results in a lot of wasted time both for the community and for the person trying to restore the article. There is no point trying to fight a G4 if the article will unquestionably fail a AFD discussion, which is nearly always the case when it's already failed once and there isn't any new unquestionable notability like a hit single to give reason to running a debate again. We're volunteers here, so don't waste our time or yours. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:53, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Specific to this article. Examples: Yanni DVD and CD, PBS TV special (re WP:MUSICBIO § 10). Plus, the above Tables show the "notability or verifiability" that was clearly visible to AfD participants (not buried in fluff) has changed. RCraig09 ( talk) 14:44, 18 June 2013 (UTC) reply

C++ Primer ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I really feel confused about why this article meets G11. This article only introduces the book neutrally, including its authors and editions. Although I only include an Amazon product page as a reference, this article shouldn't be speedily deleted at least so that it can be improved. In addition, this book is a notable C++ book and is cited by lots of papers. -- HNAKXR ( talk) 02:28, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure why HNAKXR has come straight here instead of first discussing this with me as the deleting admin. The article has no substantive content such as sales figures or awards to show why it's notable, but that's not the reason for deletion. It basically contained text saying it's about C++ and named the authors, nothing at all about the book's contents. It's only "reference" was a spam link to a sales site (Amazon). It had been tagged for speedy deletion by another editor, and I concurred since I felt that it was clearly intended as a link to a book sale's site rather than an encyclopaedia article. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply

The notification told me that I can go to Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, and I found that I should use Wikipedia:Deletion review instead per instructions on that page. I am not familar with rules on English Wikipedia since I learned some wiki markups on other websites using this software as well.

I used the Amazon page as a reference because of another similar article The C++ Programming Language, but after reading Wikipedia:External links, I agree with you that it's an inappropriate link.

So is it okay to leave it without references? -- HNAKXR ( talk) 05:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Theoretically you are supposed to talk to the deleting admin before opening a deletion review (it's somewhere in the instructions at the top of the page), and if you aren't satisfied with the response then you can open a discussion. It's not a huge deal that you didn't do this though. The page really ought to have some references of some kind, though an Amazon link isn't very appropriate per WP:EL. Hut 8.5 19:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn G11 isn't for pages where someone has inferred that the article was written for promotional purposes, it's for pages with promotional wording, which this page had none of. Yes, the Amazon link was inappropriate, but removing the link would have sufficed - G11 isn't supposed to apply if the problem can be fixed by editing short of a fundamental rewrite. Hut 8.5 11:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn; the language was neutral. That being said it seems like a good candidate for AfD, or just a straight redirection to Stanley B. Lippman. Mackensen (talk) 17:59, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Hut 8.5, whose analysis is spot on. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 19:42, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Note I have restored the page to facilitate this discussion. Mkdw ^talk 21:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• On what planet is this a G11?— S Marshall T/ C 19:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The article clearly isn't written in a promotional tone but its sheer lack of associated content makes it a bit like a classified ad. WP:CSD#A7 decidedly does not cover books. Now I happen to know that this book is a standard text but most review coverage is from firms trying to sell the book or from blogs, etc. I can't add to the article to put in the information that it is held in 663 libraries in the US. [1] Is that quite a lot? User:DGG (trying to trigger his notification gizmo) will know. This needs discussion. Thincat ( talk) 08:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply

Counting all edition, it's 1061. It's a lot, even for a popular computer subject. Second most widely held book on C++. Bjarne Stroustrup's book has 1429. But what is also relevant is that it has been translated into German, Dutch, Polish, French , Russian, Chinese, & Japanese. That almost always indicates substantial notability as a major work in the field. Reviews are also needed & are almost certainly be available. But , as mentioned, that's for AfD. What it does show, is that the article is worth the trouble of improving. DGG ( talk ) 14:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I was leaning that way, but DGG's analysis pushed me firmly towards this conclusion. Alansohn ( talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and trout the deleting admin for so vastly misunderstanding G11 and/or simply being too fast to evaluate the tagging on its merits. Either way, this isn't remotely within the realm of admin discretion. Jclemens ( talk) 02:54, 13 June 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, G11 is only for clearcut cases of promotional articles, which this is not. While the article is very short, the discussion above shows there's enough meat to have a discussion on this at AFD if the nominator wishes. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:21, 15 June 2013 (UTC). reply