Devlin Waugh ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closer wrote that the Keep comments "only assert but do not identify sources, and therefore must be given less weight." That is simply untrue: I gave three sources, with links to them, and the proposed deletion was even delisted to generate further discussion of my sources. It is impossible to escape the conclusion that the closer didn't read the debate. He certainly hadn't addressed the sources or given due weight to them, and so the proper procedure has not been followed. Richard75 ( talk) 09:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

For ease of reference, the three sources I listed were [1], [2] and [3]. Richard75 ( talk) 09:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

A huge problem with two of the sources (London and the book) are that one is a blog, and second is a Pedia book from Wikipedia users apparently, making both unreliable. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 09:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment. I'd certainly have been willing to discuss a relisting with Richard75 to allow the AfD to discuss these sources in more detail – if they had contacted me prior to making this review request, as per the instructions. But they did not. So I have to endorse my own closure based on the AfD as it stood at the time of closing. I was in fact imprecise when I wrote that "the" keep opinions did not identify sources: those other than Richard75 did not. This does not change that there was consensus for deletion based on the number and quality of the arguments made: only Richard75 made a policy-based, substantiated case for keeping the article. Sandstein 09:23, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A tough one. I think only Richard from the Keep side gave some an actual argument (and did offer sources). Being a "subject of several graphic novels" does not matter per WP:NOTINHERITED. The sources and the 1st gay character in British comic books angle didn't seem to convince a lot of editors that participated. Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 09:28, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist The sources presented during the AfD seem to have received little (or almost completely no) attention so I guess they were ignored rather than found not convincing. I think they could well have been found sufficient. It is a real pity Richard did not seek to discuss this with Sandstein who should have been given a chance to review their close and in this case might have done so. An alternative is to write a completely new article because I suspect (without seeing it) the deleted one may be not at all useful as a starting point. Thincat ( talk) 10:27, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• No-blame relist. If we can spend a little energy to find some sourcing and keep the article I think that would be ideal. I felt the discussion showed that the character had some claim to notability and that sourcing was available. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 12:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist the closing statement definitely isn't fair to Richard75, who did present concrete examples of sources. Two of these clearly aren't suitable but the other one may be. If you want an article to be deleted on notability grounds and someone comes up with sources then you need to address those sources instead of ignoring them or baldly asserting there aren't any. Hut 8.5 12:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Relist The Artful reveiw listed by Richard75 is an excellant source, and no one favoring delete engaged with it. The London Particualr would be excellant, if only it had ben reliably published, but as it stands it is unusable. But with these out there, it seems likely that others will exist, and WP:V quite specifically allows "Sources probably exist" so that argumetn should not have ben discounted. Alternativly, allow draftification if Richard75 or another editor intends to devote significant effort to this. That would allow plenty of time for research into sources, possibly off-line. Another 1 or two sources comperable to the Artful piece would be sufficient, I would think, to establish notability and insert the analysis that editors in the AfD complained was lacking. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 14:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I don't think that I agree with the closer, but I don't see a reversible error by the closer. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – Only one source that was even arguably GNG-satisfying was presented, and it was the Artful essay. The other two sources were a blog and a Wikipedia book. Aside from that one Artful essay, all keep !votes were properly discounted by the closer. "Sources must exist" is a !vote that is properly discounted, as are "!keep, [claim of importance]", such as "first X...". I don't view the Artful essay as requiring a second relist. First, it's a trade publication, weak for establishing notability because of the narrow audience. Second, it's just one source, and as a delete !voter said, Only a single source seems to be of any importance, but that's not enough for an article. Even if the AfD were relisted a second time, and all the delete !voters agreed that the Artful essay satisfied GNG, the result would still be delete, because we'd need at least two sources to satisfy GNG. The final reason why delete was right here is that if a second GNG source is found, the article can just be recreated, and it won't be a G4 due to the new sources. So no harm in leaving it deleted (no harm if it were REFUNDed to draft or userspace either), whereas a second relisting would have been a waste of time. Therefore, I endorse the closer's discounting of votes and read of consensus. The consensus was: there aren't two GNG sources out there. – Leviv ich 20:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Sandstein may have been slightly mistaken in closing the AfD with that verbiage, but there's no actual error in the close. Of the sources found by Richard75, one appears to be a blog and the other says "Editor: By Wikipedians" on its front page, and a consensus to delete existed, so I can't vote for on overturn in any circumstance. SportingFlyer T· C 23:41, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Not a Supervote. This is one that Sandstein got right Lightburst ( talk) 02:26, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Our of three sources presented in the end by the keep side, the book is good but offers only 2-3 sentences; a paragraph if you really want to be charitable. Then there is a 'digital newsletter' ( [4], borderline RS) and a blog, the latter not acceptable. That's not sufficient, through if one-two more good sources like the first two were found, I might be convinved to withdraw my nom. I'd be ok with this becoming a soft delete and redirect, though. (ping User:Sandstein for a consideration of this outcome). -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  Correction: the article at www.theartful.co.uk isn't a digital newsletter. The website does publish a digital newsletter ( here it is), but the article I linked to isn't part of that, it's part of the website itself ( list of articles here). Richard75 ( talk) 20:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  The book is not good; it's a Wikipedia book, by Wikipedia Editors (see the first page of the book), published by PediaPress. Those are Wikipedia articles in the book; they are not a reliable source and cannot establish notability. – Leviv ich 06:48, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

  • An easy mistake that’s already been pointed out. Gleeanon409 ( talk) 07:25, 17 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• I've temp undeleted to fascilitate this discussion. Wily D 10:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment - yeah, so here's where I'm at: the only worthwhile source mentioned wasn't mentioned until the very last comment, and it's of plausible but not completely obvious quality (but, quite in depth). I wouldn't be opposed to a re-open on that grounds. But I'm skeptical it's likely to be enough, alone. It'd be far better if someone took ownership of finding at least one or two more worthwhile sources, and it were userified to enable that (but that, of course, can't be forced). Wily D 12:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. DRV is to review the close - not to make further examinations. Not only wasn't the book source not challenged during the AFD, even a delete comment, acknowledged it was a good source. The final source wasn't even challenged by anyone. The closing statement that "do not address this, or only assert but do not identify sources" is clearly false, given all the identification and discussion of sources that went on. This suggests the the person who closed it, didn't actually read the discussion, which raises a lot of questions. Further discussion after closure does indicate an issue with the first source, but that's irrelevant for the sake of a review - as would be finding more sources. Perhaps this editor needs to stop closing AFDs - I can understand missing one response with a source, but there were three different responses over the course of the discussion providing sources - there's no excusing missing three comments! Nfitz ( talk) 20:39, 20 December 2019 (UTC) reply

Draft:Bass Drops Music Visualizer ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The draft page was rejected for being contrary to purpose of Wikipedia and speedily deleted for G3 for vandalism. 36.81.233.137 ( talk) 01:20, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Yes it was. I suppose speedying it for being patent nonsense and copyright infringement might've been clearer, but "vandalism"'s defensible. — Cryptic 01:39, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. If not WP:G3, or WP:G1, then WP:G2 (test pages) or maybe WP:G11. The point is, this has zero chance of going anywhere without a complete rewrite from scratch. I've tempundeleted it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • By the criteria, G1 explicitly says it doesn't apply to to this, G3 is pretty clear, and although G2 requires you know the motive, it's too much text to plausibly be a test. But, I think, since it explicitly compares two products at the start then proceeds to trash one, and there's zero worthwhile content, G11 probably can be applied. Wily D 06:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:IAR - Deletion review is the most process-wonky, by the book place around here - but je m'en calisse, there's no way I can support undeleting that, even if it's a stretch to make it fit any speedy deletion criterion. Wily D 06:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse honestly my first thought was that this was automated word salad turned out by a spambot in order to embed links in it, except there aren't any. It's not a clean fit for any speedy deletion criterion but it should be clearly be deleted and I don't think G1 is much of a stretch. Hut 8.5 12:49, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply

• Endorse G3. I'm not going to debate the finer points of whether having section titles that are sentences takes this out of G1 territory or not, but this checks the "vandalism - yes" box, or rather scribbles all over it. The edit summary adds a little doodle of a cherry on top. Alpha3031 ( t • c) 14:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Reluctantly endorse G3 I don't like "streching" any CSD, and there isn't or should be any such thing as IAR speedy deletion. But "vandalism" is content posted with intent to harm the projedct, qand it is hard to argue mthat this can possibly be intended to help. It really should havbe been brought to MfD, where I would certianly have suported deletion. If this actually is a copyright issue as Cryptic hints above, the source should be stated and that would then be clearcut, as speedy deletions should be. WilyD's argument for G11 has some weight also. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
  • It's the first "ref". — Cryptic 15:03, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
    • I didn't notice the copyright claim when I tempundeleted this. Now that it's been clarified, I looked into that. A reasonable argument could be made that this is WP:FAIRUSE as a parody. That's not to say we should do anything other than endorse the deletion with bells on, but it is a justification for letting the tempundeletion stay. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Neutral on overturning the speedy deletion. Rejection was warranted. I am not sure what this page is, but it is not a draft, and it is stupid, and it should be deleted at MFD if it goes to MFD. This is not MFD, and I am not sure that any speedy criterion applies. Robert McClenon ( talk) 20:07, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – Man, I've been fearless and tried to read this multiple times. It's not G3, it's G10. Or, maybe it's G11. I'm pretty sure it's attacking the subject of the article and not promoting it, but then I remember the days when "bad" meant "good" so I may be misreading the slang. It's one or the other though, and while we could update the deletion rationale in the log as "G10 or G11, depending on whether, e.g., 'spit it' is a positive or negative expression", but with this article, what's the point? – Leviv ich 21:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse WP:G3 certainly qualifies as a reason for deletion here and even arguendo it doesn't, there are other speedies that could apply (G10 in particular.) Not suitable for even draft space. SportingFlyer T· C 23:45, 14 December 2019 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G3 This is nonsensical garbage that belongs on 4chan or Reddit, not in an encyclopedia. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 05:13, 15 December 2019 (UTC) reply