Michael Byron (composer) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Supposedly the article had no citations and no indication of notability, yet it has had both added. The original nominator's concern was copyvio, but that reason was eliminated before the discussion closed. Hyacinth ( talk) 20:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• I'm confused, which of the sources that were re-added establish notability? Praxidicae ( talk) 20:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • No sources where removed. Hyacinth ( talk) 21:00, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

That's not really what I'm asking. As a lowly non-admin I can't see the content, can you please let us know what sources you think establish notability? Your assertion that it was deleted only due to copyvios is simply incorrect. The votes were based on sourcing and other concerns, so which sources no indication of notability, yet it has had both added were added? Praxidicae ( talk) 21:03, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Because this was a copyvio, I'd ask that the history not be temp-restored. I also don't see anything wrong with the close - Hyacinth, what exactly are you asking to have happen here? SportingFlyer T· C 22:40, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

The sequence of events in the deleted history is:

• 03:34, 8 April 2020: KidAd nominates the article for deletion.
• One format edit and one vandal edit that gets reverted.
• 05:37, 15 April 2020: JavaHurricane requests speedy deletion under CSD G12 with Twinkle, seven minutes after Mccapra in the AFD claims that it's a copyvio from this URL but the actual link in the G12 points to this URL. Text of the revision (admin only); it's hard to tell if any of it was copied from that URL.
• 06:47, 15 April 2020: Phil Bridger drastically reduces the size of the article with the summary "revert to the last clean version that I can find - please ask for revision deletion rather than article deletion if later versions violate copyright". Text of the revision (admin only) The "last clean version" alluded to here appears to be that from 20:53, 10 February 2010. I did compare the text of this revision against both URLs and it seems like it's clean.
• From there until deletion, Hyacinth carries out an expansion of the article, interspersed with some edits through Cyberbot restoring the AFD template, Hellknowz fixing the template, and some citation changes by Citation bot.

At the time of AFD nomination, the article contained the following references:

• Cold Blue Music page on Awakening at the inn of the birds CB0012, accessed 5 February 2010
• Dusted magazine review of Awakening at the inn of the birds CB0012, accessed 5 February 2010
• Beal, Amy C. "Dreaming of Virtuosity". Liner notes to Michael Byron - Dreamers of Pearl. New World Records.
• Frogpeak Music page, accessed 5 February 2010 and Michael Byron's website were listed as external links.

At the time of deletion, the article contained the following references:

• Tyranny, "Blue" Gene. Michael Byron at AllMusic. Retrieved 15 April 2020.
• Gagné, Nicole V. (2019). Historical Dictionary of Modern and Contemporary Classical Music, p.65. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. ISBN  9781538122983.
• https://www.newworldrecords.org/products/michael-byron-dreamers-of-pearl
• https://www.amazon.com/Michael-Byron-Dreamers-Pearl/dp/B001CRMHVK
• http://coldbluemusic.com/cb0043/
• https://www.prestomusic.com/classical/products/8287016--byron-m-the-celebration
• Frogpeak Music page at the Wayback Machine (archived 3 April 2019) was listed as an external link.

Hope this all helps. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:21, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close the nom here hasn't presented any reasoning as to why the close was wrong or evidence that the close wasn't in line with consensus. All in all, the sources are pretty much irrelevant to DRV since they existed at the time of closure and per WP:AGF, we can assume that the participants took them into account when making their vote. In fact, the statement here is patently incorrect, there are 5 voters (including the nom at AFD) which had votes based in policy/established guidelines and only one of which (1 of 4 delete votes) voted based on the copyvio, the fifth vote is Hyacinth, which had nothing more than "keep". Praxidicae ( talk) 16:15, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist The sources added by Hyacinth were all added after the "revert to clean version" by Phil Bridger. During that periond ther was exactly one editor expressingt a view in favor of deletion. One cannot presume that other participants stopped back to check on changes to the artiucle, particularly as no one mentioned in the AfD that additional siources were being added during this operiod, nor did anyone ping the participants to ask tjhem to do so. It went from two sources after the edit by Phil Bridger, to seven just before deletion. I'm not saying this met m WP:HEY but those added sources should have been evaluated, and apparently they were not. Alternatively undelete and permit renomination if anyone chooses to. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 16:43, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• !vote changed based on comments by Cryptic below. Logic and general views unchanged. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 19:40, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) The nominator complains (absolutely correctly) about the article's appearance and primary sourcing. The first delete vote has as much credibility as Davidson's keeps. Two more comments present sources. Mccapra's identification of the article as copyright infringement would normally be overriding if all revisions were so, but they weren't - this is justification for reversion and revdeletion, but not deletion of the article. Further, Hyacinth sourced and reexpanded the article after it was reverted to a stub, refuting the nomination directly. (He should have said so at the AFD; "I've rewritten the article" beats out "'''Keep'''. ~~~~" by ∞ to 0.) It's unclear if User:Pharaoh of the Wizards was fully aware of the article's history at the time of their comment; the "per nom" phrasing and complete lack of analysis of the new sourcing makes me skeptical. Even if they were, though, it'd be the only valid delete comment there. No, this isn't an AFD we can endorse. Overturn and send it back to AFD for a new discussion; don't reopen and relist the old one, the entirety of which is irrelevant. — Cryptic 16:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

@ Cryptic: can you clarify what The first delete vote has as much credibility as Davidson's keeps means? Praxidicae ( talk) 21:31, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply

We have some users who !vote very prolifically at XfD and whose !votes are often a poor fit for the facts of the discussion. We tend to give those users just a smidgeon less weight at DRV.— S Marshall  T/ C 00:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• This is a complex case. Bradv correctly closed the AfD - I trust I don't need to remind the above group that closure of an AfD is not a supervote, but an analysis of consensus as it stands at the conclusion of the AfD. I would think the most sensible thing to do would be to restore the article and immediately file a new AfD, alerting those who had participated in the previous AfD of this discussion and the new AfD. There is, of course, the question of copyright violating material in the history which would need to be handled carefully if there is to be any undeletion. Nick ( talk) 21:23, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • It's true that DRV mostly concerns itself with overturning defective closes. That's not the case here, though - it was instead the discussion that was defective, and that's also within DRV's remit. No implication of wrongdoing on the closer's part was intended - it's not reasonable to expect an admin closing an AFD even to notice on their own that the article had been rewritten if it there's no mention in the AFD itself, let alone come up with a solution that would be accepted by all involved. — Cryptic 17:54, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• It's not that complex, to be fair. Bradv's close was in accordance with the consensus but the consensus had been superseded in the meantime. Rather than "overturn", could the DRV closer please say "relist".— S Marshall  T/ C 00:27, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist Thanks to Cryptic for making this an easy argument. I see nothing wrong with the close, but the major issue with the discussion is the one keep !vote - also the user who WP:HEY/improved the article - just wrote "keep." If I had voted, much less closed, I would not have checked the discussion for a WP:HEY. I have no idea if the article should still be deleted or not, but the close should be vacated, the article relisted with the reason why, and all the participants pinged. SportingFlyer T· C 19:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Keep in mind that since one can not prove a negative the burden of proof for notability does not lie with the people who deem the article topic non-notable. However, saying that nothing in the article indicates any notability does not make the topic irrelevant/non-notable no matter how many times one says it. I think a quote by a respected music critic and composer calling the article topic "influential" implies importance. Mentioning "notability" or "WP:N" is not the same as discussing the policy's application. Saying, "This article should be deleted, per WP:X," is not the same as explaining why the article should be deleted and how the policy supports this. Hyacinth ( talk) 19:23, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Mentioning "notability" or "WP:N" is not the same as discussing the policy's application. neither is *Keep~~~~. Praxidicae ( talk) 19:26, 18 May 2020 (UTC) reply

Template:Uw-ewsoft ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Template:Uw-3rr-alt ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion should be reopened to allow more participation, considering {{ uw-ewsoft}} has been used nearly 4000 times, and people like me who use the template would not know the template was going to be deleted until it was as it is substituted. (The nom's rationale is also fairly weak as {{ uw-ewsoft}} serves as a softer, non- WP:BITEy warning for newbies and edit warring is no cardinal sin). Galobtter ( pingó mió) 05:41, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply

• Courtesy pings for @ LaundryPizza03, @ Mdaniels5757, @ Stifle, @ Bsherr, @ Dthomsen8 - FASTILY 05:46, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist - Per nom, as I didn't find out it was up for deletion until after it had been deleted and I tried to use it to avoid biting a newbie. - BilCat ( talk) 05:52, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• I can only endorse, as deletion process has been properly followed. Stifle ( talk) 11:25, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The discussion was open for sixteen days and there were no keep !votes. But consistent with my comment in the deletion discussion, I would invite interested editors to WT:UTM to discuss the prospect of softening Template:Uw-ew so that it is appropriate to use for all users. -- Bsherr ( talk) 12:37, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist The discussion had a few issues. #1 Apparently the number of uses is much greater than the discussion acknowledged (I've not checked either number). #2 There was a note about the this being announced to a relevant group and it was deleted a few hours later. #3 As is apparently just the way it works with templates, the people using it didn't had no meaningful way to know it was up for deletion and now they object when they do learn of it. #4 This almost seems like something that should be an RfC rather than a TfD--attracting more folks seems helpful. As such, a relist seems wise. Hobit ( talk) 13:12, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Endorse All of the faults the nominator describes are not unique to this specific TfD, but instead inherent to the way TfD works (TfD tags can't be shown on substituted templates -- how would you notify users who subst them, a warn-only edit filter?, and templates are routinely deleted with a small number of users participating). * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 13:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist I had to notify the village pump about a similar TfD which, despite potentially having an even wider impact than this one, was relisted twice due to lack of participation. Evidently, this kind of nomination is severely underexposed. Any thoughts about how to prevent this in the future? – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 13:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist. That TfD routinely fails to adequately notify everybody who should be notified about a discussion is not a reason to endorse a failure of adequate notification. Doubly so when a discussion was closed less than a day after it was explicitly noted that notification had been made nearly two weeks later than should have been done. On the actual substance of the discussion it seems that the !votes were based on incorrect information so may or may not be an accurate reflection of the views of those giving them had they known that. All in all there are multiple good reasons to relist and none not to. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist per Hobit, Thryddulf, and others, although if there is going to be an RfC, it would make sense to do that first and be guided by the result. Newyorkbrad ( talk) 18:59, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist Poorly attended enough that reopening could lead to better participation and a clearer consensus. TfDs are very poorly attended and even a single good keep !vote may have gotten this into no consensus territory. That being said, I don't see any explicit wrongdoing - just doesn't make sense not to endorse this on a technicality. SportingFlyer T· C 19:49, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Comments '- I agree that there was that there was no explicit wrongdoing in this case. I'm not sure what can be done in cases like this, but that could be addressed by an RfC independent of what happens here. (I do have some ideas for such an RfC.) - BilCat ( talk) 20:24, 11 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• relist or overturn to no consensus. The participants asked about usage, and at least one said it could be deleted "if it isn't being used" but did not mention that the instructions said this should always be used with subst, so the usage stats would surely be misleading. The delayed notificatioin to the nTwinke maintainers is anotehr reason to relist. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:57, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Meaningful notification of discussions about subst-only templates has been a problem at TFD for as long as it's existed. I don't think we've ever come up with a better solution than being liberal about reopening discussions after the template is deleted and someone complains, and even that doesn't do anything for people who don't try to use the template while it's redlinked. — Cryptic 16:24, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply
  • As a first though, maybe some sort of "Please notify these people/pages if you nominate this template for deletion, merging or other significant changes" list on the talk page might help. It obviously wouldn't catch everybody, probably not even most people, but I think it is unlikely to hurt. Especially if Twinkle could read it and send notifications automatically (I have no idea how feasible this is). Thryduulf ( talk) 19:56, 12 May 2020 (UTC) reply
• Relist The template usage figure was vastly understated. -- IamNotU ( talk) 13:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC) reply