User:Surturz/LEW ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

changed my mind about CSD U1. Sorry if this is the wrong place.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Surturz ( talk • contribs)

List of NBC slogans ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The page should be referenced. References might be from encyclopedias and trivia sites. nymets2000 ( t/ c/ l) 20:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I'm getting a 404 error on the cached copy. Can we please get a temp. undelete of this page? The discussion is hard to follow without it. Thanks Hobit ( talk) 20:49, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• I've looked at the discussion and the article, and see no reason to overturn the original decision. The article was/is crufty, suffers from a huge lack of references, and in my opinion the subject matter itself does not rise to the level of notability. Drmies ( talk) 21:00, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Relist Incorrect close. the key reason given for deletion was not that it was unreferenceable, but that it was currently unreferenced. That's contrary to deletion policy, and should not have been closed as a delete. It was also argued that it was trivial and "cruft", but that's a matter of opinion, and with only a few participants , it's insufficient discussion to decide. DGG ( talk ) 21:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Could someone please explain to me in what sense that page was supposed to have encyclopaedic value?— S Marshall T/ C 21:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'd think someone in marketing might find this to have some pretty significant value. Seeing how marketing and slogans have evolved over many years seems, well, useful. I admit I tend to have a very wide view of what others might find useful, but this honestly seems a lot more useful to me than 90% of our sports coverage and 80% of our place-name coverage... Hobit ( talk) 20:39, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • And that's a good point, well made, but I'm afraid I find myself agreeing with Drmies. I think you'd need better sourcing to justify an overturn.— S Marshall T/ C 23:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- The AfD could probably have been closed as no consensus after the first seven days, but the opinions after it was relisted were unanimous in favour of deletion. Of the three keeps the first was just a vote, and the other two were unsupported assertions that there must be sources out there somewhere. The closer did right in ignoring the first altogether, and recognizing that the responsibility of finding the material necessary to support an article lies with those who want it kept. In the fourteen days the AfD was open, not a single source was presented. This is evidence in favour of the arguments that the article fails our verifiability policy. Considering these facts, I think the closer correctly judged consensus in light of the relevant policy. Reyk _YO! 21:55, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (no consensus). Considering that this was a 7 year old article with 854 edits from 270 users, and that the content was in no way controversial, I'd like to see a stronger measure of consensus before it is deleted. The content seems verifiable. A google search readily reveals that others cover the same subject, including at least one physical book. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:19, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment This book's publishers obviously value Wikipedia material more highly than some editors do! Thincat ( talk) 10:50, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

All that " publisher" does is indiscriminately sell repackaged Wikipedia content, so that's really not indicative of anything. postdlf ( talk) 18:04, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, it proves to our partners that we're not just wikiing off, that we're doing something useful like getting published. Drmies ( talk) 19:01, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to NC if the article had been horrible that would perhaps be enough, but the discussion was a pretty clear NC (leaning perhaps a bit toward delete) and the article itself isn't that bad. I don't see a strong policy-based reason to delete nor do those arguing for deletion make a solid argument. It's sourced in places, could use other sources and is almost certainly soureable for every factoid (even if primary sources are needed in many cases.) Hobit ( talk) 20:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – The arguments for deletion outweighed the arguments for retention here, which comprised mostly of "there might be sources out there". – MuZemike 17:38, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Proper close, but could have done with some narrative to forestall exactly this foreseeable request. Any deletion of a "list of..." article will almost inevitably be challenged, usually by those who painstakingly compiled it from primary sources. Guy ( Help!) 21:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own close MuZemike's analysis matched my own, a closure I had no memory of making. (Perhaps because this was 14 months ago.) Courcelles 01:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorsw close per MuZemike. The arguments for deletion were based on policy, while the ones for keep on the assumption there must be sources out there (which they never provided). BTW shouldn't temporarily undeleted articles for DRV fully protected? Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 12:21, 5 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - Exactly the way I had been planning on closing it—the delete arguments were per policy whereas the keep arguments had less policy grounds. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 12:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Alex Day ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Made some imprvoements to User:Half price/Alex Day and asked for requests for feedback. The editor stated that the page was ready to be moved but Alex Day is protected. The request to move the move the userspace draft has been denied. See Talk:Alex Day and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Day for more details. Nominal ( talk) 10:31, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation: I think the article as currently drafted is so long and full of references which don't go to establishing notability (i.e., meeting GNG) that unfortunately most will have trouble assessing. The BBC called Alex Day/Nerimon a youtube "star" way back in 2008 [1], but we have a sort of bad-but-understandable precedent here about youtube notables that keeps out some notable ones in the effort to fight the endless attempts to create articles about nobodies on youtube. I know this as the creator of the The Annoying Orange and Ray William Johnson articles, both of which had been deleted multiple times in the past until someone took the effort to write an article demonstrating their notability. Of course both are extremely popular and well-sourced now. I think Alex Day has enough coverage to pass the notability bar, but a new AfD is likely to occur to test that.-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 12:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• I don't think I can evaluate this without seeing the pre-deletion version of Talk:Alex Day and examining the sources that, according to the AfD, were listed therein.— S Marshall T/ C 16:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• all versions in the talk p history temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (the earlier versions of the article itself are in place in the history behind the redirect) DGG ( talk ) 21:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Thank you, DGG. The matter is exactly as I thought. This source and this source suffice for the GNG, and so would this one if we can verify that Alex Day and Nerimon are one and the same person. The AfD correctly found that subject passes the GNG but fails WP:ENT. It incorrectly found that WP:ENT overrode the GNG. IN fact, when in doubt the GNG should prevail, so overturn to keep.— S Marshall T/ C 21:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation, allow immediate testing at AfD. I'm less convinced than S Marshall. A lot of work, and new references have been added, and that is enough to at least see it re-tested at AfD. The sources are not so impressive. There are too many YouTube references for comfort. Of the three references that S Marshall points to, the first and third do not do much to satisfy the GNG for me, but the second does somewhat. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:34, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I wouldn't object to a subsequent AfD.— S Marshall T/ C 10:48, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• When policies appear to conflict, only the community can decide the proper interpretation, and the place would be a second AfD.Not my subject exactly, so I'm not at all sure what my opinion thee would be if i even had one. DGG ( talk ) 19:09, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, with no objection to a new AfD if anyone thinks he's still not notable. The draft isn't perfect by any means, but there are enough new sources that weren't present when the original AfD was (correctly) closed as delete to justify further discussion. Alzarian16 ( talk) 12:40, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Could someone please point out to the fans of this vacuous nonentity that "talked about on youtube (source: comments on youtube)" is not acceptable referencing? Guy ( Help!) 21:32, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

"vacuous nonentity" - only on wikipedia can you pick up gems like this. :-) -- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 02:26, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Pointedly insulting terms do no good. No good for the subject, editors, or the project. If you think promotion is the underlying problem, please simply point the authors to WP:COI. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:00, 7 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm actually curious how calling the subject of an article something like that isn't a BLP issue. Hobit ( talk) 12:48, 8 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Ernest_Emerson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I disagree with the decision to keep that page. It's a blatant advertising of the business owned by the person. The claims that you can't buy his products anymore are false. On his website http://www.emersonknives.com/ you can buy knives and many more items. There isn't a single reliable reference or a source that indicates the worthiness of this person to have a wikipedia page. The references point to magazine articles known to post paid advertising articles or pages that no more exist. Powermugu ( talk) 09:52, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Endorse Close Close fits consensus. Subsequent FAR review confirmed FAR status. Agathoclea ( talk) 11:03, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Endorse Close any concerns with the article can be addressed at the article's talk page.-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 17:36, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment All this is four years old, why did you come here rather than start a new deletion discussion? At a glance I also think that page focuses way too much on his knifes for a biography and believe it could do with a new featured article review. Yoenit ( talk) 12:56, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Any new AfD will just look back and say notability has been established. Featured article review is a different matter and article changes since the last review and changing standards will have a bearing. Odd as well is the long contribution break of the nominator. Agathoclea ( talk) 13:07, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  I am well aware an AFD on this article will be closed as keep, but this DRV has even less chance of succeeding. As the nominator also so placed an AFD template on the article it appears he is confused by the deletion processes, which answers my original question. Yoenit ( talk) 13:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Comment - This is completely absurd. The article is a Featured Article and has gone through FAC and FAR. Subject is notable, article is properly sourced. Whatever happened to raising concerns on an article's talk page?-- Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 14:24, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• This is an advertisement, but it's clearly fixable and should therefore be fixed rather than deleted. No, this material is not of an appropriate quality for a featured article, and in my view a FAR is unnecessary: I think it can be summarily demoted per WP:SNOW.— S Marshall T/ C 16:18, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  I doubt that the WP:SNOW argument would stick with a WP:FAR. I checked the diff comparing the current state of the article with the state at the last review and there is no substantial change. Anyway this DRV is going the way of the original AFD using the discussion as a vehicle for a out of process FAR discussion. Last time there was a FAR following the AFD. That can happen again if someone requests it. The question now is was the AFD closed correctly. Agathoclea ( talk) 17:23, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Feloni in 2006.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

the User:Drilnoth request to delete file is being understood as an attempt at page vandalism. There have been no legal or copyright issues raised in protest against the of use of this image. The image serves as a visual image of the artist "Feloni". To say that the image is "useless" is with no logical reasoning behind the request for deletion by the user Drilnot. The image is of good quality and available for free public use. No legal issues have been raised against the image to date. Rush2rush ( talk) 00:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Slugslinger ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I feel that the closing administrator, User:Wifione, misread the deletion discussion and threw out several opinions that should have been taken into account. Numerically, the discussion closed at 6-3 in favour of deletion with the majority of the delete opinions referring to the lack of reliable, independent sources as their rationale. On the keep side we had two sources presented to establish notability, but they were examined and found unsuitable by other participants in the discussion.

I also disagree with Wifione's rationale for throwing out several opinions in the discussion. On his talk page he claims that questioning the reliability of sources is just as worthless as a WP:ITSNOTABLE. I think this is wrong; the suitability of the sources has been challenged on pretty good grounds and it is up to those wanting the article kept to defend it. Therefore, agreeing with the challenge is a legitimate opinion but simple denial is not. Based on this, I think Wifione was wrong to ignore the input of Roscelese, Yaksar, Dwanyewest, an IP editor and myself. When they are taken into account, as they should be, consensus to delete the article is clear. Reyk _YO! 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Delete. All three Keep votes were flawed - one claimed notability on the back of this "source", which is merely a listing in a toy guide. Another Keep vote (by Mathewignash) hung on a single source from a book - this quote to be precise - a passing mention in a footnote on Page 276. Since these were not valid reasons to Keep, the third Keep vote (which was basically "per the others") should also have been discarded. The fact that the article still doesn't have any significant independent sources after an AfD should be telling. Black Kite (t) (c) 03:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• What's telling is that when a valid source is presented, you still won't accept it. Transformers are toys and so it is to be expected that they will be covered best in toy guides. Your inability to understand or accept this is the essence of the difference between us which demonstrates the lack of consensus. Naturally, as the nominator, you prefer your opinion but there seems to be no objective or policy-based basis for it. Warden ( talk) 18:15, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Nothing surprising about that AfD. If you'd just told me it was a transformers article, given me a list of the participants, and asked me how each would vote, I would have been able to call every single one of them. What we have here is another skirmish in an ongoing battleground. This is basically a conduct issue, not a content issue, and it's not solvable unless we treat it appropriately. I'm sure it'll be escalated eventually. In the meantime I won't fault the closer for calling "no consensus" on a debate that didn't actually reach a consensus, and I'll remark that a redirect to the appropriate list would have been the correct outcome.

  A lack of in-depth coverage in reliable sources does not mean "delete". It means "do not have a separate article on this topic". That isn't just WP:BEFORE, it's also WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. The quibbling about WP:BEFORE was a red herring because WP:PRESERVE is part of Wikipedia:Editing policy. Which means that yes, policy does require you to exhaust the alternatives to deletion before nominating for an AfD. The alternatives weren't exhausted so I simply don't see the nomination as appropriate. But, I'm disappointed to say, I don't expect any of the participants to be prepared to change their behaviour on this because it would mean "losing".— S Marshall T/ C 09:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  • You obviously haven't tried "the alternatives to deletion" with Transformers articles. I would actually have been quite happy to see it merged, because it's practically impossible to merge a Transformers article unless you get an AfD verdict anyway (you just keep getting reverted). You're quite right that it's a conduct issue - I just wonder how long we're going to let people get away with this. Black Kite (t) (c) 10:29, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • It's true, I'm not exactly an enthusiastic editor of Transformers articles.  :) Like most fictional topics, I really don't care whether Wikipedia covers it or not (although I'll confess that I'm still annoyed that we have an "article" about Sexuality in Star Trek). DRV won't normally enforce a merge outcome, but in the circumstances I'm prepared to disregard that convention and recommend an overturn to merge, if that helps?— S Marshall T/ C 10:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse  If we bypass the !votes that were not evidence based, we are left with only two !votes, both of which think the article belongs as stand-alone on Wikipedia.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:14, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Would you like to explain that ridiculous statement? There are no significant sources in this article, which is what most of the Delete votes said. (Edit: oh, wait, I've just looked at yuor contribution history. Very interesting. Who were you previously? And ... oh look ... [2]. Interesting.) Black Kite (t) (c) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Wow, I didn't even see that at the time. A disgusting, transparent smear attempt. "Sabotage"... what a crock. Reyk _YO! 21:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, The problem with merges for articles on elements of fiction is that they almost always degenerate into mere one-line entries in lists, and it is very difficult to keep content against persistent and repeated attempts to remove it by small edits. For most of the AfD debates of elements of fiction where I vote !keep, I would !vote merge if I thought there would be an honest and sustainable merge. (To be fair, it can sometimes be equally hard to remove inappropriate content against editors who have taken OWNership of the article, but this is more likely to occur with such things as articles on non-fiction books.) AfDs are at least generally visible, although for some topics (such as most elements of fiction) the result is pretty much a matter of chance based on who has the time and energy to show up. DGG ( talk ) 14:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • As I said, DGG, I'd have been quite happy with a merge, it's just that with the appalling WP:OWNership issues with these articles, it's impossible to do so without getting the green light from an AfD, because you get reverted every time. As I said, this article still hasn't got any significant sourcing, so I presume the next step is to merge it. As such, I've placed the tag, for all the use it'll be. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:48, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Black Kite, above. The keep !votes alluded to notability while only presenting one source, which didn't offer much in-depth discussion. (OT: damn those toys from the 80s are expensive!) Them From Space 15:04, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete. Reviewing the AfD, I agree with Wifione that a number of arguments on both sides were not especially strong, and so could not be given much weight:

• Delete sources of dubious quality.
• Keep Sources found indicate notability.
• Delete- yet another fanblurb with extremely poor sourcing. Attacking the nominator is not a legitimate defence of this article.
• Poorly sourced Transformers article with unreliable information DELETE

However, I would argue that the "legitimate" keep arguments that Wifione did gave weight to in the no consensus decision are also poor or were refuted:

• Keep I'm no Transformers buff but find it quite easy to find expert and detailed coverage of the topic in detail in sources such as this. The topic is demonstrably notable and just needs work per our editing policy.

This source was appropriately challenged by Reyk Yaksar, as it is structured as it is structured as a directory of all toys, rather than a source with significant coverage).

• KEEP Once again Black Kite doesn't bother to do the research. I expanded that first source, as it was from a book that specifically use Slugslinger's biogrpahy, motto and function in a talk about violent toys for boys. This is definitely a viable third party source that isn't "in-fiction".

This argument consists of 1) Complaining about the nominator, 2) An improper characterization of a source that isn't "specifically about" the subject (it was a mention, as noted by Roscelese), and 3) A focus on in-universe material to a degree that is that is inappropriate for this article.

Arguments supporting to keep the article were appropriately challenged and refuted but still given weight by the closing admin. Therefore, I think the decision should be overturned to deletion. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 19:47, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think you mean Yaksar not Reyk and his badgering in no way refuted the source which was an excellent one, providing significant coverage as defined by WP:SIGCOV. Warden ( talk) 17:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the correction. But we will have to agree to disagree that this source constitutes significant coverage. Sorry, but a directory is a directory. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 06:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, the sources are valid, and the decision was just. That said I'm not against Black Kite's merge tag. It might need to be merged to Targetmasters or something for the time being, and then brought back if more sources can be found later. Much better then deletion where the text is lost to the common editor. Mathewignash ( talk) 23:09, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, although as S Marshall points out the best outcome would be to preserve any pertinent content by a merge and redirect. It is normal for AfD participants to disagree on the strength and reliability of sources, and most of the time a closing admin is in no position to favor one over the other, specially if that would be based on their own take on the subject. That is not the case here: the only two sources presented at the discussion were extremely weak, in such a way that claiming that they provided any amount of significant coverage is simply out of proportion — frankie ( talk) 14:19, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I'd say that if at least one deletion argument had been made more politely it would have been harder for me to justify this, but there was no compelling numerical or policy-based superiority in arguments sufficient to make "no consensus" not a valid outcome. Were I to have closed it, I would have enforced the merge, and I think that's probably the best way forward at this point. "No consensus" is not a free ride to keep lousy articles in mainspace--it can indeed be a respite for an appropriate merge. Jclemens ( talk) 02:01, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Firstly, the strength of an argument doesn't depend on whether it's sugar-coated or not. Secondly, I think it's bizarre that you criticise delete !voters for being "rude" while ignoring the personal attacks on the nominator by the majority of keep !voters. If this is an attempt to punish Tarc for criticising the ARS (his was the only delete opinion that was harsh on other people, as opposed to articles and sources which cannot be the target of impoliteness because they're not alive or sentient), I would remind you that hijacking a content process to do it is pretty pointy. Reyk _YO! 02:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, since civility is a pillar, any closer would have been right to give appropriately less weight to opinions rendered in an impolite manner. In this case, however, the incivility was NOT one sided, as you've observed. Had it been exclusively one-sided, it would not have been reasonable to close this dispute as "no consensus" in my estimation. Both sides were at fault here. Jclemens ( talk) 02:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I think that incivility has a tendency to undermine arguments and that it should be discouraged, but I disagree that it should be weighed directly. A participant allowing his argument to falter in favor of bickering and badgering isn't the same as mere rudeness. Flatscan ( talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was no consensus in the discussion and so the close was quite accurate. Consensus means general agreement and it is very clear that we do not have this for this topic. Warden ( talk) 08:22, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete Arguments built on WP:GNG and WP:N have to carry more weight than those built on what appear to be flimsy sources. Disclaimer: I really don't understand the subject matter here. 121.73.68.51 ( talk) 09:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC) Sorry, I thought I was logged in. Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:43, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• The source I cited was not flimsy - it was quite satisfactory as it addressed the topic directly and in detail. Warden ( talk) 17:57, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• LOL - it couldn't have been less flimsy. It's a toy catalogue. That's like saying that every item in the Littlewoods catalogue is notable because it appears in their own catalogue. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:27, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• No, it's nothing like a Littlewoods catalogue as it is not a commercial catalogue of items for sale by the publisher. It is instead a guide aimed at collectors and aficionados and so is much the same as a guide to birds, aircraft, stamps and other items which are collected or admired. It was published by a book publisher and the retail price seems to be $72 - a substantial price because this is a substantial work of reference. The author seems to be an expert on the topic and so the content is especially reliable. Your failure to recognise the nature of the work indicates that your opinion is not reliable. Warden ( talk) 22:06, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Are you taking the piss? (Nothing surprises me any more) It's a collectibles catalogue. It doesn't discuss the toy, it effectively confirms that it exists. And more importantly, it doesn't discuss the character which is what this AFD/DRV is about. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:29, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• It's remarkable that, after all these relentless attacks on Transformers, you still don't seem to understand the first thing about them — that they were primarily toys - models of vehicles which would transform into robots. The Saturday morning cartoons were created to promote sale of the toys and everything since - the comics, novels, movies &c. — are derivative works in what is a now a massive multimedia franchise. This reference work documents this particular toy in some detail giving both physical details — "light grey plastic is prone to yellowing over time" — and backstory — "prefers sneaking up and shooting enemies in the back". This is detailed discussion of both the toy and the character and your contrary claim is quite false. It is naturally impossible to achieve consensus when plain facts are not acknowledged. Warden ( talk) 08:30, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Your ability to twist discussions is admirable, if utterly frustrating. If you want to write an article about Transformers toys, then fine, that would indeed be a useful resource. But this isn't an article about a toy, it's an article about the character. The toy part of the article is minor. And as such, that isn't enough of a source. Anyway, this is pointless I think, as general consensus seems to be that whether or not the close of the AfD was wrong, a merge is indicated here. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:56, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment: having spent far too much time learning about transformers to try and understand this debate, I'm still not seeing how the given references constitute significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject Stuartyeates ( talk) 09:52, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete (don't think I've ever said that before). I basically agree with Jethrobot that there were poor arguments on both sides. Trouble is, all the keep arguments were poor - only Colonel Warden comes close to a reasonable policy-based rationale, and even that's based on a single source. Regardless of its depth of coverage, which is highly dubious, one source still isn't enough to meet WP:GNG. Given that the strength of sourcing was strongly refuted by several delete !voters, I can only see this as a consensus to delete. Ideally I would have supported merging to List of Decepticons, but there certainly isn't consensus for this. Alzarian16 ( talk) 19:10, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse though I personally think merge was probably a better outcome, that wasn't really discussed so I can't fault the closer for not going that way. Frankly the discussion on both sides was poor and I don't see how any outcome other than NC could come of it. Hint: if you are attacking others in an AfD or DrV you can't really be expecting to be taken seriously by the closer. Also, while more of a AfD thing, I think DGG's comments about merges getting stripped down to one-liners in an important issue here. The "keepers" have a reasonable fear that giving an inch will actually result in a mile being taken... Hobit ( talk) 21:02, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• The issue of merger is quite tangential to the issue of deletion. Merger is just a matter of structural style - whether to have small articles or larger ones with sections. Deletion is much more serious because it has two damaging effects. Firstly, it removes the edit history so that ordinary editors and readers are unable to follow the history of the topic. Secondly, it makes the title (Slugsinger) into a redlink which makes searching and linking harder. As this title is a distinctive one, it seems quite disruptive to propose its deletion. If, as it seems, the deletion nomination was just made as a tactical way of achieving merger then this is deceptive game-playing and the nomination should have been speedily closed per WP:SK: "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion". Warden ( talk) 08:40, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Hang on a moment. I wouldn't have nominated it for deletion if it didn't have any reliable sources whatsoever. My comments about the problems of merging TF material, whilst true, only applies to material that is sourced, but would be better as a merged article. It's utterly pointless an un-navigable having 600-odd individual TF character bios, especially when most are unsourced, badly sourced, and/or merely plot summaries. Black Kite (t) (c) 08:59, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Could you clarify? I think I got lost in the negations somewhere. Are you saying it had no reliable sources at all? There appear to be at least primary sources that are reliable and perhaps some others. Are you arguing above that a merge would be a good or bad outcome here? Sorry, I suspect your language is clear, but I'm lost somewhere. Hobit ( talk) 21:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment  The issue of merge results being "...stripped down to one-liners..." may sound like an exaggeration, but here is an example where not a single line remains: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Seventh Day Christians_-_Norway had agreement to merge to Church of God International (USA), but the merged material stayed in the article for only two days.  User:JoVaM has not been seen since.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:52, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Actually, there wasn't agreement at your example AfD to merge at all. That was done unilaterally by one editor while the AfD was still ongoing. The discussion closed two weeks later as redirect, not merge, and the content in question was later removed because it was unrelated to the topic of the article. This is an irrelevant example because the circumstances and details are entirely different. Reyk _YO! 03:51, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment the issue of merging resulting in much content being "lost" is almost completely irrelevant. If an AFD results in keep then the normal practice doesn't protect that content, it can still be edited stuff removed - even stripped to a stub. It can still be listed for deletion again. If the result is delete it isn't a protected result which means that content can never ever appear in the encyclopaedia, better sources may be found, change in community standards etc. which could make recreation viable. Merging isn't some sort of special protection for a given piece of content not afforded to any other content in the encyclopaedia merely because a small set of editors at one point in time (and quite often a minority of editors in a debate) suggested merging. A decision to merge is an editorial one and normal editing practices and policies come into place, if those decide less content is warranted (or even no content) that's something which can and should be discussed on the article talk page and resolved there. It itsn't DRVs role to dictate that we must forever keep all the content from a merge. Consider the situation where I add content to an article and no other editor thinks it should be there, unhappy with this I create an article containing just that content, the AFD concludes merge, DRV then interferes with the normal editing process and dictates it must then appear in the original article, despite the long standing editorial decision it doesn't belong. Ludicrous. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • AfD shouldn't override the normal editing process, but its outcomes should be given some respect. I agree that your example may be a perverse outcome, but it could be forcing outside input into a WP:Walled garden. One drawback is that AfD tends to be imprecise regarding what should be merged. Participants sometimes recommend "selective merge" or "summarize and merge" to distinguish from a full dump. Flatscan ( talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Some level of respect, but what level and for how long? The key point is that the merge outcome of an AFD isn't a long term protection of content. Much the same way we respect people's content added to articles, and encourage more, but if the content they add is substandard and gets reworked or the article moves in a different direction and the content removed, we don't feel bound by respect that we must keep that original content. My actual view on this is that merge shouldn't be an AFD outcome, merging is editorial any merge opinion is really an opinion to keep and some editorial advice. Unfortunately those giving the advice often don't hang around and actively participate in the editing in that area... Merges are best agreed and determine by those actively editing both the source and destination articles - that affords the "protection" based on the consensus formed as to how the merge should be actioned. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 06:29, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I agree with your key point. On the other hand, I think that AfD is pretty good at deciding standalone article (keep) versus no standalone article (merge, redirect, delete). In case you haven't seen it, WT:Articles for deletion/Archive 61#RfC: Merge, redirect (January–February 2011) affirmed that merge and redirect are valid at AfD, as both recommendations and outcomes. Flatscan ( talk) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete Without any opposition to merging content to some umbrella topic, this doesn't need to be a stand-alone article, that's what the lack of sources say and that was the strength of argument was in the AfD. SchmuckyTheCat ( talk)
• Endorse close as within discretion of closing admin. Deletion review is not AfD round two. Also agree with Hobit, and the AfD discussion was more jousting than anything else. Let merge discussion continue.-- Milowent • ^{talk blp-r} 18:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn to delete. I disagree with discounting the weaker delete recommendations, as the sources (including the catalog) are poor. If Warden had presented an excellent source, the deletes should be discounted, and Dream Focus's keep holds its weight. I Jethrobot's weighting is also reasonable. Targetmaster, suggested above by Mathewignash, seems like a better redirect target than List of Decepticons. Flatscan ( talk) 04:49, 2 September 2011 (UTC) reply

If we give weight to Dream's unreferenced !vote, we give weight to all of the delete !votes at the AfD that were not evidence based.  The force of reason says that proof by assertion is a logical fallacy.  Warden is the only editor in the entire AfD to document a Google search.  Unscintillating ( talk) 03:50, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply

I consider Dream Focus's recommendation to be somewhat of a WP:PERNOM based on the other keeps from Mathewignash and Warden: its weight depends on their strength. The same goes for those deletes. Flatscan ( talk) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as per Milowent. I also suspect many of the delete rationales don't reflect the broader practice/working consensus regarding classes of multimedia fictional characters, or why Transformers should be treated differently than the 1439 characters included in, foe example, Category:Marvel Comics supervillains Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:26, 3 September 2011 (UTC) reply
  • That's an WP:Other stuff exists argument. Slugslinger was nominated because Black Kite is working through the Transformers articles. When you mentioned Category:Marvel Comics supervillains, I thought of an obscure one-shot villain whose Wikipedia article I had read in the past. It's 100% plot summary with a single external link to a fan site. His article at the Marvel Wikia is pretty sparse too. I don't know if it's representative of the category, but my guess is that many would be deleted at AfD once nominated. Flatscan ( talk) 04:40, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to relist at the very least. If it cannot be expanded and referenced more, then I would recommend merge to list and/or delete. - Penwhale | ^{dance in the air and follow his steps} 11:44, 4 September 2011 (UTC) reply

Criticism of Vladimir Putin ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

My apologies if I linked this incorrectly; this is my first sign-in of any serious length in nearly two years. I'd like to nominate the above article for deletion review. My purpose in initializing that article and a few other similar articles on Putin was specifically to give the main BLP the breathing space needed for it to become a quality article by way of giving the edit-warriors, Russophiles, and Russophobes an outlet for their more controversial additions.

It appears that it was kinda fast-tracked through AfD in May, after two previous attempts were decisively defeated. The margin by which it was finally approved, on this third try, suggests that this was "on the agenda" for at least some of the people involved, though I won't speculate as to why that is so, as did the people who ascribed to me a desire to smear Putin, when what I really wanted to do was clean his BLP up. I have no intention to participate in any ensuing discussion, and am no longer active here, so nobody need bother placing anything on my talk or anything else, and I'm not even going to bother notifying the deleting administrator. Somebody else can handle that; I simply don't care that much about this place or its silly policies any more.

I literally came here today to pull down my own private mirror so I wouldn't have to see this kind of crap any more. But others....might want to see a clean BLP on Putin, and that's not going to happen when politics motivates both followers and critics to constantly battle each other to shape the main article. Just sayin'.

So, I'm basically seeking to ensure a genuinely fair shake for the "Criticism" article, not because I actually care about its content, but because I really wouldn't mind seeing the main article cleared of all battle debris, in keeping with my original intention. Ender78 ( talk) 09:06, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Over the past several years, there has been a move to get rid of these kind ("Criticism of X") of articles. Wikipedia:Criticism explains why. I know it's hard, but it's not really proper to try to de-battleground an article but moving everyone to another non-NPOV article. A more proper way to split the article would be to create articles like Allegations of corruption against Vladimir Putin, Presidency of Vladimir Putin, etc. and integrate them in a summary style fashion into the article. NW ( Talk) 15:59, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure by default. The submitter does not advance an argument why the closure of this AfD was procedurally incorrect or why relevant circumstances have changed since then. DRV is not the place to re-argue the merits of whether or not an article should have been deleted (about which I have no opinion in this case).  Sandstein  19:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Consensus regardin "Criticism of" type articles has clearly changed, and nom does not suggest any sound reason for finding impropriety in determining that consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but with no prejudice towards recreation of a neutral article. Speaking solely on behalf of myself, I don't see whats wrong with the "criticism of..." type articles, as long as the criticism itself is notable and the article is presented in a neutral way. The first stipulation ensures that we don't have a companion "critism of..." article to every article on Wikipedia. The second is tough to do, but it isn't impossible. I would be willing to let a neutral article on this subject back in (perhaps a draft could be taken back to DRV?), although I'm not sure if other editors would want an article on this subject no matter how well it was written. Them From Space 15:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Well, even if the criticism is going to be notable, there's still no difference in notability between criticism and public perception in general (often these articles have been turned into "public image of foo"), and if that's the case, the latter would be more neutral. The only exception would seem to be someone whose public image was entirely negative, but that seems to be an issue beyond mere criticism; an article on criticism of Saddam Hussein, say, would just be silly. My view would be endorse; local consensus was clear and the close was also in line with current community consensus on this issue. Chick Bowen 22:56, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The close fairly represented a finding of consensus in the discussion. Warden ( talk) 08:25, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the AfD was really clear. That said, I agree with Themfromspace, such an article could in theory exist and I think a well-written article on this would enhance Wikipedia. Hobit ( talk) 21:05, 30 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Ashkenazi intelligence ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so(...)Since anyone can edit an article and most changes made are displayed immediately, inappropriate material may appear before it can be removed. Content which is obviously inappropriate (such as an irrelevant link to a shock site, or clear vandalism) is usually removed quickly.

I feel that this article is a shock article. -- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 03:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• The discussion pages: Original, 2nd, 3rd, 3rd nomination, 4th nomination — frankie ( talk) 03:34, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The "3rd nomination" and fourth nomination were made by myself and speedy deleted due to the three deletion discussions that went on 3 years ago to keep. I listed and tried to relist, but that was closed and told basically to deal with it.-- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 03:38, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse DRV is not a forum in which to take another bite at the apple. There was nothing out-of-process in the closing of the "3rd nomination" or the "4th nomination" (initiated by Henriettapussycat). —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 03:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree I reacted incorrectly, and I apologize to the admin who closed the article. I'm not sure what DVR is if it is not to debate a deletion. -- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 04:00, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I am withdrawing this because Malik Shabazz explained this to me. I misunderstood the procedure completely. -- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 04:07, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closes This article is backed by numerous reliable and verifiable references from notable authors in notable sources and there is no evidence offered that consensus has changed regarding rather evident notability. None of the exceptions to WP:NOTCENSORED have any relevance to this article. Alansohn ( talk) 03:54, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close The nominator put forth no persuasive reasoning as to why the previous consensus to keep might have changed in the intervening three year period. If they had done so, a new AfD might have been warranted.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 10:40, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• I agree that the keep was procedurally correct, and any issue should be taken to Afd. Where, I think, the discussion will likely be closed again as a keep. Nothing offensive in this well-sourced article about a well-known phenomenon. Debresser ( talk) 10:46, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Reopen Discussion was closed almost instantly after it was opened. Consensus could have changed since 2008--if the discussion was allowed to run. The nominator might not have articulated them well, but there are valid reasons to delete, among them WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. (or at the very least, serious problems with the article that were brought up in previous deletion discussions, and never fixed since). Even if the close is upheld, it shouldn't prejudice a proper deletion nomination. 71.58.222.181 ( talk) 12:37, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The discussion 3 years ago was a strong keep, on well-reasoned grounds, and Wikipedia has not changed in a direction that would indicate a move otherwise. There is no possible chance that an AfD would succeed, because the basic premise of the nomination is totally against the fundamental policy behind the encyclopedia. There is no subject at all for which it can be said that "there is absolutely no way this can be approached by NPOV." A page discussing even the most racist charges against a group is not a page attacking them; if such charges cannot even be discussed, how is the group to be defended? Do we give the field over tho the racists? (not that I think this topic racist. The implication of deletion, that Jews have something to hide, is what is racist.) DGG ( talk ) 14:25, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The implication by myself is not Jews have something to hide, though you may assume that. My logic was that we shouldn't be discussing the intelligences of different ethnicities because it doesn't vary in different groups, it varies person by person. So people can be directed to the human intelligence article--there could even be subsections within the intelligence articles that deal with this. At best this a pseudo-science topic. But I spoke to Malik Shabazz, and as mentioned above, withdrew my deletion review, because he said that because there are sources and it is a notable topic, that is unlikely to change. Despite my personal belief that the discussion intelligence of an ethnic group as a whole as opposed to the discussion of human intelligence by individuals is intrinsically wrong due to a variety or reasons, I see his point. Even if the discussion is not offensive, I don't see the point because we are at the point in science where we know that human intelligence varies by person, not ethnicity. And again, an article, rather than a subsection in the intelligence article, seems extreme and is offensive in itself, even if the whole matter is not offensive by nature. It's like discussion of the mood capabilities of women, even if it's positive, why is there a discussion of it in the first place? It's also a known phenomen. In any event, I don't agree with its existence, neutral/positive or otherwise, but due to the way Malik Shabazz described this to me, I withdrew this before the influx of other comments.-- Henriettapussycat ( talk) 15:24, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

User:TreasuryTag ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This MfD should clearly have been closed as either 'speedy keep' (per SK2(4) – "nominations that are clearly an attempt to end an editing dispute through deletion, where dispute resolution is a more appropriate course" – and/or SK1 and/or WP:ATD) or as 'no consensus' because of the fact that there was clearly no consensus to delete. There were a lot of very angry people who objected to me cataloguing their lax or just bad behaviour. And there were a lot of editors who saw a chance to piss me off or otherwise stalk me. This is not to say that all of the 'delete' !votes were in bad faith, but a fair portion of them were.

Below is a table showing the 16:10 breakdown of arguments. We're talking about around 60% of people (including the biased people) wanting the passage deleted. I do not think that that constitutes a consensus.

• For removal of the offending passage: Acroterion, Andy Dingley, Orlady, Hut 8.5, Hi878, Buffs, Onorem, 195.43.48.142, KoshVorlon, Collect, Robofish, Beyond My Ken, SarekOfVulcan, Stifle, GiantSnowman, Ebyabe. Total: 16
• Against removal of the offending passage: TreasuryTag, My76Strat, Fastily, Some Wiki Editor, HominidMachinae, Thincat [procedural close], Graeme Bartlett, William M Connolley, Porchcorpter, Fences and Windows. Total: 10
• Unclear: SmokeyJoe, Egg Centric

Therefore, the result should obviously be overturned, and I look forward to that happening. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Syndic General─╢ 19:51, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  WP:JUSTAVOTE and WP:HA. ╟─ Treasury Tag► belonger─╢ 19:56, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  You too TT Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Two of those links clearly don't apply, so that was a fairly useless comment. But thanks for your input. ╟─ Treasury Tag► Regional Counting Officer─╢ 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  JUSTAVOTE doesn't apply to DRVs. "Endorse close" means that I think the closer read the discussion correctly, and requires no further reasoning.-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close: collect ( talk · contribs) seemed to sum it up saying "looks like a strong consensus to just delete the famed userbox and its "contents" from here" which is exactly how the MFD was closed. I agree It does look like a strong consensus. This DRV and the drama leading up to it seems a bit WP:POINTy. Toddst1 ( talk) 20:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment Since MFD was used to "delete" a portion of the page, it's all still there in the history for review by those interested in doing so. Permalinks including the portion in question:

• Talk page
• User page

-- Floquenbeam ( talk) 20:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speediest possible Close of this DRV and permanent Deletion of TT's ridiculous self-pitying, paranoid and unnecessarily uncivil attack/rant. We really don't need this kind of disruption any longer, it's gone on far too long as it is. 2.121.29.24 ( talk) 20:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close--v/r - T P 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close and furthermore I suggest other editors do not get sucked into engaging with Treasury Tag unless absolutely necessary. As a further comment, I personally believe this DRV to be unspeakably POINTY. But if we are to have it I see no reason the box oughtn't be kept there while the DRV is in process (although I do not believe this DRV has to be seen through) Egg Centric 20:09, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close per DFTT. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 20:17, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse consensus was pretty clear, and the pointy editing at WP:AN and the closing admin's talkpage do not help the case any. Them From Space 20:23, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  To which "pointy editing at WP:AN" are you referring? ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I am unclear on the close statement which reads: "Consensus is that the offending portion of the page to be deleted" ... is this stating that consensus is for the entire passage be removed, or stating that consensus is that the links that specifically identify other users/editors be removed? It appears that the full text was removed following close of the MfD, but from my reading of the MfD, consensus only appears to support removal of the links within that statement. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close. There were dissenting views, certainly, and there is an argument that AfD wasn't quite the right place to ask for this to be removed. That said, a community consensus was reached in the AfD that the content was clearly inappropriate. Regardless of where the consensus happened, it's still consensus. The Cavalry ( Message me) 20:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close as a reasonable reading of consensus and one well within the closer's discretion. On a side note, maybe people could stop poking TT for a while? Egg Centric's suggestion above that people leave TT alone, while decidedly ironic, is nonetheless good advice. 28bytes ( talk) 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment - with regards to WP:SNOW, why are we still here? 2.121.29.24 ( talk) 20:31, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment ( edit conflict) Can this be speedy closed?--v/r - T P 20:30, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree it should be speedily closed. However, it is basically up to Treasury Tag. If he is not willing to go along with a speedy close then it's just going to lead to more drama (I don't precisely what but presumably arbcom). So maybe best to chill a bit and see what, if anything, he has to say. Egg Centric 20:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Per my comment above, I disagree with speedy/snowball close pending clarification on how the closing statement was intended. If the MfD was closed with the meaning that the text can remain if-and-only-if the links are removed, then I endorse the close ... however, if the close statement is that the block [of text]^{(edited after-the-fact to clarify)} must be removed and never restored foor any reason, then I strongly disagree with the close as that's not how I read the consensus that formed in the MfD. Until this is clarified, I would object to a speedy/snowball close. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment !Voters like myself who said it could stay with no links are also perfectly happy for it be deleted, I should think. Certainly I am. Egg Centric 20:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

That may well be, but those opinions were not clearly expressed by all who wanted the links removed in the MfD - consensus there only appears to support removing the links - or only allow restoration of the text pending removal of the links. Unfortunately, the close reason was not clear on this point. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 20:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close per all the previous. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 20:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Also endorse due to this salient comment. -- Ebyabe ( talk) 20:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  That comment is neither salient nor relevant. ╟─ Treasury Tag► directorate─╢ 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  • • I removed that to try to calm things down. He just warned me for "vandalism" and restored it. I give up, he just won't help himself at all. Egg Centric 21:00, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - I don't recognize how the speedy keep criteria proposed are supposed to apply, and the user has failed to explain how this content is in any way useful towards building an encylopedia. -- Onorem ♠ Dil 20:53, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• (I spotted this at ANI, I think I have never interacted directly with TT or commented about him, I have only participated in a few discussions where he has also commented) Endorse close There was enough consensus to justify deletion of the infobox. And also consensus that MfD was an appropriate venue for deleting only part of a page. TT could have offered at any moment the removal of all links as a way of keeping the naked text. And it was suggested to him that he did this. But he didn't do this, and the MfD was closed. If the MfD closure is endorsed, TT can still ask the closing admin about restoring the text with all links removed, or he can open a DRV where he asks the same thing. Heck, he might still be in time to ask here in this page. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 20:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close as representing a very clear consensus. And, I suspect, a clear consensus here as well. Collect ( talk) 21:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close TT asked specifically for the MfD to be closed as a no consensus and surely isn't happy that this has not occured. But it is obvious that while a wholesale deletion of the page had no consensus the removal of the offending piece had. Swimming against consensus seriously undermines credibility. Agathoclea ( talk) 21:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close Quite clearly consensus. - DJSasso ( talk) 21:44, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. The notice has been removed for good reason, and this is all unnecessary drama. WP:SNOW should probably be applicable by now. Super Mario Man 23:04, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse clearly. And snow this discussion. - Nathan Johnson ( talk) 00:16, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close, although as far as I'm concerned, if TT wants to state that Wikipedia is a shithole, it's fine with me as long as he doesn't link to a list of those he dislikes. Having said that, he's done just that at the top of this page, making implicit attacks on Nyttend again, even though Nyttend hasn't participated in these discussions and is not relevant to the point TT's trying to make. This doesn't make me optimistic that he's willing to stick to a general statement of disgust, but indicates he's still intent on personalizing it. Acroterion (talk) 00:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

BOARD International ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

have third party reliable sources, legitmate BI and CPM company, not intended for advertisement, Cpratt1 ( talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment The third party references are [3] and [4], & one I have not yet succeeded in opening at [5]. DGG ( talk ) 14:54, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• The third link above is the same as this one [6]. No comment on whether the award is significant, but it can be confirmed here [7]. I couldn't find anything else, though, except for press releases and one business profile [8], so I am inclined to keep deleted until better sources are presented — frankie ( talk) 15:25, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I would love to be able to fix all necessary parts - how do I go about getting the article back into the article space so I can start again? I see no way of accessing it right now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpratt1 ( talk • contribs) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• At this moment the article shouldn't be recreated on mainspace since it would be deleted per WP:CSD#G4. You can create a draft in your userspace (i.e. User:Cpratt1/BOARD International), and then present that for review. Let me point out that it is required for the subject to have received significant coverage by third-party sources in order to recreate the article — frankie ( talk) 16:36, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - many "third-party" sources were actually press releases and sponsored articles. No independent in-depth coverage was shown to exist. (Also, please note that Cpratt created it twice in userspace and moved it into mainspace, where it was promptly deleted under G4.)-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:14, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure by default. The submitter does not advance an argument why the closure of this AfD was procedurally incorrect or why relevant circumstances have changed since then. DRV is not the place to re-argue the merits of whether or not an article should have been deleted (about which I have no opinion in this case).  Sandstein  19:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• 'endorse deletion and very strongly suggest waiting for true 3rd party substantial sources before re-creation--but I disagree with Sandstein about the scope of DRV. Any closure that shows an error in evaluating the evidence, the guidelines, the policy or the consensus are cases of improper process, for the correct procedure for all admin actions is that admins must act reasonably. If the facts do not support the decision, the decision was wrong, and the process of making it was wrong, and the decision can and should be reviewed here. The supervening policy is NOT BUREAUCRACY. DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 28 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I am not disputing the reasons this article was deleted; it was deleted and I can only do so much about it. Is there anyway I can work on the article that I already created as I do not have the original document containing the content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cpratt1 ( talk • contribs) 14:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Foregen ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I would like to update this page with content that should address the concerns of previous administrators. Thank you! Zerth11 ( talk) 03:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Draft at User:Zerth11/draft. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment You might want to create it at User:Zerth11/Foregen, making sure that you use reliable sources which are independent of the subject to verify the information in the draft article. Once that has been done, it can be taken to " Requests for feedback" and if the consensus is in favour, an admin can move it to article space. Without an idea of the sources you will use which will show the notability of the subject, I would not think you are likely to have the protection against recreation lifted. -- PhantomSteve.alt/ talk\ ^{alternative account of Phantomsteve} 04:42, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I see that you gave started a draft at User:Zerth11/draft - however in its current state it would not seem suitable for moving to mainspace - I do not see that it meets the notability criteria and the references provided are either not independent (being on their own website) or do not mention the organisation (being about the area in which they work, but not about them and their work. -- PhantomSteve.alt/ talk\ ^{alternative account of Phantomsteve} 04:55, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Procedural note: As long as the content is not the same and there's been a good-faith effort to address past XfD outcomes, any editor may recreate any deleted article at any time. Of course, creation protection ("salting") may have been applied after multiple failed attempts, but WP:RFPP is the venue to request unprotection. Jclemens ( talk) 23:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

There have been no AfDs that I can see - all the previous versions were speedily deleted. -- PhantomSteve.alt/ talk\ ^{alternative account of Phantomsteve} 08:53, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my deletion. If Zerth11's claim is true, three different people have attempted to write an article on this subject. All of them have failed for lack of reliable sources. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 09:10, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment Thanks for the comments; I'll give it some time and try to compile more substantive references. Zerth11 ( talk) 12:58, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Unless you have some evidence that there will soon by third party references, which does not seem very likely, I suggest deleting the draft from use space also; you can email yourself a copy first, as a basis for eventual re-writing. But when you do, remember that a Wikipedia articles should talk about the actual subject of the article, in direct NPOV language, not language that might seem like either euphemism on the one hand nor soap-boxing on the other, & discussing the actual work of the subject, not the general field, or why the general field is important. And when you ask for restoration, be sure you have a really good draft with clearly reliable third party references--a borderline article is likely to encounter some pre-judgment on the basis of the past versions. DGG ( talk ) 17:01, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - draft isn't WP:Verifiable by WP:Reliable sources, and the deleted version I checked was even less encyclopedic. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply

2011 Virginia earthquake ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

OK seriously ending a deletion discussion early is one thing, but within 3 minutes? Heck I didn't even have full time to explain myself before it was closed. I request that this remain open at least for 12 hours. Googlemeister ( talk) 18:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• comment- not that I think it should be deleted, but since it was a non-admin closure, just re-open the damn thing. Umbralcorax ( talk) 19:30, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• comment- did someone add the deletion thing, then closed it just for it to not to be deleted? And yeah, 3 mins? O_O Ivtv ( talk) 19:47, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I am attempting to initiate a discussion with the closing admin, which should have been done before this DRV discussion was started. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 20:17, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

comment my bad, I didn't realize the closing person was an admin. Umbralcorax ( talk) 20:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I have re-opened the AfD per the closing admin's comment on my talk page. I don't come to DRV often so if this discussion needs to be closed I'd appreciate if someone would do so. Thanks. — KuyaBriBri ^Talk 20:35, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And it's been reclosed as keep again, about a half hour after you relisted it and gathering a dozen or so keep comments. Does anyone dispute this (second) close, or can we just go ahead and close this DRV too? lifebaka ++ 02:06, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Eyes on Final Fantasy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Believe that website now meets notoriety standards. Website has been recognized by parent company of the video game franchise it covers. See bottom of page 27, on-line version of Square-Enix magazine: http://squarenix.http.internapcdn.net/squarenix/Members/SEEMag/UK/01b/HTML/index.html#/26/ File available from https://member.eu.square-enix.com/en/blogs/official-square-enix-magazine-issue-1-available-download-free rubah ( talk) 23:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• content was: '{{d}}Eyes on Final Fantasy is the internet's leading dedicated Final Fantasy website.'. I daresay no administrator is going to undelete that, regardless of how "notorious" the site may be. Just write a new article, if you can back up the site's notability by citing significant coverage in reliable independent sources. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 22:05, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - Seriously? A box on a page of an official fan magazine? No, not a shred of notability support from that. Tarc ( talk) 17:03, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted unless more sources are found. Neither of the links provided would seem to meet the standard notability test of "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I tried looking for others that were more useful, and only found this ( translation), which isn't a whole lot better. Nor does it appear that it meets any part of the more specific WP:WEB guideline. Alzarian16 ( talk) 14:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Capture bonding ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Explanation of undeletion request. Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 21:43, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was no consensus to delete and the failure of the closer to provide any rationale did not treat the points made by the participants with due respect, per WP:DGFA. Warden ( talk) 22:42, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Huh? The linked AfD is almost four years ago. Why are we at DRV with this today? Jclemens ( talk) 04:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• And why has it been restored? -- Bduke (Discussion) 04:42, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment after it's previous deletion it was userfied, why have you done a cut and paste move back, rather than using properly moving the article which keeps the edit history intact and with the article? -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 06:35, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• I've re-deleted it per CSD:G4 (as it was completely unchanged) and CSD:G12 (as it was a cut and paste move, so violates the GFDL/CC-BY-SA). User:Hkhenson/Capture bonding still has the original article with history. Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: The AFD was 3¾ years ago. Is this some kind of record? Stifle ( talk) 08:19, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment time for a new discussion. The easiest way of getting one would be to add something substantial to the article and reinsert it--it would not then be a G4, and anyone who wanted it deleted would start a new AfD. Using g12 for deletion where the copying is within Wikipedia and can be fixed by a little editing within our control seems a bit pointy. I'm going to suggest that such cases be removed from G12. DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Sorry. I didn't realize there was an official procedure. HerpDerp... Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 18:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  See WP:CPM -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 21:13, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, and by way of broader context: I think the procedure is to contact the deleting admin, who is User:East718, and ask him (I shall risk saying him) to undelete it. He might well ask you add to the article a bit like DGG has said. However, East718 only edits occasionally these days so there is perhaps no need to wait around too long after you have approached him. After that, Deletion Review is the right place to be unless you are brave and want to just move (using the move tab) User:Hkhenson/Capture_bonding to Capture bonding. However, I suspect all this is not documented in any coherent way (and if I am wrong I would be pleased to be corrected). The copy and paste recreation was definitely contrary to policy (well, Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia says it is merely a guideline), for the policy reasons given in WP:CPM but that latter procedure, I think, only comes into force if both articles exist and then an admin is required. Thincat ( talk) 21:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC

• Comment: Thar. It be moved. Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 13:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Note that I closed this early because I thought the deletion was old and it was uncontroversial but I have been advised this had a G4 on 21 August. Consequently I have reopened the DRV Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse {{ db-repost}} deletion by Stifle ( talk · contribs). I don't see any nontrivial changes since it was userfied on 7 December 2007. It meets the letter and spirit of {{ db-repost}}. Cunard ( talk) 16:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• wat?. Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 18:43, 24 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Second comment. The situation has become sufficiently confused for me not to know how to summarise my !vote. The article (and there seems to be one again) deserves to have its contents (and title) discussed again and DRV is not the best forum for that. In my view it will need to be edited substantially and I am sorry that such work did not precede the article's recreation. List at AFD. Thincat ( talk) 09:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Suddenly I get it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Slartibartfastibast ( talk • contribs) 14:55, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Meta comment this whole episode should be seen of an example of how not to welcome newcomers. When a newcomer arrives at DRV let's try not to bombard them with the DRV/AfD/G12/G4 lingo. Them From Space 15:26, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Because no work has been done on the article since the December 2007 deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Capture bonding (2nd nomination), it should not be restored to mainspace. That is why Stifle ( talk · contribs) deleted the page on 22 August 2011 as a "[r]ecreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion". Thincat ( talk · contribs)'s view ("In my view it will need to be edited substantially and I am sorry that such work did not precede the article's recreation.") fails to explain why an article that passes {{ db-repost}} and was rightfully deleted as a recreation of an article re-deleted should be restored. Restoring the article to mainspace now will only lead to another deletion per {{ db-repost}}. Would Slartibartfastibast ( talk · contribs) explain how these minor changes overcome the deletion reasons at the AfD? Cunard ( talk) 15:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Let me think about it... Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 15:57, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Still thinking... Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 15:58, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Still thinking... Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 15:59, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I GOT IT!!! How about you get someone with a degree in anthropology (not a psych, they've proven themselves useless here) to write the article? I only insisted on restoring Capture bonding because you'd have to be an idiot to not recognize (yes I did just split that infinitive) it as a part of the human condition. I actually don't see much wrong with the original article (although it is rather awkward). Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 16:07, 25 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD. I don't have a problem with G4 here given the original circumstances, which I remember and was involved in. But since there seems to be some interest in it other than the problematic editors who had previously worked on it, I think a new AfD is also reasonable. I would ask the closer not to reclose this as "AfD at user discretion," as was previously done and then undone, because I think a paper trail should be maintained that shows that there is a history of multiple recreation, gaming, COI, etc., albeit over several years. It should be sent directly from here to AfD. Chick Bowen 01:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Fair 'nuff. Slartibartfastibast ( talk) 13:10, 26 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Template:ISO 15924 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Four ISO 15924 templates group discussion here, see below. All four were speedy deleted for {{ db-g5}}. Asked the deleting admin to restore, reply was negative [9]. (Some were deleted by other admin - I notified [10])

The four templates are now part of a well-used and well-versed set relating writing systems. The deletion creates redlinks through well-used templates, see Category:User Cyrl and Khojki. I also contest that there were "no substantial edits" (db-g5) by others, since I have edited and reused these with these templates (of course, I cannot point to such edits now). And, since it is about a template, "editing with" as in transcluding can be understood so as well. Then, I find the response by the deleting admin not constructive.
a. they did not check for usage of the template,
b. did not act to solve that graciously beforehand,
c. may have wrongly claimed there are "no substantial edits" as per db-g5,
d. the declining editor starts wikilawyering without helping to keep or reproduce good templates at all.
They should be restored (by speedy). To be clear: I do not need temporal restoring and then having construct a way around it or so. DePiep ( talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Notified two editors [11] [12]

DePiep ( talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

OMG. This one is spoiled too. Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode. - DePiep ( talk) 20:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• "Wikilawyering" is "using the rules to produce an utterly perverse result". It is not "applying the rules precisely as they are written, for the purpose they were intended" which is what I did. The fact that each page serves a purpose does not matter for the reasons laid down in policy; and no, I did not pre-clear speedy deletions with anyone who might possibly find them awkward. That is not what we do. I will address the specifics of each template at each DRV entry. For ISO 15924, fellow admins will see that the content started at 1,226 byes. DePiep's contribution was to remove it all and instead include the /doc page (which is covered below) - hardly a substantial contribution, or even, really a contribution at all. Ironholds ( talk) 10:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Replacing all content is not substantial ... nice. Checking for usage is not about clearing with persons, but at least hit the WLH button. All in all, even whithin your just-the-rules claim, you could have decided opposite. Leaning to the negative is a choice you made. - DePiep ( talk) 11:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Not "replacing" - removing. Do not put words in my mouth. Please explain what "WLH" refers to? Ironholds ( talk) 11:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Okay, so "what links here" - again, there is no obligation to do that (it'd be utterly ludicrous if there was) because whether or not the content is useful is not a factor. Ironholds ( talk) 11:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

If destroying nearly every template in the Writing Systems Wikiproject is not a perverse result, you're going to need to enlighten me. Van Isaac _WS 22:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think that Ironholds was technically within his rights to delete the template under g5, but once he'd exercised that right, it then became his responsibility to co-operate with editors' attempts to fix the various broken pages arising from his speedy deletion.— S Marshall T/ C 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Just because he was in his rights doesn't make it a good decision. Just because he doesn't have to restore them doesn't make his failure to do so after knowing that he'd broken an entire WikiProject any more justified. Van Isaac _WS 23:13, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Sure, and I'd be happy to do that - although it wasn't originally suggested to me, I was just told "you have broken templates, please restore the things you deleted". I'm not quite sure how DePiep expects me to fix the templates except by copying-and-pasting the deleted code, which not only defeats the point of WP:DENY but is also a WP:COPYVIO. Ironholds ( talk) 11:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Does it matter when? Even after it was mentioned to Ironholds, they keep tight to the negative.

Since I cannot see their history, I have no access to Ironholds arguments in this (see also the other templates below). I request someone less involved review the whole history when claims are made re substantiality. For example, contributions of other editors may indicate serious stuuff.

Curiously, on my talkpage [13] Ironhold rubs it against me that I cannot see the history, concluding I "admit" that I do not know about it. - DePiep ( talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

DePiep, the entire point of DRV is that uninvolved users give it a looksee. Ironholds ( talk) 11:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Frankly, neither of you have handled this well. The model first contact with Ironholds would have been a great deal less confrontational, but equally, the model response from Ironholds would have been more like: "The reason why I won't do what you want is xyz, but what I can do to resolve your problem is abc."— S Marshall T/ C 15:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• And what could I have done? Copied all the content over manually, thereby borking attribution? Ironholds ( talk) 02:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry to take a slightly harsh tone with you here, Ironholds, but if you don't know what you could've done to fix it, then you'd probably have been best advised to leave the deletion to an admin who does.— S Marshall T/ C 08:32, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• S Marshall, what I was saying was "I do not know template syntax well enough to rewrite the entire template from scratch", which was what would have been required as an acceptable resolution. The standard you are setting would require you to only ever delete articles on subjects that you are personally knowledgeable about; after all, by that, we could only delete things if we had the personal knowitall to write an article on the subject, from scratch, with no reference to the original. Ironholds ( talk) 12:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• No, I didn't say anything about articles at all, Ironholds. Deleting an article doesn't break other articles, so that doesn't seem like a useful analogy to me. What I said was, I do not think you should have deleted a template unless you had the technical skill and knowledge to fix the resulting transclusions. My position is that you were elected as an admin on the basis that users trust you with the "delete button", which includes being able to foresee the more obvious consequences.— S Marshall T/ C 17:08, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment There does not seem to be a substantive issue here: User:Ironholds was right to delete the templates under G5. The "significant contributions" is a bit of a red herring. Ironholds acted appropriately within the scope of G5. That the template no longer existing raises problems for other articles may be an unfortunate consequence of a G5 deletion, but that's not "wikilawyering" nor does it mean that the deletion was inappropriate. The point of WP:DRV is to contest when closers/admins make the wrong decision at deletion. This wasn't the wrong decision per policy. The issues which might follow a G5 deletion of a template are a WP:REFUND issue which can be resolved by any admin and doesn't require DRV of the admin's decision. — Tom Morris ( talk) 11:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand DRV and REFUND so that this is the right place. - DePiep ( talk) 12:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I introduced the word wikilawyering when talking about the denied reversal, not the original deletion. COPYVIO was not introduced by me at all. I just asked for support in recreating the templates. - DePiep ( talk) 11:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Please explain how saying "no; I was correct to do it" constitutes "wikilawyering"? Ironholds ( talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You cherry pick rules "I am allowed to" when it suits you, and "I don't have to" when it does not suit you. You introduced COPYVIO. But hey, looking forward: what solution do you propose? - DePiep ( talk) 12:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which rules have I cherrypicked, precisely? And yes, I introduced WP:COPYVIO - because you made a request which would have created a copyright infringement. How's this for a solution; you try for WP:REFUND and stop claiming that anyone who doesn't do precisely what you tell them to do is obviously shirking their duties, acting improperly and wikilawyering? Ironholds ( talk) 12:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

So do I understand that Ironholds does not oppose REFUND? If not, I cannot state "uncontroversial" there. If any other editor could take that step, that would be great too; clearly I might be on a side. - DePiep ( talk) 12:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I do not oppose you attempting to use refund. I'm not going to make any comment on whether or not it's a good idea. Ironholds ( talk) 13:30, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

So Ironholds does not support any solution. Then this would fail the first treshold at REFUND. - DePiep ( talk) 13:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)About WP:REFUND: in the intro, above the table of content, twice is stated that DRV is the place to go when editors talk page (i.e. Ironholds's in this case) does not solve it. If Ironhold were in a solution here, I wouldn't mind giving it equal weight as being resolved. But alas, not so. So it stays here. - DePiep ( talk) 13:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Undelete (this and the other three) and list at TfD. The purpose of most speedy deletion criteria, G5 included, is to avoid pointless discussions for obvious cases. Here, an editor in good standing is making a reasonable objection to the speedies, and clearly wants a discussion. Let him have it. This discussion is clearly would be much better handled with the template and history in full view, and with the participation of editors interested in templates. No criticm of the deleting admin for performing the deletions, but if a speedy (excepting G9, G10, G12, F7, F9) is contested by an editor in good standing with a plausibe story, then undeletion and listing at XfD should be done by default (just as if the CSD tag were removed). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:28, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thank you Carl for the temporary restorations. This DRV, with a number of cross-points and subsections, has exceeded my ability to comprehend. I still think that "send it all to TfD" is a a sensible decision for DRV. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:25, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Really? Because I was under the impression that the purpose of G5 was to enforce WP:DENY. Nice to find out I was wrong. Ironholds ( talk) 16:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Before someone else says it WP:DENY as an essay is something we are unlikely to enforce, and G5 pre dates the creation of WP:DENY. It's there to enforce WP:BAN -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 20:01, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

At this moment, the only one laughing is the banned editor. So far for denying. - DePiep ( talk) 20:47, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Ironholds, yes WP:DENY is a good reason to delete banned editors contributions, if done quietly. However, once a contest by an editor in good standing has been raised, WP:DENY is already moot. Better to send this matter to TfD where the focus will be on technicalities of the template, on a need for a past or replacement template os something. If we stay here the discussion is unfocused. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:38, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I consider Ironhold's action an inappropriate use of the rules. DENNY is perfectly appropriate policy, and should be pursued, but wWhat he should have done after deletion, is re-created the template or made a substitute. The solution at this point is for someone else to do so. If copyvio is a concern, let it be done by manual editing. When two policies conflict, the one that should be followed is the onethat improves the encyclopedia . Another way of looking at it is when DENY conflcts with Copyright, Copyright is more important. DGG ( talk ) 22:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  DGG, have you considered the possibility that I do not know how to create magical template syntax? Ironholds ( talk) 00:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Yes you do. There's a little link next to each of the article names reading "restore". Press that button. It's a button that turns you into a magical template syntax god. Van Isaac _WS 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Furthermore, if you don't know anything about templates, why do you think it's OK to go in and just delete things? This is absolutely baffling. If you don't know what the hell you're doing, you shouldn't be doing anything. I can't figure out if you're clueless or malevolent, but you sure aren't mature enough to be an admin. Van Isaac _WS 01:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  And this, Vanisaac, is why I'm not going to engage with you further. Please try to remain civil. Ironholds ( talk) 02:31, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• For God's sake, at least undelete them for now so we can Get All The Broken Infoboxes, Templates, Sidebars, and Navboxes Working Again!!!!! Van Isaac _WS 22:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This is absolutely unacceptable. I've called for help at WP:ANI. If you guys can't effect a simple fix to a problem you caused after 13 hours, but you can argue about how you were justified, there's something seriously wrong here. Van Isaac _WS 23:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn all these ISO 15924. It's clear the templates were substantively edited by other non-banned editors. Even if they weren't, they were clearly used and useful. Merely deleting them to satisfy a WP:GAME requirement (that too many admins love so much) is clearly counterproductive. The COPYVIO claim is a red herring. FuFoFuEd ( talk) 16:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Subthread: about WP:COPYVIO

Deleting admins Ironholds (starting here at DRV [14]) and User:Gfoley4 (Gfoley4 in a different but quite parallel db-g5 topic [15]) point to the possible problem of WP:COPYVIO when copyediting code back into public WP. However, since the four templates are either fully recreated content (as Ironholds has noted [16]: "DePiep's contribution was to remove it all and instead include the /doc page" -- bingo) or a Simple, non-creative lists of information, namely the well-published ISO 15924/Unicode alias list, which is not a "creative expression". For sure, manual recreation of such a list would yield the very same list. So no copyvio to be claimed, and I might add that any cooperative admin who does deletions and calls COPYVIO, could have come up with this constructive outcome too. - DePiep ( talk) 20:21, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment for this page (ignore the others for now) if the content at deletion was merely inclusion of the documentation, then it appears the easiest solution is just to recreate it with the inclusion and ignore the history which is presumably not relevant to the new content. I can't see how that can raise any objection ? -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 20:34, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Surely it's about attribution. We shouldn't use people's contributions without crediting them.— S Marshall T/ C 20:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Exactly, S Marshall. — GFOLEY FOUR!— 21:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Did one follow the note and link to Simple, non-creative lists of information? And btw, Gfoley4, you deleted the page that has no content any more from the banned user. As explained above: recreation is possible while contributing the content correctly to the sole (last) editor who according to Ironholds did all the content, and who is not banned. Deleted content & banned user stay out of view and we do not have to attribute (now this is COPYVIO well read). Solved. And here are the current results while I am waiting for anything constructive. - DePiep ( talk) 21:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Nothing to do with attribution, which we often seem to get rather obsessed with, we attribute as part of the copyright license requirement, once we stop using the work of someone in an article then the requirement vanishes. That is the case here, we don't need to undelete, just recreate the page with the simple inclusion of the doc page, which is pretty much all DePiep's work, there is nothing to attribute to anyone else. For the other stuff then we'd need to look closer which, I would suspect as DePiep points out that the work in question doesn't qualify for copyright protection (I can't see it so this is guess work) and so we wouldn't need to attribute anyway. Simple lists of facts etc. are not copyrightable, in the US they do not recognise sweat of the brow. It also sounds like the kind of stuff which could be more or less "automatically" generated from the ISO source, merely formatting up to fit in the template structure. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 21:53, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with this. Given our template format and the factua information ,there is essentially no other way to do it. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Ironholds behaviour

This is getting nasty. A big part of this thread (all four templates) is about "substantial edits by others [than the banned editor]" after creation of a page (see WP:SPEEDY {{ db-g5}}). In this, non-admins like me are dependent on admins for that look at the histories. Several times I have pointed to the "substantial edits" part: OP note c [17] [18], and to Ironholds selective reporting by only mentioning & deminishing my, DePiep's, edits [19] [20]. Now it appears Ironholds has effectively left out substantial edits by other editors (half a page added!) to suit their argument [21].
To me this is acting in bad faith by Ironholds, through (ab)using their admin's rights, especially since a non-admin is dependent on such information. I want a full and open review of the histories. That is, of course, only if there is not a better & faster solution (reverting right away). The arguments here of Ironholds are to be considered irrelevant. - DePiep ( talk) 23:48, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I have moved my part of this thread to ANI - DePiep ( talk) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I fully agree that Ironholds' actions constitute bad-faith behaviour. I am responsible for half the content of two of these templates and was not even notified that they had been deleted. I consider this extremely disruptive and abusive behaviour. The only way an admin can have the support of the community is if they acknowledge when they screwed up and FIX THE PROBLEM! The fact that Ironholds has engaged in a lengthy justification for G5 deleting articles that are over half made by editors in good standing is an affront to the speedy delete process. It's been thirteen hours, and several posts to this review, but no fixing his screw-up. Clearly Ironholds is only interested in abusing his power, rather than doing the right thing. Van Isaac _WS 00:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think you too are getting overly excited and need to calm down. Where (what mainspace page) is the problem worthy of panic? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Well, let's see, template:infobox writing system is currently debilitated - that one, BTW, is transcluded on almost 300 pages; Template:ISO 15924 script codes and Unicode is completely FUBAR because of you guys. Oh wait, you're supposed to check those sorts of things BEFORE YOU DELETE THE F-ING PAGE!!!! Just. Restore. The. Templates. Now. Van Isaac _WS 00:56, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

SmokeyJoe, nothing wrong with the Main page, thank you, good we checked. Whatever panic you see may be related to admin activity. Which nicely brings this subthread back on topic. - DePiep ( talk) 01:01, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'll calm down when those templates get restored and we can have this conversation while things still work. Right now, you have us held hostage, and you don't seem to understand that you've fucked everything up and aren't doing what you need to do to fix it. I'm sorry for having to swear, but you don't seem to give a rat's pitutie that everything's been broken for half a day, and I can only do so much without the ability to yell at you on the phone until you do your job. RESTORE. THE. TEMPLATES. NOW!!!!! Van Isaac _WS 01:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• When you calm down, I will be willing to engage with you. Until then, your continually over the top behaviour is more likely to induce me to say something I'll regret than anything else, and as such I will not be responding. I have already made clear my position; if you want the code restored, either wait until the DRV closes or put a replacement together yourself. Ironholds ( talk) 01:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  I'm not asking for engagement, I'm asking you to fix your mistake. Two of these templates were over half created by the two good-standing editors right here. You deleted those pages under G5. You were wrong to do so. Your continued refusal to revert those templates to undo all the damage you have done is unacceptable. Period. I'm not asking for engagement. I'm asking that you fix your mistake and repair the damage you have done because I can't revert your actions like I could any other editor who screwed up. Van Isaac _WS 01:49, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• And as I have said, I will not do so, and the appropriate action is to wait until this DRV concludes or to get someone familiar with the code to rewrite it. Ironholds ( talk) 01:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The code's not the problem. The templates are just a simple lookup table, controlled by a single #switch function. It's the content that we need. If you need to, paste the |160 |Arab = 160 format data on my talk page. Van Isaac _WS 02:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I have moved my part of this thread to ANI - DePiep ( talk) 11:39, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Prepare

Next pages to go, because, eh, they will be deleted for a reason:

• Template:ISO 15924/doc
• Template:ISO 15924/name/doc
• Template:ISO 15924/alias/doc
• Template:ISO 15924/numeric/doc

Just listing them here, just in case. Of cascading nonsense. - DePiep ( talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC) - DePiep ( talk) 00:42, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Templates were restored for the duration of the Deletion review by an outside admin. Van Isaac _WS 03:36, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I see that the 4 original templates have been restored, which enables us non-admins to see their history, but the corresponding 4 talk pages ( Template talk:ISO 15924, Template talk:ISO 15924/name, Template talk:ISO 15924/alias, and Template talk:ISO 15924/numeric) still show their G5 speedy deletion and thus we can't see their history. What contributions to those talk pages were made by the banned editor, and what by other editors? Is there any reason why the talk pages can't be restored pending the outcome of this review? - David Biddulph ( talk) 13:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe that the Writing Systems Project template was the only content of those talk pages, unless I am remembering faultily (is that even a word?). I'm quite sure that there was really no substantive content on the talk pages that would shed light on this discussion, but it's good that somebody thought about this. Van Isaac _WS 15:54, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Actual discussion of substantive issues

Now that we've taken care of the drama, let's see if we can come to an understanding on this guy. The actual template:ISO 15924 page really only exists to anchor all the sub-templates and the documentation page. I'm wondering if we couldn't turn this into a template that simply returns the 15924 data fields in a standard format. Perhaps also an alternate call mechanism for the sub-templates (eg. {{ISO 15924|XXX|code}} would output the same as {{ISO 15924/code|XXX}}. What do we think? Van Isaac _WS 02:43, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• There are still areas of the collapsed section which we need to follow through on, perhaps we can try and keep it calm.

  The main template here in it's final form contained no real content but a transclusion of documentation generated by another user. If we consider the case that the template had been deleted and that other user came a long and recreated it with that final content, then there would be no attribution/copyright issue since it isn't a reuse of copyright material from the original banned editor. I can see no reason why we wouldn't just redelete the template and have someone recreate it with that final content and move forward from here (the next point also is true for this template to a point)

  For the other templates the content is mechanically created from the ISO data, the content is dictated by the template "language" of mediawiki. We have a couple of things to consider here - (1) is there an attribution issue with just reusing that content - I believe not as mechanically created it isn't copyrightable - as such we could just recreate the final versions and ignore the rest removing any reference to the banned user. (2) If we disagree with (1) then how can we proceed, the form if the content is essentially the only way to do this. We can either (a) enforce this such that we are now blocked from ever having this content in it's convenient template form due to the lack of any other way of doing this and not wanting the banned editor association/attribution or (b) take the pragmatic view on this, that as the content is valid and the only real way of doing it, then we'll have to ignore the rules for the benefit of improving the encyclopedia (ie WP:BAN/G5 in this case).

  Personally I don't care if we have this or not, I do also strongly agree with the principle of G5 that we should make clear that bans are just that, bans. However I do care about the implication of being over rigid in such cases as this, where the content is more or less fixed, not something someone else could write in different terms etc. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 06:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Would editors please stop collapsing discussions that are still in progress. It's unacceptable to do that.— S Marshall T/ C 18:12, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• I don't know how else to move this project forward unless we can put away the past. I've asked questions about how to move forward on all of the templates under contention, and received no response to three of them. Given that the only outstanding question is how we get these templates uncontaminated by their origins, I find it dismaying that nobody has anything constructive to say. I have no idea how to move forward on any but the main template, and I've already done everything to it that I can think of. So if you have any actual constructive comments, I would be very happy to hear them.

Rehashing what should have been done may be appropriate for talk pages, but it is counter-productive to moving forward. Quite frankly, I think this incident has brought up a rather glaring hole in the Speedy Delete criteria that needs to be addressed. The fact is, apart from debatable determinations regarding substantive additions under the G5 criteria, Ironholds didn't actually do anything against policy, which means that current policy isn't working to advance the purpose of the speedy delete process - the simple implementation of uncontroversial deletions. Van Isaac _WS 18:28, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• This is a deletion review. The "review" part of it means that our job, here, is to rehash and decide what should have been done. Please stop trying to "move it forward", and also please stop creating subthreads. This is not AN/I.— S Marshall T/ C 18:50, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• So that would be a "no" on the constructive comments question. Anyway, I started up a thread on the Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion in order to see if we can't get some more clarity in the actual speedy delete criteria on templates. Van Isaac _WS 18:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

New templates

I have created from scratch three new templates.

• {{ ISO 15924 name}}
• {{ ISO 15924 number}}
• {{ ISO 15924 alias}}

After testing & sandboxing some pages have them in production throug: {{ Infobox writing system}}, {{ ISO 15924}} and some listing subtempates. Please note, even if they are OK, this DRV should not be closed prematurely and the disputed templates should not be deleted.
Now let me see, where do I have all these admin barnstars. Hope I have enough of them. - DePiep ( talk) 02:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep Overturn ISO 15924. The fourth template (and first mentioned on this DRV page), is {{ ISO 15924}}. It was an idle template, it was only a collecting main page with multiple /subtemplates like: {{ ISO 15924/code}}. Already before deletion, all content by the banned user was substantially and totally replaced. [22]. Not a single letter of contribution remained. For this reason alone, the page can and should stay. db-g5 argument does not exist here any more. And recently, during this DRV, the republished page was converted into a functioning template, again without using any of the banned users edits. [23]. This sy doubles its right to stay. - DePiep ( talk) 16:48, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I corrected my !vote. To the same effect. - DePiep ( talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn WP:DENY is not a policy. But WP:BURO is a policy and so jobsworth attitudes and behaviour are improper if they do more harm than good. Warden ( talk) 22:33, 21 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion if done gracefully for {{ ISO 15924/name}}, {{ ISO 15924/numeric}} and {{ ISO 15924/alias}}. To be clear: the reason for speedy deletion I do not support. Had the procedure gone more standard (say TfD or restoration for DRV without having to invoke ANI), we could have used and discussed the situation. That way any outcome could have been processed without disrupting the transclusions. But the developments here, especially careless speedy-tagging and admins (all those passing by) not acting, left me distrusting the process (quite simple: right when DRV was started, or when the Speedy-G5 was contested, restoration was obvious & correct). It is for this distrust in any further process that I have rebuild the templates from scratch and under time pressure (listed above). Which is not the way to go. As with any TfD, the deletable templates go into the holding cell (see also instructions and process) and are processed to prevent disruptive results. That is what I propose right now for these three: gracefully. - DePiep ( talk) 14:51, 22 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Template:ISO 15924/name ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

See above - DePiep ( talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

For ISO 15924/name, fellow admins will see that the content started at 3,956 byes. DePiep's contribution was to add an extra 1.5kb, comprised entirely of numerical ISO codes for the specific names - hardly a substantial contribution. Ironholds ( talk) 10:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

So adding ISO code or numbers in an ISO template is not substantial? And if I remember well, I also added notes on as-of checking. Which is, re ISO, quite relevant. And I doubt if the edits in these templates are by me alone. - DePiep ( talk) 11:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• No, there are also contributions by another user which were substantially reverted by your changes. Ironholds ( talk) 11:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Reverting can be a substantial edit too. There even was cooperation, and the result was an improvement. Now my questions are: why do you personalise the argument, and what else does the history say that might be opposing your argument? - DePiep ( talk) 11:49, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm not quite sure how I'm personalising the argument. Could you explain? Ironholds ( talk) 11:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Here on this page: you leave out other editors contributions, you focus on my edits only. If there was any development through history, you do not mention that. Part of the editing was: using it in other templates, sandboxing, just every day template jobs; you have not looked into that as possible relevant edits. At my talk page, you create a logic that I would have "atmit[ted]" I don't know about page's (to me invisible) history. And this, again, only about my edits: "but you have not made such edits to these pages". All of this: it shouldn't be about me. - DePiep ( talk) 13:14, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• When you make statements like "I also contest that there were "no substantial edits" (db-g5) by others, since I have edited and reused these with these templates " - you make it partially about your edits, particularly since in the case of some templates - such as Template:ISO 15924/alias - you were the only contributor other than the banned user. Ironholds ( talk) 13:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Substantial edits can be made by any editor, not just the contesting editor. - DePiep ( talk) 13:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I never said that was the case; I was explaining why I referred particularly to your edits, which were also in some cases the only edits. Ironholds ( talk) 13:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I added half the content of this template and was never consulted. Now what exactly was Ironholds saying about no substantive contributions by other users? Van Isaac _WS 22:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Actual discussion of substantive issues

Now that we've taken care of the drama, let's see if we can come to an understanding on this guy. Ironholds, do you believe that half of the template content by good-standing editors still should qualify this for deletion? Given that the current data is all that this template will need until the next update of the ISO 15924 standard - a standard that updates about once a year - what else could we do to make this template compliant? Van Isaac _WS 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Template:ISO 15924/alias ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

See above - DePiep ( talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• For ISO 15924/alias, fellow admins will see that the content started at 2,605 bytes. DePiep's contribution was to bring it down to 2,492 bytes, which was done by...removing all the spaces'. Not a substantial contribution. Ironholds ( talk) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I recall there were more edits. - DePiep ( talk) 13:19, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

One more, which added...81 characters. Ironholds ( talk) 16:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Actual discussion of substantive issues

This one's a bit different. Most of the content was created by the blocked editor. Ironholds, given that the content of this template is actually completely comprehensive until the next update of the ISO 15924 standard, what can we do to remove the stigma of a bad editor from the page? Van Isaac _WS 02:33, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Template:ISO 15924/numeric ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

See above - DePiep ( talk) 10:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• For ISO 15924/numeric, fellow admins will see that the content started at 2,190 bytes. DePiep's contribution was to allow for default switching through, for example, replacing 20 with 020, and so on. Not a substantial contribution. Ironholds ( talk) 10:58, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Wrong. I did not replace 20 with 020, I added it. Which is, in template world, relevant. So I changed #default output. In template world ... that is quite relevant. - DePiep ( talk) 11:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

And barring the 0-dropped numbers that DePiep added, I added exactly HALF of the entire template. If Half of a template is not a substantive contribution, I don't know what is.

Furthermore, these template calls are being used in a WikiProject infobox, which is currently broken. I've commented out the calls while we wait for an admin to restore those templates, but breaking things to uphold a vendetta is not good practice. That's what a What Links Here check would have revealed to an admin thinking about what he was doing: a template that was in use in hundreds of writing system articles. Van Isaac _WS 22:42, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Ironholds, how is yours a faithfull description of "no substantial edits"? - DePiep ( talk) 23:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Actual discussion of substantive issues

Same as /name: Ironholds, do you believe that half of the template content by good-standing editors still should qualify this for deletion? Given that the current data is all that this template will need until the next update of the ISO 15924 standard - a standard that updates about once a year - what else could we do to make this template compliant? Van Isaac _WS 02:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This debate has been made exceedingly difficult to follow by the non-standard formatting, but I'm yet to see a compelling reason given to overturn? While the "everything's broken!" cry is one that I do have sympathy for, unless there is something actually wrong with the deletion than that's not really Ironhold's problem. Administrators cannot be compelled to use the tools. I've always found him perfectly reasonable and willing to help out when approached in a reasonable manner, though. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 02:18, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The reason to overturn was that two of the templates were deleted under G5 criteria, even though over half the content was created by editors in good standing. The G5 criteria explicitly states that it does not apply if substantive edits were made by other editors, so policy was not followed. The fact that it broke everything was merely the reason why we were so desperate to get them back while this review was ongoing. If these templates hadn't been transcluded across the Writing Systems WikiProject, no one would have noticed or cared that they were deleted.

In fact, DePiep and I have been working on completely replacing these templates and moving the transclusions to templates with good provenance, so that these ones can undergo a regular old, tell-everyone-involved-and-discuss-the-issue deletion in the near future. We feel deceived and abused by the guy evading his block and creating this stuff, so we want most of these templates (all but ISO 15924) deleted too. We just need the time to actually get everything ready, so that we can erase every sign that the block-evading so-and-so was even here. Van Isaac _WS 05:23, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

re Aaron Brenneman: I'm sorry for the bad layout, I had to find a way to start a DRV for deleted four pages in one. It would have been better when the DRV templates do not have a multiple-page option.

Now you and others here, including admins, are misguided about the nature of a WP:DRV page. After a Talk with Ironholds I declared the speedy deletions controversial, started this DRV, and then it is open for all. The topic is not with the deleting admin any more. Nor is this a sort of Talk-page to improve these pages. This page is about: review the deletion. My claim is simple, and fits with your "sympathy" for the eveything-is-broken statement: the reason for the speedy deletion was contestable, and by keeping the pages away the mess stayed on longer while making it nearly impossible to solve it. I have not summoned Ironholds to do something, but just by the starting of a DRV the deletion is contested and could have been reverted by any admin. I asked: put them back, so we can get rid of these ugly red links nicely.

About your "I've always found him perfectly reasonable" - keep the good memories. Ironholds contributions to this DRV page did help not a single letter to get the mess away. Even worse, Ironholds acted in bad faith using his admins tools. - DePiep ( talk) 10:12, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Vivek Kumar Pandey ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

1) No valid reason for deletion and Article can be modified by wikipedia contributor to fulfill the need to be notable. 2) Admin ignorance of many Indian IPs who were familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey> 117.211.83.245 ( talk) 06:08, 16 August 2011 (UTC) --> reply

You already did this at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_August_14 Dream Focus 14:37, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

This is the correct location for the deletion review since it was started on August 16. The other one should be closed. Calathan ( talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• 117.211.83.245, WP:Register and request userfication. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Based on the edit history of this page, it looks like User:Kook2011 tried to create this deletion review but accidentally placed his text inside a comment. IP user 117.211.83.245 then tried to fix the the deletion review. I don't know if User:Kook2011 is the same person as the IP, but perhaps it could be userfied to User:Kook2011. Calathan ( talk) 19:26, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Are any of the citations found reliable sources? You can post them on the reliable sources message board, and asks. Or do any of those sources already have their own Wikipedia article? Did the person meet any of the requirements at WP:ACADEMIC? Dream Focus 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Let's consider what this particular 117.211 IP claims. (1) No valid reason for deletion: Yes there was; see this, this, this, and more. (2) Article can be modified by wikipedia contributor to fulfill the need to be notable: This might be credible if the IP hinted at how this could be done. As it is, not even a hint is provided. If Pandey indeed [has] his name included in list of "TOP 100 SCIENTISTS 2010" of International Biographical Centre (as the deleted article claimed), then somebody is keen to attempt to promote him in about the shallowest and most gormless way imaginable. I suggest that, unless given a time limit (e.g. till the end of September '11) userfication would be an opportunity for more (more or less ludicrous) puffery and would invite more time-wasting, nothing else. (3) Admin ignorance of many Indian IPs who were familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey: Yes, the many Indian IPs (most of whom came from a small range of IP numbers and appeared to share an idiolect) do indeed seem to be familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey. It's hardly the fault of any admin to be ignorant of the IPs, given that the latter didn't deign to create a username, or anyway to use it. However, this is a mammoth irrelevance: what the IPs wrote is what mattered, but what they wrote failed to convince a single non-SPA. Indeed, the IPs seemed curiously reluctant to read (or eager to ignore what they'd read); consider: (i) they touted a page at "Wikibin" as an indicator of notability; (ii) I debunked "Wikibin" as an authority; (iii) with no attempt to find flaw in my debunking, they just kept on citing "Wikibin". ¶ This kind of insistence that V K Pandey is notable is curiously reminiscent of episodes in the long and tiresome history of the article on V K's uncle; see this user's list of contributions. -- Hoary ( talk) 02:38, 17 August 2011 (UTC) ..... PS It was me who created the AfD (who nominated the article for deletion), if this makes a difference. -- Hoary ( talk) 09:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There was adequate discussion at both AfDs; both times, all regular editors here, including myself, were unanimous that it did not meet WP:PROF. No reasonable admin could have closed either of these any way but delete. An entry on an International Biographical Centre listing is not a RS for notability , as the article on it will indicate. DGG ( talk ) 17:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Update. The article has already been userfied, by 117.211.83.243. To see why userfication (or anyway userfication for any longer than a fixed period, not to exceed one month) might not be a good idea, look at the last member of the list of " Notable people" within "Azamgarh", as last edited by User:Vivek Kumar Pandey. Or, more dramatically, this extraordinary article. -- Hoary ( talk) 07:56, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• There are some clear WP:COI issues. If the bio cannot be quickly demonstrated to meet WP:PROF, it will have to be blanked or deleted as failing WP:UP. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 15:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

ViSalus ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I am the original page creator. The page was incorrectly tagged as speedy csd-a7 without the editor who tagged it as such looking to see if the company was indeed notable or not. (Simple Google News search turns up enough hits). This page was a stub, and I was hoping more editors would jump in - but deletion on the grounds of notability is not correct. Additionally, the editor who tagged it for deletion posted in the talk page that his opinion was the company is a scam, and quoted a non-RS source scam.com as his reference point. There is some ongoing discussion by the admin who deleted the page on ANI here I don't believe the editor that tagged the page was malicious, but it appears they are a new WP editor and may not understand WP policies well. That lack of understanding I believe also led to the editor's WP:PA on an admin here   Leef5   ^{TALK |  CONTRIBS} 19:35, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Here are some RS that should establish notability:

• Lots from Blyth, Inc. as they are in the process of acquiring ViSalus.
  • Example 1: "Blyth, Inc, 2010 Annual Report". Securities and Exchange Commission. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
  • Example 2: "Blyth, Inc. Announces Increase in ViSalus Sciences Investment" (Press release). 4-traders. 15 April 2001. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
• Lots from Direct Selling News - a trade journal magazine that covers direct sales companies
  • 19 hits, going to www.directsellingnews.com/index.php/search/ - Change dropdown to Search in Titles and Entries, type ViSalus in search box.
• "Blyth makes two acquisitions". Direct Marketing News. 5 August 2008. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
• Removed link - does not deal directly with Visalus, just a group of independent reps-- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• "Visalus to brand MoBay swimmers". Jamaica Observer. 25 February 2010. Retrieved 16 August 2011.
• Adam Foxman (3 July 2010). "Former county inmate returns to show teens there's a way out". Ventura County Star. Retrieved 16 August 2011.

Those are the ones I can find from a relatively quick review this morning.   Leef5   ^{TALK |  CONTRIBS} 13:45, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I requested deletion of this article; although I fully acknowledge (as I did earlier in AN/I) that I did so using the totally incorrect procedure (having used Speedy rather than nomination), for which I have earlier apologized to Leef5 in AN/I (I continue to stand by that and I trust he accepts).

While I used the incorrect procedure, I continue to believe that the company does not meet notability requirements and that there are generally, what I consider to be good, reasons why Wikipedia should not be offering any enhanced credibility to this company in particular.  I hate to impose, but I must none-the-less ask that you please review the original, roughly 2500+ word AN/I discussion; meanwhile I will consider if it is possible to substantially summarize it for restatement here.  In briefest terms, I consider the companies principal, and therefore his company, to be, plainly speaking, a con-artist, and therefore unworthy of any semblance of propriety which might be added by a Wikipedia article.

As to the WP:PA, feel free to read the (again not the shortest) responses at Templates for discussion for what is, if not full justification, at least an explanation.

With regards to the RS's mentioned above:

• Firstly the WP article for Blyth, Inc. itself (as well as the deleted Visalus article around which this discussion revolves) are both covered by WP:NOTDIR, that is, not a Directory of companies; the SEC has one of those.  Further, whether Blyth, Inc. is notable and therefore justified in having a Wikipedia article is itself something I have never considered or investigated.

• The fact that Blyth, Inc. filed an annual report with the SEC merely indicates that it is a publicly traded company in the US and is not likely to face fines for failing to file Form 10-K for the 2010/2011 fiscal year.  This document does nothing to prove that Blythe is notable, let alone constitute proof of the notability of Visalus.

• The 4-traders.com document is, as indicated, a press release, prepared by Blythe (as the document says at the bottom), this is self−promotion of Blythe and the company they've invested in.  Not an RS and does nothing to demonstrate notability of either company.

• In regards to Direct Selling News and Direct Marketing News, my understanding of WP:RS is that a trade magazine (unless it has clear editorial policies) would not even qualify as an RS; although I believe that would relate more to it reporting fact rather than it being used to exemplify notability.  Further, mention in such a magazine, merely by virtue of the companies' involvement in the direct marketing industry and the fact that one is buying the other, does not constitute notability.  Perhaps being nominated as company of the year of one of these publications might constitute notoriety, and even that might be arguable dependant upon the size and clout of the publication itself; but certainly mere mention in these magazines, to an extent which can't really be deemed to constitute much more than filler, mentioned only for the fact of corporations purchasing each other, is nothing notable.  When AT&T buys Southern Bell, or Coke and Pepsi merge, (I'm assuming neither of those things has happened) that is news and deserves an article; when one (comparatively little) company invests in another, that isn't news and only gets reported by a trade magazine, and even then, likely only by one of the companies involved calling the publisher (and perhaps paying for the publicity); regardless, these do nothing to prove notability (although it might be notable fact if similar buyout discussions occurred for a company which is already notable).

• With regard to the Jamaica Observer, the company is not the focus of the article; with the only mention of Visalus being its name being mentioned (4 times in the body of the article) only to the extent that the business mentioned in the article will be in some way partnered with Visalus.  The article is much more PR and self−promotion than news which likely wouldn't even qualify as demonstrating the notability of the main topic(s) of the story the Kingston's Spa Aesthetique and Nirvana Day Spa, and the Montego Bay Racquet Club from what I see.  Further, strictly in relation to notability, I do not consider mention in the Jamaica Observer, of itself, to constitute notability of anything.

• The Ventura County Star report is on Ryan Blair, the company in question's CEO; the report only mentions the company once, to the extent of Blair's position; the report does nothing to demonstrate notability of the company (Blair's article was deleted in 2008 for whatever reasons).

These media mentions are exemplary of the media manipulation skills of the company in question's principal; they do nothing to constitute notability of the company; at least not if notability is to be taken to mean recognition of, and reporting about, by the mainstream media reporting in accordance with established editorial practices (i.e. journalistic integrity and uninterested detachment).  At best these mentions represent limited successes in (paid or unpaid) self-promotion.  If anyone remains unsure if any of these particular sources constitute notability, please LMK which and I will investigate further. 

To Leef5:  With all due respect, please do not put forward a quick list of those things which you are able to find in the morning; please put forward an example of RS which you have investigated for yourself and which you represent demonstrate proof of notability.  Thx  — Who R you? ( talk) 06:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I did a "quick list" because it was clear to me that these were reliable sources. Direct Selling News is indeed RS and has editorial review. Looking at one of their print magazines, there is an Editor in Chief, Managing Editor, 2 other editors, creative director, production manager, production artist, and copy editor.

Direct Marketing News also has editorial review, and has its editors listed here

SEC filings are also considered RS and used in many business articles here on Wikipedia. They are considered more accurate than a private company's press releases because what is published to the SEC has been reviewed/audited for accuracy. The key with SEC filings is to remove any puffery and just state the facts. Blyth, Inc. now owns a majority stake in Visalus and Visalus is now considered a subsidiary of Blyth.   Leef5   ^{TALK |  CONTRIBS} 12:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I accept that Direct Selling News has an editorial staff on the basis of your recounting of the information from a copy you have of the print magazine.  However, both Direct Selling News and Direct Marketing News are trade magazines and while they might, given this editorial oversight, be RS with regards to fact, that is different from being RS with regard to notability.

WP:NRVE establishes that notability requires "significant attention from independent sources"; in other words, when mainstream media starts asking about the company rather than the company approaching media to talk about themselves.  Being listed in a trade magazine is typically as much about self−promotion as anything else.  Generally speaking, what it requires to become listed in a trade magazine is that one must be in the trade and call the magazine; the magazines exist to publish specific interest pieces to a narrow target market regarding topics in which the general population/media has little interest.

• The SEC filing is only RS regarding what it states (business fact & figures, etc), it is not RS as to notability; a government oversight commission filing is pretty much the definition of self−publication, as such it is not "independent of the subject" as required by WP:GNG.  Every publicly traded company will have an SEC filing (SEC rules); by no means is every publicly traded company notable.  This filing is an "ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934", it does nothing to prove that Blyth, let alone Visalus, is notable.  As to Blyth's arrangements to purchase Visalus, this only serves to demonstrate that any mention of the company by Blyth serves as self−promotion of Blyth's soon-to-be/newest subsidiary; certainly none of it makes either Blyth or Visalus any more notable.

• Regarding finding more sources that Visalus is a scam, I have thus far only found additional sites republishing the original 3 posts from scam.com; as mentioned, the company's effective method of flooding the web with countless sites referring to "Visalus Scam" (search reports 5K hits) only to link to what in some cases appear to be, and in some cases acknowledge being, self−promotion by the company's salesreps.  Given Blair's expertise in internet marketing, it is difficult to find the desired smoking gun; obviously as soon as an RS with absolute proof of a scam exists the company will likely meet the notability requirements as mainstream media will presumably then be reporting on Blair's arrest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Who R you? ( talk • contribs) 19:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Trade magazines with editorial oversight are considered RS and I can find no policy that states those alone would not establish notability, even though we have other sources besides just those. Often these are an excellent source for article material on matters of business. Independent sources refers to that we don't rely on press releases from the company to establish notability.
• You are correct in that SEC filings do not establish notability - they are RS as far as facts and figures.
• scam.com is not a reliable source, and I may suggest that you please stop bringing non-RS material like forums, blogs, and other WP:SPS content as a means to justify your position.   Leef5   ^{TALK |  CONTRIBS} 19:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I mentioned the scam.com again here in relation to the Conditional Restore vote below and the fact that I will attempt to find more sources.  And I agree with you whole-heartedly that such non-RS are totally inappropriate for use in an article presented to the public; I'm not so sure I agree that they don't have weight and merit in back-room discussions such as this.  The fact that there isn't RS sufficient to put something in an article doesn't necessarily preclude the non-RS information from influencing what quantity and quality of sources voters here might deem sufficient to prove notability.  I'd say that such non-RS facts, while they should never be cited to the public as fact, should most definitely be considered (amongst all other factors) in determining what constitutes notability sufficient to justify an article.

• Coverage in The New York Times pretty much guarantees acceptance as notable; coverage in the TownOf200,000Gazette not by itself; the RegionalWeeklyOf50,000 meaningless with regard to notability of a multinational corporation (although likely 1 of multiple sources proving notability of a local bridge or tram or other local landmark which could only ever warrant mention in local press); and I'd submit the TradeMagazineStory, again while it could be RS with regards to fact, is not RS for notability.  Further, the non-RS should influence the decision of whether a (somewhat) more substantial demonstration of significant coverage should be required to reach the notability bar, and such (non-RS) sources may influence whether a particular piece of source material is more likely indicative of self−promotion or independent coverage.  Again, per WP:NRVE: "The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity, nor is the topic unsuitable for any other reason."

• I just saw mention somewhere earlier today that WP has been praised ("again" as that reference said) for it's reliability of fact (but I only read the headline so I can't quote the facts); but I'm arguing that, as WP becomes more and more accepted as an RS in and of itself, the criteria as to who receives the benefits of mention becomes more important.  When WP was considered unreliable, the reliability of its information was less important (in the sense that mention of WP as a source would previously simply demand further sources).  As it becomes increasingly viewed as trustworthy and facts become accepted simply on the basis of WP's say−so, a higher level of restraint in what it will or won't say, and to whom it adds an air of credibility, must be considered.  There comes a point where having an article on WP is proof of notability; whether or not this is that point I can't say, but I do believe that this company doesn't appear to be one that should receive the benefits of whatever added credibility an article here might provide.  Whether or not we endorse one fictional duck as notable is irrelevant and we all recognize that; whether we endorse this company, who people are going to pay money to, get involved in business with, pay to take courses from, and buy books from its executives, is an issue and decision a little more significant.

• The consensus will determine, in consideration of the facts pertinent to this article, whom WP will add standing to with an article; unless the sources surpass a definitive threshold similar to those I mentioned, notability is to some extent a subjective matter to be decided by consensus of the other editors on a case-by-case basis on the merits of each case, each article, each company, and the reality of all factors which exist and might sway that judgment.  In this case, the sources (thus far) don't, IMO, represent this as a notable multinational corporation and the (non-RS) other information justifies that the sources that do exists be viewed more critically to determine if they are, indeed, independent.

And as I was about to post this, I see that Dream Focus has found a report by Matt Stroud at Metroactive; I don't know how many articles you had to read before you found it but that's great.  The only problem is, after reading the article, I see that the header says "from the editors of the Silicon Valley's #1 weekly newspaper", I don't see anything to indicate who Matt Stroud is, and the article ends with a "send a letter to the editor about this story" link, so my concern is that this would just be an editorial, and therefore perhaps not an RS.  As well, the story presents lots of facts, but it never summarizes them; the article asks in the headline "...or just a pyramid scheme?", but never answers the question, despite speaking to 'an attorney and marketing professor' and rhyming off section 327 of the California Penal Codes; but still no conclusion.  I certainly don't see anything that could (without what would have to be considered WP:OR) be summarily quoted in a WP article so as to provide the balance of the alternate view point. I don't know how the WP article would include this; would the article only reference and provide a link to the Metroactive article? 

The Metroactive article does probably give a better case that their is notability, although that's still several trade magazine (self−promotion?) articles and only one (neutral in terms of self−promotion) RS; but is that sufficient to prove notability; I'm not entirely convinced but that question is the determination of the editors voting.  (But thank you very much Dream Focus for finding the article.)  — Who R you? ( talk) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

P.S.: Dream Focus, I totally agree with you about erring on the side of caution; but is the cautious thing to do to restore the article or leave it deleted; I'd think delete (but I see you vote restore).  — Who R you? ( talk) 00:51, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Restore article because there are references talking about the company and its doings. Dream Focus 14:36, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Conditional Restore I'm the deleting admin, and I will be honest here and say that the scam allegations were a major factor in my decision to axe it. I recall we had a similar issue with a fake charity for Katrina victims back in 2005, and was concerned that any such scam attempt in the article could be a repeat of that, so I elected to err on the side of caution. I've seen nothing on ANI that currently suggests there is any truth to the scam allegations made, so I am adding my !vote to reinstate the article on condition that nothing pops up between now and restoration that would lend legitimacy to the scam claims. Additionally, I will accept a trout for this error if one is provided. TomStar81 ( Talk) 11:16, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Err on the side of caution? Whether the company is a scam or not isn't relevant. They get coverage in reliable sources. The article could be written in a neutral tone. And if there is reliable coverage found somewhere that they are scamming people, then that can be added to the article as well. Dream Focus 20:53, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I found a news article about it scamming people on at Metroactive. [24] Pyramid scheme apparently. That can be added to the article. Dream Focus 20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Excellent find Dream Focus! There is some good content in there to add into the article (should it be restored) :)   Leef5   ^{TALK |  CONTRIBS} 23:07, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Vivek Kumar Pandey ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

1) No valid reason for deletion and Article can be modified by wikipedia contributor to fulfill the need to be notable. 2) Admin ignorance of many Indian IPs who were familiar with Vivek Kumar Pandey and deleted page on 14th August 117.211.83.245 ( talk) 06:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Are any of the citations found reliable sources? You can post them on the reliable sources message board, and asks. Or do any of those sources already have their own Wikipedia article? Did the person meet any of the requirements at WP:ACADEMIC? Dream Focus 14:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - This deletion review was started on both the log for 2011 August 14 and the log for 2011 August 16. Since it was started on August 16, the other one is in the right place and this one should be closed. Calathan ( talk) 19:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Kate Oxley ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Consensus was that it met WP:ENTERTAINER and therefore the article should be kept. Most of those saying delete stated either that they didn't think voice actors could be notable, or that this person didn't get coverage anywhere so didn't meet the general notability guidelines. WP:Notability clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline..." and "A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." That box includes the one for people which says it is notable if it meets any of the requirements for that group. WP:Entertainer covers voice actors and the first one says significant roles. All four of those saying Keep said this person's roles were significant, she even the main character in one notable series. Tried talking with the closing administrator on their talk page. [25] Dream Focus 18:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment-- I have no opinion over whether she is notable. But I do have an opinion about the proper relationship between the general and specific standards. I think treating it literally as an "or" is often, but necessarily correct--if used in some subjects it will be way too inclusive. The guideline was established at a time when considerably less material was online and readily accessible even in good libraries, and certainly not to the typical Wikipedia editor. It does not take into account the rather obvious fact that the density of available information is different in different fields. We know enough not to compare impact factors across different fields, and we should know enough not to apply the much more simplistic measure of article counts also. Among the fields where I think 2RSs will be often insufficient to show notability unless one of them at least is a source of at least national importance is popular entertainment, (Among the others that often come up for discussion here are some very popular sports, and many types of books). In the other direction, some fields will have subjects notable only with a very broad definition of RSs, and sometimes just one of them at that. Notability is a guideline, and the GNG a portion of a guideline—and the general idea of guidelines is that there are a considerable number exceptions and the only guide for whether we should make an exception in a particular case is the consensus of the community, (or more exactly that usually minute fragment of it that is involved in any particular discussion, normally about 0.01% to 0.1% of the 20,000 very active Wikipedians—or a much smaller percentage if one defines the relevant community more broadly). I often argue here for notability to be treated as subject to common sense, usually in an inclusive direction, but it works the other way also. How common sense works in this case I do not know; this is a comment, not a !vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)
  • If you don't mind a little maths: "treating it as an OR" is indeed widely supported, but it's not commutative: we very rarely find that subjects which pass the GNG but fail a given SNG are non-notable, but the other way around happens all the time, and has always been the better-supported understanding of the relationship between the two when there's been a formal discussion on it. As for the "there are exceptions to guidelines" argument, this is absolutely correct: but the correct time to make exceptions is when not doing so would be farcical, rather than in this case (where we're talking about a BLP on an actress whose claim to fame is the English dubs of characters in various anime series, which almost certainly all have relatively tiny English fanbases to their originals). Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I found Bigtimepeace's closing statement confusing, and it seemed to me that he either misstated or misunderstood the reasons for deletion given by people in the AFD. Specifically, Bigtimepeace said that no evidence was given that Kate Oxley's roles were significant, but I don't think even the people in favor of deletion were suggesting that none of the roles were major roles within the things she worked on (though many of them were minor parts, she also played a few major characters). Instead, I thought that people arguing for deletion were saying that the things she worked on were non-notable (due to the argument that the English dub should be considered separately from the work as a whole when judging notability), so even significant roles in those works wouldn't confer notability. It wasn't clear to me from the closing statement if Bigtimepeace thought the arguments were convincing that there needed to be significant coverage specifically focusing on the dubs, or if he is incorrectly asserting that sources don't establish that some of the characters she dubbed were major characters. If it is the former, then he is free to read the arguements that way (as I said in the AFD, I don't think those arguements are based on policy, but if Bigtimepeace thought the majority disagreed with that then it was reasonable to close it that way). However, if he is instead asserting that sources needed to be given to indicate that some of her roles were for major characters, then I think that is both not consistent with the arguements given in the AFD and ignores that there was a source in the article that established one of her roles as that of a main character. Calathan ( talk) 22:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I see your confusion here Calathan, and my wording in that one particular sentence was not ideal as I was jumping from one point to another. Yes, it would not be correct to say "you need a source to demonstrate the significance of this one role" and it was not my intention to say that though I see how it could have come off that way. In the AfD there were two main arguments: meets WP:ENTERTAINER, and there are no real independent third party sources so this fails the GNG. The first point was debated by those at the AfD, with keepers basically saying "she passes this because this or that role was significant," and those in favor of deletion questioning the significance of the roles. Lining up some sources that said "Oxley's work here was important" obviously could have been used to demonstrate significance (pretty easily), but barring that those in favor of keeping should have developed a better argument for why this person's roles were significant, rather than simply saying they were. That left open the obvious rejoinder "no they are not" so the arguments there were kind of a wash.

In contrast, those in favor of deletion made a very clear point which was not rebuted. Namely, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore the person clearly fails the GNG. This argument was not at all addressed by those in favor of keeping, so we were left with a weak, contested argument based on WP: ENTERTAINER and a reasonably strong, uncontested argument based on the GNG. This was the basis for reading consensus the way I did.

Speaking to the nom here by Dream Focus, to my mind it severely misinterprets policy. Dream Focus seems to believe--and I think too many editors do--that the various notability guidelines are hurdles on the path to keeping an article, and so long as you leap over one of them then the article is kept. That can often not be the case, and the basic argument of Dream Focus--some people think this passes WP:ENTERTAINER so everything else, including the GNG, is irrelevant--is not correct, or at least not necessarily correct.

First of all there was not even consensus in the discussion that the subject passed WP:ENTERTAINER, but let me speak to the more general point. The key word in passages cited by Dream Focus is presumed: presumed is not the same as is and I think this could be part of the problem. Guidelines are guidelines, not firm rules whereby one part in a movie + one external link mentioning a person = biographical article. Rather we use them to guide a discussion. This discussion had a strong counterpoint to the keep arguments, one which emphasized an aspect of WP:N that Dream Focus completely elides, namely "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." "I think this passes WP:ENTERTAINER" is not a get-out-of-the-WP:V-aspect-of-notability free card. When other editors are saying "I see no real sources for this subject at all" and that argument is not addressed it is unlikely we are going to keep the article--the lack of concern over the lack of sources by those arguing in favor of keeping severely damaged their case.

As I mentioned on the talk page I did not read this as a particularly "close" AfD, e.g. something which could have been closed as no consensus or keep. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You can verify the information in the primary sources, there no reason to doubt this information at all. They are listed in the credits, as well as the official websites, and even at Amazon.com and elsewhere that sells it, the main voice actors listed in the credits. The information can be verified as true, beyond any sincere doubts, so its not a problem. Dream Focus 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The passage I was citing from the guideline does not say "if it has an entry on Amazon.com then that's good enough," rather it says "information on Wikipedia must be verifiable; if no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, then it should not have a separate article." This is the part of the guideline you are ignoring in your statement that opened the DRV. Whether you like it or not, we do not have, and never will have, an article on all people who were in a show that can be purchased on Amazon, or with an entry on IMDB that says they had a couple of parts in movies. I gather that you would like to have an article on every person or thing that has been mentioned on the internet--perhaps that's an exaggeration, though I don't think much of one--but thankfully that is not how this project works because we are an encyclopedia with actual standards for inclusion, particularly for living people. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 02:24, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The standards for inclusion should be determined by the guidelines formed by proper consensus. Instead of determining what makes someone notable in their field, we just let anyone have an article based on whether some random media source decided to cover them or not. That's a horrible way to do things. Some poor selling books get covered while others that are bestsellers do not. Sometimes they review the voice actors, sometimes they don't. Is the writer of a notable film not notable because they don't bother mentioning him, but focus on the director and the main actors? Dream Focus 03:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The standards are what they are and we aren't free to disregard them just because you believe they should be something else. If you want to argue for change, article by article at DRV is probably not going to be too fruitful. Your example is of course a yes, if no one bothers mentioning the writer, then no one has taken note. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 13:03, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the reply, Bigtimepeace. I think the confusion I had was just a matter of semantics. Calathan ( talk) 20:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I'm puzzled by your claim, Dream Focus, that people in the AfD argued that voice actors were not notable. No one argued this. What people argued was that dubbing actors, ie. not the actor in the original work, did not gain notability from their roles unless the dub itself was independently notable. Your argument against this was that a voice actor has to put in the same emotion as a regular actor, which is completely unconnected to any policy. Roscelese ( talk ⋅ contribs) 22:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

A voice actor does the dub. I don't see the difference here. As has come up many times in the past, the language it was first released in isn't relevant. The voice actors have the same high standards when chosen. Places that review anime usually have a rating for the voice actors for the version they are reviewing. The voice actors have to properly show the emotion as a real actor would. Dream Focus 01:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Which as Roscelese said, is unrelated to policy. We don't find voice actors (original or redubs) notable for based on the quality that wikipedia editors perceive in their work, we base it on the normal what people, who are recognised as knowing about this stuff, consider important enough to write about. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 13:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

These same people write about every attractive and otherwise famous person's personal lives, who they are dating, who they were seen walking around with, etc. They write about what their customers will pay to read about. So using them as a basis to determine who should have an article, is rather flawed. That's why we have secondary guidelines of notability, to allow us another method to determine who is notable. Dream Focus 13:54, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

As you note "otherwise famous", they've already achieved the interest of "the world", they're already notable, if they weren't then the personal lives would be of little interest. As you say they write about what people will pay to read about (and that's not just the tittle tattle, people will pay to read about scientific breakthroughs, performances they maybe interested in, artistic endeavours ...). And surely that is a pretty good indicator of notability, people actually being interested in it, taking note? Don't get me wrong here there are those who are "famous for being famous" and I don't think we should cover the crap that generates, but for everything else if no one is interested then they haven't achieved notability. Most of the secondary guidelines (or the original ones I recall from past years) always stated a basic criteria of having being covered elsewhere, the other criteria were indicative of those who were likely to have achieved suitable coverage and be notable and always worded that the subject "may be" rather than "absolutely is". This all dovetails with no original research and verifiability, if there isn't good coverage elsewhere then we are left with WP:V only achievable through primary sources, and then our article is likely either a pretty worthless stub, or a set of facts from those sources drawn together and likely implying or reaching conclusions that random wikipedia editors think "worthy". -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 14:28, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

(ec with 82.19.4.7, replying to Dream Focus) They write about what their customers will pay to read about. So using them as a basis to determine who should have an article, is rather flawed. Comments like this, and some other points you raise, are well beyond the scope of this discussion. DRVs are not a place for you to make your own private arguments against well established guidelines and policies, rather the only reason we are here is to determine "if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly." -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:34, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• This close was within the bounds of discretion, explains the reasoning, doesn't just count noses. All fine here. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 16:04, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment: "In contrast, those in favor of deletion made a very clear point which was not rebuted. Namely, there is nothing approaching "significant coverage in reliable sources" and therefore the person clearly fails the GNG." I felt no need to refute it. If every article needs to meet GNG, there would be no separate notability guidelines for different subjects. "What people argued was that dubbing actors, ie. not the actor in the original work, did not gain notability from their roles unless the dub itself was independently notable." The dubs are independently notable. Take a look at the sources in the articles and then tell me how many reviews are based on the English dub. As for the admin's reason for deleting the article, that is an extreme thing to say when there are notability guidelines for individual subjects. In the case of the dubbed anime not being independently notable, do some simple research first. Joe Chill ( talk) 16:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I agree with the statement that not every article needs to meet the GNG--it needs to meet the GMG or the specialized notability guideline, unless the specialized notability guideline in question says that it is meant to further limit the GNG. (I think one that does is WP:LOCAL) The purpose of the specialized guidelines are to avoid the need to be concerned about the specific requirements of the GNG, provided of course that we have WP:V. The usual reason we want to avoid discussing the specific requirements of the GNG is that doing so would be inordinately difficult and generally unnecessary for that subject. But there is an alternative way that leads to the same result: if you think the GNG must always be met, the specialized guidelines say it is presumed to be met in these special cases. The meaning of "presumed" is that it stands unless one can actually show that the presumption is false, by extensive searching of all reasonably possible online and offline sources thoroughly enough that one can say with confidence, that if there were any, I would surely have found it. This is generally quite difficult, and requires knowledge of the appropriate specialized sources for that area, and the ability to get to all of them. There would only be certain limited fields where I would even attempt to do this {not including the field for this subject). Except when we suspect a hoax, normally nobody here attempts it. We are trying only to have a reasonably accurate encyclopedia , not an authoritative one, and that kind of research would only be appropriate if we were trying for true authoritativeness. Recall the rule , Verifiability, not Truth. inclusion in Wikipedia does not aim to prove true notability DGG ( talk ) 20:05, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - A perennial "I disagree" DRV filing, nothing special to see here. Closing admin evaluated the arguments, had the intelligence not to bean-count, and determined the consensus was to delete based on the arguments presented. Tarc ( talk) 12:02, 14 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus The problem is that the arguments that only the GNG (not the SNG) applies and that only original voice actors, vs. foreign language voice actors, gain notability from the role, are, respectively, unsupported and downright wrong. With the specific case of foreign language voice actors, there is already a problem in that the most press an animated feature gets will be in its native language--doesn't mean that it's any less worthy of inclusion in the English Wikipedia, just that there's a translation barrier for much of the good material. Second, the idea that an original voice acting role is more significant has no basis in reality. If you look at Hayao Miyazaki's films, those selected to voice his characters in English have been at least as "big name" actors as the originals were in Japan. Off the top of my head Kirsten Dunst, Patrick Stewart, Brad Pitt, Michael Keaton, Tina Fey, Liam Neeson, Cate Blanchett, and a passel full of other notable actors have been chosen to do voices for his works, because the voice is important for the secondary, foreign language market. While the closer neither specifically accepted nor refuted the argument in his closing statement, it deserves to be refuted, and combined with the SNG/GNG balance issue creates a presumption that the close was not correct. Jclemens ( talk) 02:29, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

A couple of points in reply here which might further clarify my thinking in the close (or not). In my rationale I was not saying that either of the following were true: 1) That the GNG necessarily applied and the SNG necessarily didn't; 2) That only original voice actors were/are notable and that we had agreement on that. As I've said, the whole debate was about deferring more to the GNG or to WP:ENTERTAINER in this particular case. It's not that one was inherently right, or that a different discussion could not have led to a different outcome, it's that we had this particular discussion and my reading of consensus was that the arguments for applying the GNG were stronger and not really refuted. On the other hand, the arguments about WP:ENTERTAINER were: 1) weaker (from those arguing in favor of keeping); 2) actually contested in a reasonable fashion (I know that's the part you disagree with, see the following).

Part of this was the debate about whether the roles in question were "significant." I don't think there was consensus on that issue--i.e. it's not the case that I concluded they were clearly not significant. Most of your comment here would have been good in the AfD, since you are making a more specific case for why Oxley meets the first point of WP:ENTERTAINER. But your comment was not present in the AfD, and while you may think that the opposing view "deserves to be refuted," to do that would, I think, have been to put my thumb on the scales and offer my own argument (which is basically what you are doing here). It is entirely possible that two or three more comments could have been added that would have tipped this to no consensus or even keep, but I was just going off what was said in the discussion, where the question of whether this person met one of the SNGs seemed very much up for debate while the fact that we have basically no sources on this person was never disputed.

I have no problem with someone believing this should have been closed no consensus, even though I disagree, but to say that closing delete was definitively wrong under these circumstances seems like a bit of a stretch to me. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:56, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

N vs N+2 (in this case, 4 vs 6) is not a consensus, especially when there are clear differences in opinion. I would not suggest that if the numbers be reversed that it would have been a consensus to keep, either. Administrators in general (not to single you out Bigtimepeace, you're just here, now) are too quick to declare a "winner" and "loser" in disputed cases that really hinge on larger policy questions where varying LOCALCONSENSUSes can yield different results. Jclemens ( talk) 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

We perhaps have a somewhat different approach to AfDs then, though maybe not all that much. That's quite all right and there's no point in getting in a big debate about it here but just thought I'd acknowledge it. FYI I close "no consensus" rather frequently, particularly since in the years I've closed AfDs I've generally dealt with the ones lagging in the back of the queue (as this was). I just didn't see this as one of those for reasons described.

As to the numbers game, it's worth pointing out that I gave very little thought to bean counting here, so the fact that there were more deletes didn't really factor into the close. Had I weighed the numbers more heavily, it would have been closer to N+3 (or N+2.5 perhaps) since I would have somewhat discounted the comment of Northamerica1000. All of the other editors participating at least somewhat elaborated on their comments. But as I said the head count really was not much of a factor. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• DRV has tended to find, of late, that the GNG trumps all SNGs. I like this: it feels right to me that there should be a simple test, and that inclusionists should not get to argue that meeting a SNG prevents deletion, and also that deletionists should not get to argue that failing a SNG leads to deletion. I'd like this simple and clear view to continue, which means I endorse the finding in this case. As I've said before, I think this means we can go around demoting the SNGs to essay status.— S Marshall T/ C 11:13, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • That's funny, because the deletion policy talk pages have tended to lean the opposite way. Jclemens ( talk) 01:32, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The deletion policy talk pages are, how you say, a battleground, and it's obviously the place to go if one has an opinion to air that is well outside of that which would ever translate to community consensus. The MOS talk pages tend to lean in all sorts of directions which never subsequently result in broader community adoption as well. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- Those arguing to delete pointed out the lack of sources, while those arguing to keep pinned everything on the article arguably meeting a disputed secondary guideline. The close went with the stronger arguments. Reyk _YO! 20:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per User:Dream Focus, who seems to have the greatest amount of expertise here, because if the close went with the stronger arguments it would have been to keep the article. -- 172.162.154.102 ( talk) 04:15, 16 August 2011 (UTC) This IP is a sock of a banned user- see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/A_Nobody. Reyk _YO! 22:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Note; take the above comment with a huge grain of salt, this IP is carrying a beef over from several current AfDs and now seems intent on stalking my recent deletion/review participation. Tarc ( talk) 04:35, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Uhh, yeah, that's pretty clearly a logged out editor--whether banned or not--stalking Tarc's recent contributions for whatever reason. Sock case is already up here. -- Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:43, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Lack of sources > random guideline. Consensus < Policy. Obviously. Black Kite (t) (c) 18:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I think the statement "consensus < policy" is obviously wrong. Policies of Wikipedia are based on consensus, and if there is ever a policy that is against consensus then that means the policy should be changed (barring a legal reason why the policy can't be changed). I certainly don't think Bigtimepeace thought he was overruling a consensus when he closed this AFD. I wouldn't argue against you endorsing this if you feel that the close agreed with the consensus, but it seems to me that the statement you made here is just completely out of line with how Wikipedia is meant to work. Calathan ( talk) 19:50, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

You're missing the point that the first line of the nomination for this DRV reads "Consensus was that it met WP:ENTERTAINER and therefore the article should be kept.". This was based on the fact that a number of people produced bare Keep votes that said "Keep - Meets WP:ENT". As Aaron Brenneman said in the AfD, "Just waving hands and saying "meets entertainer" does not satisfy the accepted inclusion criteria. Find some real sources actually about this person.". That was my point here. More generally, a local consensus (say, at an AfD) does not override policy. If I am closing an AfD and there are six people saying "Delete, not notable" and two saying Keep and explaining exactly why the article should be kept per policy then I will probably close it as Keep. Obviously, a general consensus that a policy should be changed is something completely different. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:00, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

I understand what you are getting at now, but I think that what you are calling "consensus" is not what Wikipedia refers to as consensus. In your example, if six people say "delete" and give no reason to back up that position, while two people say "keep" and make strong arguements to back up that position, in terms of what consensus means on Wikipedia I would call that a consensus to keep. I also think that a local consensus (not merely a local majority of votes) can and should override policy as it applies to the issue the local consensus was considering. In fact, I think that is really part of the core principles of Wikipedia and one of the main reasons for WP:IAR. Calathan ( talk) 21:33, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Yes, I agree that consensus is a core principle, but where that consensus is at odds with policy, there still needs to be a discussion on whether the policy should be changed - because, don't forget, policies are based on previous consensus. A local consensus on how a policy applies to one particular article, for example, may not apply to 99% of other articles. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:52, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I'm with Bigtimepeace on this. Disclaimer: I'm a big fan of GNG trumping all else. Stuartyeates ( talk) 01:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Well within administrative discretion, and the closing admin has gone out of his way to explain the close. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 12:44, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per WP:GNG It would have been nice if the article had more sources but none were found so a consensus was reached for deletion. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 03:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cage of Eden ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Hello there. I once created a Wikipedia page for the manga Cage of Eden after it was licensed by Kodansha Comics USA but the page was deleted due to various reasons but all those in discussion agreed to revert it once the manga was out in North American bookstores. The manga will be out on August 23, 2011 [26] and since it will be out in a week, will the Cage of Eden page be reverted back? Thanks for answering.-- FonFon Alseif ( talk) 09:26, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I can't seem to find any discussion where the participants agreed that the page could be recreated after a North American release. Where is the discussion you are referring to? lifebaka ++ 13:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Here you go. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2011_April_11 -- FonFon Alseif ( talk) 16:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • That discussion doesn't make any such agreement (nor could it). It says when released in the US then it'll *probably* be reviewed by reliable sources which will provide the independent coverage required. Merely being released in the US isn't the requirement, the non-trivial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is. Do you have that coverage as a result of the US release? -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 17:54, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Two news results from a Google news search right now. [27] News coverage of it from someone who saw an advanced preview and reviewed it, and one calling it one of a "few good things to see at comic-con international". It'll probably get more reviews after it comes out. Dream Focus 18:21, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

is this then perhaps one of the cases where the article should wait until it actually is released? DGG ( talk ) 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Doesn't matter to me one way or the other. If someone Googles for Cage of Eden, the second result that appears is a link to my manga wikia [28] where I did a full history transwiki from the Wikipedia article when it was up for deletion previously. So they'll get the same information with a bit of searching. Dream Focus 20:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think that this is a close enough case to resend to AfD. While I'm not personally convinced (by a long shot) on those sources, I think that the best venue for that discussion is elsewhere. But only barely. Really minimum spectrum. - Aaron Brenneman ( talk) 16:33, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • It might be worth waiting until it's actually been released. If reliable sources are going to appear, they are more likely to at that point when the discussion may be moot. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted No evidence has been provided that the work has received significant coverage from reliable third-party sources. We don't assume that it will receive such coverage before it actually does. — Farix ( t |  c) 01:46, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• List at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga, to be undeleted when the article can meet GNGs - further evidence of its notability can be gathered there and the article should be undeleted when it is reviewed and the reviews can be added to the article. -- Malkinann ( talk) 23:10, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Michael Phelps Foundation ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was deleted 3 times, however since then the article has been changed significantly and the new sources present an unbiased review of this organization using information primarily provided by these secondary sources. as this organization is one of the most famous athlete charities in the country, by one of the most successful american athletes in history, this article should be included in the encyclopedia as it is on par with organizations like the Make-A-Wish Foundation, Livestrong, Special Olympics and the Boys & Girls Clubs of America: all of which have Encyclopedia inclusions. Changing the language so that it does not "read like an essay" this article has responded to all of the guidelines proving that it is notable and it does not sound like an advertisement. If there are any further instructions or suggestions to prove this organization worthy of an Encyclopedia article please let me know and I will willingly make those articles. MLT1989 ( talk) 16:04, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Appears to be self-promotion to me; a paragraph at Michael_Phelps#Philanthropy should be enough. Stifle ( talk) 19:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• In the short term I think the redirect I created to Michael_Phelps#Philanthropy should be restored as it's a reasonable search term. As for the review of the article text itself, being created by Michael_Phelps is not sufficient for notability but it should be enough to escape an A7. (and I don't think it's promotional enough for G11 to apply) Restore the article and let the community make the call. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 02:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Note to nominator. It's extremely unfortunate that the first version of this article was created by User:MichaelPhelpsFoundation. This shows a serious conflict of interest and to many experienced users it screams "SPAM". This may be why we jumped the gun with CSD. One indication that a subject might be notable (but not in itself sufficient) is if a neutral editor with no connection to the subject "takes note of" the subject and elects to write an article about it. It would have been a lot better if they would have waited for that to happen. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:00, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  such is the theory. In practice probably 3/4 of our articles on people and organizations are initially written by someone very close to the subject, and even if initially a little spammy, they get improved, as all articles do. The ones who take the trouble to try to understand Wikipedia before writing realize they should use a neutral name that will not attract attention. My standard advice is "If you think you can do it right according to our guidelines, do so, but expect the article to be carefully checked for objectivity." WHat I find a sure sign of non-objectivity is an argument that a relatively small and new organization like this says it should have an article because some of the most famous ones in the same field have articles. Additionally, the last version of the article was in my opinion unacceptable: First, it was copied directly from the program's about page (which only 1 of the 3 successive admins who deleted the article seem to have caught)--and even if you give us formal permission, the content is still quite promotional, though I agree with Ron that it's borderline G11, not clear G11. . Web pages are after all meant to be promotional, which is why copying them almost never works. Second, I see no sources outside of press releases except one write-up in a local newspaper. Without them it might escape speedy deletion, but it will never pass a deletion discussion at AfD. As usual, my overall evaluation is the same as Stifle. DGG ( talk ) 03:30, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

  Well, if there are copyright issues then it should stay deleted (but the redirect should be restored) and if that hypothetical "neutral editor" writes a sourced NPOV article about this subject, then we can discuss it at AFD. Also, I will say that I don't think that an article being created by someone connected to the subject should in itself be a reason to delete that article as some have been fixed to be acceptable. I do think it's like stepping up to bat with 2 strikes against you. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 03:44, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• On 7 Aug MLT1989 ( talk · contribs) placed a helpme request, [29] which was answered by 2 users [30] [31] [32]. I also saw the request, and looked at the AFC, which was at this version: [33]. I considered that a valid article could be made (as there was enough evidence of coverage in reliable sources to warrant an article on the topic), but because the existing live redirect existed and was protected, I requested unprotection [34] at 17:35. That's my only involvement; I'm not sure what happened beyond that, and it's hard for me to tell, with the page/s deleted. If I'd processed the AFC later, I'd have edited it considerably, but I think it would've been possible to create an acceptable article.  Chzz   ►  15:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • After your request, I deleted the redirect because you wouldn't have been able to move the AfC submission to mainspace over a redirect with a history. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:16, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • • And he wouldn't have been able to move it there without the redirect, the red link was salted. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:25, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Ah; that's quite understandable. And yes, if I'd noticed / gone back to it, I'd probably have trimmed the AFC and 'accepted' it, and we wouldn't be here. So really, this is just a bit of a misunderstanding. I think easiest answer would be, now, to fix up the AFC so it was acceptable and make it live; I don't personally see much point in an AFD discussion over a redirect which might have become an article.  Chzz   ►  21:22, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• It was deleted four times, never once with a proper AFD. [35] The most recent time was with the explanation "Housekeeping and routine (non-controversial) cleanup)". I suppose no one saw the prod and removed it in time. No sense not sending this to an AFD if someone is against the prod. Dream Focus 18:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I originally created the redirect over a red link that was "salted" to prevent recreation. Therefore I thought that it was prudent to continue with full protection. I was not aware of any unprotection request and didn't know why the redirect was deleted under a "generic" G6. As far as the reason why the AFC submission wasn't approved, see this discussion I started at WT:CSD after first seeing this case on Orange Mike's talk page. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 04:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Send to AfD. After the initial version of this article was created by MichaelPhelpsFoundation ( talk) it has been re-created and edited by no less than five SPAs - there is clearly a campaign going on, and I have raised an SPI. Yesterday the latest puffy version was created, but (non-SPA) user Cerejota ( talk) then did a good job of trimming it back to basics with edit summary "reduced to all notable, reliable sourced, verifiable information, eliminate iffy external links." That version can be seen here. Cerejota then changed his/her mind and redirected to Michael Phelps#Philanthropy ("not really much more info than already there after cruft and puff taken out"). I agree with that view, and think the redirect is the right answer, but as DreamFocus says this has never had a proper AfD and we should probably have one to settle the issue. My suggestion is, hold an AfD on Cerejota's trimmed-back version. JohnCD ( talk) 10:04, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment and partial change of mind: if it will help someone decide how to close this, I would be equally happy with Cerejota's proposed solution (below): delete and replace with a protected redirect to Michael Phelps#Philanthropy, (which would need to be watched to see it was not inflated with puffery). JohnCD ( talk) 15:00, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment with !v further on - I admit am getting re-acquainted as to where systemic consensus lies on speedy delete, PROD and AfD. There seems much has changed in the two years or so since I last paid real attention to deletion in Wikipedia. Hence I felt that CSD due to previous deletion was cool, but it wasn't because it was not a result of AfD. I though of PROD, but then I realized the article seemingly was a good work. So I studied the sourcing, using WP:V as a principle, including trying to find more WP:RS to the various items (for example the court case around the domain name). Came to nothing. I could only conclude that this meant that most of the article was primary or otherwise unreliable source puffery and cruft, based on WP:V and WP:RS. One thing hasn't changed in my time and that is that notability is a central criteria for inclusion. One thing is under debate, but is generally accepted, that notability is not inherited. Another principle that is on controversy but generally accepted is that there are alternatives to deletion. So instead of prod or AfD, I redirected to the "Philanthropy" section on Michael Phelps, and added the single line of incontrovertible non-puffery and V/RS compliant info into that section. This is because while notability is not inherited, there is a better chance of something getting some notability in the future if connected to a notable figure. For example, it is not out of the question that once Michel Phelps retires, he will devote time to this foundation, which might increase its profile to the point of notability. So a deletion would mean we have to recreate it once again. However, a redirect allows us to simply revert and start from that. It also has the advantage of encouraging adding information to the "Philanthropy" section, giving the possibility of WP:SUMMARY forking if too much good info is there, even if notability is not met, "Philanthropy of Michael Phelps". So a few alternatives (in descending order of personal preference, first is what I want the most):

• Protect (salt) redirect - so that any attempt to recreate article needs admin intervention. Leave a note with instructions in talk page of redirect and a link to these instructions in the edit notice of the redirect and the edit summary for the indef proc.
• delete and salt - this will keep being recreated if we do not salt. Lets not AGF beyond normal human tolerances.
• rename and redirect to Philanthropy of Michael Phelps as per WP:SUMMARY, I do not believe there is enough material for this at this point, but it is an alternative to deletion for which independent notability is not an issue, as Michael Phelps is notable so is his philanthropy. We would have to be careful that it reflects all of his philanthropy and not just the Foundation, or that the article doesn't become about the Foundation, but otherwise kosher. Also salt the redirect per above.
• AfD - if we must, but why be bureaucrats? - a DRV is as good as any other forum to decide this stuff. If submitted to AfD, my position would be "merge and redirect" to Michael Phelps' BLP section on "Philanthropy".

One thing is clear to me, closing this DRV without action would be a disservice to the topic, to the involved editors, and in an extremely small way, to Wikipedia itself.-- Cerejota ( talk) 18:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment on socking: lest the number of SPA editors creating and editing this article should give the impression that there is wide support for it, the sockpuppet investigation has confirmed by checkuser that five of the six SPAs concerned are the same, and the sixth is a "likely" match. JohnCD ( talk) 22:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Braves-Mets rivalry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Notability, Recentism, Lack of Reliable Sources I think this page should be deleted. Most of the page is a reference to the Yankees and IMO there aren't enough reliable sources to support the questionable notability of this page to exist. Arnabdas ( talk) 20:22, 15 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think you meant to start a new AFD, not review the old one, which was closed as no consensus a couple years ago. postdlf ( talk) 14:27, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD per the nominator's request. When the closing admin starts a new AfD on behalf of Arnabdas, I ask him or her to provide a link in the DRV close to the fresh AfD nomination. Cunard ( talk) 18:57, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The Venus Project ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was merged to Zeitgeist: Addendum in 2008 due to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Venus Project. Since then, editors have recreated the article, but there has never been a DRV. I think a discussion should happen about whether this article, which is almost entirely sources to primary source documents in defiance of WP:GNG should exist as separate from the article into which it was merged. Editors at the article seem content to argue that because the discussion was 3 years ago, we should not keep it merged even though it doesn't appear that much has changed in the meantime. 69.86.225.27 ( talk) 23:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Looking at the AfD, and the original article, I think the better choice would have been to merge it to Jacque Fresco. It's Fresco's project; the film, was about the project. In any case, the article about the film needs a rewrite to remove promotionalism--describing the content is one thing, rewriting the contents as a exhortation to action is another. DGG ( talk ) 23:30, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The article did undergo a merge in 2010, but it was merged with Jacque Fresco, which was deemde more relevant. And since the Jacque Fresco article consisted mostly about text about the Venus Project, Jaque Fresco was in fact merge into The Venus Project. The article has also been vastly expanded and improved and is not the same article anymore, so the AfD is simply no longer valid. An AfD that results in a merge because the article is short and poor is self-evidently not valid for an expanded article. Sure, the article still is in need of much improvement, but that can't happen if it's deleted. (ps, the claim that "It does not appear to have changed much in the meantime" is patently false, showing that the IP in question hasn't even looked at the article before he deletes it. It's plain vandalism, nothing else.) -- OpenFuture ( talk) 04:30, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• The current version ceased to be a redirect in 2009, and this means that it's not appropriate for DRV to enforce a 2008 AfD in 2011. But if you wish to renominate the article at AfD, then I don't see any obstacle to this. Failing that you will need to seek talk page consensus.— S Marshall T/ C 07:18, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Valeria Solovieva ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This article was deleted on 24 March 2010 because the subject in question did not met at the time at least one of the notability criteria found here: Wikipedia:TENNIS/N#Tennis. This player became notable in the mean while winning at least a 25K event at ITF level and also winning a Junior Grand Slam. I request this article to be placed into namespace. I tried to move it but encountered some ambiguous requests about sources. I solved the sources issues but nothing. Thank you ( Gabinho ^>:) 20:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC)) reply

• Well, I've done a fair bit of reading around now and I must admit that I don't fully understand why Nathan2055 referred you to DRV. Personally I would have seen your submission to AfC as perfectly acceptable. Perhaps someone else looking at it with fresh eyes will be able to enlighten us.— S Marshall T/ C 08:47, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply

The article is here: Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Valeria_Solovieva. I request some administraor to move it to article namespace since the article is referenced and is about a notable tennis player. Thank you! ( Gabinho ^>:) 07:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)) reply

• Move to mainspace. Because Valeria Solovieva has participated at the ITF level (per this source), she passes the requirement at Wikipedia:TENNIS/N#Tennis. The AfC draft mainly has directory entries as sources and does not cite any third-party reliable sources. DRV has recently held that the general notability guideline supersedes subject-notability guidelines (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 July 19#Ellen Kennedy). Therefore, I ask the closing admin to move the draft to mainspace with no prejudice to a subsequent AfD discussion. I will not nominate the page for deletion as there is likely sufficient coverage in reliable sources that have yet to be added to the article. If, after a sufficient period of time, no third-party sources are added, another editor might decide to nominate it for deletion. Cunard ( talk) 18:51, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Because Jayjg ( talk · contribs) believes the article is not ready yet, I urge the closing admin to list the article at AfD if he or she deems that consensus is to move to mainspace. This will allow users to find more sources and assess whether there are sufficient sources to establish notability. If there are not enough sources to pass WP:GNG, it will allow users to determine whether Wikipedia:TENNIS/N#Tennis, a subject-notability guideline, should override the general notability guideline in this case or vice versa. I also request a stub of this article to only the first sentence:

  Valeria Alexandrovna Solovieva ( Russian: Валерия Александровна Соловьева; born November 3, 1992) is a professional Russian tennis player who has participated at the ITF level.

  Please remove the infobox and the other information per the allegation of the misrepresentation of sources and the BLP and V concerns Jayjg mentions below.

  If a new AfD is created, I further request that the closing admin link in the DRV close to the newly created AfD so that users can conveniently access the discussion from the DRV log. Cunard ( talk) 05:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Not ready yet, so still not being moved. I'm not sure what game User:Gabinho is playing here. He has been told multiple times, very clearly, that every claim made in this WP:BLP needs an inline citation, per WP:V and WP:CITE. Instead of doing this, he objects to having to source it, keeps trying to sneak it back into mainspace, and (here) pretends that he has "encountered some ambiguous requests about sources" and "solved the sources issues". There is nothing ambigious about "cite everything in this WP:BLP using inline citations". As a simple example, the article claims her "Career winnings" are $26,074 - but there's no citation for this. On top of that, some of the stuff that he was actually forced to cite (after multiple requests) does not actually match the sources cited. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:42, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• restore Meets SNG, probably meets WP:GNG. Sourcing seems acceptable given the nature of the article. Hobit ( talk) 22:22, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cezar Lungu ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

He played 2 matches in Liga I this season for Astra Ploiesti ( http://www.liga1.ro/html/pagina_personala_jucator/Cezar_Lungu-657.html) so he is notable now. Ionutzmovie ( talk) 12:39, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. Given that Cezar Lungu has played for Liga I, "the top division of the Romanian football league system", he is now notable. As a non-admin, I cannot see the deleted versions of Cezar Lungu. If the deleted reversions are unsourced or poorly sourced, I suggest userfication to User:Ionutzmovie/Cezar Lungu so that Ionutzmovie ( talk · contribs) may bring the article up to Wikipedia's verifiability and BLP standards. If the deleted reversions pass BLP, I ask for immediate restoration. Cunard ( talk) 18:39, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation exactly per Cunard who seems to have hit all relevant issues. Note: I'm taking it on faith that the cited source is reliable and says what is claimed (I only speak English). Hobit ( talk) 22:24, 19 August 2011 (UTC) reply

Cubed³ ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

As of 14th March, 2011, Cubed3 Ltd ( http://www.cubed3.com) has become a registered company in the UK ( http://wck2.companieshouse.gov.uk/432f1aff4a65cc353cc278e721cd4da9/compdetails). As of May 2011, Google Analytics tracking places average monthly readership at 200,000 uniques per month. Numerous exclusive interviews, event write-ups and news articles have been featured on other video game websites. If any further information is required, please let me know. Many thanks, Adam Riley [ Senior Editor :: Cubed3 ] Jesusraz ( talk) 09:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• The problem is that the subjects of articles have to demonstrate that they pass the notability guidelines. There is nothing stopping you from writing an article on this subject provided you include evidence that it does pass the notability guideline (which usually consists of references to significant coverage in third-party reliable sources). Being a registered company and getting 200,000 unique visitors a month doesn't demonstrate notability however. Getting content distributed through other media might be, depending on what that other medium is, but I doubt other video game websites will qualify. Hut 8.5 15:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, clear delete consensus at the AfD, and nominator hasn't presented any new sources to suggest that the subject has become notable in the meantime - frankie ( talk) 20:42, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for the information. I understand the need to prevent a Wikipedia page from becoming what would essentially be one big advertisement. I will do a bit of digging to find out some links. For reference, though, would being featured in a newspaper such as the Metro count as an example? ( http://www.metro.co.uk/tech/games/853363-street-fighter-maker-wants-capcom-vs-nintendo). Or even an Industry website such as Gamasutra ( http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/18657/Critical_Reception_Nintendos_Wii_Fit.php) Many thanks, Adam. Jesusraz ( talk)
    • Personally, I find those two links to be noteworthy because of the way that the refer to the site, indicating some sort of respectability, but more sources that cover and discuss it specifically are nevertheless required (see WP:WEB). Since the site is in its early days it is just natural that not many will exist, but your mileage may vary - frankie ( talk) 21:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The problem with both of those is that they are just mentions or references to things which have appeared on it. So they don't really show people are interested in cubed, they show they are interested in subject which cubed has covered, if you can see the difference. What's needed are source about cubed itself, actually be "discussing" cubed directly and in some level of detail. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 21:51, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Would Cubed3 being involved in the idea process of a game's development count? Here's something actually on Wikipedia already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pang%3A_Magical_Michael It was a case of a Japanese developer approaching Cubed3/Cubed³ for opinions on a new game, then incorporating those ideas into the final game. Personally I feel that's quite a massive achievement, and something not many other websites can claim to have been involved with, but if you need something else from me, please let me know. I'll try to dig out more if I can. I appreciate your patience, since you must get so many requests like this all the time! Jesusraz ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC). reply
      • I found another link verifying the Cubed3 link with the idea of PANG: Magical Michael by Japanese developer Mitchell Corporation, and how the CEO actually contacted Cubed3: http://gonintendo.com/?p=132778 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jesusraz ( talk • contribs) 22:16, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Again that isn't covering cubed directly and in any level of detail it's passing mentions. Read the guidelines, you'll find they try and make notability more objective than subjective, so tend to require parties outside wikipedia editors like you and me determining that the subject is important and that is normally demonstrated by those parties (specifically parties which are reliable on such matters) deciding to provide coverage directly about the subject. As such the guidelines won't include very specific things like this. Though I'd read what DGG says below for a slightly different take on this. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 06:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• The usual argument for cases like this is that if reliable sources covering the industry refer to cubed's articles as good source material, then cubed is notable. I suppose this does follow from the spirit of WP:GNG, if not the letter. I think we've sometimes accepted such arguments if there are more than occasional mentions--it's well established that being used once as a source does not establish notability. Myself, I'm uncertain of actual notability, but I think there's enough above to justify re-creation and another AfD. The AfD is the better place for the argument. DGG ( talk ) 23:36, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I appreciate the consideration. I do not have the original Wikipedia page template for Cubed³ / Cubed3, but I can change the structure of it and include all information you feel relevant. Does the page need to be created again from scratch and then checked by yourselves, or will the original be re-instated so that it can be edited accordingly? Jesusraz ( talk) 10:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • What we often do in this situation is to restore the page as a subpage in your user space so you can fix it up, and then ask any of the regulars here or any admin or for that matter experienced user to check it and move it back into article space if its OK. DGG ( talk ) 03:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That would be fantastic. Thank you very much! Will I receive some sort of email notification, or should I just keep checking back here? Jesusraz ( talk) 08:43, 12 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Extremely sorry to be a bother, but I was wondering if the response from DGG was going to be followed up on. Will it be possible to restore the old Cubed³ page so that I can edit it so that moderators/admin/etc here can check it? If not, would someone please give me the permission to start a new page from scratch using information and data that hopefully justifies the notability of the website and gives sufficient reasoning for a page to exist here on Wikipedia, rather than it coming across as an advertisement? Many thanks for your time, Adam. Jesusraz ( talk) 11:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted for now but userfy to User:Jesusraz/Cubed³. The sources provided above are, as 82.19.4.7 notes, merely passing mentions. The general notability guideline requires "significant coverage" in multiple reliable sources. A userfication will give Jesusraz the opportunity to find reliable sources and bring the userspace draft up to Wikipedia's verifiability and notability standards. Jesusraz, when you have finished working on the article, please bring it back to DRV or contact an established editor to review it. Cunard ( talk) 19:03, 17 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you for this, Cunard. Whenever this gets transferred to my userspace I will start to edit as required. As DGG stated, if I can show that the information that Cubed3/Cubed³ provides is sourced on a variety of other notable places, then hopefully the admin and editors here will consider keeping the page. Jesusraz ( talk) 12:49, 18 August 2011 (UTC) reply

KENI ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe I'm looking for a history-only undeletion, but correct me if I'm wrong. This page was marked for SD due to promotional spam, deleted, then recreated in a typical radio station stub format without the spam. It's my opinion that the end result could have been achieved without SD. More important to me, however; I responded to a talk page request for information of the radio station's history and provided a rather extensive outline of the station's history, only to see it deleted about an hour or two later by User:Reaper Eternal. As I read this user's talk page prior to leaving notice, I saw indications that the user has a habit of deleting pages marked as SD without first checking the talk page to see if any other users are doing anything or not. I left a message, and the reply showed unconcern that content useful to the article was deleted out of hand. The reason this is important to me should be simple: no, I do not have the time to rewrite all of what I wrote just because someone chose to ignore it before deleting it. BTW, useful references and file links were also found in the old article and are not in the new article. RadioKAOS ( talk) 03:53, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

• Could we see the history in question, please.— S Marshall T/ C 07:19, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Done. The new page is now at KENI/new. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 12:57, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• "As I read this user's talk page prior to leaving notice, I saw indications that the user has a habit of deleting pages marked as SD without first checking the talk page to see if any other users are doing anything or not." Where?
• You claimed to provide a large history of the station, but it was solely from your memory, which is not a reliable source. Additionally, nothing was done to address the problem of the spam. Finally, the tagger himself recreated the article in a non-promotional fashion. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 13:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Just a comment. Yes, what I posted was all from memory; that's why it was posted to the talk page and not to the article itself. AFAIK, that's what the talk page is for, to foster collaboration. Anything else amounts to you looking at me as if all the work involved is solely my responsibility. My livelihood is pretty far removed from this, and I like to eat and have a roof over my head. If I didn't have to worry about that, I would probably have plenty of time to do actual work on articles rather than take a shortcut by offering suggestions to others who may be interested. RadioKAOS ( talk) 17:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
• I see spam-free versions in the article history that could have been restored. Reaper Eternal, why did you reject this option?— S Marshall T/ C 14:47, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Because for some reason I looked at the history (before the DRV tag) and thought that 69.178.1.4 ( talk · contribs) had created the article. I should have reverted to this version before the spam (and probable copyvio) was added. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 15:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Would you accept that in the circumstances, the history should, at least selectively, be restored?— S Marshall T/ C 16:10, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
    • ( edit conflict) I have no problem restoring the history of the old article under the new, if that is the request here. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:11, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I would think that once that's done, there would be no obstacle to this review being speedily closed.— S Marshall T/ C 16:24, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
        • I've merged them. Reaper Eternal ( talk) 16:48, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Thank you very much. I move for speedy closure.— S Marshall T/ C 21:17, 10 August 2011 (UTC) reply

2011 London riots ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Apparently you cannot 'Afd' a page linked-to from Wikipedia's homepage. I'm not sure about that, but I'm following the closing admin's advice and going here instead ( this was the original Article for deletion). Is it right that we should have this breaking-news page "because people expect it"? I find it truly frightening that over 54,000 people have already gone to Wikipedia for breaking news. Wikipedia is not a professional news agency. There is an argument around that the media in general is fanning the flames, and the troubles have apparently spread as far as Toxteth in Liverpool now (ie as well as London and Birmingham). It is Wikipedia incidentally that has christened this the "2011 London riots". Isn't that WP:Original Research? And isn't Wikipedia (or wasn't it perhaps I should say) supposed to be an encyclopedia? Most criticism of the media isn't heavily reported in the media, which is something of a weak spot for Wikipedia at all times - but here Wikipedia is acting like it is News Central for the whole English speaking world - entirely based on recycled sources put together by anonymous amateurs. This is surely not what Wikipedia was originally supposed to be about. Also (importantly) I felt that the Speedy Keep of my Deletion Proposal was a deliberate attempt to stifle reader-seen debate on closing the article. I'm still getting pressure to shut up as I write. What is wrong with a 'delete template' being on top of the page? Does it look unprofessional to all those 54,000 readers? WP IS NOT A PROFESSIONAL NEWS OUTLET. I've not "abused" anything - Article For Deletion was the appropriate place to go. Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC) Matt Lewis ( talk) 02:25, 9 August 2011 (UTC) reply