Gay Nigger Association of America ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

More than six months have passed since the most recent deletion discussion of this article. The speedy keep close negates the possibility that consensus can change. If six months isn't long enough, then how long until the community can again discuss deletion of an explicitly racist self-referential article about a group of self-admitted trolls? Moreover, the assertion that no policy rationale was presented is incorrect: there was no refutation of the fact that the article does not improve the encyclopedia in any way and no refutation of the fact that the article harms the encyclopedia by bringing the project, editors, and Foundation officials into disrepute, risking funding and credibility. Therefore, the deletion rationale citing the WP:IAR policy was correct. Moreover, WP:DENY is an additional sufficient rationale which the extraordinarily speedy keep did not allow me to raise in reply to the assertion that the initial rationale was insufficient. That is the epitome of an out of process close. Selery ( talk) 16:24, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment The correct venue for this is AFD. You need to withdraw this and follow the listing instructions at WP:AFD. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:28, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (22nd nomination) was closed just now as a speedy keep after only 25 minutes. Selery ( talk) 16:30, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The nominator did. They presented no rationale for deletion and I speedy closed it. This DRV is in response to my close a half hour ago. Had the nominator approached me on my talk page, I would've pointed out we are in a fundring drive right now and this article has not been specifically brought up as hurting it by the foundation. Also, it brings Wikipedia more into disrepute to self-censor things we don't like. Nominator brought nothing new to the countless previous WP:AFD and WP:DRVs on the subject.--v/r - T P 16:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

On the contrary, the rationale was clear and correct at AFD. I did not think it would be productive to discuss the close because you cited WP:CCC while preventing the possibility of even learning whether consensus has changed. In fact, you censored the deletion discussion because you did not like it. I have discussed this article with Foundation officials. What do you think they will say if they are asked about it during a wide audience appearance or media interview? Selery ( talk) 16:41, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Discussion has not been censored. It has been discussed.--v/r - T P 16:52, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

My questions stand: (1) How long until the community is allowed to discuss deletion of the article again? (2) What do you think Foundation officials will say about the article if asked in a public forum? Selery ( talk) 16:54, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

(1) When a new point is brought up that hasn't been discussed before, (2) They already have and their answer was it better be sourced.--v/r - T P 17:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If you limit discussion to only new points, then that means you prevent consensus from ever changing, even though you cited the policy to the contrary. Do you have any objections to my using your name and affiliations in a letter-writing campaign to news, professional, and academic organizations concerning this matter? Selery ( talk) 19:29, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If you intend to quote me in context, then feel free. Be sure you've read the disclaimer on my user page as well.--v/r - T P 19:32, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I have no way to know what context you feel is sufficient. If you prepare a statement in a day's time explaining why you believe you have not disgraced yourself, the project, and the uniform of the United States Air Force then I will include it with my correspondence. I think it is disgusting that you willingly seek to preclude the very policy you cited when closing the AFD, and I will make a point of explaining why in as wide and specific fora as I believe will be most effective in helping you to see the error of your ways. Selery ( talk) 19:45, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment: There have not been 22 bona fide deletion nominations. Many of the deletion nominations were created by GNAA trolls and subsequently closed per WP:DENY with some having been deleted. I selected the next number in sequence not shown on {{ GNAA History}}. Selery ( talk) 16:58, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Speedy Keep Close WP:DENY does not pertain to articles, a subject which i've brought up on the talk page of that before. In trying to use DENY on an article, you are directly and deliberately violating WP:NPOV. TO be neutral in terms of our coverage, we do not apply things like DENY to anything but editors and only very, very rarely do we apply WP:IAR. In fact, so rarely that I don't remember a single discussion where it was invoked in terms of an article deletion and was upheld. Nothing in this nomination or in the AfD nomination announced anything policy based in terms of deletion. The article has clearly shown its notability through various sources and the community already held it to a far higher standard than we should have otherwise due to the nature of the subject. The subject itself eventually passed even those high standards, so I see absolutely no reason for it to be deleted and you present no coherent deletion-based rationale for doing so. Silver seren ^C 17:00, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The nomination was based upon WP:IAR and, per WP:SAUCE, that cuts both ways so one should not complain about procedural niceties when not following them oneself. The topic seems to have been at AFD often enough and WP:DEL states "... It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hopes of getting a different outcome...Renominations that lack new arguments or new evidence are likely to be closed quickly." Warden ( talk) 23:09, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• NB yes I have just blocked Selery 48hrs for his last comment to TP. This is unrelated to his views on the deletion of this article - he is entitled to his opinions on that. I would have blocked him for that comment in any context, it is simply an outrageous personal attack. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 01:46, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• I think we should take no action for now but I would ask the closer to make a statement that a policy-citing nomination will be permitted a full discussion. Our policy has always been, to paraphrase Jimmy Wales, that people with a beef should be heard. In accordance with that, we simply must accept that, whether it exists or not, this article is going to be debated every six months or so. There's nothing disruptive about having that debate once again; it may be repetitive, but it is important to the way we do things. Chick Bowen 04:09, 1 January 2012 (UTC)] reply

Unless there is a change in policy to endorse the deletion of content because people find it offensive, following this process would cause the time of experienced contributors to continue to be wasted on rebutting arguments that have been and still are invalid. There is simply no point in a 'debate', which would at best involve someone copy and pasting the valid arguments from previous deletion discussions into the new discussion.

What's next, mediation after this fails? Where does the waste stop? Nevard ( talk) 12:52, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (reopen the speedy close). That was an unacceptable speedy close. The nomination was not unreasonable. Wikipedia:Speedy keep is not for contestable use; this use smacks of admin domination over process. Let the discussion run its course. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the outcome though it may have been dealt with better. The arguments presented at the AFD have well known consensus that we don't delete article for such reasons, as such the best you could do with them is apply the idea that consensus can change. I dislike bare consensus has changed arguments at DRV, where there is no supporting evidence to show it has changed, and I can see no reason why we should entertain the same at AFD. That said the history of this article is obviously long and the latest discussion being an overturn at DRV could perhaps at some point be reevaluated by the community, it'll just need some real arguments rather than indignation and hysteria (which of course does more to feed the trolls than it does to resolve the issue). -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 13:36, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Jeez, enough wit this shit already, it has been discussed so many times it is nauseating to see it come up again and again and again. The group exists, reliable sources discuss its existence, notability confirmed, the article is here for good. Deal with it. Tarc ( talk) 15:37, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - as it reeks of per administator domination over the deletion process. Flutter shy !xmcuvg2MH 01:15, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Per WP:SK #1, the nominator of the AfD (and this DRV) did not advance a policy based reasoning for deletion. WP:IAR in not applicable for deletion of an article (or people would do that for everything). Other than that, everything else in the nominator's argument had to do with emotional based reasoning, none of which is a deletion argument, so the AfD was correctly closed under Speedy Keep guidelines. Silver seren ^C 01:57, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• WP:SK#1 does not include the words "policy based". You are by implication paraphrasing falsely and you should not. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• I'd say it qualifies under SK#2, sub-part 2 and 5. "Offensive to blacks" is not only an absurd deletion rationale, it isn't even true. The use of "nigger" doesn't make what one is saying automatically offensive, just ask Dr. Dre or Ice Cube, or look at where the group's name came from. It was a dumb nomination all around, and rightly closed IMO as disruptive. Tarc ( talk) 05:35, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• SK#2/2 - That seems an assumption of bad faith on the nominator. You may be right, but I don't see it. SK#2/5 - Arguably, the nominator should have read previous AfDs and hasn't, but I wouldn't criticise anyone for that. I gave up before getting very far. They are many and not well organised or well labelled. In either case, the closer didn't cite specific SK criteria, and "fails to present a rationale for deletion" is not a reasonable criticism to me. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:26, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Is there a level of inane nonsense that you consider worthy of a speedy close? Is it simply necessary to open a deletion discussion with the reason 'I like fluffy bunnies and unicorns'? Must one provide a 'reason' at all? Nevard ( talk) 11:50, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• "Offensive … does nothing to improve the encyclopedia, is a self-reference … it brings Foundation officials, editors, and projects into disrepute…" is not inane nonsense. "I like fluffy bunnies and unicorns" as a nomination fits WP:SK#1 "fails to advance an argument for deletion". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:51, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Oh, ok. So ' Wikipedia:IDONTLIKEIT' is fine? Nevard ( talk) 13:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• IDONTLIKEIT nominations should be answered, not summarily closed by an administrator who knows better than the relative newcomer. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:25, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Endorse since the nomination didn't give a reason to delete the article which is in any way based on any policy or guideline. A deletion discussion with a nomination based on some policy or guideline would be acceptable since the article hasn't been through AfD since 2006. While the DRV discussion which restored the article did advise against quickly sending it back to AfD that discussion took place nearly a year ago. Hut 8.5 16:13, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Comment

Thank you Tim for reverting the procedural close, which was done on the basis of the nominator making personal attacks.

I don’t know if this is going to proceed much further. It is an unusual DRV, essentially reviewing a Speedy Keep, with no actual deletion in question. I think this is important because for a (what I assume) good faith nomination by someone not involved in the previous many discussions to be quickly speedy kept is a chilling thing to happen. If admins are allowed to arbitrarily speedy keep AfDs, then this elevates the administrator to ruler of the process. In the AfD, I don’t think any Speedy Keep criteria were met, and so the discussion should have been allowed to take its course.

The likelihood of any outcome of the AfD if continued is entirely beside the point.

A number of the other participants here have introduced arguments well suited to an AfD, and not well directed to DRV. If this means anything, it may be that there is a need for an AfD, even if the result is a SNOW keep. Note that the last AfD was very long ago.

The question is: Was the close (‘’’Speedy Keep’’’) of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gay Nigger Association of America (22nd nomination) proper? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

If I may quote from a meme that the GNAA is fond of, "not a single fuck was given this day". We don't need to go through an AfD when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. This is one of the infrequent time where WP:IAR is fitting, so please, let's just let it like. The article exists, is supported by acceptable sources, no doubt they are tickled pink that the phrase "Gay Nigger" now appears in the wikipedia. To attempt to be spiteful in return and delete the article (this essentially the gist of Selery's argument) is just lame. Let it go, move on. Tarc ( talk) 04:23, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Evidence  From WP:IAR, "This page documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow."  Unscintillating ( talk) 04:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• What exactly is your statement supposed to mean? Yes, it's a policy and one that the community has stated time and again should only be used in the most dire of circumstances, because otherwise it will be abused, like it is here. Trying to use WP:IAR to delete article content flies in the face of the purpose of the encyclopedia and is besmirching the entire point of the IAR policy. If you cannot successfully convince the community using policy other than IAR, then that means that there is no support for the use of IAR in that circumstance the first place, which is why it is so rarely used. Using it in a situation such as this means that there is no real reason based in any other policy for why some action should be undertaken. This right away shows that the action in question is against community standards. Silver seren ^C 10:16, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• At DRV our main role is to see that the deletion process is correctly followed, and I think that's what we should do here. I know there are users who think it's reasonable for administrators to control what we can and can't have a deletion discussion about, but I'm afraid FairProcess trumps that. I think that in the absence of any overriding or pressing reason to close the AfD, the least harmful course is to let the discussion continue for its normal length before assessing the result in the normal way and reaching the conclusion. The fact that it's an obvious "no consensus" doesn't make it fair and reasonable to terminate discussion prematurely. Overturn and list at AfD, and we should stipulate a full seven day discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 12:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per SmokeyJoe. This isn't a speedy keep case and IAR is rarely a good thing to invoke when cutting off a discussion. The discussion just goes someplace else. Hobit ( talk) 14:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Send it to AfD: Speedy keep improperly envoked and enough time has passed to justify another discussion Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 06:14, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse  The evidence from the AfD is that Elen of the Roads stated, "nomination does not cite any wikipedia policy".  It is true that the nomination does not state, "WP:IAR is a policy."  The evidence is that the closing states, "fails to present a rationale for deletion."  It is true that the nomination does not state, "This is the rationale for deletion:".  Rather than debate about whether or not the nomination should have been explicit in these statements, a valid response is to correct these perceived deficiencies in the nomination and resubmit at the nominator's convenience, as a Speedy keep is not by itself a bar to an immediate renomination.  Unscintillating ( talk) 18:23, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse  first off, just because you think that the page is offensive does not mean it should be deleted that would be censorship. Two, just because you think that the quote article does nothing to improve the encyclopedia un quote doesn't mean that it should be deleted. That isn't a valid reason for deletion, and effectively amounts to I don't like it. We didn't give in to the mohammed cartoon issue, and so too will we not give in to this. 24.2.203.107 ( talk) 18:36, 7 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Leaving aside the question of whether there might be a more policy based reason to delete the page, this nomination did not present one, and was properly closed for failing to state a ground. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 00:51, 8 January 2012 (UTC) reply

User:Porchcorpter/Ban proposal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Okay. Let me say the following. The MFD was only about the copy of the ban proposal and rebuttals to the !voters' comments.

The content that got speedily deleted per G4 does not meet G4 for the following reasons:

1. The MFD was not about that content
2. The MFD ended as "delete per user request", makes it further and more vague for G4 deletion
3. The contributors in the MFD had stated to link to the ban proposal via the archive, which the content that got speedily deleted per G4 is. ("If you want to see this problematic ban proposal, click here.")
4. There are no personal attacks, and no comments on contributors. The main point of Wikipedia rules.
5. Three of the MFD participants who !voted keep made good points regarding their keep !votes

( Would you mind signing my guestbook?) - Porch corpter ( talk/ contribs) 03:07, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

re: #2: Consensus was clearly there to delete regardless of your intentions to thwart the process.

re: #3: An editor suggested to Porchcorpter that instead of linking to the subpage in conversation (the alleged reason for the creation of the subpage), which included the successful ban proposal, he could link to the archive thread.

All of this is an attempt by Porchcorpter to game the system and declare his displeasure with a ban that was proposed over nine months ago. As a "troubled Wikipedian" (Porchcorpter's words), my suggestion for him is to drop the stick already and move on to more constructive ventures. Eagles  24/7  (C) 03:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Why don't you copy the entire subpage over here, too, while you're at it? Eagles  24/7  (C) 03:35, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

re: #4: Right, because calling the !voters at the MfD "troubled Wikipedians" is not a personal attack. Eagles  24/7  (C) 03:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted, add WP:SALT and another topic ban This recreation characterizing me, among others, as "troubled", is of course a base personal attack apparently made out of bitterness that his page was found to be something inappropriate for this project. The MFD was only closed the way it was because he saw the writing ont he wall and blanked the page, there is an obvious consensus to delete the page in that discussion. Porch's reasons for making this infantile, piontless yet WP:POINTy recreation of a page that was deleted by consensus are not relevant. I am halfway inclined to propose a full site ban of this user as they have demonstrated again and again that they do not respect consensus when that consensus relates to their actions, and no amount of advice or guidance, including a formal mentorship program, has had the desired effect. Keep the page deleted, salt it if needed, and topic ban him again this time from creating any content whatsoever, broadly construed, related to the previous topic ban. Or kick him out entirely. Don't care which. This user has been nothing but trouble for years. Enough is enough. Beeblebrox ( talk) 04:49, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

  DRV is NOT the place to discuss about another user. And name-calling an individual only is a personal attack. Go ahead and start a community ban on me now. ( Would you mind signing my guestbook?) - Porch corpter ( talk/ contribs) 05:11, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Your opening of an ANI thread about your decision to refactor and edit war here have made a very nice case to do just that. I'm tempted to ask where you see name-calling in my remarks, but somehow I doubt you will be able to produce anything resembling a logical response to that query since it is so manifestly wrong, so we'll skip that detail for now. Beeblebrox ( talk) 06:02, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Porchcorpter is right, about something, not sure what, but give him that. Keep deleted, but email the content to him. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

  No need, he's already saved everything on his computer, apparently: [1]. Eagles  24/7  (C) 07:30, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Email anyway, as often as he likes, but retrospectively close the MfD as DELETE. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Delete. The original MfD was very likely to end up with "Delete", but Porchcorpter preempted that by agreeing to tag it U1. It appears that was just a ruse, as he then recreated it once the dust had settled. It's just a bit of polemic anyway, and part of his insistence on still trying to refute everyone who supported his topic ban from ages ago, and is just one more example of his trying to whitewash everything negative from his past and blame everyone else -- Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 11:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Syaffarizal Mursalin Agri ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Now sourced as having played in a fully professional league - see User talk:TerriersFan#Farri Agri. Undelete. TerriersFan ( talk) 21:54, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• His only claim for notability is playing for 9 minutes in the Qatari top league. Although he may (barely) pass WP:NFOOTY, I cannot see how he is more notable than before. So, using common sense, I say keep it deleted. – Kosm 1 fent 11:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, including season 2009-10, he has had five appearances. Indeed, if the earlier season appearances had been found at the time of the AfD, it would not have been deleted. TerriersFan ( talk) 18:29, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Per TerriersFan, undelete. – Kosm 1 fent 08:45, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• undelete he passes WP:ATHLETE as far as I can tell. DRV isn't a place to make policy. I think an RfC on our sports notability guidelines might be a good idea though. Hobit ( talk) 17:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

yes it would be a good idea to change this, but what re the odds of a rfc doing so? DGG ( talk ) 23:38, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Not much, I'm afraid. Opinion is divided on this matter, with some favouring the general notability guideline and others (including myself) favouring the pro league approach for determining notability of sportsmen/women. ~~ Bettia ~~  ^talk 10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Restore article. The source provided on Terrier's talk page shows that the subject has played in a fully professional league and therefore satisfies WP:NFOOTY. ~~ Bettia ~~  ^talk 10:02, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. WP:NFOOTY is not policy and is not absolute. The relevant section says "Players who have appeared, and managers who have managed, in a fully professional league, will generally be regarded as notable." "Generally" ≠ "always". If the subject only weakly meets the WP:NFOOTY guideline, and if examination of the subject's notability on more general grounds (see WP:GNG) fails to find notability--as was the consensus in this AfD per the closing admin--isn't that the sort of exception that NFOOTY allows for? If not, then what sort of exception is allowed? -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 22:57, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• There's no disputing the consensus and deletion, but the evidence showing he has played at a notable level came to light after the AfD, hence this DRV. ~~ Bettia ~~  ^talk 21:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Given, on this new evidence, how weakly the subject scrapes by on the NFOOTY guideline, if DRV does restore this article, is there any objection to it being immediately renominated for AfD? -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 23:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• You could do, although there does seem to be a number of Indonesian sources covering him in detail such as this. Although I haven't looked into this fully, I believe there would be enough of these to satisfy the GNG. ~~ Bettia ~~  ^talk 11:40, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• You could nominate it for AfD, but since he passes WP:NFOOTY, it would be highly unlikely to be successful. I had doubts myself, since one professional league appearance does not seem enough, but 6 feels like an adequate number. – Kosm 1 fent 11:29, 4 January 2012 (UTC) reply

María Viramontes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was part of a mass nomination of city councilors nominated for deletion by a single user. All the articles were tagged with rescue and all have been kept but this one. It it my strongly held belief that since it took a while to find sources for each article this article was deleted prematurely. Also it was not taken into account that most delete votes were based on the stub state of the article before its massive overhaul. The result of the debate should clearly have been keep per the sources or per the "votes" it should have been no consensus. At the very least it should have been relisted for further comment. Do these reliable independent non-trivial references establish notability?  If not, why not?  Please cite guidelines or policies in your response. Because I believe this article does. And based on the fact that this is the city council of a major city of over 100,000 people in major media market (the San Francisco Bay Area) it would be very foreseeable that even more sources could be found, as they have been for every other member. This particular council routinely gets coverage outside of the area, even in Beaufort, New York, LA, and Havana. It's not your typical city council. I also think there was a strong failure of considering a merge to the article about the council itself as the council itself is considered irrefutably notable. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 10:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Sources

Many more sources found here. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 03:41, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

My attempt to dialogue directly with the closing editor

Splintering of the dialogue;;

Comments

• That was a multiple nomination, not really a mass nomination. Compared to the average admin, Jayjg is definitely drawn to the deletionist side of the force, but I think it's a bit harsh to censure him for closing that debate in that way, considering that there really was a consensus to delete. However, that debate was defective. All of the delete !votes were 100% based on a lack of notability and no other argument for deletion was advanced. However, a lack of notability is no obstacle to a merge. Therefore per WP:ATD the merge option should have been considered and it wasn't.

  The minimum-drama route to a policy-compliant outcome will be to endorse Jayjg's close because it accurately reflected the consensus but userfy the deleted article to Luciferwildcat thereby giving him the opportunity to implement a merge to the council article so that we can comply with policy.— S Marshall T/ C 11:50, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

What's the difference there? I don't mean to censure him, I just found it odd that every other counselor was considered of note in a "multiple nomination" and this woman was deleted when her notability is stronger than that of the others. My main point is that most of the delete votes were based on the article when it did not have any sources included at all. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That's not true per se. Two of them were closed as no consensus, and all had multiple editors believe they should be deleted, even after "references" were added Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 00:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

WP:GNG states, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources. Multiple sources are generally expected."  Do the nine sources listed above by themselves satisfy the WP:GNG?  If not, how many more sources are needed?  (Or, if you don't want to answer, do you agree that this is an appropriate RfC question?)  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC)  P.S. I am not asking if these sources cause the article to pass WP:N, that is a different question, I am specifically asking about the WP:GNG guideline.  Unscintillating ( talk) 17:53, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment I think it should almost be a law of wikipedia that the more bytes you kill making a point, the less value the argument put forward has. A couple of questions. Firstly, are these new sources or where they in the article during the AFD? Secondly, do any of these actually meet the GNG in terms if independant, detailed reliable secondary sources. One final point to Uncintilating, it doesn't matter how many sources you have if they are crap. Two good ones are enough for it to be kept. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Well there are many sources indeed, how many more would be needed? Also the votes were made way before these sources were incorporated so yes new sources, some were present right before deletion, but after people voted. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 21:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If you read my comment carefully you will already see that its quality that counts not quantity. Please can you identify from the sources you have found after the AFD, which are the two or three best ones that meet the GNG most closely? That is, reliable, secondary, independent and covering the subject in detail. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 03:09, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

First of all, I am disappointed that you would bring a four-letter term for excrement into this discussion; and then use the word "point", my name, and the excrement term in the same sentence.  As per WP:GNG, "The number and nature of reliable sources needed varies depending on the depth of coverage and quality of the sources."  "The number...varies..." does not limit us to two or three, just the opposite, more is more wp:notability.  The closing admin has already listed the first one as having an extra measure of wp:notability, so I suggest that you take the next three and see if they add up to one "good" one.  If those three aren't enough, then add the next one, and so on.  Thanks, Unscintillating ( talk) 06:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

You have an astonishing grasp of policy, You cannot agregate poor source into a good one. Either there are adequate sources or not. Lots of poor sourcing is just that poor sourcing that doesn't count. Since there clearly aren't good sources or you would have brought them further I see no point relisting this discussion so endorse Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion: The article fails ANYBIO and POLITICIAN. Lucifer's reasoning is flawed; this seems to be little more than a request for a re-vote by those who were unhappy with the first outcome Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 16:00, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Purplebackpack89 was the AfD nominator.

  Purplebackpack89, do you understand the argument for a merge and the reason why neither ANYBIO nor POLITICIAN are obstacles to the merger?— S Marshall T/ C 16:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Of course I do. I still think it should be deleted, not merged. The person who started this DRV thread is asking for all content to be restored/kept in the article it was before, not to be merged, and thus I am saying it shouldn't be restored (Note also that the nominator took swipes at me in his DRV header) Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 20:28, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I believe the wrong call was made and that there was no consensus further I do also believe that at the very least the content should be restored to merge into the city council article so that it may incubate there. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 23:52, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• And now that we've heard what you both believe, could we get back to policy-based outcomes? Would either of you care to address the bit where I said "neither ANYBIO nor POLITICIAN are obstacles to the merger"? What the AFD decided was that the subject is not notable. But none of the delete !votes addressed anything other than notability, and there are more ways of dealing with non-notable things than simple deletion.— S Marshall T/ C 01:45, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• An assertion of failing WP:ANYBIO and WP:POLITICIAN has no standing if the topic meets WP:GNG—as per WP:Notability (people), "A person who fails to meet these additional criteria may still be notable under Wikipedia:Notability."  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was no consensus to delete. The way the close was phrased indicated a bias towards the deletion argument "...but this was not enough to sway those advocating for deletion". This was contrary to WP:DGFA, "When in doubt, don't delete." as we do not require unanimity to establish reasonable doubt. Warden ( talk) 22:02, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - "I disagree with the closer" is not a valid DRV concern. No wrongdoing noted, no unreasonable finding by the closing admin. Tarc ( talk) 22:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment I don't disagree with the closer, I disagree that his rationale sufficiently considered a merger, or the fact that the votes were largely made before the rescue cleaned up the article. I believe it was treated more like a vote than a consensus no consensus finding and there was no consensus. If that clears up my intentions here. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 23:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Who in the afd suggested a merge? How can an admin claim to close a discussion as a consensus to merge when nobody even brought it up? The requirements we place on admin candidates are pretty stringent, yes, but we don't (yet) demand that they be telepaths. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 01:43, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • In fact, admins are supposed to be sufficiently knowledgeable about guidelines that an outcome can be mandated even if no one is arguing for it. Administrators are not supposed to ignore policy-based outcomes (e.g., per WP:ATD) just because no one brought up the possibility. Jclemens ( talk) 08:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • In fairness to Jayjg, if he had closed that discussion as "merge" despite the absence of any merge votes, and then been taken to DRV, editors would legitimately describe the close as a supervote.— S Marshall T/ C 13:11, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As Tarc states, this is a matter of simple disagreement. Closing admin did not abuse discretion here. Neutrality ^talk 00:00, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• restore and merge if a good merge topic can be agreed to. Ideally the idea of a merge would have occurred to someone during the discussion. It apparently didn't. As such, the closer really didn't have it as an option (though could have !voted and proposed it instead of closing if they had thought of it). Should DRV overturn a close because the discussion is flawed? Sure, why not. Does anyone actually object to a merge at this point (assuming we can agree on a merge target)? If so, can they give a policy-based reason for why? Hobit ( talk) 05:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• well, if the content wasn't sourced it was essentially OR and we don't merge that. Maybe the content is already adequately covered elsewhere. Arguing to restore and merge is rather cart before the horse if we don't know what the target should be and the state of the article at the time of deletion. If noone suggested a merge maybe the AFD participants didn't consider one was appropriate. At the very most I'd consider a relist to consider a merge but right now I'm still inclined to endorse as I can't see the closing admin had an alternative. I'm also seriously considering proposing an interaction ban for Luciferwildcat and Purplebackpack as they clearly cannot work on the same page without getting into a fight so they should both consider themselves warned to be on their best behaviour here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I'd argue that these three sources [2], [3], [4] provide enough material to be able to avoid OR. Heck, they arguably raise to the level of WP:N, though IMO that ship has sailed. [5] is clearly partisan op-ed, but it too could be used carefully. The other sources listed above give us plenty of facts to work with. Hobit ( talk) 17:28, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • A merge, means that some material from the to-be-deleted article will be worked into the target article, i.e. Richmond City Council (Richmond, California), yes? If so, what? We're not going to have short bios of council members there, that'd be ridiculous for a state-level position. How many of these people pass in and out of the board membership every few years? Tarc ( talk) 14:17, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • I'm thinking perhaps take all those other folks who got kept and merge them into a (list?) article on the council over a certain time period. A bit unwieldy, but I think it would work. Hobit ( talk) 17:42, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as I don't think the closing admin could reasonably have closed it any other way. If the articles on council members had been considered in a single AfD then the result of the discussion would likely have been that the articles should be considered separately on their own merits, which is what happened in this case. Separate AfDs can come to different conclusions and there's nothing wrong with that. Regarding the sources there was general agreement at the AfD that the coverage was routine or trivial, a view which is reasonable. WP:ATD does not mandate that AfDs consider the possibility of a merge, and closing a discussion as endorsing a merge when the possibility was not even mentioned is extremely problematic at best. Furthermore there is no obvious merge target. Hut 8.5 17:51, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

For the record, they were originally nominated as one, and the result of the discussion was indeed that they. So I withdrew the mass nomination and nominated them separately. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 14:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- No reasonable admin could have closed this any other way. The delete side made their points thoughtfully and provided evidence for their arguments; the keep side attacked the nominator and stated their opinion without backing it up with anything. There seems to be this notion that just saying "nuh-uh, you're disruptive" in response to a nomination entitles you to get a "no consensus" at least, but that's rubbish. This was a good and correct close. Reyk _YO! 02:24, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, obvious consensus to delete. The keep arguments that actually addressed sourcing provided numerous sources, but they were reviewed and rebutted. I think that closing as merge with no support or even mention would have been a ridiculous supervote. Discussing a merger here is okay, but I don't see an appropriate target. Tarc pointed out problems with Richmond City Council (Richmond, California), and Hobit's proposal of a time period article seems excessive for a city council. I don't see anything that would justify that coverage in Richmond City Council (Richmond, California), Richmond, California#History, or Richmond, California#Politics. Flatscan ( talk) 05:32, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Sources are not rebutted by noting that some of them might be poor.  An assertion that the nine sources listed are insufficient would be problematic, since more suitable sources are available from a regional newspaper, the San Francisco Chronicle.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Your comment does not point out that the closer could have relisted the AfD and requested a merge discussion.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That would have been a nonstandard action – if consensus is evident, the closer should close in line with it. If the would-be closer disagrees with that consensus, he/she may write a dissenting comment and let the next potential closer decide to close, relist, or also comment. Flatscan ( talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

As per WP:BEFORE, the possibility of a merge should have been addressed during the nomination.  At related AfDs, editors have discussed merge targets, including List of councilmembers of the Richmond City Council.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

As I have written before, I think that failing to mention merging may weaken – but will only rarely invalidate – nominations and delete recommendations. Special:WhatLinksHere/List of councilmembers of the Richmond City Council returns only this DRV. I browsed through the related AfDs ( Special:WhatLinksHere/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jim Rogers (politician)), finding Irma Anderson, Richard Griffin (Councilmember), and Mindell Penn containing "merg". Excluding one rejection by Purplebackpack89 and one supporting comment by LuciferWildCat, the single user discussing merging is you. Flatscan ( talk) 05:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn  Wikipedia:Deletion guidelines for administrators states, "If an argument for deletion is that the page lacks sources, but an editor adds the missing references, said argument is no longer relevant."

  Regarding the closing statement:

  • The closing AfD statement incorrectly cites WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a keep argument, this comment was placed by the nominator.
  • The closing AfD statement incorrectly asserts that one of the delete !votes claimed that the sources were trivial, and this error is repeated during this DRV.
  • None of the other delete arguments listed; "routine", "local", and "outdated"; are relevant to this WP:GNG analysis; possibly to WP:POLITICIAN; but not to WP:GNG.  The final argument, the issue of citations to a different person, would only have been relevant if such had existed.

There was no consensus to delete:

• The closing admin did not use the word "consensus" in the closing.
• As analyzed above, the closing admin did not list any relevant delete arguments.
• The uncivil response at WT:Articles for deletion/María Viramontes to questions about WP:GNG is not the response of a consensus.
• None of the delete positions made an argument based on content policy as to why the material should be removed, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles..." (ref WP:N). This point is further covered in WP:FAILN, WP:ATD, and WP:PRESERVE.
  

Unscintillating ( talk) 22:10, 31 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Most of these considerations are either based on semantics or are irrelevant. It's true that the closing statement didn't use the word "consensus", but this is just irrelevant, and since all AfD closures are based on evaluating consensus there's no need to explicitly use the word. The closing admin did summarise deletion arguments (references to Viramontes were generally routine coverage of local affairs, trivial, outdated, or even to a different person) and the fact that he didn't explicitly quote the arguments in question doesn't say anything about the close's validity. One delete !voter (Yaksar) did say the sourcing was "bordering on trivial", and several others described the sources as trivial without using that word (there needs to be significant coverage...received minimal coverage...lacking in-depth coverage). One keep argument does boil down to OTHERSTUFFEXISTS: LuciferWildCat compared the subject to several rappers with articles. Notability does not affect article content, no, but nobody claimed that it did during the debate and notability does affect whether an article on a certain topic should exist. Likewise nobody claimed that the subject should be deleted because there were no references, and when more references were added the general view was that they did not cover the subject in enough detail to pass the notability guidelines. Hut 8.5 11:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Under WP:GNG, "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention...".  Trivial is a well-enough defined concept in notability.  The example is given of the reference to the high-school band The Three Blind Mice in a book about Clinton.  No editor has claimed that any of the sources being discussed are trivial, and no reasonable editor would claim so.  This is not the case of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, there are nine sources listed at the top of this DRV, and more reliable, secondary sources with non-trivial coverage are available from the archives of the San Francisco Chronicle, a regional newspaper.  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:31, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Can you show the page that defines trivial in the context of assessing notability? My understanding is that to a degree an AFD has a lot of lattitude to determine whether the sourcing is adequate rather then having a fixed metric to assess this. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:47, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Also, Unscintillating, I've gotta take issue with your use of civility. You're essentially equating disagreeing with you with incivility. You've done this with me and now you're doing it with Jay. The talk of the AfD page was clearly the inappropriate place to discuss the closure (and certainly the wrong place to source-dump), so it's not surprising you took flak for source-dumping there. Furthermore, your restoration argument is contingent on two things: a) A GHITS/SOURCESEARCH argument is perfectly valid, and b) an argument based on specific notability guidelines (ANYBIO, POLITICIAN). I just can't buy that. Purpleback pack 89≈≈≈≈ 01:21, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to non-consensus on the fairly simple basis that is what the results of the AfD actually was. The standards for city council members, are disputed. As a result , the debate usually hinges on the extent of coverage--there is always some coverage, the question is usually, as here, whether the coverage is substantial. "Substantial" is a matter which no admin can decide: it is a natter of evaluation and opinion, and only the community can do so. An admin can & should discard arguments not based on policy, but must follow the community on the question of the interpretation of the policy. The closer here used his own interpretation of the policy, but he had no right to do so. It happens that his opinion agrees totally with mine on the underlying issue--I am quite deletionist on city council members of all but the largest cities, and Redmond is not one of them. If I were closing, te fact that I think the article should be deleted would be irrelevant, and the same for the closer here. I would never ever close an ambiguous discussion on the basis on my own opinion on interpretation of the matter at issue--except possibly to declare the fact that there wasn't any consensus on it. This was a true supervote. The closer used hi own judgement of whether the sources were sufficient.He would have done better to have said so as one of the people in the argument. (btw, I didn't join in this one because I no longer argue in city council AfDs like this--the ambiguity is frustrating, and we need a proper guideline, not reliance on the GNG which, as here, is usually too ambiguous for a clean decision.) DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 2 January 2012 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per what seems like a consensus in the AfD. Too many of the AfD votes seemed to basically boil down to "the sources exist somewhere, go find them".-- Yaksar (let's chat) 23:44, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Gillian Andrassy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore) George Ho ( talk) 00:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)}} reply

At good faith in Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 October 15, I requested a review on the results of the debate. This page, therefore, was redirected to "List of All My Children miscellaneous characters", which was already deleted due to copyright infringements. This page was deleted as a redirect, as well. It would be nice to have it re-creaeted as a redirect to List of All My Children characters rather than recover; the previous revisions must have violated copyrights. George Ho ( talk) 20:28, 23 December 2011 (UTC) I wonder if pages created by users who violate block/ban policy may be recovered. -- George Ho ( talk) 20:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Allow redirect- seems reasonable to me. Reyk _YO! 23:08, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Ditto -seems like a reasonable move. Skier Dude ( talk) 23:39, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Can't restore page as the content was a copyvio, but nothing to stop George creating a new redirect page. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 00:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

International Communist Current ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Posting on behalf of User:The Lion of Lannister who accidentally created this page His rationale...

This page has been deleted because someone said the ICC is a sect which is not notable under wikipedia policy. However today the ICC is the biggest left communist organization internationally and pages of much smaller organizations exist as well as pages of certain sections of the ICC. It is indeed more notable than most similar political organizations, having been covered in a Daily Mail article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1331892/Tuition-fee-militants-picket-school-gates.html. The article should be up again.

Ron Ritzman ( talk) 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Two questions. #1 was this closed properly? I really don't think so. I see no consensus for deletion given that the keep !votes were fairly darn reasonable and the delete !votes didn't address anything they said. #2, should we have this article? I really think it should be merged somewhere, but our encyclopedia should certainly cover this. We aren't paper and we are supposed to cover things covered in other specialized encyclopedias. Editorially, given the lack of in-depth coverage, I don't think this should be a stand alone article. But as there are at least two encyclopedias/references that cover this topic (One in the AfD and [6]) I do think we should do at least as solid of a job as our paper counterparts. And this group does see limited news coverage. I think our bar with respect to groups like this is way too high. Hobit ( talk) 16:21, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Rewrite and optionally relist The organization might be notable, and I think we should extend especial tolerance in this regard to minor political and religious groups, because of the inevitable bias in judging. But the last version of the article is too much of an exposition of the groups general policies, most of which are extremely similar to similar groups, and too little about this group in particular. I'd pretty muchclassify it as a possible G11 candidate. I'd like to see us cover it, but with a better and clearer article. DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, DGG makes good points, but wikipedia allows for gradual growth, if there is notability then even a bad article is ok, because time will suck in a zealous editor at some point. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 11:11, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Undelete If this is deleted, then there should be a vast swathe of deletions of less notable organizations, from the entire political spectrum. I'm talking about dozens if not hundreds of articles. 64.222.222.9 ( talk) 21:04, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep it deleted. The International Communist Current is a sect. It is not notable at all under Wikipedia's policies, not specifically because it is a sect, but because so little has been written about it by reliable sources. There was, I think, a single source in the article independent of the ICC. "Might be notable" is not a reason for undeletion. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 22:48, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply

It is not true that the ICC is mentioned by a single reliable source though. The ICC is cited in a book by Christophe Bourseiller called "Histoire de l'Ultra-Gauche" ( http://www.amazon.fr/Histoire-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9rale-lultra-gauche-Christophe-Bourseiller/dp/2207251632/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1324298512&sr=1-2) The ICC and one of its founders, Marc Chirik are both cited in Philippe Bourrinet's book on the Dutch Left ( http://libcom.org/files/dutchleft.pdf) and this is a serious doctoral thesis. The ICC is also cited in Authier and Barrot's book on the German Communist Left (on Google Books: http://books.google.fr/books?id=ZUXOJCYPOwQC&q=courant+communiste+international&dq=courant+communiste+international&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=eTHvToHkO4-s8QPUvYiaCg&redir_esc=y) and as a reference in Simon Pirani's book on the Russian Revolution in retreat ( http://books.google.fr/books?id=czMWmnYbXFIC&pg=PA195&dq=%22international+communist+current%22+russian&hl=fr&sa=X&ei=yFPvTt3hJ4K2hAfEgsHJCA&sqi=2&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=%22international%20communist%20current%22%20russian&f=false) The ICC has also published books itself: The British Left, Communism, The Russian Left, which can all be referenced. Marc Chirik himself has a wikipedia page ( /info/en/?search=Marc_Chirik) which is much better referenced compared to the previous page on the ICC itself and it indeed points out to the fact that there is even a famous novel written about Marc Chirik. Whether the ICC is a sect or not is not something which can be decided upon by the comment of a single wikipedia user, especially coming from someone who self-identifies as an anti-communist - acting on this basis is against the principle of neutrality. -- The Lion of Lannister 22:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Many of those are not independent sources. Philippe Bourrinet's book was originally published by the International Communist Current itself, so it is not surprising that it mentions the ICC (the version The Lion of Lannister links to above is a different version, revised, and independent of the ICC; I'm not sure whether it was even properly published). Pirani's book isn't about the ICC, and any brief reference to it that it may make is hardly relevant. Likewise irrelevant are the facts that Marc Chirik has a Wikipedia article, and that I'm an anti-communist (which no more invalidates my judgments than your judgments would be invalidated if you declared on your user page that you're an ICC supporter - and note that that's purely a 'what if' scenario; I'm not suggesting that you are anything). Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 00:50, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

No, these actually are independent sources. It is true that Philippe Bourrinet's book was originally published by the ICC itself but the version linked is the new version, which was, again, published as an actual, academic doctoral thesis. Pirani's book obviously isn't about the ICC (because it is about the Russian Revolution) but it also is a very serious academic work and that there is a reference to the ICC in it means that the ICC is not, in any way, unnoticeable. The other sources which you didn't comment on also are sources completely independent from the ICC. Surely the notability of its most significant founder isn't irrelevant to the question of whether the ICC is relevant or not. And, of course, in a number of other wikipedia articles of greatly varying topics, articles by the ICC are used either as references or as external reading links. You being an anti-communist does invalidate your judgment when you make ad hominem comments about communist groups, such as claiming they are sects. -- The Lion of Lannister 11:40, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

For something to be notable, it has to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - brief, passing mentions in a book like Pirani's just don't count. The notability of Marc Chirik is indeed irrelevant to the notability of the ICC as an organization - if he is notable, he is notable, but that does not magically bestow notability on a group he was involved with. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 02:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I don't know why you keep insisting. You claimed that there was only a single mention of the ICC in different resources, this was why you initially argued that the ICC was not notable. Then, it was clearly demonstrated that there are, indeed, numerous other sources in the ICC, in numerous languages. Now, ignoring all of the other sources cites and the fact that the ICC website itself is used as a source for numerous wikipedia articles, and the fact that there has been a Daily Mail article about the ICC and so on and so on, you keep repeating that one of the sources (the Pirani book) doesn't count - so the organization is not notable. Claiming that for something to be notable, it has to have been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources - what does this mean, does it mean there has to be several books explicitly about a topic if it is to have a page? This means deleting more than half of the articles on wikipedia. It means deleting all the articles on all the sportsmen, authors, musicians, artists etc. who aren't top celebrities, deleting all the historical events and groups unless they were extremely major and so on. -- The Lion of Lannister 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

You appear to be unfamiliar with Wikipedia's policy regarding notability. Please see WP:NOTE, which states, among other things, "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or stand-alone list." Brief mentions in a book like Pirani's obviously aren't "significant coverage", so no, it doesn't count. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 20:20, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Furthermore, I never said there was only a single source anywhere discussing the ICC - only that there was a single source in the article independent of the ICC itself, which was true. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 20:22, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The close seemed to give insufficient attention to alternatives to deletion such as merger, which was suggested by more than one person in the discussion. This seems to be one of the numerous factions of splitters and so might best be merged into a more general article such as List of left-wing internationals. Warden ( talk) 22:32, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

It is not the closing administrator's job to read the minds of those involved in the deletion discussion, nor is it the closing admin's job to do another action in which the participants of said AFD had failed to discuss. -- MuZemike 00:39, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• TFD said "I would suggest however that merging the article would be more appropriate.". Sandstein said "...selectively merge into a list of similar groups or other parent article.". Q.E.D. Warden ( talk) 21:07, 27 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Does this mean merging the ICC with the Communist Bulletin Group. I am not sure how that will work. Last time the met there were very bitter accusations - inlcuding the theft of typewriters. I suppose if they merely share a wikipedia page, the worst that can happen is that they nick each others typos! Leutha ( talk) 13:44, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Also, it is an absurdity in itself that there is a CBG page while the ICC page has been deleted. The ICC is about fifty times bigger than the CBG ever was, so notability-wise, it doesn't make much sense. -- The Lion of Lannister 01:24, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The fact that the CBG has a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that it should have one. If the ICC is not notable, the CBG is even less so, so it should be deleted as well. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 02:07, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If the ICC is not notable, probably the majority of the leftist organizations which have pages on wikipedia are not notable actually. Sherlock Holmes Fan's deletionist policy, however, isn't a rule. -- The Lion of Lannister 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Perhaps there should be a merged page which includes the ICC, CBG and such groups as the Knights of the Negative who merged with the ICC in 1975 I believe? Leutha ( talk) 10:08, 3 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Undelete I strongly disagree with the reason given deletion given originally that the ICC are not notable because they are supposedly a 'sect' - what is that even supposed to mean? I gives the unfortunate impression of political motivated deletionism. The ICC are clearly a notable organisation for an encyclopedia, they are one of the main and longest standing left communist organisations, with distinctive political positions, and are actively involved in ultra-left politics in a number of countries. If the ICC are not notable why would there be entries in 8 non-English versions of Wikipedia, and why would for example the ICC sections in the US and Venezuela be notable? - pir ( talk) 18:55, 28 December 2011 (UTC) reply

You misunderstand the issue. The article was deleted not because the International Communist Current is a sect (although it is), but because it is not notable. Saying the ICC are "clearly notable" is simply making an irrelevant assertion; notability depends on what reliable sources have written about a subject, not on editors' ideas about how important something is. Moreover, the fact that the two Internationalism groups have Wikipedia articles does not make them notable - editors create articles on non-notable topics all the time, and often they remain in Wikipedia because no one can be bothered nominating them for deletion. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 02:11, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks, but I understand the issue. My point is that the original VfD should be regarded as invalid, because the initiator of the VfD framed the discussion by stating that the ICC are 'a sect' (btw., I'd be quite interested in what you mean by that, do you believe they are a religious sect? do you call them a sect because they came out of a political split?). This caused the original VfD to be biased, with for example links to reliable sources provided by user:AllyD being ignored. Another user above has already posted further links to reliable independent sources, so no need for me to repeat that. - pir ( talk) 22:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If indeed, notability depends on the reliable sources on the subjecting, what is actually irrelevant is a user with a deletionist and anti-communist bias ignoring the existence of these sources. Also, he keeps changing his argument as he goes along. His initial reasoning when he started a page for the deletion of the ICC page was that the ICC was not notable because it was a sect. -- The Lion of Lannister 12:12, 29 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Pir claimed that the simple fact that an organization has a Wikipedia article about it means that it is notable. That emphatically is not the case, and does count as misunderstanding the issue. It was never my argument that the ICC's article should be deleted because the ICC is a "sect", although I see now that I could have been misunderstood as making that argument. Complaints about my bias are irrelevant (and I hardly need point out what it shows that you attack me for stating my political views openly while saying nothing about your own politics). Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 20:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Undelete Please bear with a neophyte editor for finding this whole procedure very difficult to understand. As far as i can see, the ICC page has been "reinstated" but is empty. I have prepared a short page to replace the original, but I am not sure whether it is appropriate etiquette to load it now, or if there is something else I should wait for. Guidance would be welcome here. I also find it hard to follow Sherlock Holmes Fan's reasoning. First, he keeps on insisting that the ICC is a "sect". Since he's a Christian I suppose he should know about sects, but this is a political argument not a religious one. At all events, even if the ICC were a sect then that is completely irrelevant to the argument (even the Solar Temple gets a page after all). More relevant is the issue of "notability". I confess again to being a novice here, but I would put forward the following arguments in favour of the ICC page being retained:
  • Notability is a very relative issue: one of the very excellent things about Wikipedia is that it offers the opportunity to people to contribute freely their knowledge about things which are not considered "notable" by the "official" world of paper encyclopedias, even things like Frog jumping contests for heavens sakes (not very notable in my view, even if they get a mention in a book by Mark Twain). The ICC is a minority taste, to be sure, but it has existed and published a trilingual quarterly for more than thirty years (as can be seen from its web site, or indeed from a research on eBay where back issues of its Review are sold at ridiculous prices as collectables): this seems to me pretty notable in itself.
  • Sherlock Holmes Fan says that the various books where the ICC is cited are "not enough" to make it notable. Quite the contrary, it seems to me: these citations (from books published as wide apart as Authier and Barrot's classic La Gauche communiste en Allemagne to Simon Pirani's book on the Russian revolution) show that the ICC's publications are considered as serious source material for historical books on these subjects (most recently, the Review has published a document by Gavril Myasnikov previously unavailable in English, rescued from the archives in Moscow. Nor does Sherlock Holmes Fan take into consideration that Marc Chirik was not just "associated" with the ICC, but devoted the last 15 years of his life to it. Chirik was the hero of Planet without visa, Jean Malaquais (one of the major writers of 20th century France IMHO, and a friend of Norman Mailer). Malaquais considered this to be his best work, and the organisation that Chirik devoted so much of his life to is notable if only as a means of understanding one of the best books written in French in the last 100 years (a subjective judgment, it's true)
  • Sherlock Holmes Fan doesn't seem in the least concerned about the overall coherence of Wikipedia. He goes on and on about deleting the ICC web page, but has nothing to say about the pages of other organisations which are considered part of the Communist Left. Now, since the Communist Left includes major figures of 20th century history (Amadeo Bordiga, Sylvia Pankhurst, Anton Pannekoek, Herman Gorter, to name but a few) it is definitely notable, and any editorial decisions on any one Wikipedia page ought IMHO to take this into account. As it is you have the absurd situation where the Left Communism page references Wiki pages for all sorts of much smaller groups, but not the biggest of them. True, the Left Communism page could do with some editing, and I am aware of the rule that pages should stand on their own merit, nonetheless, there should be some concern for overall coherence. In fact, the impression I am left with is that SHF has a particular antipathy for the ICC (God only knows why) which he is pursuing here.
  • Finally, it should be pointed out that the ICC has an entire, not very complimentary, chapter (or even two) devoted to it in Christophe Bourseiller's Histoire générale de l'ultra-gauche. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jens1917 ( talk • contribs) 22:40, 5 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I think Jens1917 makes some good points. What I find weird is that constituent parts of the ICC, such as World Revolution (UK) have a page to themselves, but Revolution Internationale has nothing even though they are the only part of the ICC to have achieved anything much - i.e their role in the Council for Maintaining the Occupations - aside, of course, providing a butt for those who find their solemn self-importance a source of amauement. I would suggest "centralising" (this is a term they really love) information about their various sections into one glorious article, and make sure it is not simply a gloss gleaned from the self-adulating press. Leutha ( talk) 00:25, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I'm afraid most of Jens1917's comments are beside the point. The only relevant part of Jens1917's remarks is the mention of Christophe Bourseiller's book (to which I do not have access). If it discusses the ICC, then possibly that would show that it is notable, but not (as I say) having access to it, I can't tell. Everything else Jens1917 said is beside the point, and I leave it to him or her to find out why; if you want to participate in Wikipedia, it's your responsibility to familiarize yourself with its policies and procedures. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 07:04, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

I have a couple of further observation. As Jens1917 and The Lion of Lannister have both accused me of bringing a political bias into this discussion, they might want to say something about their own political views, specifically whether they are ICC supporters. It is a little curious that they accuse me of political bias - which is in itself a political act - while remaining silent about their own political affiliations. I think it should also be taken into account that Leutha has apparently been raising the issue of the deletion of the ICC article on an external forum, for example here http://libcom.org/forums/general/icc-deleted-wikipedia-16122011 Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 07:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

On the issue of political affiliation, I have not said anything about this because IMHO this is a discussion about Wikipedia and what an online encyclopedia should be, not about the political affiliation of this or that editor. My comment about SHF was not to do with political bias: since his page says he is both a Christian and an anti-Communist, I would normally expect him to be equally biased against anything "communist" (and so if anything more impartial a judge than Leutha who clearly has an axe to grind). His continued persistence on this subject to the exclusion of others (like the CBG page which should surely attract his ire also?) makes me wonder whether he does not have some bias other than political on the subject.

On the guidelines, thanks for the advice, and I have indeed read (and re-read) the guidelines concerning notability. I note that "Significant coverage" means that sources address the subject directly in detail. Three books IMHO satisfy this criterion: Bourseiller's book on the Ultra-Left (as he calls it), Hempel's book on "Marc Laverne", and the collected works of the Internationale Situationniste. All of these are in French, and as far as I am aware only Bourseiller's book is still in print.

As always, guidelines are open to interpretation. I note that the guidelines also say that The common theme in the notability guidelines is that there must be verifiable, objective evidence that the subject has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Now, as I have argued above, the fact that ICC publications are cited as sources by works concerned not with the ICC directly, but with subjects of wider historical interest, is evidence that the ICC has received significant attention from independent sources to support a claim of notability. Simply to say that "this is irrelevant" is not an argument.

To conclude, I am willing to load a proposed page which answers the previous objections, and will do so in the next few days unless someone tells me that there is another route that one is supposed to follow on this. Thank you-- Jens1917 ( talk) 16:26, 6 January 2012 (UTC) reply

You have to wait for this discussion to be concluded before restoring the article. You cannot restore it unless agreement is reached here to do that. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 06:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Nine days elapsed with no comment, and now Sherlock Holmes Fan acts, without actually taking the discussion furthere. I feel Jens1917 has made a significant improvement to the page, which I have also tinkered with, and we also have proposed page merges with constituent elements of the ICC which still retain their own pages. Also Sherlock Holmes Fan removed the revised content of the page even though the template employed indicated that it should remain so that fellow editors could consider the matter fully. I am concerned that Sherlock Holmes Fan has become emotionally involved and has allowed this to cloud their judgement. If not, then let's please have some reasoned debate on the topic. Leutha ( talk) 11:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Leutha's suggestion that I am emotionally involved and that my judgement is clouded should be compared against his and Jens1917's actions. Leutha has engaged in behavior on an offsite forum (Libcom.org) that could be considered an attempt to recruit like-minded (eg, sympathetic to left communism) editors to Wikipedia. See the link I posted above, and this link http://libcom.org/forums/general/theye-re-back-icc-might-eb-reprieved-oblivion-28122: as well. Jens1917, meanwhile, has added blatantly biased content to the Interational Communist Current article, such as the following: "More recently, the ICC's participation in the UK students' movement has been (inaccurately) denounced by the Daily Mail." (Which replaced the text, "In November 2010, the ICC joined people advocating the use of "legitimate force" to stop a rise in tuition fees at British universities to mobilise school children. At least one ICC member attended a planning meeting of the Education Activist Network campaign group"). That kind of language is clearly biased in favor of the ICC. It amounts to an attempt to use the Wikipedia article to promote the International Communist Current and its political positions. I make no apology for doing everything in my power to stop that. Sherlock Holmes Fan ( talk) 20:21, 15 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Yes, please compare my comment with the link. In fact if you look at posts on Libcom site, far from being what Sherlock Holmes Fan calls "like-minded" there are very differing views as regards the ICC. However, the post there is useful in that attracts the interest of people who are knowledgeable about the topic. If you consider the edits I made to Jens1917 re-edit, you will see that I addressed some of the bias, eg I referenced the Sitiuationist International accussing them of intellectual dishonsety. This is not consistent with "an attempt to use the Wikipedia article to promote the International Communist Current and its political positions" as Sherlock Holmes Fan claims. If Sherlock Holmes Fan genuinely wants to do something in their power to stop that, then making an edit which is more compatible with newspaper quote would be the appropriate way forward. However Sherlock Holmes Fan has not done that. The question of notability has not been addressed, following the production of independent sources. Further Sherlock Holmes Fan made no effort to respond to Jens1917's proposal even after it had been here for over a week. In consequence I have posted the matter Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#International_Communist_Current here. Leutha ( talk) 00:24, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Drmies' justification for closing this AfD with a "delete" result was simply "existence does not equal notability." While that is true, I'm not sure that statement reflected the consensus reached in the discussion, if indeed one existed. However, as far as DRV is concerned, the correctness of the close should probably be water under the bridge at this point. That's because the sources noted by AllyD in the AfD, when combined with the sources found by Jens1917 in this very discussion, should be enough to allow for a Wikipedia article on the ICC. In particular, the existence of an entry for the ICC in the Encyclopedia of British and Irish political organizations and the coverage of the organization in the books by Christophe Bourseiller and Pierre Hempel appear to be good enough for undeletion. A Stop at Willoughby ( talk) 02:38, 16 January 2012 (UTC) reply

Numbers In Action ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closed a few hours after its first relist, with four views, inc. nom, all divergent and all pre-relisting. Article history deleted.
Part of my query to the closer was interpreted as a personal attack and discussion was refused on that basis. 86.44.31.213 ( talk) 07:05, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• It's surprising to see the article history deleted. You were a bit abrupt with TParis, and I can understand his decision not to engage with you on his talk page, but I do hope that a clearer explanation of his thought processes will be forthcoming now.— S Marshall T/ C 08:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• restore history at the very least (unless there's something I'm missing, which is possible). I'm not seeing anything in that afd that would lead one to any sort of delete consensus. Its possible that, by strength of argument, 86. made a good case for outright keeping the article. Umbralcorax ( talk) 14:26, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• I didn't see the relist when I closed the AFD. I don't much care if it's relisted, the refs are good, I just don't appreciate folks coming to my talk page with a dickish attitude. My talk page notice literally says "Please be civil with me, I respond to respect with respect, and I respond to disrespect with reports." Anyway, this DRV is pointless, I've relisted the AFD.--v/r - T P 14:44, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Newtonmas may be a term someone searches for, but rates only a paragraph under Isaac Newton. 84.61.131.15 ( talk) 22:05, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Good point, that should redirect to Isaac Newton in popular culture.— S Marshall T/ C 23:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Intellum,_Inc. ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The entry was no less notable than entries for other companies and products in the learning management system space. The entry had independent 3rd party references, indicating why the company was notable in the market, and contained no "sales speak." Medra42 ( talk) 01:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin comment This wasn't addressed with me on my talk page, although I likely wouldn't have budged on the close anyhow. Medra42 doesn't addressed how the AFD was closed improperly nor what error the AFD made. DRV is not AFD-redo.--v/r - T P 01:56, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Question. I do not see how the discussion could have been concluded otherwise; the only thing that would change the conclusion is some evidence about the importance of the award stated in the article. Can you provide any help here? (There will always be some level of borderline importance where notability will be uncertain, and some articles at that level will be kept and some not. Changing the bar higher or lower will not remove the difficulty, just move it to a different level. The only alternative, in most fields, is having an arbitrary cutoff that may or may not correspond to anything real, and produces the same result. Those cases where we do have an absolute qualification that corresponds to something true in the external world are quite limited: recordings & athletes, for example, and the advisability our our doing this is continually debated. I personally like true rational standards, but I do not see how one could be rationally constructed in this area.) DGG ( talk ) 02:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• In reply:(I don't know that I'm doing this right.. still learning) I'm also not sure how a standard could be constructed in this area. This is my major problem with the deletion. I don't understand how it is any less notable than the pages than some other entries that exist, the most salient being Cornerstone OnDemand. The award given to Intellum came from what is considered by many to be one of the industry standard research groups in the field. As one can see, there are many products and companies providing software in this area, and the fact that they were mentioned at all is notable, given the competition. I'm more than willing to admit that, in the grand scheme of things, the quality of research from Brandon Hall and Bersin Associates is probably not up to Forrester and Gartner. However, none of these outlets is much more than a place for companies to buy their way into white papers and other more credible documents, just as most of the wire sources given on the Cornerstone page are nothing more than company news releases distributed via paid distribution channels. With that said, the award given to Intellum was not purchased, the research is as valid as it can be, and the company has been covered by broad-spectrum media (37signals).
  

In addition, it seems that just before the deletion some comments were made towards the idea that I'm attempting to advertise for the company. This seems like a fairly wild accusation, and a sign that some editors are both understandably a little overly sensitive to companies creating entries, and unaware of the effect a Wikipedia actually has on a company's business (especially SMBs or regional brands). While I do some consulting work with Intellum, and they did ask me to take a look at the Wikipedia entry they created, I made changes to what they were attempting to post, and put my own effort into finding the 3rd party resources because I respect the fact that Wikipedia requires them.

I respect the fact that Intellum, Inc. may not meet the requirements for notability, and that the entry may not survive. What I don't understand is why this entry is being picked at while others continue unquestioned, especially considering the fact that the Intellum entry contained verifiable, 3rd party recognition in 3 different, reliable, verifiable places.. which seems to indicate that the company is indeed notable in the industry.

-- Medra42 ( talk) 03:43, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

We agree there's no likely natural standard. When so, as with most Wikipedia article topics, we have a standard solution: the WP:GNG General Notability Guideline, which relies entirely on the presence of references providing significant coverage from independent published reliable sources. The difficulty comes with evaluating the meaning of significant, independent, and reliable; most contested AfDs revolve around those three words. (This criterion gives results that are sometimes arbitrary, depending on what happens to be accessible to the people here; there is particular difficulty with some subjects, where often little is formally written in such publicly accesible sources. It will sometimes seem that the only ones that get articles are the ones that have serious problems that attract the reporters.)

I regret the discussion in the AfD did not make this clear but talked in a vague way about notability without actually explaining this is how we judge it, nor did the closer clarify it. Examining then your sources de novo: The first is a directory listing, which is not considered significant coverage; PR newswire is not independent of the company--it just prints press releases; the next entry is a presentation by the company CEO, & thus not independent; the next item is possible--its a cursory independent review based entirely on a presentation by he company--if the reviewer is a respected authority, we've sometimes but not always accepted such sources--that he's a responsible enough journalist to specify the limits of his sources speaks for his integrity; the last entry is the announcement of the award. Unfortunately, looking at it, Intellium did not win the fist prize: in its category,"Best Advance in Learning Management Technology for Small- and Medium-Sized Businesses" there were 2 gold, 4 silver and 3 broze awardsL the company was one of the silver. Since there are 7 categories of awards, it would appear that every possible product would have such an award. Were it a single award for the best product in the entire LMS category, I'd accept it as significant coverage & enough for an article.

I conclude there is not enough evidence of notability; I did not say not enough notability--we can only go by the evidence. We haven't the skill or authority to evaluate the quality of business firms or anything else, only to evaluate the quality of the sources about them. I'd be willing to say the AfD was improper because nobody discussed the actual criteria, and you would be entitled to have another afd--which is really the place for the comments I just made, not here. But I think the result would clearly be the same,so there's nothing to be gained by it. What we advise in such cases is waiting until you have two truly substantial independent full product reviews from known reliable sources--in which case WP will want an article, regardless of what the reviews say about the quality of the product--we only judge the attention that is given it. As for the Cornerstone page, I assure you we will look at it. You could even yourself nominate it for deletion, but it will appear fairer if someone else judges whether to do that. DGG ( talk ) 10:20, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for taking the time to explain the thought process here and show a review of each source. I knew that they were not all great (PRNewsWire, etc.) but wasn't sure exactly why the more reliable sources were being, for lack of a better word, ignored. This helps quite a bit.

And no, I won't be poking around asking for Cornerstone or other LMS pages to be deleted, although I'd like to keep an eye on them and attempt to lend any kind of help I can, as I'm intimately familiar with the space. FWIW, Cornerstone and others they do have some strong, notable sources, which I can't find for Intellum.

-- Medra42 ( talk) 13:02, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. I participated in the AfD and not-voted to delete it. Article was clearly a promotional insertion about a "learning management system", a patently nonsensical phrase (what is a "learning management system", anyways? Something other than a teaching method that's being sold to people who fancy themselves managers?) Calling anything a "management system" is meaningless PR patter. Request for review is essentially WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Let me know about "other companies and products in the learning management system space" (Management system space? LOL) and I will take a look; outraged spammers are often valuable sources of leads. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 17:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Spot on. But a little harshly-phrased, perhaps?— S Marshall T/ C 20:59, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps. (And I went ahead and stubbed Cornerstone OnDemand, removing meaningless trade awards for Leadership, and an unhelpful list of see-also's to usual suspects like software as a service). What frustrates me most is that so many of these spam articles about businesses just stick out as obviously promotional because of their buzzword-driven text, and it strikes me as tragicomic when the same prose patterns turn up in deletion discussions. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 21:21, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- for three reasons. Firstly, the administrator clearly judged consensus properly. Secondly, "I don't like the result" is not a DRV rationale. Thirdly, the article was unambiguously advertising. Reyk _YO! 04:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Reasonable if not fully fleshed out deletion arguments from nominator and three other editors. Keep arguments from one apparently inexperienced or COI-conflicted editor—inexperienced and COI editor, as it turns out. DGG's detailed explanation here affirms the correctness of the closure and seems to have been accepted as reasonable by the "keep" voter/DRV requester who, to his credit, has disclosed his connection with the subject. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 04:52, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Accurate reading of AFD discussion, no argument that discussion was not policy/guideline based. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk)`

Austin Mahone ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

This is a significant singer with +300K Twitter followers, 300K subscribers on his YouTube channel and 47MM video views, and sold out concerts in New York. If previous attempts to create an article were not successful, I am willing to scour media sources to find notable sources for this article. I am sorry if this posting is not formatted correctly - It is *very difficult* to post requests like this, why is the process so arcane? Keizers ( talk) 21:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment: the version I deleted consisted of, in its entirety, "Austin Carter Mahone was born April 4, 1996 in San Antonio, Texas. He started putting videos of him singing on youtube where he started gaining fans." None of the previously deleted versions (there are five of them) are any better. If the subject is now notable, I'd suggest creating a draft in a sandbox in your userspace, where you can gather references documenting the subject's notability. Acroterion (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion w/o prejudice to creation of a suitable article: This article has been deleted five times, probably each time due to lack of sources cited to show notability. Mahone is not the first to run into the problem of being very popular among the younger teen crowd, and thus getting less press coverage at first then, say, some indie band from brooklyn. A quick search found these sources [7] [8] [9] which suggests he could have an article. The prior close as delete was OK, but its possible that an article could be created on this guy.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 13:53, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Note: I have created a new article at Austin Mahone (singer). I would appreciate someone moving it to Austin Mahone, as I can't seem to do that. This new article can be subjected to AfD if necessary, and the DrV can be closed since the prior deletes were proper.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 14:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I've moved the article to Austin Mahone per your request. Acroterion (talk) 21:41, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

M.E. Bell ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The article was recently created by me, temporarily unaware that there was a Mifflin E. Bell article which M.E. Bell refers to. There are in fact a good number of references on the internet to "M.E. Bell" and valid-to-use sources, including at least two I had already added to the article. It was speedy-delete tagged by editor SarekOfVulcan, who has been dogging my edits towards finding any fault to trumpet. It would clearly have been better just to put a note on the article's talk page. Then editor Elen of the Roads deleted it, and has not responded to my request. Elen of the Roads is aware of running contention by SarekOfVulcan against me, and should not have been furthering SarekOfVulcan running up some damn score of works of mine that he has disrupted. And on the facts the article should not have been speedy-deleted; it does not meet the criteria, including that a redirect at a minimum is needed, and that the article content was not entirely duplicated in the Mifflin article. I ask for the article to be restored so that I may proceed with an orderly merge of material. Please restore the article with its edit history. do ncr am 18:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion – Doncram created an article that duplicated an existing one instead of editing the current article. That's not how things work here. If there is an existing article, then users are supposed edit that one and, if necessary, work with the other editors on said article. Recreating an article from scratch and expecting that it be history-merged into an existing one is underhanded, uncollaborative, and indicative of article ownership.

Moreover, the current Mifflin E. Bell article has more information than the stub Doncram wants restored. It is also not as closely paraphrased from the sources as his version:

Doncram	Source
...significant as the first Federal building built in Nevada, and the only one of its architectural style, which is Richardsonian Romanesque.	...significant to Nevada as the first Federal building to be constructed in the state and the only one of its particular style.

If his version is to be forced onto the Mifflin E. Bell article, it would be reverted, as it is clearly lacking on all counts. – MuZemike 18:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

WTF. This is about the appropriateness of Speedy Deletion. That was inappropriate by the terms of Speedy Deletion guidelines. -- do ncr am 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Edit the current article if you wish, no reason to make a new one, at most, redirect M.E. Bell to the current article. As for what and what not should be changed, it's a matter for the talk page of the article, not DRV. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:31, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment - lacking any indication that the ME Bell article was created in bad faith (and being ignorant of any history between Sarek and Doncram), and that "M.E. Bell" is a likely search term for the existing article I have restored the article history and created the redirect. This provides Doncram with any references that they might have lost with the deletion (tho I find that dubious) that can be used to improve the existing article, and gives us a current redirect. Any other issues regarding which content is verifiable and mergeable can be worked out on the talkpage. Syrthiss ( talk) 18:37, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks. -- do ncr am 18:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Putting my hands up here - should have created a redirect. More haste less speed. However....I wouldn't have done any kind of a merge - doncram's offering did not appear to have any information in it that was not in the article that already existed, and I share the concern about close paraphrasing expressed above. doncram, I recommend that in future you check the full name of an architect before you start an article on them, because the usual way to refer to an individual on Wikipedia is firstname/lastname. Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:03, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks if that is an apology. This diff shows 2 wikilinks to articles for existing items, 6 additional items added, 2 photos added, a category, and other changes to the article, all from the M.E. Bell version i had drafted (not counting another photo that i also added anew). Far more than "any information". It is silly to chastise me for starting an article that turned out to be duplicative; that happens all the time and causes no problem, leading obviously to a merge when a duplication is established. The problem is only contention fostered by SarekOfVulcan here. You could as well chastise the editors of the other version for not identifying that this is the person commonly known as "M.E. Bell". -- do ncr am 19:42, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

*headdesk* -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

WTF. That from Sarek who just exceeded 3RR at yet another article I was working on, trying to leave this one behind. Lay off with the contention. Good grief, get a life other than following me. -- do ncr am 19:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If you actually looked up sources instead of doing database dumps, we wouldn't have these issues now, would we? -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. More careful editing from the original contributor would have prevented this problem from occurring in the first place. Asking for that to happen, though, is like asking Saint Anthony Falls to flow in reverse. -- Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 19:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• As someone who is usually more active on other wiki's I'm really amazed by this discussion. Why on earth was this article nominated for speedy deletion and not just redirected like on a normal Wikipedia? Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#A10 clearly doesn't apply so why are people endorsing this? multichill ( talk) 20:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

yes, that would have been the obvious way to deal with it, since A10 should not be used when the title of the new duplicate article is a plausible redirect, as this one is. If someone made the name error once, someone will again, so such a creation is usually a clear sign a redirect is needed. DGG ( talk ) 04:18, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• undelete and redirect (basically endorse the action of Syrthiss) as this is not an A10 ("...and where the title is not a plausible redirect."), I don't think anyone disagrees. The question is if there should be a restore. In theory a pure redirect at this point would be fine (without the restore), but I've a really big fan of a tight speedy criteria and very much prefer to get things back to the state they would have been in had the speedy not been misapplied. Let's do things by the book unless there is a reason to do otherwise. Hobit ( talk) 13:38, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I think this can be closed at this point as there is nothing to do. Hobit ( talk) 13:41, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Sierra McCormick ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A second-billed star in a now-renewed Disney show that had not aired when the AfD was started, is now clearly notable. Ridiculous that the inline links in the A.N.T. Farm article are direct to IMDb. I edited a recreation of the article and then discussed moving it to the correct title with one of the four deleting admins (from the 10 times it's been recreated), but then another admin ignored our discussion and G4'd it. Like I mentioned on his page - maybe if we weren't so gung ho in deleting articles on items that young females are interested in, we might have a chance in addressing the gender bias gap that exists here. The-Pope ( talk) 16:22, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse original close as delete, although I'm not beyond someone drafting a properly-sourced article that shows clear meeting of the relevant notability guidelines. However, this was deleted 6 months ago validly - a new article should be started from scratch. Pretty inappropriate to link "gender bias" to the non-existence of a validly-deleted article ( talk→  BWilkins  ←track) 16:35, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The AFD close is sound, though only due to the relative weakness of the keep arguments. That said, if someone wants to put together a draft article (with proper sourcing) that highlights the notable roles this subject has had, it might be worth revisiting this article. But the sheer number of times this article has been recreated (including by User:The-Pope) means that it will remain SALTed until a properly sourced draft article can be reviewed. Come back when you have a draft that shows notability. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 14:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Let me try to explain this a little bit better. I'm not here to challenge that original decision, - I'm here because I want admins to stop G4ing it, because things have changed. When the AFD was done, A.N.T. Farm hadn't even be aired. Now it's been renewed for a second season. It's a show on the Disney Channel. It's huge. For a child actor, this is equivalent to getting a top 10 single, playing in the premier league - this isn't a bit part, this isn't a pilot episode, this isn't a guest star role, it's a major role.

Did anyone actually read the most recently deleted version - which I did NOT create (can you please strike that from your statement, it is false), I only edited it, referenced it and requested that it be moved to the correct name. I only found the article on an Unreferenced BLP list as Sierra Nicole McCormick, referenced it, then found the AfDs on the actual name, discussed it with Wizardman, who then moved it to Sierra McCormick (he left a message on my talk page of "Went ahead and moved it. It's being recreated so frequently by obsessed fans that I'm tired of making sure it's G4'd, and the show at least makes her notability borderline so no reason to keep deleting it.") before Fastily did G4 it. When I queried why he did that Fastily told me to come here - "please do consider listing it at WP:DRV if the original AfD no longer applies so the page isn't deleted again". The guidelines here state "Deletion Review may also be used if significant new information has come to light since a deletion and the information in the deleted article would be useful to write a new article." Now, the first part of that matches - and I think that the latest version (that was moved from Sierra Nicole to Sierra and deleted by Fastily at 09:06, 30 November 2011) is usable (and Wizardman agreed). If it is recreated, can a note be placed on it saying that things have changed so that no one else does a G4 on it? If this is the wrong place for a G4 overruling, then fine, tell me where else to, but as I've already talked to two admins about this, can't someone just do it? If you really want to be sure, send it straight back to AFD and see what the community thinks. All I know is that ANT Farm was barely mentioned in the first AFD, and it's her main claim to notability now. The-Pope ( talk) 15:42, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• And that's precisely my point. The original deletion was fine, and that's part of what this DRV evaluates. OK. Now the subject's notability has changed, and that's fine too - so show me a draft article that properly documents that notability (with more than just a single source about the show and not the actress) and I'll happily endorse its move to Sierra McCormick. But first things first. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 16:04, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• The updated, referenced stub was approved by an admin - Wizardman, but deleted by another, Fastily. I can't retrieve it, I don't have a mop. I am only at this page because Fastily told me to raise it here. Where else are you meant to go to complain about incorrect use of G4? The 2nd paragraph on the DRV page states Deletion review (DRV) considers disputed deletions and disputed decisions made in deletion-related discussions and speedy deletions Without ever seeing the original AFD'd version, I doubt the version deleted in November was "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" as per the WP:CSD#G4 rules. So, all of the discussion about the original AfD is invalid, wrong, offtopic and not why I'm here. I'm disputing a speedy. Glad I sorted that out. The-Pope ( talk) 16:50, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• You're right, this is where you question a G4 deletion. Unfortunately, the November version (both of them, 12 November and 28/29 November) were close enough to the AFD version to qualify for G4 deletion. They also did not provide sources that document the subject's notability - they mention the new show, and there was a link to the announcement of that new show, but there was nothing about the subject herself except for the inclusion of her name in a list of cast members of the new show. So, in order to recreate this article (and to prevent it from being deleted again), you would need to provide a draft version that includes sources that show the subject to be notable. I don't dispute that she is probably notable, but - given the sheer number of times this article has been deleted - we need to document that notability using appropriate sources. Once that's done, I doubt anyone would argue that G4 applies. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:48, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• and who makes the call on the claimed notability of the draft version? Wizardman? Fastily? You? This board? AFC? Random other admin? If eveyone agrees that this is the best/only option then userfy please. The-Pope ( talk) 00:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• In this case, Fastily made that call - a call with which I and several others here agree. The most recently deleted version did not adequately document the subject's notability using reliable sources. I add that we might short-circuit the whole process by finding such sources now - if we can do that, then we could restore the article with proper sources and have done. It should be that simple, yes? UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• The article seems to have been undeleted for this review - userfy away. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 13:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• And I guess this is the perfect example of the good and bad things about sources, notability and google. I am guessing that there are in depth articles about her, but they aren't online, they are in paper only copies of "Disney Weekly" (yes I know that it wouldn't be independent) or "Kids Stuff" magazines. Is 'justjaredjr . buzznet.com' a reliable source? (probably not, trigged the blacklist spamfilter!) WP:ENTERTAINER comes close - "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows." Now she definitely has had one notable role... not sure about the others. So she is a perfectly borderline notable person. Which I guess is why a) she's been re-created so many times, and b) whilst at least 3 or 4 of us think that she just scrapes through, but many others stick by the previous ruling. I know that she isn't going to be a GA article anytime soon, but as the result of this G4 stubbornness is "direct links to IMDB" (which I think is awful), or single redlinks in lists of blue linked actors I think that the line is blurred enough. The AFC page, Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sierra_McCormick is also interesting - there is a definite "good faith" desire for this article to exist - I bet another AfD would come up with a lot of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments for similar child actors- but the suitable refs just aren't on google yet. The-Pope ( talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• You sold me - if the consensus here is that she is notable, I have no further objection to recreating the article. But I can't promise to vote keep if it comes up for another AFD for lack of sources, so do keep working on that. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 20:47, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment, yeah speaking on the young-female bias, I just dealt with Austin Mahone (singer) which is on DrV above. The original deletion here was incorrect because there was no consensus to delete, its very simple. But its been a few months, no need to prejudice a recreation if more sources now exist.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 15:58, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I suppose the point here is that no additional sources have been found. Consensus in the original discussion was based on an assessment of concerns presented and addressed, using reasons and rationale based in policy, sources, and common sense. Accordingly, the article was deleted. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • There was no consensus in that discussion, saying there was does not change that.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 14:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AfD The nom in this case did got an admin to agree that the article was okay. That should in general clear it from being a speedy target as speedies are for clear cases. So either Wizardman made a boneheaded call or it's not a clear case. Hobit ( talk) 23:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Wizardman did not allow restoration of the article based on established policies or guidelines. He indicates in edit summaries that he restored the article because he was tired of continued recreation of the article, essentially throwing his hands up in surrender. I am tired of the article being created when the initials issues have not yet been resolved, but there is a process to follow to ensure that as a community, we follow the established policies and guidelines. Bypassing the deletion policy was not an appropriate response with this article. The G4 is very clear that this article was previously deleted in accordance with the deletion policy and community consensus. And when recreated, it was clear that the article failed to address the issues that resulted in the original deletion. Note that I have personally looked for sources online and in printed newspapers, magazines, and journals to hopefully establish notability of this subject so that we don't have to continually be faced with numerous recreations of this article. I have come up empty; nothing in print and nothing online outside of a bunch of fansites. That said, if sources could be found, I would be more than happy to add them to the article. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4, AfD if desired. Diffs show that the most recently deleted article was not an unimproved copy of the deleted article, but contained substantial added content. Jclemens ( talk) 08:27, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Added content has failed to establish notability in accordance with the WP:GNG or WP:ENT. The issues that resulted in the original AFD continue to remain. Accordingly, the article was G4 deleted in compliance with the deletion policy. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close as delete. The AFD recommended deletion based on a lack of notability in accordance with WP:ENT or WP:GNG. These issues have not been resolved in any subsequent recreation. In my opinion, the restoration of the article by Wizardman was ill advised and contrary to the deletion policy. We don't keep or restore inappropriate articles simply because some editors continue to violate notability guidelines or create salted articles under another name. Or whether or not we are tired of addressing editors that continue to create and recreate inappropriate articles. Articles require notability. The notability of this subject has been previously presented for discussion, resulting in community consensus to delete. There is nothing new to establish that the subject meets either the topical or general notability guidelines. If significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources can be found, or the subject can be shown to meet the WP:ENT guidelines (verified through reliable and independent sources), I would wholeheartedly support retaining the article. However, this information has not been forthcoming. It has not been shown that the notability threshold has been met. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 09:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I think that she is extremely close to meeting WP:ENT guidelines, having one definitely notable role, the question is are any of the others, or is the combination of the other roles enough? The-Pope ( talk) 14:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• The WP:ENT guidelines require "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." The subject doesn't meet this criteria, nor is the subject's body of work reflected in accordance with the WP:GNG. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Which is exactly what I said. She has 1 definitely significant role. I haven't looked closely enough at her other roles to determine if anything else is significant. Any all of those words are subjective and change with time, so being so rigid with the decision made 6 months ago isn't helpful. The-Pope ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• You asked if the combination of other roles are enough. In reply, I simply presented an answer as stated in the guidelines. The combination of minor roles is not enough to establish notability. The WP:ENT guidelines require significant roles in multiple productions. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• But she does meet that criteria. Just look at her resume. She has at least one significant role in a notable tv series and has at least one significant role in a notable movie. Two is enough to qualify for "multiple". For An Angel ( talk) 14:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Unfortunately, there is nothing presented to confirm your opinion that the role in the film was a significant one. Can you provide any reliable, independent sources to support the claim? Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• She played one of the children in the family that the movie is about, that much is obvious enough just by looking at the cast list. She was more than an extra and had more than a cameo. [10] She also won a Family Television Award for her work on Are You Smarter than a 5th Grader? [11] For An Angel ( talk) 21:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, she did not have a significant role in The Dog Who Saved Christmas, and she most certainly did not win an award for her work on the 5th Grader. This is a prime reason why we don't use IMDb to establish notability. The show was honored. McCormick was not a nominee or winner of any kind. Again, can you provide any reliable, independent sources to support your claims or assumptions? Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• That depends on how you define "significant". She wasn't the only actor in the movie but she had more than a cameo. "she most certainly did not win an award for her work on the 5th Grader. This is a prime reason why we don't use IMDb to establish notability." As if IMDB was the only website that mentions this? How many more do you want? one, two, three, four? For An Angel ( talk) 15:31, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Although this article has been deleted numerous times, it has gone through AfD only once and the only person who voted for delete in that discussion was the nominator. It was speedily deleted 5 or 6 times after that (requested by the same person every time) only because it was a "recreation of a previously deleted article". I think we should stop using that original AfD as a reason to keep deleting this article. The subject and article has grown a lot since it's first deletion. Just compare the two versions. At the very least, it doesn't make sense to "salt" this article because that assumes we know she will never become notable enough in the future. If she is still doesn't not meet notability requirements then just leave it as a redirect to A.N.T. Farm for now. For An Angel ( talk) 15:16, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The issues that were in the original version of the article which resulted in deletion, remain in the current version of the article. We don't open up more AFDs when the issues leading to deletion through community consensus have not been resolved. That would be a waste of time. The article continues to fail the threshold of notability in accordance with WP:GNG and WP:ENT. Salting an article simply protects continual recreations of an article that do not meet the criteria for inclusion. If someone wants to re-create a salted title, believing that the issues leading to the earlier deletion have been resolved, the appropriate response is to contact an administrator or use the deletion review process. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment This might not mean much but she is currently ranked #6 on IMDB's " Most Popular People Born In 1997" and many of the actors less popular than her have articles here on Wikipedia. For An Angel ( talk) 15:23, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I don't think anyone is doubting her popularity, for some reason she fails the ghit test, which is what we probably all use as the first test for notability. She exists on the German wikipedia too. The-Pope ( talk) 16:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Note that a lack of Google hits is not the reason for deletion. The issue is a lack of notability through established community guidelines. Note also that we are not restricted to merely using an online search engine. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. None of the sources in the en.wiki or de.wiki meet the criteria for independence. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 10:30, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• What non-google sources have you checked? It's a lovely circular argument... ghits aren't the reason for deletion, lack of significant coverage is, and for most people, this means a google web/news/books search and nothing else. I know the "trust me, I'm sure there are sources out there" argument is often misused, all I'm asking is that the 6 month old decision is allowed to be checked again. The-Pope ( talk) 14:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Books, magazines, and journals. As far as reviewing the six-month-old decision? That's why we're here. I've personally searched again and came up empty. What did your search find? Anything significant? Reliable? Independent? If so, please share them with us. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 18:40, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close as delete - still no evidence that WP:ENT or WP:GNG have been met. Popularity does not equal notability. jsfouche ☽☾ Talk 00:23, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • You've no problem with deleting an article as a G4 after an admin indicated that restoring the article to mainspace was okay? I'd think that indicates at least enough debate on the matter than an AfD is called for. Thoughts? Hobit ( talk) 15:26, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I took part in the first DRV for this subject ( Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2011 June 23) and my decision still stands. First of all the original AFD should have been No consensus and NOT deletion. Wizardman, the closing administrator, deleted it with his own discretion. The fact that he moved the content in "Sierra Nicole McCormick" to "Sierra McCormick", basically surrendering to the frequent re-creations, proves that he wasn't the right administrator for the aforementioned AFD in the first place. There are currently 3 different userspace drafts for the subject, that's right 3: here, here and here. As well as interest in Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Sierra McCormick. The actor has a regular role in popular television series ( A.N.T. Farm) that was just renewed for a second season and appeared in a notable film ( Ramona and Beezus), how is WP:ENTERTAINER not met. Also even if the article is not restored, It WILL be re-created, if it is not salted anyway or we will have yet another deletion review a few months from now. Quasy Boy 22:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Actually there's a 4th here. Maybe some combination of all 4 versions can meet the requirements. For An Angel ( talk) 02:49, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• None of the four drafts improve upon or establish notability of the subject. What we need is significant coverage in reliable, secondary sources. Seriously, independent sources are vital here. Additionally, Ramona and Beezus was not a significant role at all. Best regards, Cind. amuse (Cindy) 12:11, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn - Not only should the AfD have been closed as "no consensus", but strong evidence of notability has been shown since closure. For those concerned that it wasn't "properly sourced," that is not a reason for deletion or even AfD but for editing and improvement. In fact WP:AFD states: "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination."-- Oakshade ( talk) 06:09, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Oakshade. LuciferWildCat ( talk) 11:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn In addition to her current major role in a TV series A.N.T. Farm she also had a major recurring role as the main antagonist, Lilith, in a two episode arch of Supernatural (TV series). This is more than sufficient for notability. Original AfD should have been closed as no consensus and the article not deleted. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 00:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Mentyvamenvocal.ogg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Accidentally deleted without moving to Wikimedia Commons. The file isn't copyrighted under the Russian copyright law. It was nominated by an anonymous visitor with the reason: "Target for moving the free file to Commons." Chtak Yuno ( talk) 03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Done. Looks like an oopsiex2, IP editor tagged it ffd instead of move to commons and Fastily deleted it without appearing to look at the tag. I shall have to point Wile E. Coyote in his direction again. File wants moving to Commons if someone has a moment. -- Elen of the Roads ( talk) 19:11, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Dear Administrator: I added two sections to the KILLARNEY article under the subheadings History of the Land and History of Tourism in Killarney. The first, I believe, is a very readable human story and concerns the lands which later became the Muckross National Park. The second gives the history of tourism, with a fleeting overview of the history of all tourism, but naming how things were in Killarney in 1846 and 1854. This would be of interest to anyone. It is noted by some editor that the Tourism section is outdated and someone else has said it seems (in Wikipedia) to be a town without a history. I agree that the entire article is parochial in layout and content. People opening up a page on Killarney want to be told substantial history and not of people and events of a purely local nature. I first uploaded just a little on the hotels in Killarney and the single one on the Ring of Kerry. DMOL deleted it and said the hotels on the ring had no relevance. This time in carefully researched sections I showed the relevance, so DMOL deleted both sections. My research is referenced in no less than seven books, four of which predate 1900. If you can spare the time to read those sections in the entry of early December 18th I guarantee you will not be bored or disappointed. I shall be very grateful if you can revert DMOL's deletions permanently if you consider the case justified. Many thanks and Kindest regards.

yours faithfully

Kemiah12:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kemiah ( talk • contribs)

DRV concerns itself with deletion discussion concerning the complete content of an article, not the individual pieces of content within an article which is considered an editorial decision (What you've got is termed a "content dispute"). You aren't the first and won't be the last to not be aware of the difference, so it's not a big problem listing here, but we aren't going to be able to solve the dispute for you. The normal way that such problems are dealt with however is by editors discussing the issue amoungst themselves on the articles talk page - in this case that's Talk:Killarney. If you go there you'll see that User:Dmol has already attempted to open that discussion, by listing the content removed and the reason behind it. Note Dmol hasn't said that all you've added is invalid, and in that discussion specifically entertains that some of what you've added may indeed be usable - "I've copied so that we can reach consensus regarding what should stay and how it should be presented". So I suggest you start by discussing there with those interested. If you still aren't happy with the outcome there are various other forms of dispute resolution (follow this link), such as asking for neutral third party input. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 13:22, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

As discussion is now proceeding at the articles talk page, I guess this can probably be closed. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 09:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Follows all wikipedia guidelines and the modertor is using his subjective opinion to not post the page. The article is proven notable by a reliable news source "autoblog.com" although "blog" is used in their domain name, autoblog is an independent news source owned bu huffington post. It receives 2 million unique views per month and is compiled by many editors and writers and from many sources. The closer noted that the source in the autoblog article is gearheaddeals.com website. this is not the rtue source as there is none of that content posted anywhere on gearheaddeals.com. The article was solely created by one of autoblog's writers. They were just linking to the gearheaddeals site for reference. There are other independent news sources I listed as well. The draft can be seen in my drafts area. I am new to writing WP articles so I am not sure how to link you there. Thank you. Bmwm3guy ( talk) 20:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I can't see the speedy'd version, but looking at the version on your user sub-page, here's my summary: 6-month old web start-up wants to be the Groupon for the gearhead niche, referenced by a couple of sources regurgitating their press releases. So, how is this notable? I get the impression from the talk page here that there may be something more to the site, but I don't see that in the article, and it seems that the closer didn't, either. If the article can't be much improved, then it doesn't really matter whether the DRV is successful, as it will fail AfD, deservedly. And if it can be significantly improved and shows that it is the Groupon of the gearhead set, or notably well on its way there, then that's the version of the article I think we all should be looking at. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 23:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

Closer disregarded GNG policies on notability for new article creation ( WP:NNC), instead applied the different policy on notability for content(NPOV) on this new article. Closer acknowledge that a subject could be notable on a single source for article creation purposes. But disregarded that policy anyway perhaps due to closer's own bias of game itself or its article creator. Closer also disregarded consensus analysis below that didn't include substantial policy explanation. Instead, closer only counted votes! The analysis of the votes during this deletion discussion was sent to his attention, but disregarded that too. The issue on the article is subject notability. Per WP:GNG guidelines a notable subject must have at least one notable, reliable and verifiable source for it to be CREATED in WP. WP:NNC Notability guidelines for content WP:WHYN does not apply for article creation as that criteria applies only to CONTENT NPOV on an already existing articles.

Because the subject has at least one notable source, WP:NNC requires it to be created and included in WP. Please restore deleted article and replace that old article with a newly modified article that is now in User:GalingPinas/Circball. Article also has been modified from its original content and the Closer acknowledge that current modified version is much "improved" and much "clearer". Here is the analysis of the votes during the deletion discussion:

1. 1 Delete by Hobbes Goodyear - No substantial arguments here as this user only stated that sources couldn't be found. It was indeed found. This vote shouldn't be counted as part of consensus.

1. 2 Delete by Jimfbleak - No substantial arguments either. Statements of personal opinions should not be counted as part of consensus. Comment not related to notability issue of subject.

1. 3 Delete by JamesBWatson - User charged that article is being promoted. This is outside the discussions of notability discussions. User thinks it's not "prominent" yet. Again, notability doesn't mean it's popular or famous. This vote should not be counted as part of consensus.

1. 4 Delete by η-θ - A comment of ":p duh.". Does that count?? No substantial explanation of why is non-notable.

1. 5 Delete by Tarc - a charge of advertising again or that it was "made up" sport that the user didn't like. This shouldn't be counted as consensus as no substantial explanation of why it is non-notable. Tarc acknowledged however that the source for GMA is notable.

1. 6 Keep by GalingPinas. Notability was argued here by providing three reliable sources and by providing a detail analysis of these sources as to the 5 requirements of WP:GNG general guidelines.

Even though the number of Deletes outweight the number of Keeps, policy on consensus requires substantive explanation which was lacking on the delete votes and was disregarded by Closer.

Again, the issue here is the subject's notability -- has the subject been notable outside of WP? Does the source follow the guidelines of WP:GNG specifically WP:NNC? IF A NOTABLE SOURCE EXIST, SUBJECT IS NOTABLE, EVEN AS A MERE STUB OR A SUB-ARTICLE OF A MAIN ARTICLE GalingPinas ( talk) 20:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• "Because the subject has at least one notable source, WP:NNC requires it to be created and included in WP" - nope, WP:NNC does not *require* anything to be created or included. I'm not sure I can make head nor tail of the rest of your argument. NNC is about the individual items of content within an article not needing to meet the notability standard, it is the overall topic of the article which needs to. WP:GNG states the presumption that a topic is suitable for a standalone article, if it has been covered by multiple independant reliable sources. The precise detail of what multiple means is open to interpretation, it means at least two, how many is a matter for consensus to determine in each case, generally the higher quality the sources the less will be required. One source however, no matter how many capitals you use, does not make a topic suitable for a standalone article. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 20:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• The text of WP:NNC states:

The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation. The notability guidelines do not apply to article ... content .... Content coverage within a given article or list is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies.

Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. If the subject has not been covered outside of Wikipedia, no amount of improvements to the Wikipedia content will suddenly make the subject notable. Conversely, if the source material exists,even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability. (emphasis added) GalingPinas ( talk) 20:35, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Well this is where I'm having severe difficulty understanding your argument, you seem to be quoting something which is the exact opposite of what you seem to be claiming. The title of that section, the part you wish to underline on article creation, and indeed the rest of the quote is indicating that the individual content of articles doesn't need to meet the notability standard, it's inclusion is based on things like WP:V and WP:NPOV. The topic itself however does still need to meet the notability standard, and that's what articles are created about. It needs to meet the WP:GNG as a topic to be presumed suitable for a standalone article. This still leaves is without sufficient sourcing to meet that standard. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 20:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Yes of course, once the article is included in WP, it requires WP:V, WPNPOV, WP:GNG, WPs,etc, etc.. and all those good stuff. Content guidelines however are a separate issue that deserves a different forum. This forum only talks about article creation. The article hasn't been created yet. The question for the new article per GNG is does it have a source outside of WP, and is the source reliable, verifiable, etc etc. When you ask those questions to the sources provided in this articles, it passes at least the minimum requirement of article creation--that is it has a notable source outside of WP. OK. so we have notable source, where can we put it in WP, is it appropriate as a stand-alone, is it appropriate as sub-article of a main article? is appropriate as a stub? But the underlying point is that the subject itself is notable having passed WP:NNC. We're not saying to disregard other notability guidelines, all we're saying here is should this article be created here in WP if it has a notable source? GalingPinas ( talk) 21:07, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Nope, you seem to want to rope WP:GNG in with the content standards it isn't. The wording "The criteria applied to article content are not the same as those applied to article creation" isn't saying that GNG applies to article content but not creation, it's the opposite way around. Topics (as represented by Articles) need to meet WP:GNG -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk)

• No. WP:GNG is still the underlying guidelines for notability whether it's content or article creation. But maybe i'm not explaining it clearly. We don't have an article called Circball yet in WP. Ok. So say someone wants to create an article called Circball in WP. The first question is--Is there a source outside WP (meaning has it been covered outside of WP?(WP:NNC). If the answer is no, then no article is allowed (coz of no original research), but if the answer is yes, create the article. Now, once the article is created, the next guidelines to be applied would be Content guidelines such the ones you mentioned above. But we're not there yet on the Content discussion (2nd base). We're still in 1st base (ie, article creation) which is the subject of this DelRev. GalingPinas ( talk) 22:31, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse argument presented here seems to be based on a misunderstanding of the meaning of WP:NNC -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 21:22, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Reverse. There is no misunderstanding of WP:NNC. It is very clear. Notability criteria for content is not the same as notability criteria for article creation. WP:NNC is very specific, "if the source material exists (outside of WP), then there is subject notability suitable for article creation in WP. That article could be a stand alone, subject to guidelines, it could be a sub-article, again subject to guidelines on sub-articles, or a stub which also has guidelines itself.

Here's another GNG guideline that supports article creation. "Notability requires only that appropriate sources have been published about the subject. It does not require that any editor has already named these sources, followed the neutral, encyclopedic style, or otherwise written a good article." WP:NRVE. Therefore reverse the deletion based on at least these two guidelines because the new article in question has reliable sources. GalingPinas ( talk) 21:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion per 82.19.4.7-- John ( talk) 21:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• John, I'd like to encourage you to be more detail on your vote and not just WP:PERNOM. Thanks. GalingPinas ( talk) 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and salt per 82.19.4.7. The wikilawyering needs to stop. I see only two RSes that you have found. That is nowhere close to enough to recreate the article. DRV is the place to discuss notability for article creation; WP:NNC isn't relevant here. -- Guerillero | My Talk 21:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Guerillero-That's the point, these two sources falls within WP:NNC, because it says if a source can be found that's notable, create the article, in essense. GalingPinas ( talk) 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I am going to try to be as nice as I can here. The NNC applies to articles that have already passed the GNG and have been created. It tells the community that the substance of an article does not need to pass the GNG independently of the topic. Your pet topic does not pass the threshold of notability yet, please drop the stick and move on. Misusing policy against common sense, like you are above, is disruptive. -- Guerillero | My Talk 22:19, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Guerillero my "pet topic" is not the issue here. It's the issue of whether this so called pet topic has a source. It does. Therefore it passes WP:NNC requirement of source notability.

Simply stating that the subject of an article is not notable does not provide reasoning as to why the subject may not be notable. This behavior straddles both "Just unencyclopedic" and "Just pointing at a policy or guideline". WP:JNN — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalingPinas ( talk • contribs) 00:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

You obviously don't understand WP:NNC. I would continue this discussion, but I have come to the conclusion that it will only end with me cursing at you. Your ability to not see the point and to misconstrue policy has killed all of the good faith I have for you. You are disrupting the project now. -- Guerillero | My Talk 00:14, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

*Everyone here has the right to provide opinion about this very topic without any ad hominem attack tone on their comments which will not be considered as consensus if one continues. GalingPinas ( talk) 00:37, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I haven't read the whole AfD, so I'm not going to stick something in bold next to this comment, but WP:NNC is completely irrelevant here. WP:NNC says that notability only affects the question of whether Wikipedia can have an article on some topic, not what that article should or should not say. The issue for debate in the AfD is whether the subject passes the general notability guideline, nothing else. Hut 8.5 21:48, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Yes Hut. I would suggest to everyone to first read the Afd. Because the issue in Afd is very specific. Here's the original issue that was raised:

"Non-notable, "new" sport, with no coverage found at reliable, independent sources. Contested PROD PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 02:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)"

As you read down the discussions, it turns out that sources were actually found and analyzed which meet WP:NNC for article creation. So the real issue is are there sources notable for article creation per WP:NNC. GalingPinas ( talk) 22:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

No, you've completely missed the point. If sources were found then your argument is that the article meets the GNG, not WP:NNC. NNC is not an inclusion criterion. Hut 8.5 23:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - The article creator is mounting quite a forum-shopping crusade to salvage this thing, but the consensus of the Wikipedia community in the AfD was clear that the reliable sourcing was insufficient. Note that the AfD was closed by DGG, one of the most...passionate inclusion-minded editors (he can attest that that's the nicest way I have ever described him) around here. his deleted article is also the subject of a current MfD, as the creator has insisted on keeping a copy on his user page. Tarc ( talk) 22:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Tarc, your comment above has no bearing whatsoever to the discussion at hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalingPinas ( talk • contribs)

• I'm sorry, but your train jumped the tracks quite a long time ago regarding this subject. I quite clearly addressed the matter, we are here at DRV to review the closing admin's actions, and I noted that the closer's take of the consensus at the AfD was proper. DRV isn't for simple "I disagree with the decision" complaining, it is to review if the admin did something wrong. Tarc ( talk) 23:02, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• You're quite right, the closing admin did something wrong by misapplying improper WP guidelines. Counted votes and used that as a basis for closing, disregarded the proper WP:NNC guideline on article creation, instead replaced his own notability bias (just like you did) on the discussions, as shown on DGG's own usertalk pages about Circball. [ #195]. GalingPinas ( talk) 23:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse my own deletion. After I had deleted the article, I made a serious effort to work with the contributor to try to see if a satisfactory articles was there. I concluded in the end that it was not yet possible, because there was insufficient material to show even the most basic notability --the sport is recorded as having been played in a single season, with a single tournament involving teams from 10 schools, and local TV coverage. (I think it has a insufficiently documented but likely earlier history, as a sport played for several decades at more more of these schools.). I advised the contributor to wait untill there was a second season, with some more coverage. But even when that is the case, I think the contributor, who has an obvious COI from his first username, would be well advised to stay away from the articles. He insisted on retaining multiple photographs and videos, explaining the minutia of the rules, and including an extensive undocumented explanation of the philosophical significance; he reacted to my editing attempts on the userpage draft to make a copy of his preferred version on his user page.(which is now at MfD). This is not the behavior of someone trying in good faith to add information--a reasonable fan would have simply waiting a year and done a modest article appropriate to the extent of the sport. (If it is, it shows the influence of excessive involvement to the extent of greater irrationality than what is customary even at Wikipedia.) My conclusion at this point is that the article was intended to be promotional, that the contributor is dedicated to accomplishing this promotion here despite all obstacles, At this point, I think all versions of the article would be subject to speedy deletion under criterion G11 for such articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• It should be noted that actions made after the deletions of the article are irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is about whether DGG applied the correct GNG guidelines. As note above in the summary reasons: GNG guidelines specifically WP:NNC was not applied appropriately in this case, in due respect to his long experience in editing. Even DGG acknowledge that article'ssource do exist per WP:NNC that merits article creation. Yet despite that only vote were counted on the delete discussion for number purposes without regard to the substantive consensus issues or to the WP guideliness, specifically WP:NNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GalingPinas ( talk • contribs)

• Endorse deletion. The nominator of this DRV, under his/her previous username of Circball, is the creator of the article and provided the only "keep" vote in the AfD. I voted "delete" for lack of substantial sourcing in the article and from my own web searches, and said as much. I also responded twice more as additional sourcing was presented, which I found lacking. Nominator disagrees with my assessment—fair enough. But to say, after I spent time and effort to consider the matter and nominator's further efforts, that my "vote shouldn't be counted as part of consensus"? This I do not accept. The issue here is not about what policies apply, it's about whose assessment of the quality of the sourcing should apply—the nominator's, or everyone else's. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 22:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Hobbes, I appreciate your vote at the Afd, but you stated that no source can be found, when it fact I presented you with the sources. Then you further commented that you're not satisfied with these sources. But not's the point. WP:NNC only states that a notable source must exists for article creation. period. whether you like the source or not is another issue that is beyond the scope of the deletion discussion. Thus you vote is not consensus. GalingPinas ( talk) 22:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as a proper reading of consensus. Could not reasonably have been closed any other way. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 23:14, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• COMMENT. I want to remind the closer of this DRV, (despite the unrelenting Endorse votes) on the following facts as per WP:NNC guidelines. Was there a source that merits article creation in WP for Circball? And the answer is YES. Is the source notable? The answer is yes (see below on the analysis of the sources per WP:GNG):

"Source#1=GMANews "Saksi":

1. 1. "Significant Coverage" = Saksi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about the rules of the game of Circball. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court. It also talked about the moral principles that the game teaches. "Saksi" also mentioned who the founders are of the Circball. Where it originated and what the organizations that are currently using the game. All of these are covered in this article.
2. 2. "Reliable" - Saksi new coverage is reliable because it came from a major new media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, GMA.
3. 3. "Sources"- Saksi news coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Journalist by the name of Mark Zambrano and published by his employer-company, GMA Network Inc.
4. 4. "Independence" = Saksi is independent of Circball and its parent company nor its journalists and reporters have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
5. 5. "Presumption" = Saksi's detail coverage of Circball on April 2011 established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#2=Q-TV & GMA's Children Show "Tropang Potchi":

1. 1. "Significant Coverage" = Tropang Potchi addressed the Circball game in detail. It talked about what the game is all about. It talked about the unique Ring and the circular court and how the game is played, particulary Morality Play. It also talked about how children can learn moral principles that the game teaches. The Children hosts shown on the video interviewed one of the founders of Circball Philippines Club Inc--the organizing entity utilizing Circball games. All of these are covered in the article as well.
2. 2. "Reliable" - Tropang Potchi coverage is reliable because it came from two major new media companies recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, Q-TV and GMA.
3. 3. "Sources"- Tropang Potchi's coverage is a secondary source media publication that was gathered by a professional Director by the name of Louie Ignacio and his staff.
4. 4. "Independence" = Tropang Potchi is independent of Circball. Its parent companies nor its directors and staffs have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article. The show was also confirmed by a newspaper article published on September 10, 2011 by Abante-Tonite. The article mentioned that the show will highlight some current innovations in sports in the Philippines that include in-line hockey, flag football and Circball.
5. 5. "Presumption" = Tropang Potchi's detail coverage of Circball on August 2011 (shown on TV September 2011) established the presumption for inclusion in WP.

Source#3=UNTV Sports37's Letter of Intent:

1. 1. "Significant Coverage" = Sports37 (see its own website) covers sports in the Philippines in detail by interviewing sports athletes. It talks about the rules of the sports, where it originated and how the sports are played and what organizations are involved using the game. All of these patterns of coverage of a sport are discussed in the article.
2. 2. "Reliable" - Sports37 intended coverage is reliable because it comes from a major media company recognized and noted even by Wikipedia itself, UNTV.
3. 3. "Sources"- Sport37's coverage is a secondary source media publication gathered by a professional Director by the name of Rene Leanda and writer/researcher Bernard Mones, per list of staff provided in the letter of intent.
4. 4. "Independence" = Sports37's parent company UNTV is independent of Circball. Its parent company nor its directors and writers have no conflict of interest with either the subject or the article.
5. 5. "Presumption" = Sports37 sports coverage of Circball through its letter of intent establishes the presumption for inclusion in WP.

These sources and others establish the notability of Circball per WP:GNG and must be included in WP either as a standalone article or merge with similar articles that discusses basketball related topics, in particular, variations of basketball.GalingPinas (talk) 08:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)"

Please apply the WP:NNC as the proper guideline to article creation for Circball. Once Circball is created, any Editor can flag for any issues they want to flag, Be it V, NPOV, etc. But for purposes of this discussions, the analysed sources above merits article creation per WP:NNC. GalingPinas ( talk) 23:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

StarWind Software ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Disputing the decision to keep and appeal for an Overturn to delete and salt. I believe the closing admin judged consensus and policy inappropriately in this debate. The rationael given for keeping was "spam issues are important but not by themselves a reason for deletion". However, asside from having "6" previous spam/COI deletions (a clear need to "Salt"), Consensus for "deletion" was quite clear in this case, as was the consensus in the articles first AFD, based on the subjects lack of Notability.

While many links exist, a closer look at each these links, reveals they fail as reliable sources (as was consensus agreed) seem to be nothing more than a collection of press releases, blogs, partner sites, self published material and mere trivial installation coverage and incidental mentions. One example; ZDNet Blogger (Dan Kusnetzky) explains explicitly in his BLOG that a "representative of StarWind Software reached out to me... " _[12] as a "marketing message " _[13], Pure marketing, not independent of the subject nor it is it a review. Sites like it-bezpeka.org.ua, techrepublic.com, links are simply inclusions in various blogged lists of related products and is considered "trivial coverage per WP:CORPDEPTH. As are anandtech.com (only mention is in the blogs "comments"), windowsservercatalog.com and citrix.com (written by Starwind Software). The books cited were converted to ISBN numbers to hide the fact they were origionaly Amazon.com links to mere incidental installation notes failing to support inclusion. venturedeal.com is simply a routine announcement and the Intel link (on page 8) is literaly a footnote. Hu12 ( talk) 15:55, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment Hu12, please point at 1) press release 2) blogs 3) partner sites 4) self-published material in the current list of current URLs. Thank you!

Microsoft and Intel used StarWind software to build a test system push 1 million IOPS thru it. So it was StarWind running inside to make it happen. In such a case small footnote "yes, we've used THAT product" costs quite a lot. Do you understand what I mean? I'll be adding StarWind + Mellanox test so please provide feedback here as it's another performance benchmark.

Please bother to read ALL pages of anandtech.com - it's three iSCSI products put face-to-face it was not "comments" which brought attention. If you provide samples please bother to at least view ALL the pages and not stop at the first one. Thank you!

Yes, I've used originally amazon links as I did not know I need to put ISBNs. Is this a crime or what? Yworo fixed everything and I'll be adding another books with citations quite soon (working on it hard).

Not sure about venturedeal.com but I can remove it just to make you happy.

NINTENDUDE64 did brilliant work to describe ZDnet issue once again. I appreciate his work!

APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 21:56, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Sustain keep. At least the ZDNet piece is not a blog. It's a major column in a major magazine, and the article is a 3rd party review, which merely includes the portion marked as being from the company. But that's on the second screen of my monitor, so perhaps the nom. didn't see it. The proof it's 3rd party is that it's a strongly negative review. Read it for yourself. DGG ( talk ) 16:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Dan kusnetzky (Kusnetzky Group LLC) [14] [15] is a blogger [16] [17], independent of znet, and not a staff writer or apart of their editorial oversight [18]. Funny how in the "Snapshot analysis" section he retracts the critisisms after the company, again, reaches out to him...he's a marketer (kusnetzky.net). Would think blogs by any marketing company/person, paid or unpaid would be discounted due to lack of reliability and their inherantly biased nature (wether they are for or against a competing product [19]). -- Hu12 ( talk) 18:05, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment - That's not an uncommon occurrence at all for a company to reach out to a writer who criticizes their product and for the writer to retract some or all of their statements. Read any editorial section of any trade or even consumer magazine. Writers miss things all the time; it'd be unreliable and biased of them to not review their statements when presented with new information or when their mistakes are highlighted. -- NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:08, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I was pleasantly surprised that this AfD was closed as keep and not surprised that the result is being contested. There were indeed a lot of delete !votes and even though a closing admin is supposed to consider the arguments, not just the number of !votes on each side, my experience is that not all admins take time to read the arguments to consider carefully which ones are policy-based. But it was the right decision. Content issues, spam and COI, past AfD outcomes, the bad behavior of other editors and the number of times an article has been previously deleted are all completely irrelevant. The only thing that matters at AfD is whether notability can be established, which turns entirely on whether sources exist, even if they haven't yet been cited in the article. The simple fact is that the sources do exist. When I searched the Google books search results, it was obvious anyone could find as many sources as they wanted. I cited 3 in my !vote, each of them several pages in length in published books. To me they looked reliable, independent and secondary, easily clearing the bar for notability. Hu12 insisted the sources were primary or trivial (he couldn't seem to make up his mind) but beyond simply making that claim, was unable to provide any reason why he believed the sources I'd found were defective. I suspect this was a case of becoming too emotionally invested in the outcome and this DRV is more of the same. Msnicki ( talk) 16:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Since when are industry blogs not considered reliable sources? These aren't some random postings on some anonymous person's WordPress account, they're from reliable industry publications. StarWind Software serves a niche market, but they're clearly notable in that market and therefore the content of the article is encyclopedic. I was happy to see that the closing admin considered the quality of the arguments rather than the quantity of !votes. -- NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• This... novel... afd close rationale would be a lot more palatable if those endorsing it would at least attempt to make this an acceptable article. I don't see anything in the current revision that belongs in a Wikipedia article except the lede sentence, the statement of location the History section, and the infobox; but every paywalled review, every cover-CD shovelware inclusion, every "Works with Windows Server 2008 R2" certification is furiously defended by the same horde of spas that derailed the afd and will no doubt be here in due course. (Assuming there's in fact more than one of him, which is by no means clear.) If we must have an article here instead of a five-word passing mention in Storage area network or a similar article as would normally be the case, then let's have an article, even a two-sentence stub, not this unapologetic puffpiece. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 22:36, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

OK, I've did enormous work (thanks to Yworo for couraging and building book templates) to include virtually everything I've been able to Google about this company. Could take next step and Google about Rocket Division Software (as they seems to exist under this name since 2003 and before 2008 or 2009 - quite a time for software company BTW as they come and go - 8 years). You're welcomed to add what you think I've missed and remove what you think is a junk. I do agree with Msnicki however product itself still seems to be more remarkable then the company. But most of the companies are one-product only ;) Thanks to everybody, hope to turn back to gun articles finally :) APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 02:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete and salt. A mediocre review from a site like ZDnet is enough to prove that the business and product exist. It does not establish that the business or its product represents the sort of achievement that ought to be remembered in an encyclopedia, and in fact suggests the opposite. Trade and niche coverage needs to establish more than that a business or product exists; they need to show that the business or product has some kind of significance outside of IT departments. Simply collecting sites that mention this software does not establish any such significance. - Smerdis of Tlön - killing the human spirit since 2003! 15:47, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

You're right. But did you actually bother yourself to read product section of the article? Did you read about first AoE initiator? First FCoE initiator? World currently fastest software iSCSI target (record being broken TWICE)? Storage hypervisor thing (there's only one company I've mentioned before DataCore doing storage hypervisor Windows thing). Everything with the links. Breaking records is what exactly you think making something "encyclopedic" (BTW, I don't share your point of view here). APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 17:10, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment I just stubbified the article to something that is reasonably neutral. Especially the product section was horrendous. Yoenit ( talk) 22:47, 20 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment But you've basically deleted 70% or 80% of my work without adding anything. If you'd follow the whole discussion you'd see editors insisted on 1) notability and 2) non-primary sources. As you've just deleted achievements (with product section) and books sections you've reverted whole content to the state we had before AfD story started... I'll try to re-write products section using template you did but I'm afraid I'll have to revert at least some of your applied changes. Thank you! APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

You are allowed to revert another editor's changes if you disagree. Take care never to cross the three revert rule, however, or you'll quickly get blocked for edit warring. But when there's clear disagreement on content, it's best to take the discussion to the article talk page, first, and seek WP:CONSENSUS. Msnicki ( talk) 17:01, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment He's basically right (and other guy from Talk page too...) so I'm checking other companies pages to have everything re-worked in the proper way. DataCore and FalconStor pages did not help much BTW :) So taking somebody from outside the industry... APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Whether the review is mediocre or positive is irrelevant. We do not judge the quality of software, we judge the quality of coverage. a truly awful product like WindowsMe that got multiple extensive deserved negative reviews in responsible sources is just as notable for our purposes as if the reviews had been positive. Notable does not necessarily mean notable for high quality. We are not qualified to determine "level of achievement" in this or any other category, except where there is some commonly accepted criterion such as a record charting on a major chart, or an athlete competing at the international level. (To give the most widely accepted special criteria of this nature.). In most fields, we cannot do this. Even when we have experts here to judge, we're not Consumer Reports. The whole point of WP:GNG is that in many fields, we can only go by the existence of substantial sources. (Some people want to use that in all fields even when there's a rational criterion; I do not, but this is a field where there is no such straightforward accepted criterion and we can do nothing else. .

on the other hand, Smerdis is completely right about mentions, especially in sources that do not discriminate. Such are not suitable sources for showing notability in an encyclopedia , just existence for listing in a directory , which we most emphatically are not. The ZD review is somewhere in the middle: it's an review extensive enough to consider the quality and nature of the product, not determine its existence, but it's somewhat less than a true full review. DGG ( talk ) 03:10, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment The problem is we're talking about software here. If we'd follow your idea we'd have to remove most of software companies as they don't show notability from your point of view. Check for example FalconStor. APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 08:36, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

No. first Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Secondly FalconStor is a publicly traded company on the NASDAQ and has significant coverage by secondary sources.-- Hu12 ( talk) 14:15, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Critical It's politically incorrest to make any kind of assumptions or even try finding any relationship between mental level of any human being and his skin color, financial status, nationality, religion etc. In the same way you cannot say "company A is public so it's noticable and company B is not public so it's not noticable". BTW, being public does not mean 1) company A has more money then company B (and that's what you've tried to say) 2) company A is somehow remarkable and 3) company A should be part of encyclopedia. WP:NOT. Back to your coverage... Se we can judge on the page content entirely. If people would be able to read each mind we would not need any quotations, citations or whole Wiki project. So significant coverage is set of URLs on company page and not a bunch of dead neurons burried somewhere in somebody's head. APS (Full Auto) ( talk) 21:49, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Reluctant weak endorse. I read the second AFD and I have to endorse the closer's decision because there were arguments by editors independent of the subject that at least some of the sources presented were supersources. However, I completely sympathize with the delete/salt !voters here and I believe that this article was created to promote this company and the tone of it shows. In my view, one of the first indications that a subject may be notable is if a neutral editor with no connection to a subject takes note of the subject and elects to write an article about it and one cannot take note of ones self. If those associated with this company had waited for this to happen, the result would have been a better article that we wouldn't have to keep despamming. -- Ron Ritzman ( talk) 13:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Disciples Football ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

On November 19th, the Disciples Football page was deleted under the grounds of being a G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement violator. This article cited its sources, utilized paraphrase, NOT direct quotation, and provided valuable information. If using other websites as sources and paraphrasing is a G12: Unambiguous copyright infringement violation, than nearly every page on Wikipedia should be deleted to conform to its policies. Although the Disciples page did at one point contain some copyright infringement content, this content was afterwards properly cited, paraphrased, or entirely removed. Yet the page was still deleted. Republic of Unclaimed Land ( talk) 14:07, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Not only was the entire article a copyright violation, no question, but the group is not notable enough for an article anyway. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • It is generally a good idea to note that you are endorsing your own deletion. But ignoring that, can you or some other admin tell us what the source was and give an example of what was copied? Or, rather than the example, mail it to those who request the article as it was when deleted? Thanks. Hobit ( talk) 00:00, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • http://www.maxpreps.com/local/team/records/default.aspx?gendersport=boys,football&schoolid=441aba77-e883-49b0-9aba-4a8d518e22e4. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 00:09, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I contest any assertion that I performed a copyright violation of the material on that webpage. That page contains factual information that I paraphrased. Facts cannot be copyrighted. Honestly, I don't understand. The article WAS corrected to remove copyright violation. If you look at the text of the last version of the article, you will find that it DOES NOT plagiarize. Republic of Unclaimed Land ( talk) 00:47, 17 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Republic of Unclaimed Land ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This is a tough one. It's pretty obvious that the first couple of paragraphs were directly copied from the website than padded out with a few words here and there. Even though it's not a carbon copy, it certainly couldn't be classed as original work and it's a poor attempt to circumvent Wikipedia's copyright policy. Having said that, the rest of the article is original work - however, this amounts to two paragraphs (one containing stats, the other a brief note about the current season), and WP:CSD#G12 includes the clause "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving" so I think this criteria does apply here. Even if it wasn't, the article fails to assert the team's notablity and I can't see any way this article would survive an AfD discussion. Bottom line, it's either G12 or A7. ~~ Bettia ~~  ^talk 13:37, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Can I be provided with a copy of the article? I don't understand how someone can write a brief description drawing from a brief description as the source of facts, without the two paragraphs sounding similar. By ruling this copyright infringement, it means that the article is plagiarism merely because it states facts stated on another website. Everything but the actual statement of each fact was reworded. Nothing more could be done - which does not make the content unimportant or unworthy of an article.

The only way I can see to make the facts be presented in a more "original" manner would be to bury them in unnecessary fluff, or to place all of the information in quotes. And if such action in required, than have it performed instead of tossing the information aside entirely.

I think that this article should be reinstated, and then a new deletion discussion started to discuss whether the article is of sufficient importance. Republic of Unclaimed Land ( talk) 21:57, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I would also like to state that If memory serves correctly, TWO websites were cited. The assertion that the page was simply a copy of the maxpreps page would then be false.

Also, the fact that the Disciples were the tenth ranked homeschool team in the nation makes them notable, as does the fact that there quarterback finished the season first in the nation for total yardage for homeschool teams, a fact which was never put in the article because the page was deleted too soon. Republic of Unclaimed Land ( talk) 22:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Nothing except their own stubbornness is preventing the nominator here from creating an article without copyright issues. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:05, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There should be no difficulty in start a non-paraphrased article. Paraphrase consists of using either the words, the sentence structure, and (to a more limited extent) the sequence of ideas. You can, however, use the same ideas. The first step is to use a different sequence of ideas: The article & web p. talk first about how the team was founded (in a way that I consider characteristically non-encyclopedic: In year, so-and-so had the idea of founding...) This style is too personal. . The more encyclopedic way is to say: X is a team .... It was started in year by so and so at place whatever. that's very dull writing to be sure, but such is characteristic of any encyclopedia. You can then go on to describe the purpose and the history, There's some missing information that should be added: where are the students from--how wide is the geographic area they draw from? what ages are they? What teams does it play against?--other homeschoolers, or private schools, or ? The ranking needs a source. The only part that is almost impossible to paraphrase is the statistics, and that's true for all articles, but they can still be presented in a different order.

Myself, I do not think there is a sharp distinction between close paraphrase and acceptable paraphrase -- the practical way when something is complained of as too close, is to rewrite it to a greater extent. We therefore should not speedy delete such articles, because the contributor needs and deserves a chance to rewrite them. But since this has been deleted, just do it over. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Copyright Alliance ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deletion in May 2011 was for lack of general notability, or even (improperly) WP:ONEEVENT. However, I'm now redlinking the organization from Online Protection and Enforcement of Digital Trade Act, which uses references to it from the past few days in the New York Times and CNet. ^{[20] [21]} SOPA, a matter of considerable interest to Wikipedia, should also link to it. I contacted User:Cirt, who closed the deletion, but is not currently an administrator, hoping he might have a delegate for such matters, but he didn't recommend anyone specifically, so I've posted this here. I understand that I may need to add a few of these references to the undeleted article to establish its notability against future deletion attempts. Wnt ( talk) 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC) Wnt ( talk) 23:25, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Userfy. A reasonable request from a good faith user, with new sources sufficient to supersede the old AfD.— S Marshall T/ C 23:36, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Support userfication per S Marshall. If no one objects, I'll go ahead and userfy the article tomorrow. This looks like an obvious case of new sources obsoleting the old discussion. Eluchil404 ( talk) 02:02, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• A userification doesn't even need DRV approval unless there's been a previous ruling to NOT allow such--which is usually only in cases of copyright, promotion, or attack pages. Jclemens ( talk) 05:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply

If you want to do that, it'll be appreciated. ;) But a proper undeletion where I can look through the full history and where proper credit is given to the original authors would be preferable if you'll allow it. I don't want to infringe any of the editors' copyrights there, after all. ;) Wnt ( talk) 16:46, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• The userfication will undelete the material including all its contribution history. It will appear in your userspace. You can then add appropriate references before moving the whole page back to mainspace (with its history intact).— S Marshall T/ C 17:19, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Oh... never realized that, sorry! Wnt ( talk) 17:48, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply

File:A549 bridges -- 7-28-at1616.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Was never placed on IFD, but admins refuse to undelete it at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion. It is a free, encyclopedic image of my own work that I uploaded that contrary to the deleting admin (who didn't look at the image closely enough), it was not a duplicate of a Commons image. John Riemann Soong ( talk) 03:08, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• As I said on the WP:REFUND thread, the images are bit for bit identical. Any admin can look at the full size picture for both the commons version and the deleted wikipedia version and see they both hash to 6be87eaea86c8ce92c51d46ea4b0e144 (w/ MD5). Protonk ( talk) 04:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• But the local copy was rudely deleted without my knowledge. Could I please have it back? John Riemann Soong ( talk) 06:39, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know how else to say this. That's the same photo. Nothing stops you from uploading it to wikipedia again under the old name or a new name. Protonk ( talk) 07:03, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Perhaps for clarity migrating free images to commons, is normal practice and not indicative of any rudeness/whatever. I'm not sure why you particularly think a local copy is either required or desirable, when exactly the same image was copied to commmons and is freely available there. From the projects perspective the advantages of it being local are somewhat small (and really only related to if commons decides to delete it for some reason, which would normally be a duplicative or copyright concern). -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 06:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• I've got a question for each of you. John Riemann Soong, your images are available on Commons, so I don't yet understand why it's necessary to have extremely similar ones on Wikipedia as well: could you explain? And Protonk, please could you explain why it's necessary to be obstructive and unhelpful in response to this good faith user's request? You have said, and I quote: I will not restore those images. You may download them from commons and reupload them to wikipedia under a different name if you wish. I find this response, made to a sporadic but rather productive editor, quite unsatisfactory.— S Marshall T/ C 12:32, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I concur, after this edit the image should have been restored, rather than telling the user to reupload it himself. With regards to the motivations for undeleting the article, see also this village pump discussion. Yoenit ( talk) 13:53, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Comment Magog the ogre restored the image, so this thread can be closed. Yoenit ( talk) 13:54, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Since Protonk does not deny that he was being needlessly obstructive and bureaucratic, I'll go with restore as has already been done.— S Marshall T/ C 08:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Zlatko Tomcic.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

I would like to request a review of my deletion of the above file under WP:NFCC#1. The subject of the photo is still alive, but actively avoids public appearances, raising questions as to whether a freely licensed photo of him could be created. FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Undeleted so non-admins can view the photo - FASTILY ^(TALK) 21:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• We've kept non-free photos of living recluses before; the best example is probably File:JD Salinger.jpg (first uploaded three years before the subject's death). 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 05:55, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I am the uploader. Here are the two sources on Tomčić staying outside the public eye, both in Croatian.
  

One, [22], google trans [23], my own trans below. There is a photo of the subject in the article, but it is quite clear (IMO) that it was taken without his consent.

... away from politics and the public, he is building his business empire. He does not give statements to anyone.

He also refused to talk to Globus about his business success.

"He is not ready to give any statements," the secretary of Capital ing said, refusing us. "Ever since he left politics, he makes no statements to any medium or any journalist," she recited importantly.

Two, [24], google trans [25]. There's an entire paragraph about him, here's my own trans of the relevant bit:

Ever since he left politics Tomčić seems to have evaporated. He does not want to be in the media, does not want to publicly comment on political events, although journalists call him. "It's hard to switch off from everything. Sometimes it itches me to say something, but for now I am resisting," admits Tomčić.

In addition:

• I have contacted Mr. Tomčić directly and asked for a free photo, no reply yet. I'll report if anything happens.
• A relatively minor point, since it hasn't been that long: the subject has served in his most visible role (President of Croatian Parliament) 2000-2003, so a photo from this period, such as this one or the one from his parliament page (see below), may be a better illustration of articles about his political life.
• For the record, here's the home page of Mr. Tomčić's architecture company: [26]. It's a small outfit (14 listed employees) that seems to do business primarily with construction investors, and keeps a low public profile.

– Miranche  ^{T  C} 05:58, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Update: An alternative source for the image may be the web pages of the Croatian Parliament: [27]. While unfortunately the Croatian state institutions do not have the policy of releasing everything into the public domain and seem to shy away from explicit licenses, the "Legal Notices" page of the Parliament [28], google trans [29], informally authorizes something close to CC-BY:

All rights reserved. The content of these pages can be used without special permission with source attribution.

– Miranche  ^{T  C} 07:50, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Miranche hinted that he would like me to comment. I consider this the clear equivalent of CC-BY, and sufficient. That they do not express it in CC terminology does not mean that it is not a free license. DGG ( talk ) 09:16, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I agree that that appears to be a CC-BY licence. Accordingly, there's no need to review the deletion. We can simply re-upload the file from the CC-BY source and retain it.— S Marshall T/ C 12:18, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• They allow reuse with attribution, but reserve the rights to derivative works, so it isn't free enough. The tag to compare it to isn't {{ CC-BY}}, but {{ Attribution}}. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 12:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Is that so? Does "use" not include derivative works? I am looking here. Has something got lost in translation? Thincat ( talk) 14:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The original word is "prenositi", which google translated in context of this sentence as "use", but the literal meaning is closer to "transfer". It's ambiguous – I agree it allows for a conservative interpretation as CC-BY-ND, but also a bold one as CC-BY. It'd be good to have a second opinion from someone who speaks Bosnian/Croatian/Serbian – Miranche  ^{T  C} 15:34, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • If the original were in English, and said (as Google's translation does) "All rights reserved. Content from these pages can be used without special permission provided the source.", it absolutely would not be enough; reproduction on one hand and creation of derivative works on the other are two separate rights, and it's clear that this is a grant of reproduction. If the statement in the original is closer to "transfer" than to "use", then it's even less ambiguous. Being bold is something you do when adding your own content to Wikipedia pages, not when interpreting licence terms; if you're not granted a right, you don't have it. Otherwise, we could just go around claiming half the images on the internet are public domain because they don't specifically say we can't do whatever we like with them. We need explicit statements granting rights for both derivative and commercial usage anyway, per Wikipedia:Image use policy#Free licenses.

      That said, permission for use makes for a much stronger fair use claim than we have for the image on monitor.hr. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 16:11, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for the clarification, 74.74.150.139. To focus the discussion, I uploaded the image from the parliament instead. The question now becomes on the merits of a fair use claim of this image, released under the terms as stated ( [30], [31]). I will remain neutral on whether these terms amount to CC-BY or CC-BY-ND. As you said, this boils down to whether certain rights are granted by default or withheld by default, and I have neither the legal expertise to judge this nor the inclination to get into a tangential discussion on it. Cheers – Miranche  ^{T  C} 17:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• 74.74.150.139, just to point out that the {{ Attribution}} tag, to which you compare the Cro Parliament statement, allows derivative works. – Miranche  ^{T  C} 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm quite aware, and that's part of why I brought it up. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 23:33, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• There's also the fact that Croatian official works are not subject to copyright in the first place - see http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2011/10#Copyright_of_Croatian_government But the government institutions don't seem to understand how to classify information to match this law, and instead claim copyright. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:30, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Joy, thank you! I don't know how I missed this, I probably looked at it and interpreted it as applying only to texts. So the question becomes whether the photo qualifies as one of "official works ... disclosed for the purpose of officially informing the public". It seems to me that it does. – Miranche  ^{T  C} 22:05, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Yes, everything depends on that, but their generic copyright notice muddles the water. As I said before, we need examples from law practice to be able to ascertain where's the mistake. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 12:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Update: I've found a total of three images ( [32], [33], [34]) + two extracted images of people on Commons using the tag {{ PD-Croatia-exempt}}. Only one of the four people portrayed still lives, Queen Elizabeth II, and the image is from her 1972 visit to Yugoslavia. Possible precedent for exempting Tomčić's parliament portrait, but not a strong one. – Miranche  ^{T  C} 23:39, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse in principle with no opinion as to the related licensing issues. The subject was a highly visible political figure/officeholder for more than a decade. The fact that he is said to have more recently become reclusive therefore is not terribly relevant in determining whether a free alternative may be available. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• I endorse the original deletion because a free use image is available (the image now uploaded). However the current licensing information is wrongly claiming fair use. Based on the discussion User:Joy has linked to, it seems there is no copyright on this new image (or, at the least, there is a good case for CC-BY). So, I think the newly uploaded image should be kept with the licensing and other tags sorted out properly. Thincat ( talk) 22:48, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thincat, thank you for the reply. I noted that the copyright of the new photo is uncertain under "Other information" on the image description page, as I wasn't clear if the information Joy posted was unequivocal regarding the terms under which Croatian government is releasing the photo. If one of {{ PD-Croatia-exempt}}, {{ Attribution}} or {{ CC-BY}} is indeed appropriate, then I agree this discussion is moot – and I may as well upload the image to Commons. – Miranche  ^{T  C} 03:54, 23 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Closer, please note that the new image was uploaded over the old one; that is, please delete only the greyscale revision of File:Zlatko Tomcic.png uploaded 20:16, 10 December 2011, not the full-color revision that's currently on top. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 23:14, 21 December 2011 (UTC) reply

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

This professional videogame player is extremely notable. Has been mentioned by the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6275868.stm and many other mainstream sources multiple times, has had games broadcast on satellite international tv, has won over $140,000 in prize money and has been at the highest level in the game for almost a decade. The fact that he's professional OR that he's at the very highest level by themselves would be enough according to Wikipedia:Notability (sports)#Generally acceptable standards and Wikipedia:Notability alone would be enough to qualify for notability. If you do a search for "Cooller" on youtube you will find countless videos of him. Intel and id software both hosted events he's won many thousands at. Many other professional videogame players have pages. Here is what an outdated version of the page looked like: http://www.enotes.com/topic/Anton_Singov. All other highly successful professional players such as Shane Hendrixson get Wikipedia pages. Please restore.

I was unable or advised not to contact the admin to discuss this when I tried to because he himself is under administrator review! He has apparently been deleting tons of notable pages for little or no reason. Wikipedia:Administrator review/King of Hearts#2011 And if you look at his talk page you see he is under administrator review: User talk:King of Hearts , and look at all the complaints, it's ridiculous. Anonywiki ( talk) 04:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Close this was at DRV quite recently and new new evidence has been provided. [35]. Hobit ( talk) 08:13, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Comment I suspect you should refactor your nomination somewhat. The article was deleted by a different admin following the XFD where the only opinion expressed was for deletion, this couldn't have ended any other way. King Of Hearts closed the following DRV where the discussion was thin, but basically a request for additional sourcing of a suitable standard, none was forthcoming. So again I can't see that the DRV would have been closed any other way. Finally coming to DRV and attempting to "poison the well" with regards the deleting admin is not appropriate, the question is about this deletion and no other deletion or what you may perceive as "bad behaviour". Not to mention you seem to have not looked up what administrator review is - it's a voluntary review the admin asks for to gain insight into how they perform, it isn't some sort of black mark against them. The fact that some opine there and are unhappy about deletions performed isn't unexpected, merely going there and complaining isn't a sign that there is any merit to the complaint. If there were a serious problem with the deletions I'd expect to have seen a large number of deletions challenged here and overturned, that isn't actually the case. I also have no idea of the connection between an admin review and being able to contact and discuss the deletion with the admin. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 08:18, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Close - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#Statement_to_exclude_Esports_from_this_guideline -- There is no consensus to use the notability standards for sports towards e-sport, FYI. So that's part of the argument to bring back the article is not valid either. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

* Comment - Hobit, no new evidence needs to be presented. Above on this page's article: Deletion Review is to be used if the closer interpreted the debate incorrectly, or if the speedy deletion was done outside of the criteria established for such deletions. Because of the fact that you have given a demonstrably false reason for your vote, I submit that your vote should be discounted.

82.19.4.7, thank you for your input. I made a call on what it seemed to me like at the time. I still consider there to be some questions over someone who is under admin review and that many people are unhappy with. If it turns out that this doesn't stick I can find new sources.

Sergecross73, well really! After everything we discussed on my user talk page. You really need to stop making calls and giving your opinion on things you know nothing about. Just because something does not seem significant enough to you to be notable does not mean it's not. You do not have to fall under the sports page to be on Wikipedia, and it did not say esport players were excluded from it, just that there is no consensus. I suggest you don't edit on Wikipedia again as you don't seem able to just be logical about something, after seeing all of the ways that he is notable and you still come back with that is just daft. The fact that you would even suggest that after all of what I showed you leads me to question your contribution to Wikipedia. There are multiple mainstream sources for this and he fulfills all sorts of notability criteria. Anton_Singov is coming back one way or another. Anonywiki ( talk) 16:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The initial AFD was a unanimous delete, and it failed the deletion first review. How can you think new evidence isn't necessary? Secondly, this isn't the place to air your grievences with me; keep to the topic at hand. Third, my argument isn't "I don't like e-sports"; it's that there was a discussion on whether or not it should be included in sport notability criteria, and they decided "no consensus", which means it doesn't help your argument. (I didn't even take part in that discussion, so it's not just "my opinion".) Sergecross73 msg me 16:27, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Observation - For someone who continues to claim lack of involvement in these processes and discussions you are pretty fast to cast your "speedy deletion" votes aren't you? Anonywiki ( talk) 16:44, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I claimed no involvement in the conversation in the link. Do you see my name in the link I provided? I openly admit I took part in the AFD for this page. Even if I was involved...there'd be nothing wrong with it, so I'm not sure what you're getting at... Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

>_> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.146 ( talk) 18:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close per standard practice when the nominator casts aspersions against the closer of the DRV and DRV participants. I note that the BBC article is a passing mention of the subject and that the nominator has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate notability.

  Endorse both the AfD close by Davewild ( talk · contribs) and the DRV close by King of Hearts ( talk · contribs). Cunard ( talk) 18:46, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Comment - I request you remove the bold from one of your words. It looks like there are two votes, not one. This is contrary to the expectations and instructions given by Wikipedia for commenting on these pages. It's hardly a passing mention by the BBC, it is a main part of their article. Most of the BBC articles are like that. The mainstream news don't cover small sports very much either.

I dispute that I casted aspersions. I let it known that aspersions were cast against the closer of the DVR by others which I thought I had no choice but to do. When I made an attempt to contact him, I saw it said this at the top of his user page: "You may comment on his or her administrative actions at Wikipedia:Administrator review/King of Hearts.", this seemed to me like I could not talk to them. And yet it was recommended that I mention that I tried to work it through with the admin who closed it, so I had to mention this admin in some way. I was just promoting the flow of information.

I did not cast aspersions over the other users here, I just commented on the openly available information that was under discussion. Casting aspersions would mean going through their history and picking out things or something like that. If you think that the vote is legitimate, then you are free to count it.

I dispute also that it's a valid reason to vote for a "speedy close" because of these alleged casting of aspersions. All Wikipedia processes have to be carried out without prejudice, you can't "punish" people or adopt your own unofficial "standard practice". If it were endorsed by Wikipedia it would be part of Wikipedia Policy. (Edited at...) Anonywiki ( talk) 19:49, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Bloody_Knuckles ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

Page was useful to sort out the different versions of drinking, card, and fisticuffs games people play called 'Bloody Knuckles.' I believe it was a useful page with a diversity of contributors and I suspect speedy deleting was erroneous. Thinker jones ( talk) 22:30, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review--the ed. above tried to do it, but wasn't able to show the history behind the notice. I've fixed it. DGG ( talk ) 01:21, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the article went through AfD at: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bloody Knuckles which correctly concluded the article should be deleted. There are no reliable sources for this game. The speedy deletion was therefore also correct, as the current version of the article remains essentially unsourced. Sparthorse ( talk) 06:05, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

*Endorse The article was unsourced. If sources can be found, a new article can be written. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:53, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Permit re-creation. The A4 was not valid. The article AfD'd was talking about one form of the game, the present article about others. It would need a new AfD to get it deleted--that said, deleted it will in fact be unless you do have good references. DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

I'm confused. Please could you provide a diff of the version of the article you're referring to as "the present article" and I'll review my opinion. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:57, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Got it. And I agree. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion, per DGG. -- Dweller ( talk) 21:59, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• There's no point overturning the deletion unless there are sources that would stop it being deleted again, so I suggest that Thinker jones provides his sources here to enable meaningful discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 12:22, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That's what I thought till I checked the edit history at DGG's prompt. This recent version of the article has two sources. The AfDd article did not contain them, so the AfD was not good grounds for deletion. DRV is not the proper place for us to examine whether they're good enough. The deletion should be overturned and if anyone feels the two sources are insufficient, the article should be AfDd. -- Dweller ( talk) 14:20, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Overturn speedy, and list at AfD if someone wants to. The two different versions of the article seem to have been about at least superficially different topics and the newest version certainly contained additional sources so G4 (or G6, which seems to have been used by mistake) doesn't apply. I doubt this has a long-term future, but it deserves a debate at least. Alzarian16 ( talk) 13:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy, DRV is a check on process, so easily enough done here.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 05:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply

File:CNGS layout.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

This file was deleted with the ill-founded cause "non-free content criterion #1".

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available,"

There's no free version available.

"or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

1. It cannot be created without official data.

2. It cannot be easily created with official data.

3. Even if a similar free version has been created, it might then infringe the copyrights the paper's authors own.

"Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense,"

There's no free material transformed.

"or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose."

There's no such material.

"(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?"" No, it cannot be replaced with any image as of this time.

"and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"

No, it also provides some additional information . Thanks, ^{vis uall} 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The images such as File:CNGS layout.jpg, File:CNGS_layout_(OPERA_experiment).jpg, File:OPERA experiment.png, File:Cern-light-mes.jpg and File:OperaCNGSTiming.jpg on commons wiki don't have a valid license, but on enwiki, some of them are still deleted with this ill-founded cause. Thanks, ^{vis uall} 06:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• NFCC#1 is not that a free image exists now, or could be easily created. The use of official data isn't a bar to creating a free image, the difficulty doesn't prevent a free image being created. As to if one could be created without infringing the papers authors copyrights, of course it could, you can't copyright facts or a class of image, you copyright the specific instance. I'm not sure what your statement about commons has to do with anything, commons has images with an invalid license - then they'll be deleted in due course - regardless that doesn't mean that en wikipedia should then ignore the licensing criteria. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, the official data is not open to anyone, so it's not possible to recreate the image with such data, unless to plagiarize the original copyrighted image. Thanks, ^{vis uall} 08:00, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• If by official data you mean the measurements present, then that is not copyrightable and you can easily copy that off the image with absolutely no concern, as before such facts aren't copyrightable. I doubt the precision level in the scale of the given images is that great, nor is it that relevant to understanding, no one is going to be taking undescribed measurements from the image, scaling them out to size and be assuming they are accurate. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review ~

Hi, if someone just creates an invert-colored copy, is there a copyright issue? If no, then please close this review. Thanks, ^{vis uall} 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

That would be a copyright issue. The creative elements of the original would still be in place. If this were text the normal practice is to read through the text, make notes and then start from scratch based on the notes without referencing the original text at all (preferably with a suitable gap between the taking notes and doing the rewrite). Trying to take the text and merely jumble the words up a bit, changing a few here and there, usually ends up with it being pretty obvious what's happened and so still a copyright problem. The same effect would be true of images, trying to mutate the original image will likely still be a problem. Take notes about the image, the significant elements, and layout, then get someone to draw the image from scratch. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but very halfheartedly. For speedy deletion to have been permitted, the closing admin must have decided that “no justification is given for the claim of irreplaceability” [36] and that seems marginally the case, just about within administrative discretion. I do not agree with the closing admin that deletion was imperative imediately. [37] The arguments about “map” and “official data” [38] were not pertinent. The dispute rationale “it's difficult to reproduce” is correct but inadequate. However, given the attempted release by the author of the paper and the unlikelihood of objection by or damage to CERN, a WP:FFD discussion would have been more helpful to explore these areas. The copyright issue relates to the artistic creativity in producing the diagram and it is legitimate to take measurements from the existing diagram and draw a new one using none of the original artistry. The new diagram can reference the fact it is based on information extracted from the (referenced) original. Is it sensible do have to do this? Not at all, but in these matters Wikipedia policy makes as little appeal to common sense as do the laws of particle physics. It would be better to obtain proper permission from CERN. A fair use claim does seem necessary. The ArXiv licence [39] and standard CERN terms of use seem inadequate [40] (CERN has a similar diagram here). Thincat ( talk) 12:01, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• It's annoying that we need to delete that image and replace it with a very similar one that's been drawn by a Wikipedian and released under a free content licence. But annoying though it is, that is in fact our policy and it's based on a careful reading of the law. With certain exceptions, none of which apply to a diagram, we are not normally permitted to reuse copyrighted images without permission. We are allowed to draw our own images based on data published by other people. The fact that CERN own the copyright in the publication does not mean that they own the copyright in the data. Copyright applies to the expression of the data, not the underlying data itself. Thincat is right when he says that the "map" and "official data" rationales are spurious and the "hard to reproduce" rationale is insufficient. I don't agree that a FFD is a particularly good idea.

  Having said all that, I do think it behoves us not to be completely unhelpful at DRV. It's best if we do some work as well as airing our opinions! Accordingly I'm willing to help with re-drawing the image, and please advise me on my talk page if that's what you'd like.— S Marshall T/ C 12:35, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply

  • Carnildo offered as well, as can be seen in the history of the file description page; I've listed some additional sources at User talk:Carnildo#Your offer at File:CNGS layout.jpg. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 12:42, 14 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I reproduced two of the images (OPERA ones, not from CERN: Fig 3 and Fig 5 in the OPERA neutrino anomaly article), and will likely reproduce a third one - the CERN SPS/CNGS timing system. However, the CERN layout is beyond my artistic skills, limited to diagrams. Would be great if you could take that up. Visuall: Autiero's permission doesn't count for the CERN picture - he doesn't have the authority to release a CERN copyright. His permission should count for the OPERA pictures, though we have already recreated two of those. Ajoykt ( talk) 01:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    •  Done, see my talk page.— S Marshall T/ C 00:28, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, in fact the chief author of the paper v1 has authorized to use such images, but the OTRS doesn't accept ... - "20:25, 21 October 2011 Adrignola (talk | contribs) deleted "File:CNGS layout.jpg" ‎ (OTRS: Unaccepted or insufficient permission for use on Commons: 2011100210007217)"

The following text is the email I sent to OTRS.

"Hi Túrelio,

I’ve forwarded the author's reply.

Thanks,

visuall

From: Antonio Ereditato

Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2011 4:37

To: visuall

Subject: Re: Copyright question about paper "Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam"

No problem...this is public material.

Thanks,

Antonio

______________________

Prof. Dr. Antonio Ereditato

Albert Einstein Center for

Fundamental Physics

Laboratory for High Energy Physics

University of Bern

Sidlerstrasse, 5

CH-3012 Bern

Tel: +41 31 6318566

FAX: +41 31 6314487

Secretariat: +41 31 6314064

antonio.ereditato@cern.ch

On 30/set/2011, at 21:12, visuall wrote:

Hi Antonio,

Some images included in paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam were uploaded onto Wikipedia, but I don’t know whether such images are copyrighted or not. The question I would ask is, what’s the license the paper uses ? Could such images be distributed on Wikipedia ?

Paper id: 1109.4897 (PDF)

URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.4897 (Summary page)

Thanks,

visuall"

The following text is the email I sent to the paper's author - the second time I bother him - received no reply.

"Hi Antonio,

I'm very very sorry to bother you twice with such trivia. Just because the Wikipedia requires me to request an explicit license for the images included in paper Measurement of the neutrino velocity with the OPERA detector in the CNGS beam, otherwise such images will be deleted within a week.

Could you please select an explicit license from the following options ?

1. GNU Free Documentation License - Written by the Free Software Foundation. People are required to attribute the work to you, and if they make changes or incorporate your work in their work, they are required to share their changes or work under the same license.

2. Creative Commons: Attribution-ShareAlike - This license permits free use, including commercial use; requires that you be attributed as the creator; and requires that any derivative creator or redistributor of your work use the same license. The desired attribution text should be included as a parameter in the template.

3. Attribution - The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the copyright holder is properly attributed.

4. Public domain - The creator permanently relinquishes all rights to the work, anyone could use it for any purpose, or modify and redistribute it as a part of their own work with any license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Image_copyright_tags#For_image_creators

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags

Thank you,

visuall

-- Wikimedia Commons - http://commons.wikimedia.org --- Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the address listed on http://www.wikimediafoundation.org"

Thanks, ^{vis uall} 08:59, 16 December 2011 (UTC) reply

File:CNGS.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| restore)

This file was deleted with the ill-founded cause "Recreation of deleted material. - non-free content criterion #1" (Please see File:CNGS layout.jpg).

"No free equivalent. Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available," There's no free version available.

"or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose."

1. It cannot be created without official data.

2. It cannot be easily created with official data.

3. Even if a similar free version has been created, it might then infringe the copyrights the paper's authors own.

"Where possible, non-free content is transformed into free material instead of using a fair-use defense,"

There's no free material transformed.

"or replaced with a freer alternative if one of acceptable quality is available; "acceptable quality" means a quality sufficient to serve the encyclopedic purpose."

There's no such material.

"(As a quick test, before adding non-free content requiring a rationale, ask yourself: "Can this non-free content be replaced by a free version that has the same effect?""

No, it cannot be replaced with any image as of this time.

"and "Could the subject be adequately conveyed by properly sourced text without using the non-free content at all?" If the answer to either is yes, the non-free content probably does not meet this criterion.)"

No, it also provides some additional information . Thanks, ^{vis uall} 06:08, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

The images such as File:CNGS layout.jpg, File:CNGS_layout_(OPERA_experiment).jpg, File:OPERA experiment.png, File:Cern-light-mes.jpg and File:OperaCNGSTiming.jpg on commons wiki don't have a valid license, but on enwiki, some of them are still deleted with this ill-founded cause. Thanks, ^{vis uall} 06:49, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• NFCC#1 is not that a free image exists now, or could be easily created. The use of official data isn't a bar to creating a free image, the difficulty doesn't prevent a free image being created. As to if one could be created without infringing the papers authors copyrights, of course it could, you can't copyright facts or a class of image, you copyright the specific instance. I'm not sure what your statement about commons has to do with anything, commons has images with an invalid license - then they'll be deleted in due course - regardless that doesn't mean that en wikipedia should then ignore the licensing criteria. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 07:22, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Hi, the official data is not open to anyone, so it's not possible to recreate the image with such data, unless to plagiarize the original copyrighted image. Thanks, ^{vis uall} 08:01, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• If by official data you mean the measurements present, then that is not copyrightable and you can easily copy that off the image with absolutely no concern, as before such facts aren't copyrightable. I doubt the precision level in the scale of the given images is that great, nor is it that relevant to understanding, no one is going to be taking undescribed measurements from the image, scaling them out to size and be assuming they are accurate. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 22:51, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply

  • temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review

Hi, if someone just creates an invert-colored copy, is there a copyright issue? If no, then please close this review. Thanks, ^{vis uall} 12:37, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

As above, no that is still a copyright problem. -- 82.19.4.7 ( talk) 20:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC) reply

File:Chavezcoup.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

After a lengthy and fairly involved debate (with two delete !votes, and three keeps including a strong keep), the discussion was closed without any commentary or rationale at all, just "The result of the discussion was: Delete." I think that in closing any contentious discussion, especially when the final decision goes against the majority of what was said, some rationale is in order. So I dropped a note on the closing editor's talk page, asking them to provide such a rationale. The answer I received was that "the keep !votes [...] largely consisted of WP:ILIKEIT." I suspect that the editor concerned hasn't read WP:ILIKEIT recently, as (whatever the merits or otherwise of the image) it's clear that none of the keep !votes were even close to being premised on liking either Chávez or the image. As such, this decision should be overturned. jbmurray ( talk • contribs) 09:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• If this looks familiar, it's because DRV just restored it on precisely the basis that Fastily so facilely dismissed. This wasn't rough consensus after discarding invalid WP:ILIKEIT arguments, it was a WP:NFCC#8 deletion—whose applicability requires consensus, in every case—on the basis of the nominator's and deleting administrator's WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments. (And do please click on those links and reread them. They don't say what everyone seems to think they say.) Speedy overturn. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 10:40, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Yup. Speedy overturn to no consensus because, exactly as we found last time, there was no consensus reached.— S Marshall T/ C 11:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• overturn and a trout to both the closer (for providing no closing statement and, when pressed, giving a rather bogus one) and more so to the nom (that wasn't overturned due to a lack of participation, which is what he claimed). Hobit ( talk) 17:10, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Is it just me, or do we have a small number of admins, Fastily included, who have decided that their restrictive interpretations of NFCC trump consensus? We're seeing this again and again at DRV, and it's beginning to look like a systemic problem: admins who don't believe an NFCC criterion (usually 8) is met, and so unilaterally decide to delete the image under discussion. That's not how consensus is supposed to work, and it's erroneous to presume that NFCC are as black and white as some seem to make them. Jclemens ( talk) 21:00, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Strong endorse. First of all, the burden of proof in this discussion, reflecting Foundation policy (which can't be weakened or evaded by en-wiki consensus), rests with those who wish to retain the image. If there is no consensus that the rationale is adequate, the image must be removed. There is no other reasonable way to interpret the "balance of proof" standard in our EDP. Second, the keep !votes were clearly weaker than the delete !votes, some bordering on the completely invalid. Slowking4's argument that "the image certainly adds to my understanding of what the coup plotters looked like in that historical moment" certainly deserves minimal or no weight, since "what the coup plotters looked like" is quite plainly not a significant aspect of the article subject, or even discussed in the article. Tryptofish argued that "the event is a significant focus of the text on the page, so that the image illustrates something that most of the text is about," so that while "someone can 'understand' that these two men met without seeing a photo of them meeting, but I think that readers can understand it better by seeing the image." This is a substantially weaker standard than NFCC#8, and in effect concedes that omission of the image would not "be detrimental" to a reader's understanding of the article, because the essential point the nonfree image illustrates can be adequately understood without it. jbmurray's argument comes much closer to meeting NFCC requirements, but ultimately fails because rather than being important in understanding the article text, he argues that it is important to understanding the historical analysis he presents, which is not part of the article. A more detailed rationale, of course, should have been provided. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 22:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • The actual Foundation policy, as linked from WP:NFCC, is at wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy. I can only assume you're looking at a different page than I am, since this one doesn't say any of what you explicitly say that it does. Point me in the right direction, please? 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 00:11, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn an improperly closed discussion. Shii (tock) 06:02, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The actual interpretation of the WMF NFCC policy is the responsibility of enWP, and administrators have the responsibility of administering the interpretation of the community, not their own more permissive or restrictive interpretations. I, for example, prefer a somewhat less restrictive policy interpretation, but I would be absolutely wrong to close FFD debates in accordance with my view of what the consensus interpretation ought to be. What people look like is a substantial aid to understanding events in which they are involved. It needn't be discussed in the article, because the picture does it better. An event one cannot visualize is not adequately understood. DGG ( talk ) 11:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • It strikes me that this analysis is based on a false premise. The WMF page in question, setting forth Foundation licensing policy, states quite clearly that "This policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects." Saying that interpretation of the EDP should be judged by "the interpretation of the community" alone, without regarding to the consistency of that interpretation with WMF policy, is simply wrong. Note that enwiki's WP:CONSENSUS policy declares that "An extremely narrow group of actions and polices are beyond consensus and must be respected [including] Declarations from Jimbo Wales, the Wikimedia Foundation Board, or the Developers, particularly for copyright, legal issues, or server load [which] must be respected by editors." The foundation requires, for example, that EDPs be "minimal"; an enwiki consensus like the one expressed here, resting on arguments like "the picture does it better" and "the image illustrates something that most of the text is about," is quite plainly not "minimal" and erodes the effectiveness of Foundation policy. It should therefore be rejected as inconsistent with WMF policy. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:38, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I was interested by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz's contribution but I was also puzzled by it. I think "EDP" refers to Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria and "balance of proof" refers to "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." So, if there is no rationale at all the file should be deleted – no-one seeking deletion needs to argue a valid FUR cannot be created. If there is a fair use rationale the question arises as to whether it is a valid one. The validity question is to be decided by consensus. The file is in Google's cache where I see a FUR that is arguably valid. The FFD discusion reached no consensus and so the file should not have been deleted. Thincat ( talk) 13:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • This argument is incompatible with the text of enwiki's NFC policy, which states that "To avoid deletion, the uploading editor or another Wikipedian will need to provide a convincing non-free-use defense that satisfies all 10 criteria." (my emphasis) A rationale which does not receive consensus support can hardly be said to be "convincing". Coupled with the policy language on "burden of proof," the outcome should be clear. To convert "no consensus" results on NFC enforcement into "keep" outcomes would be to place the burden of proof on those seeking to remove images rather than those seeking to retain them, exactly the reverse of what the NFC policy declares. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:45, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you for your rebuttal and I find myself agreeing with everything you say. The trouble is, when I re-read my own comment, I can find nothing wrong there either. Maybe my personal answer to this paradox is that Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, constrained by the Wikimedia Foundation licensing policy, could reasonably have either interpretation. All the same, I'll stick with my view that deletion requires policy-based consensus. Thincat ( talk) 23:48, 18 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I'd like to _think_ that because the bar is higher we tend to !vote with higher expectations. Were it not for this high bar, I'd generally argue to keep most non-free images and I don't think I'd be alone. Our default is to keep things and at present there is no variation in that expectation for NFCC things. In this case, I think there is a strong argument that the image is historically important. Hobit ( talk) 01:51, 24 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn essentially per DGG. Unlike DGG, my own preference in this area, pictures of historical events, would be for a narrow interpretation of the NFCC criteria similar to that advanced by Hullaballoo Wolfowitz. However, that is a personal preference and is not codified in en-WP policy or WMF directives which are sufficiently vague that admins should defer to consensus. Eluchil404 ( talk) 18:05, 12 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The !vote was 3-3 if you count the nominator. In this statement on his talk page giving his rationale, the closer did not only refer to WP:ILIKEIT but also gave more information about the delete voters having stronger rationales than the keep voters. That, combined with HW's convincing explanation of the burden being on those seeking to retain a non-free image, means that the close was reasonable and fell within the administrator's discretion. Calliopejen1 ( talk) 03:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Evolutionary biology ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The field of Evolutionary Biology and the concept of Evolution are rather different concepts. The page was deleted after a brief discussion on the talk page, without AFD, and made into a redirect to evolution. I think a more in dept discussion of the deletion is in place. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 00:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC) changed capitalization to the correct article. Hobit ( talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• I don't think this is a matter for DRV as nothing was deleted. To overcome the merge consensus you should probably formally propose the unmerging at Evolution. Further, I think that the discussion certainly had consensus to merge so even if DRV was the right venue, I don't think you have a case that the task was done out-of-process in some way. The result might well be wrong or bad for our coverage, but it isn't out-of-process. Hobit ( talk) 00:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Note: Merge discussion is here. Hobit ( talk) 00:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

In fact, lot of information was deleted during this "merge". The Evolution article does not discuss things discussed in the Evolutionary biology article. -- Kyknos ( talk) 00:51, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

There is no distinction between Evolutionary biology v. Evolution - it is an imagined semantic distinction that cannot be backed up by WP:V. There are textbooks with either one of these titles that discuss the same kinds of material. There are two journals, one is called the Journal of Evolutionary Biology [41] another is called Evolution [42] - they both address the same kinds of issues contrary to Kim van der Linde's claims above. There is no evidence that these titles mean anything different. Historically there was another article called evolutionary biology that was merged with evolution, because it duplicated the same material. This has been debated and a consensus was already reached to merge the article. Contrary to Kyknos statement that there were unique things in that article, I nor any of the other evolutionary biologists that contribute to these articles could find the argument convincing. This deletion review is not productive - there are far more important issues to discuss that could be more helpful. Thompsma ( talk) 01:45, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Procedural close – This is purely a content dispute that is regarding where information should be placed and how they should be organized as opposed to whether or not said information warrants inclusion. This is not within the remit of deletion review. – MuZemike 02:48, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Duff (d.967) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

An incorrect use of WP:CSD#R3, in my opinion. The redirect had been in place for two months, so it is not "recently created" and (more importantly), it is not implausible – it redirected to Dub, King of Scotland, whose DNB article is titled "Duff (d.967)" ( see wikisource) (struck, see below – I still believe the redirect is plausible, though). Perhaps this would be deleted at RfD (I'm honestly not sure), but I don't think it should have been CSD'd because it's definitely plausible and redirects are cheap. My understanding of the history is (and forgive me if this incorrect, as a non-admin I cannot see the deleted history), this was deleted as R3, undeleted by the redirect's creator and then deleted as R3 by the original deleting admin. When the deleting admin was contacted about this (see User talk:Fram#Duff (d.967)), he declined to undo his deletion and recommended DRV, so here we are. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:38, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Note by deleting admin: Actually, the DNB article is called DUFF, and the first line of it starts with "DUFF (Dubh, the Black) (d. 967)" [43]. The Wikisource page is called Duff (d.967). Please don't mix those two, like you did here. Wikisource is not a reliable source, and we don't created redirects from every misspelling from unreliable sources. It is very implausible that people will look for Duff using this disambiguation with an error in it (the missing space between d. and 967) to boot. As for "recently created", two months is pretty recent, certianly for a page that had been moved from the user space and so never appeared in the new pages queue (and by an autopatrolled editor as well). So, keep deleted. Fram ( talk) 11:49, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the correction, Fram. I've struck the incorrect part of my nom, but I still feel that it is not implausible and that someone who (for whatever reason) reads the DNB article or sees it referenced somewhere could search for it under this title. Again, redirects are cheap. One question for you (or any other admin): was the page in main space for two months, or in Rich's user space for two months and only in main space for, say, a few days? If the former, then I still think the page was not "recently created", despite it not going through Special:NewPages (new redirects don't go through Special:NewPages, anyway). Jenks24 ( talk) 12:02, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

• Jenks24, do you expect someone to type "Duff (d.967)" into a search box, or [[Duff (d.967)]] in an article? Could you please try to explain why you feel it's a plausible typo? Because at first glance I'm not seeing it.— S Marshall T/ C 12:58, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • I don't really see it as a "typo" at all. As is mentioned in the article, Dub is often anglicised to Duff, but people will know that they will probably have to add something in brackets afterwards to find the article they want (I find that Wikipedia's disambiguation practices are actually quite well-known by the general public) and that "(d.967)" is as plausible as anything they might type to try and reach the Dub article. It's worth noting that when the redirect existed, it had 107 page views in October and, although it only averages a couple of page views a day, that is a couple of readers that are benefiting from this redirect. To use the oft-quoted line, "redirects are cheap" – why should we not restore this redirect which helps a few readers each day? Hope this helps, Jenks24 ( talk) 13:54, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • The 107 pageviews are mostly causd by me drawing attention to the problematic DNB creations. In September, the page ony got 31 pageviews, which is what most pages get from bots and AWB and the like, without anyone actually looking at the page. In general low pageviews <> readers. Fram ( talk) 15:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Of course it is not unusual to not understand redirect criteria. And also not to understand why deleting redirects is a bad thing. Specifically deleting this redirect is bad because:
  1. It is an established page title which may be (and in fact is) linked to from elsewhere.
  2. It is a likely search term, being the name used at a major bibliographic source.
  3. It costs more to delete than to keep.

Rich  Farmbrough, 15:48, 7 December 2011 (UTC). reply

1. From where? Wikisource? Yes, you added it there, but it now no longer links to a deleted redirect but to the actual article. Anywhere else?

2. Wikisource is not a major bibliographic source.

3. It costs more to undelete than to keep deleted as well then? Fram ( talk) 15:53, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

So you are futzing with my work on another project? Why does that not surprise me? But you miss the point. One of the reasons for retaining old redirects is that they may be used externally. Whether I can or cannot point to specific example does not affect the validity of the reasoning. "Only delete redirects that are new or harmful." Rich  Farmbrough, 17:40, 7 December 2011 (UTC). reply

You claimed that it "in fact is linked to from elsewhere". So, apart from that one redirect you created yourself (kind of a self fulfilling prophecy that one), any evidence for this claim? Fram ( talk) 19:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply

A self destroying prophecy, because I knew you would toddle off to Wikisource and unlink it, if you hadn't already. And remember this is where there was an article, not a random redirect out of nowhere. Rich  Farmbrough, 00:24, 8 December 2011 (UTC). reply

• Overturn, and also list at RFD. Though I can't see the deleted content, my understanding from reading User_talk:Fram#Duff_.28d.967.29 is that this was a former userspace article that contained content before being made into a redirect. Even though the content was apparently not merged, my reading of R3 is that it does not apply to pages with a non-redirect history. For that reason I think the speedy deletion was invalid and should be overturned. Fram also cited A10 on his talk page, but I don't think that criterion applies to an article that someone has already turned into a redirect. While I think the speedy deletion should be overturned, that doesn't address whether this is a reasonable redirect, so I think that issue should be resolved by listing the redirect at RFD. I also want to say that I think Fram was wrong in re-deleting the redirect after Rich Farmbrough undeleted it. The mere fact that another user in good standing felt the redirect was plausable is reason enough for it to not be speedy deleted, and instead to list it at RFD. Calathan ( talk) 18:39, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per A10 rather than R3. R3 doesn't apply because that criterion isn't meant to be used on articles that have been turned into redirects, with the obvious reasoning that otherwise anyone could get any page deleted by turning it into a nonsensical redirect and invoking R3. However the article did duplicate an existing article on the same topic and the title won't make a plausible redirect, so A10 does apply. Hut 8.5 19:29, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Yes it would be a good A10, except that is was some 2 months old and had page history. Rich  Farmbrough, 00:30, 8 December 2011 (UTC). reply
    
    • A10 requires that the article was recently created. This term is a bit subjective but I don't think two months is unreasonable. Furthermore the reason we require the page to be recently created is that older pages have a higher chance of containing material that would be useful for a merge, but here the content was essentially the same as that found in the DNB. The page history is only relevant if the content was merged or otherwise used elsewhere, but it wasn't. FWIW the only significant edit in the page history was you creating the article as a text dump from the DNB, everything else was either minor wikification or automated changes to templates. Hut 8.5 11:56, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Yes, that's certainly so, and I had intended to put a merge tag on it (maybe I even did) - and it's not really a text dump, it is very heavily wikified from inception, which may or may not be useful to those doing merges. Rich  Farmbrough, 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC). reply
        
        • No merge tag. It was redirected 13 days after your last edit to it, and deleted five days later, nearly two months after you created it. I doubt there will be much interest in merging info from 1900 into the current article, which is already linked to the Wikisource copy of the DNB article anyway. Fram ( talk) 15:19, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
        • If you did want to merge it (I don't think there's much point since almost all of the content is in the target article already) then the edit history isn't necessary because the DNB is in the public domain and no content was added to the article. Edits which add wikilinks aren't copyrightable. Hut 8.5 15:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at RfD I rarely understand why someone won't overturn a contested redirect speedy--leaving it there for an extra week will do no harm (unlike certain articles and images). Plus, it isn't newly created and is a redirect from a previous article, so it doesn't technically qualify as an R3. I'm loath to use an A10 to delete a redirect (after all, we generally do redirect a dup article). Hobit ( talk) 20:13, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • But we generally don't create redirects with disambiguators in them (apart from (disambiguation) where needed). Fram ( talk) 20:44, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I've actually seen quite a few kept at RfD, but I agree they generally aren't useful redirects. It may well be this should be deleted, but A) it doesn't quite fit a speedy criteria and B) there is no harm in keeping it around for a week. So I'd think RfD would be the best way forward, especially if the deletion has been contested. I'll use S Marshall's "fair process" notion here. By the letter of the rules this should go to RfD and not letting it go there causes more harm (the sense of an abused process and perhaps an unhappy editor) than good (where I honestly see no upside other than reducing RfD traffic). Hobit ( talk) 21:35, 7 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • No real problem with your reasoning, the main reason I speedy deleted this was because it belonged with a group of other, very similar articles, all with the same error in the non-standard disambiguation: I moved the other ones without keeping a redirect (a standard move option), bit this one could not be moved because it was a duplicate of another article. The other ones were Alfonso Ferrabosco (d.1661), John Barret (d.1563), John Barrett (d.1810), William Drury (d.1589), James Dundas (d.1679), and John Fitzedmund Fitzgerald (d.1589). No idea whether this changes anything, but it provides some context. Fram ( talk) 07:43, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
        • Just further context, this discussion suggests that this deletion and DRV are spin-offs from the ongoing war between Fram and Rich Farmbrough. I must confess I was initially mystified about this suddenly appearing as redirects are the rarest of DRV issues as they are so cheap and generally so uncontroversial. I intensely dislike DRV being used as a proxy for external fighting in this way and were it not for the fact that this is clearly leaning towards an overturn I would have closed this on the basis of a plague on both your houses. Isn't it high time the two of them were banned from interacting or commenting on each other? Oh and if there is history behind the deleted redirect [44] then it was absolutely wrong to delete the link as it severs a connection with the full picture of article history which has attributation consequences, so Speedy restore. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:53, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
          • Spartaz, there is no attribution history, the page was not merged at all, but deleted because an older and better article already existed on the same subject. There is nothing to attribute, so no reason to keep the history, so no reason to "speedy" restore. It is just one in a long line of efforts to clean up the errors created by this editor, and in this case I may have used the wrong method to get the right result. Fram ( talk) 08:04, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at RfD essentially per Hobit, especially with the proviso that A10 does not apply to redirects, which are not articles, and hence not eligible for deletion under any "A" criterion, but only under G and R criteria. Jclemens ( talk) 05:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
• Am I right in thinking that Fram deleted this material after Rich Farmborough had restored it? If so, then we're dealing with a wheel war and we're far outside DRV's jurisdiction. Per WP:WW the only appropriate venue for this is ArbCom, even for a first offence. We should close without result.— S Marshall T/ C 09:17, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • An arbcom case after a month and a half? Be my guest. They have rejected an ArbCom case with me and Rich Farmbrough inbetween already (case started here), where everyone had time and place to comment and present their initial evidence, so bringing this up now seems strange. Note also the section directly in front of the WP:WW section, describing what Rich Farmbrough was expected to do before using his admin powers to undo an admin action. I don't think it would help anyone or anything to start down this lane now, over a month later, but you are free to take it to ArbCom anyway of course. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
    • I certainly wouldn't take it to ArbCom, Fram—I have no axe to grind or reason to get involved. My position is that DRV has no mandate to deal with a wheel war.— S Marshall T/ C 12:18, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • Thanks. I guess that if you read the situation as an incorrect restore (no contact with the deletin admin, and using admin tools in an involved situation), and an incorrect redelete, we would end up with the original delete as the starting position for this DRV, so I do think that a DRV can continue and be useful. Fram ( talk) 12:59, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
  • Yes it's a WW, but I don't think that affects the DRV terribly. And certainly it's too trivial for ARB or even ANI. Rich  Farmbrough, 15:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC). reply
    
    • Trivial things are what AN/I's for. Well, that and keeping the peanut gallery occupied so the rest of us can work.— S Marshall T/ C 16:09, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply
      • That put the biggest smile on my face for a long time. Rich  Farmbrough, 00:31, 9 December 2011 (UTC). reply
        
• Note: more a general comment, but I no longer intend to use any administrative tools wrt Rich Farmbrough, to avoid these distractions. I'll tag things for deletion if needed, note errors at his talk page, and raise things at the appropriate discussion boards if needed. I only may occasionally reverse edits he makes on fully protected templates if these result in causing errors on a serious number of pages, like I did yesterday here. I hope this will guve people some rest about this situation, and makes sure that there is at least a second pair of eyes on my deletion suggestions in this regard. Fram ( talk) 09:42, 8 December 2011 (UTC) reply