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

file deleted as "(F7: Violates non-free use policy)"; however, commercial photographer, not " from a commercial source (e.g., Associated Press, Getty)"; previously published at non-profit website; small resolution; one use in infobox. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 17:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Deleting admin's comment: Image is from a commercial photographer, who displays it prominently in his professional portfolio [1]. It is distributed via a commercial image agency, topfoto.co.uk [2]. This [3] website, which admits to having at some time used this image without permission but then evidently had to take it down, suggests that the photographer or his agents are protective of their copyright and take action against infringment. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • apparently, the source website has permission [4]. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • That may of course very well be the case. They may have simply bought a license the normal way, or the photographer was kind enough to grant them one. Or they took it without authorization and the owner hasn't noticed yet. What is that to us? Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
      • source is not agency. i take it, it is your position that all photos distributed through an agency should be deleted, not merely those for which they are the direct source. start here File:WW2 Iwo Jima flag raising.jpg, since an agency can't waive policy. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 19:03, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse provided that this is the same as the photo here. That photo is obviously sold commercially, and using it on Wikipedia would violate WP:NFCC#2 unless used in an article specifically about the photo. It can't be used on Wikipedia solely to illustrate the subject of the photo in the article about that person. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Can someone confirm that we are indeed discussing this image, as Stefan suggests? Second, what is WP policy if an image released by a copyright holder with a free licence is subsequently sold by a commercial firm, with or without the copyright holder's permission? Is Slowking claiming this is the case and is there supporting evidence? I agree that the image being displayed on some website apparently with permission has got nothing at all to do with whether WP has permission and very little to do with whether a fair use claim is tenable. Thincat ( talk) 21:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, as I said above, it's the same image. As for the other question, no, there's no indication the photographer ever granted a free license (in the Wikipedian "free content" sense) to anybody, and I don't think anybody has claimed he did. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:38, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Thank you. Well, unless contrary evidence is brought to bear, endorse the deletion. Thincat ( talk) 22:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep Deleted per Stefan2's link. I don't necessarily say "endorse" because if Future Perfect was aware of that link at the time of the deletion, it should have been included in the deletion summary, but given that link this image 100% needs to stay deleted. -- B ( talk) 01:33, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse / Keep Deleted Above and beyond the fact that this is a professional photograph for which a free image should be available, I am offended by these staged photos of people with their hand on their chin. What are they hiding? Alansohn ( talk) 01:49, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Civilization Jihad ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was wrongly flagged for speedy deletion on the grounds it was an attack page. This page should not be deleted because the subject in question has been written about in the US by a variety of scholarly sources. I have made appropriate edits to the current article in my sandbox, added more reliable sources, and got rid of areas of concern. The page still needs improvement but again, should not be flagged for speedy deletion. -- GroundRisk ( talk • contribs) 17:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Please wait for Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:GroundRisk/sandbox to close. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:02, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Oh sorry, I didn't know! Thanks! GroundRisk ( talk) 15:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• The MFD is as good as a dead horse. Besides, we are not appealing the MFD here but the speedy deletion of the article.
  For what it's worth, this user GroundRisk is relatively inexperienced in Wikipedia. He doesn't understand much of the nuances and mechanisms of Wikipedia-policies (or should I say Politics?). Having said that, I sincerely believe that the article ought not to have deleted speedily. Right from the very beginning (check its history, other logs) this article has been a target of some few editors who aren't yet ready to brook dissent or offensive material on Wikipedia. Regardless of how we officially frame the issue, it is a case of WP:OFFENSE.
  It has been CSDed multiple times and this time it was deleted. "Civilization Jihad" at least in the Europe and USA has received much notability and is a verifiable topic, we simply need to revamp and rephrase some of the sections of the article wherever needed and raise the neutrality. It needs an overhaul at best, not a deletion. Mr T ^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 05:55, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Beautiful Store ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Deb ( talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) speedy deleted the article Beautiful Store (see original version in sandbox at User:GaHee Park/sandbox, disregard some junk at the top) under " G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion". G11 states: "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic". I think it is clear it does not fall under G11 (it is not "Unambiguous advertising or promotion", but at best, a poor grammar article about a notable organization with promotional tone). While quite possibly the article in question is a valid target for being tagged with {{ Advert}} (and {{ Cleanup-english}} or {{ Grammar}}), neither of those make it a valid target for speedy deletion. Let's also take a look at {{ Template:Db-g11}}. It states that the target article in its "current form serves only to promote an entity, person or product". Well, this article was doing more then just promoting it, it was informing about it (for example the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) was launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."). Ev To quote further from G11 template: "Nor does this criterion apply where substantial encyclopedic content would remain after removing the promotional material; in this case please remove the promotional material yourself, or add the {{ advert}} tag to alert others to do so.". And again, this article has many parts that are clearly non-promotional, and would remain a valid stub/start class article even after removing problematic sentences. (Even if only the quoted sentence was all that remained, it would be a valid stub, but I think that most if not all of the article is valid, as well - again, suffering primarily from poor grammar, not promotional tone). I ask that this article is restored, with no prejudice to being tagged with the templates mentioned above (I will likely do so myself when it is restored and they are not there the next time I review it). PS. Disclaimer: the user who created the article is a student in a course I am an instructor/ambassador for. {{ Advert}} and Category:Articles with a promotional tone are not candidates for speedy. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I was about to say that my comments on my own talk page adequately represented my point of view on this, but, reading what Piotrus has written here, I see a more fundamental issue. For Piotrus to say that "the first lead sentence is quite clear and non-promotional" about a sentence that reads almost as nonsense suggests that his threshold for identifying "poor English" is well below my own. As I said in my discussion with him, it is hardly surprising that we disagree about whether the content is promotional if the meaning is not clear - but apparently Piotrus understands what that first sentence means. As it stands, I freely admit that I don't. Deb ( talk) 12:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Also see this AN thread for background.

• Wrong link, I believe, I think what was meant was this. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Article is written in a fundamentally promotional tone and would have to be completely re-written to comply with guidelines, which puts it squarely in the remit of CSD G11. Articles which talk about the subject's "mission" in the first paragraph are rarely worth keeping. Basalisk  ^{inspect damage}⁄ _berate 12:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • We clearly disagree about the fundamentalism of the tone :) Where to you see the promotional tone in the first line of the lead: "Beautiful Store(아름다운 가게) launched in 2002 as an example to the Oxfam shop, is a not-for-profit organizations and social enterprises."? What is promotional about the description of operations in the second paragraph of the lead (granted, the last sentence or two descend into broken English gibberish)? I'll buy you a case of beer if you explain to us what is promotional in the sentence "The head office is at Anguk-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul.". -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment - can the article be temporarily undeleted so that non-administrators may view and judge it for themselves? Ed  ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

It's already here in a sandbox ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

 Done Basalisk  ^{inspect damage}⁄ _berate 12:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse As I said at ANI a moment ago: that should never have been in articlespace. That should have remained a WP:USERSPACEDRAFT until it was ready-to-go, which will take a lot of work. Bad judgement and horrible expectation-setting by anyone who encouraged (now discouraged) this new editor ( ✉→ BWilkins ←✎) 12:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Not ready for articlespace. There's likely a reasonable (small) article in there but the writing is so subpar its difficult to follow. NE Ent 12:45, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that poor grammar is not a reason for deletion. The article has poor grammar, but more than half is understandable. While it would be ok to delete sentences that are so mangled they are gibberish, there is enough of the content that is possible to understand for the article to be (IMHO) useful. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, and trout Piotrus for wasting everybody's time. If he had expended only half the time and energy he spent wiki-lawyering about this deletion process to instead simply do the obvious thing and rewrite the article, it could by now be safely back in mainspace. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Uh, you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them, so take that trout and smack yourself with it. I stand by my assertion that this was deleted in violation of G11. Poor grammar, for the n-th time, is not a speedy criteria; this article is not gibberish. Case in point, even if we just trimmed the article and kept just two sentences (first one from the lead and the headquarters location), you still get a workable stub that would be useful for readers right away. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:12, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • He's a student of yours and you gave him that as an assignment? With that level of English skills, you should never have let them anywhere near such a task. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
      • This is, unfortunately, a student problem. I am teaching a freshman level course in English. The students should have passable English communication skills. Sadly, some don't. At the same time in the years past this assignment had about a 50% success rate of creating Good Articles. That said, for the next edition with a similar ESL class I will most likely stick to the sandbox for a while longer; what I am seeing this time is... painful to read, indeed. Which doesn't change the fact that poor grammar is not a speedy criteria... but I guess the admins don't have to care that much about such rules these days, apparently. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
        • "Uh, you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them"! So, you expect other Wikipedians to do your students homework for them instead of you? Mainspace isn't a language lab for first-year EFL students. Articles like this clutter up the cleanup backlogs and waste hours of time for editors who might otherwise be working on genuinely encyclopedic content. Please, bear the effect on other editors in mind before letting students with insufficient English language skills loose in mainspace. Thank you. -- Stfg ( talk) 13:21, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• A speedy G11 wasn't the least bite-y way of dealing with this material. I'm pleased to see that Deb has had the good taste to put a personal note on the user's talk page about it, but I would have preferred more encouraging wording for that note.

  I think we've dealt with this effectively but high-handedly. Editors from South Korea are to be supported because we don't have very many of them and they can read sources most of us cannot. They can cover topic areas that are currently missing from our encyclopaedia. Editor retention is an issue and our approach to new editors is an important part of the reason why. I wouldn't want to overturn the deletion, but in future I would like to see more thought and care going into the messages we send to new editors from foreign countries. This is a collaborative encyclopaedia. Content is paramount but the contributors are also important.— S Marshall T/ C 13:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Don't expect much editor retention when newbies are dealt with like that. The ideal solution would be to move parts of the article suffering from promotional tone and/or poor grammar to the talk of the article, and explain the situation there; leaving the other parts in the article (as I noted above, there is enough non-problematic content to create an average stub).Alas, this would require much more effort than a speedy. I know every active admin is overworked, but in the end, this is yet another good example of how to scare a newbie away. Another acceptable solution, hardly more time consuming than speedy, would be to contact me (the instructor for the course) with a note that if issues are not addressed quickly, this would be deleted. Heck, we even have a pretty good procedure for that ( proposed deletion, allowing for a few days of reaction on the part of involved parties, whereas a speedy deletion was not appropriate). Either of those is more friendly then a speedy, which causes a distressed student to wonder "what happened". Well, what happened is that Wikipedia is not a friendly place to be a new editor, and doubly so if one's command of English is only intermediate. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:17, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, deletion was sound, the content is clearly promotional. And Piotrus, yes you can't expect a teacher to do students homework for them, but you would expect a teacher to show said student how to do it in the first place-- Jac16888 ^Talk 13:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I've been doing so. Unfortunately, while I can teach the students that, I can't teach them good English. Which, btw, brings me again to the point that I don't see much issues with promotional tone here, certainly not enough to justify G11 speedy. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:26, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• I've been asked to comment here. While this article shouldn't be in article space, it definitely shouldn't be deleted because a glance at it shows me that its only fault is piss-poor grammar. If it was up to me, I'd put the article back in mainspace, bung a {{ grammar}} template across it and place it on my to do list.-- Laun chba ller 13:15, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• I wouldn't disagree with some of your comments. However, "to-do" lists have a habit of getting longer rather than shorter, and we have a massive problem at the moment in trying to sort the wheat from the chaff during the deletion process. I could give you numerous examples of articles I've deleted recently by contributors whose first language is not English and who appear to have been paid to post up spam they can't even read or who are trying to advertise their own small businesses without understanding - or, more importantly, being capable of understanding - the wikipedia guidelines. The proper place for them to "practise" editing wikipedia is on their own language wikipedias. If you look at my contributions, you will see how often I have tried to assist new editors and improve their contributions. Whilst I recognise this as part of my duties as a wikipedian, it is then frustrating to see people arguing about the finer points of our guidelines and taking me to task for not being sympathetic enough rather than themselves spending time on helping those contributors. Deb ( talk) 13:28, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Look, Deb, I appreciate your efforts. The point is two fold. First, I disagree on the promotional aspect - at best, if you were following G11 own wording, you could've deleted parts of the text that seemed promotional and still live the remainder of the article in place; this would be more friendly to a newbie than deleting the entire article. Second, poor grammar is not a speedy criteria. Again, I'd have no problem if you just deleted parts of text, tagged the article with avert/grammar or such. I do have a problem that you just speedied it. And I am sorry we are wasting time of many editors here - but I stand by what I said; this shouldn't have been outright speedied. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:33, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. This was a textbook G11 - "Beautiful store gets their energy from the participation of citizens"? "And individual people`s are could participate this share marketplace, if they have just one donation"? Yes, the English is poor, but completely aside from that, the article uses advertising buzzwords, describes how great the business is, and solicits donations. Yes, there are some sentences that are factual. No, that doesn't mean that without a fundamental rewrite from a completely different approach, the article could stand on its own. And that - the fact that it couldn't stand as a non-advertisement without a fundamental rewrite - is exactly what G11 is for. Now, if the student or Piotrus wants to keep working on the article, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't move it to their userspace(s) and keep hacking away at it. Maybe something can be made of it. But as it stood today, its deletion from mainspace was absolutely correct. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:55, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Content is obviously promotional, which sufficiently meets WP:CSD#G11, and until I see anything that would meet WP:CORP, it should remain deleted. hmssolent\ ^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 05:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment Deb/Piotrus, am I correct that the article itself had no indication it was part of a class project? Whether I defer to the instructor of a course project depends to a considerable extent on the reliability of the instructor/ambassador. I trust Piotrus to correct the errors of his own students when notified of them . DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This was mainspaced and deleted before I got to tag it with. Good reminder, though, I forgot about those. Will add them to the current articles. At least one of which I'll move back to the userspace, probably, as the students are not addressing the issues which I think should result in article's speedying :> -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 18:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore Looking at the article history and the editor's talk p, Deb was apparently aware that this was a page written for a class Piotrus was supervising. Yet she chose to do this deletion, rather than discuss it with Piotrus. Further, she did the deletion single handed. I too have sometimes deleted some G11s single-handed -- especially some old AfCs by G11 that we truly unmistakable advertising beyond any possible question, but I would never do this in any situation where there matter might be open to even the slightest question, but tag them and send them to Speedy for another admin to confirm. I think I'm pretty accurate, but I know I'm not perfect, and a few percent of my G11 nominations have been declined by another editor--sometimes they may even have been right at that. I consider the deletion an over-reaction, but i do not in the least blame Deb for it, for the problems with some of the students in the ed program are enough to induce one in anybody. But when there's a responsible instructor or ambassador, they should have first chance to deal with it. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 24 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse obviously promotional to the point that deleting it was in the best interests of the encyclopedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• endorse use of WP:TNT I've found several English-language sources from which a short article could be written. But what we have now would not be that article. I'm not especially enamored of articles that are entirely lacking in English language sources, but the current tone and poor English make this unsalvageable. Mangoe ( talk) 13:11, 27 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Userfy if the article creator or anyone else wants the page to be userfied. The topic seems like it could be the basis for a legitimate article. However, if nobody wants the page any more, endorse deletion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:06, 28 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Captain Tsubasa 5: Hasha no Shōgō Campione ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Listing the discussion for review on the grounds of WP:DRVPURPOSE#1 - the closer didn't correctly interpret the discussions' consensus. Two animated gifs illustrating the "Cinematic Soccer" gameplay ( File:Captaintsubasa5.gif and File:Captain tsubasa 5 cutscenes.gif) were deleted under the subjective criterion WP:NFCC#8, lack of contextual significance.

User:B closed the talk as "general agreement that this is not appropriate fair use", which disregards the editors expressing the need to keep at least one of the images, and the various suggestions on how to improve both the article's text to provide more clear significance, and the images to reduce the amount of non-free content used. I contacted the closer here for a more thorough explanation, confirming that deletion was based exclusively on WP:NFCC#8's interpretation of context (although there were some concerns about minimal usage but also some arguments on how to fix it).

Discussion was still ongoing; under these circumstances, the closing prevented the possibility to achieve a thorough consensus on how to best use the non-free content to improve the article. Wikipedia:Non-free content review instructs administrators to close as no consensus when there's no clear outcome, which B should have done in this case. Diego ( talk) 07:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi fellow Wikipedians. I'm the editor who created/edited the Captain Tsubasa 5 Wiki article. I can't comment using my main account because I was blocked for insulting a High-functioning autistic (and etc) Wikipedian. A Wikipedian who spent the last 7 years adding false/nonsense/fake/extremely silly info on Wikipedia. No one cared about it. I did care, and the result was: block :)

Anyway, I just read everything about those two gifs and my opinion is: sometimes these so-called "administrators" can be amusing. They think they can do everything (deleting this and that) just because they have the "power". They don't care at all about other ppl's "work"/opinion. Sometimes (I said sometimes, I am not generalizing) they are like... the Hitler, Mao Tse Tung or Mussolini from Wikipedia. About the article, yes, it can be improved. But the reason I didn't add more text was because... I didn't want the article to look like a game guide or something like it. But in this particular case, removing one of those gif images would be reasonable, but removing the two gifs..?!? I'm not sure if the images can be restored, however I still have them (because I knew that sooner or later some random Wikipedian would make a complaint), so IF you want to re-add one of those images you can e-mail me: rickenn yahoo com . P.S. don't bother blocking this IP or something, I use hundreds of different IPs and have been editing Wikipedia anonymously, in different countries, so it's fine. Cheers everyone and keep up the good (or not so good) work. -- 89.214.149.123 ( talk) 09:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I don't see a consensus in that debate. B's closing statement clearly does not mean that there was "general agreement" at that debate. It clearly means that there's "general agreement" at FfD that the fact that a game's abandonware doesn't affect our copyright-related decisions.

  I sympathise with admins who close FfDs. There's low attendance and the debates don't necessarily generate a consensus; but the closer can't relist everything. NFCC#8 is the one we always see at DRV because it's so subjective. And we always see it at DRV when the closer's treated it as if it was objective. (It's not appropriate for a closer to write "this fails NFCC#8". That's an opinion statement about content, and we don't elect sysops to make content decisions. The closer should be evaluating consensus. What the closer should write is either "there's a consensus that this fails NFCC#8", or "there's no consensus that this fails NFCC#8". The closer's opinion about NFCC#8 carries no weight, if he wants to give weight his opinion he should !vote instead of closing. It's only his assessment of consensus that matters.)

  I think that in the absence of a consensus, B's relied on previous debates and discussions to form an opinion on this one.— S Marshall T/ C 09:24, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Were anyone interested in it, you can see an explanation that I gave for my decision at [5]. -- B ( talk) 13:18, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Request: Can somebody please add proper links to the FFD discussions? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There was not an FFD discussion. This was a NFCR discussion, which is now archived at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review/Archive_21#Animated_game_GIFs.3F. If it is preferred that there be a formal FFD, I am not opposed to summarily restoring the images and listing them there, though from my review of WP:NFCR, it seems to be typical that images that have no remaining valid uses are deleted upon closing a review. (For example, you deleted a large number of Star Trek: Voyager images based on this discussion.) -- B ( talk) 14:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• As noted, closing image discussions can be hard. I think that deletion was a reasonable outcome given that discussion. But I'd also take away from that discussion if the article gets to the point that this gif would help with understanding (so we are told what we are seeing and why) the gif should be reconsidered (and probably shortened if at all possible) Hobit ( talk) 18:47, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • If a decision is made to restore one or both of the images, my strong advice would be to either pick one still that best represents what it is you are trying to show or to turn it into a video. From an aesthetic standpoint (which did not at all enter into my reasons for the close), the endlessly looping animated gifs are incredibly distracting when you're trying to read the article. It's one thing when you're looking at JPEG artifact#Images - the animation there is pretty unobtrusive. But when you've got a whole lot going on, it's really distracting if you're trying to read. Take a look at Commons:Category:Animated GIF and pick out a few of the really "busy" ones. Very few are used in articles. -- B ( talk) 23:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Looking at the discussion and the article, I get the impression that the purpose of the files was mainly to explain what 'cinematic soccer' is and not to contribute to the understanding of the game. Also, the article doesn't even seem to explain what 'cinematic soccer' is. It is common to have a screenshot to illustrate an article about a game, but I don't see why we would need a film for this purpose. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

You don't think cinematic soccer is relevant to the game? In any case, if you read the article you'll find that the image was not just to illustrate cinematic soccer, but how the game deviated from it to include a classic field view. This was also illustrated by the deleted images, and it's now not explained in the article in a way that can be understood. Though, deletion review is not to rehash the arguments justifying deletion, it's here to evaluate whether the closing admin followed proper procedure. Diego ( talk) 20:41, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The purpose of the article is to describe the game, not to describe what 'cinematic soccer' is. Lengthy explanations about cinematic soccer are out of scope for that article. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 20:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The game is in the cinematic soccer genre, so if you don't explain cinematic soccer you're not describing the game. And this is still unrelated to the purpose of this review. Do you think B's close accurately reflected the discussion consensus or not? And why? Diego ( talk) 06:06, 26 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Butcher of the Balkans ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was a curious RfD to begin with, but halfway through, the redirect was turned into a disambiguation page because it turned out that the redirect target isn't the primary topic. This went practically unchallenged for a week, but the RfD closing admin still reinstated the redirect as a result of the earlier discussion where people said it should be kept, not deleted. I think we need to adjust that RfD outcome to avoid the mistaken impression that we had a consensus to remove the disambiguation page (which we didn't, really). I discussed it with them at User talk:Amorymeltzer#.22Butcher_of_the_Balkans.22 and we couldn't come to an understanding, so as they suggested, I'm opening this discussion. (Note also Talk:Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation).) -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm specifically asking for a discussion here because [6] [7] [8]. There is no clear primary topic consensus that would support these edits, but they were still made no less than three times. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 08:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Having reread the RfD and read the various talk pages, it's clear the only remaining question is whether Milosovic is the primary topic or not as everyone who has taken an interest subsequent to the RfD seems to agree that Butcher of the Balkans should not be a redlink. This was not the case in the XfD where throughout there were some people arguing for deletion on the grounds that it's non-neutral and/or not encyclopaedic; and others arguing for a deletion as it was created by a banned user; some arguing that it should not be deleted (on any of those grounds). Part-way through the discussion came the first talk of disambiguation, but not everybody reacted to or agreed with that.
  My comment, "There has to be disambiguation, yes, but this title does not have to be a dab page - if there is a primary topic then his should be a redirect and either hatnotes or Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation) should contain the disambiguation.", that seems to have been often quoted is being partly misunderstood. The point of it is to say that if their is a primary topic, then it is not an attack or violation of neutrality for a non-neutral term to redirect to an article about a specific person. I wrote it in reply to a comment by Elvekis that I interpreted as being another expression of disagreement with the principle of WP:RNEUTRAL.
  I'd say the close was correct, as there not consensus for a dab page but it does not preclude the disambiguation page being made primary if there is cosnsensus for that. I don't have a strong opinion about whether Milosovic is primary or not, and I've not looked at all the evidence presented, but I note that currently the discussion at Talk:Butcher of the Balkans does not show consensus agreement that user:PRODUCER's figures indicate no primary topic. My recommendation for the way forward would be to start a WP:RM discussion at the dab talk page, link it from the article and redirect talk pages and invite contributors to the RfD and this DRV to the discussion. Thryduulf ( talk) 10:05, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

You think that RfD close does not preclude a disambiguation page being made primary, but two other people reverted edits that do so - referencing the RfD. I'm fine with this discussion being moved to a RM or a RFC or whatever, but we need actual WP:PRIMARYTOPIC arguments to be presented. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 10:37, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Per WP:BRD, after the first revert no more moves should have been made until there was consensus. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The issue is that the reverts weren't referencing a general guideline such as BRD (essay really, but never mind), they were referencing the RfD discussion. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Whether BRD is explicitly mentioned or not is irrelevant, it always applies. The closure was implemented, it was boldly changed and that change was reverted. The correct next step is discussion, not edit warring. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, no. The closure wasn't just "boldly changed" - the closure was a bold change in and of itself, because nobody actually complained about the disambiguation page in a while before the closure. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 19:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll get onto this in next 24 hours. Hope it doesn't close too quickly. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 10:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

DRVs usually last 7 days, and baring a snow closure I can't see any reason for this review to be closed early. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Evlekis, your opinion seems fairly evident from the linked discussions and [9] - you already told us you do not think the RfD result precludes the disambiguation. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• This really looks like something that needs to be thrashed out on the talk pages. There was a clear consensus at the RFD that Butcher of the Balkans should be a bluelink and not a redlink, and that consensus was correctly implemented. Whether that bluelink should be a redirect or a disambiguation page or anything else is a content decision that any editor can make or change via the normal processes, providing the basic consensus that the title should be a bluelink is adhered to. I'm sorry to sound unhelpful, and that's not my intention, but I don't think we can start using DRV as a venue to make fine-grained decisions about content. The purpose of this page is to scrutinise administrative decisions around speedy deletion or consensus assessment in deletion-related processes.— S Marshall T/ C 11:42, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Even in light of this edit? I don't think it's unreasonable to bring this to DRV to at least clarify that the only binding result of the RFD (to the extent that anything's binding) was that it shouldn't be deleted. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 11:56, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • @S Marshall, while in most cases I'd agree with you, a DRV is not inappropriate when there is edit warring about the result of a deletion discussion. I think going straight to RM would have been more appropriate, but this isn't wrong. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:29, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The question here is - was the RfD a fine-grained decision about content - should the existent article be a redirect or a disambiguation page? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:28, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There was no consensus to delete. Continued discussion belongs at Talk:Butcher of the Balkans. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry if I was unclear, but I'm also by and large endorsing the RfD closure - the question here isn't whether the closure should be overturned - it's whether that RfD closure implies prejudice to making a disambiguation page. What do you think? -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 14:24, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

No. The non-deletion of a redirect does not mandate te continued state of redirect versus new article versus a dab page.

The closing statement says "A disambiguation and a hatnote would probably not be out of order", which correctly asserts that a decision on disambiguation is not made by the close.

XfD closes have no subsequent authority over future editing. The close is a limited action. However, relevant comments made in the discussion need ot be considered. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 14:43, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I've apologized elsewhere for being unclear there - I specifically meant the Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation) page would be a good thing to create. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

That seems very reasonable and very likely to stick. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'd actually like to thank Joy for this. I obviously think the closure was correct, but wasn't sure where to go from there. The problem is that redirects do not often receive significant or widespread input or discussion (which is fine, they're not articles), but it did feel improper for a discussion to take place, for a consensus to be reached, and then almost immediately an editor who disagreed with the outcome to undo it; if an AfD was closed as Redirect or Delete but the next day an article was restored by !keeper, that wouldn't be kosher. I know DRV isn't technically correct, which is why I was asking Joy on my talkpage about what he thought should be done next, but at least here it can be established that more (talkpage) discussion should take place before the content is changed. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 16:12, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello all. I know Joy is familiar with my point though for those not to have followed the conversation at Talk:Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation), I just wanted to make a simple point as to why the current arrangement is erroneous. Now just supposing only Milošević had the sobriquet but there were multiple items which had the title Butcher of the Balkans on which articles existed, and assuming we know that each subject either alludes to or is directly named after him (for a fictional example, see here), then the target would be absolutely fine as would a separate page for DAB. In light of the fact that this isn't so and there are three persons to whom the title could pertain, it defies logic. One may read a book about one of the labelled individuals, try remembering his name and forgetting, enter the term to find Milošević, realise this wasn't the person sought, then locate the DAB and hopefully possibly find it but all this having been sent on a pointless longwinded route. A debasement of purpose. That was all I wanted to say and won't add to this unless an observation is made in which I am mistaken. Thanks. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 20:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

This is an entirely normal case of determining whether Milošović is the primary topic for people searching for the term "Butcher of the Balkans". If he is, then it is correct that the redirect points to his article as that is what the majority of people are looking for, if he isn't then the disambiguation should be primary (as it is clear that none of the others are the primary topic). Thryduulf ( talk) 22:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

That line of thought is both illogical since nobody knows precisely which person a reader is seeking when typing out a long phrase which evidently is not a shortcut, and it runs contrary to your earlier comment during the RfD session in which you stated that redirect serves not as a shortcut but as help for persons aware of the sobriquet but unaware to whom it is attributed. Nobody can answer hypothetical questions. It would have been far different had we been discussing an article title (eg. Jordan vs Jordan (disambiguation), but the current arrangement treats the subject more like Danzig vs Danzig (disambiguation), as if the labels of the additional persons some way allude to Milošević. Evlekis (Евлекис) ( argue) 11:58, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The length factor is completely irrelevant, and there is no practical difference between the Jordan and Danzig arrangements - in both cases there is consensus that there is a primary topic for the relevant term, whether that term is the primary term for the topic is irrelevant. We're choosing between a Danzig (primary topic exists) or Mercury (no primary topic exists) situation. My comments are perfectly compatible with my older ones - there are two things people are likely to be looking for when searching for "Butcher of the Balkans": (1) the identity of and information about a specific person who was referred to as such; (2) a list of people who were referred to as this. 1 is far more likely, and so we need to work out which (if any) of the specific people are most likely to be looking for. As there have been 3 people given this name, then there are four places a search for "Butcher of the Balkans" could lead:

1. Andria Artuković
2. Ratko Mladić
3. Slobodan Milošević
4. Butcher of the Balkans (disambiguation)

Consensus is clear that neither 1 or 2 are the primary topic. That leaves only two options, either Milošević is the primary topic (3) or there is no primary topic (4), and the RfD was clear that the situation on the ground should reflect either one of those positions with a slight favouring of 3 and so that is what was implemented. You are clearly of the opinion that there is no primary topic (4) but because not everybody shares your opinion you must discuss it and gain consensus for a change. We cannot know what everybody wants to view, but we can make educated guesses about whether there is a topic that the significant majority of people wants to view when using a specific search term. These educated guesses are based on multiple metrics, including usage in contemporary reliable sources (because the primary topic can change, e.g. for sources written prior to the 1990s Artuković is clearly primary, for sources after the breakup of Yugoslavia he clearly isn't), prevalence in relevant search terms, page view statistics, and other relevant sources of information. These need to be presented and discussed at a Wikipedia:Requested moves discussion so that consensus can be determined. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:04, 25 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Keep as redirect - I was willing to live with BotB going to a disambiguation page, but my opinion is that clearly Milosevic is by far the person best known by this name, and his crimes are possibly more infamous than Artukovic, who was a damn Nazi. Why there was some vagueness to the closing statement, the intention clearly was to keep the redirect as is and to create a new disambiguation page to cover other people. Ego White Tray ( talk) 23:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

But WP:PRIMARYTOPIC is not based in opinions, it's based on an assessment of facts. The "by far" assessment needs to be significantly more than all others combined.

• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22butcher+of+the+balkans%22+milosevic&tbm=bks&pws=0 says around 1,900 results of the first page, and when I click through to the last page, it says page 4 of 39 results
• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22butcher+of+the+balkans%22+artukovic&tbm=bks&pws=0 says around 55 results initially, page 4 of 31 results later
• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22butcher+of+the+balkans%22+mladic&tbm=bks&pws=0 says around 73 results initially, page 4 of 33 results later

The reason for the huge disparity between the initial 1,900 and the rest isn't obvious. At the same time, I looked up the clean variant:

• https://www.google.com/search?q=%22butcher+of+the+balkans%22&tbm=bks&pws=0 says around 3,190 results initially, page 5 of 43 results later

So even if we use the raw initial numbers, Milosevic is only 60% of the initial total.

In addition, whether you dislike one set of crimes more than another, that also doesn't have to matter to what's the primary topic - indeed, one could easily argue that the long-term significance of Artuković's crimes was obvious from the rise of Milošević - the latter used the story of the former to get where he got. Artuković was called that way thirty years after the crimes, granted, by belligerent attorneys, but still. Milošević was called that way in his heyday, so many of those mentions could be a thing of the moment.

I really don't see a clear proof of a primary topic here. Indeed, we've gone deep into content territory here, again. I think this reinforces my earlier point that the previous RfD discussion was not an exhaustive discussion of the primary topic and that it shouldn't have been used to decide the matter. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 09:52, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Mabel Richardson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe that this deletion debate should have been relisted for a clearer consensus rather than closed as keep. There were two keep !votes for every delete, but of the six people who suggested keep, two were new users who went straight to deletion debates upon signing up, one was user who has made a few edits since signing in late December, all of which were to longevity articles, one was the article creator, and no one provided any policy-based or source-based rationale for their !vote, but instead used their subjective judgement on what they felt was notable. While I certainly don't believe that there was a consensus to delete, given the history of canvassing offline about longevity articles (among other problems with articles such as these), I believe that relisting the debate to allow for more unbiased/neutral opinions would have been appropriate in this case. A recent comment on the article's talk page suggests that the proposed deletion would have benefited from further debate. Canadian Paul 20:49, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I agree with the above. Boleyn ( talk) 07:24, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse or Overturn (to no consensus to delete). Follow advice at Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:33, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• overturn The only claim to significant notability is, as is said, from IMDB, so it's worthless. After that the only real claim is for someone else. The keep votes relied on the unreliable notability claim and can be discounted. Mangoe ( talk) 12:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep - I wrote the article's talk comment, but it wasn't about the worthiness of the article, only the worthlessness of the DYK as worded (and DYK Talk has conceded that a better hook would have been the actress's longevity). I'd mentioned how the original AfD-keep decision had been hampered by a cite-ref to a pay firewall site but I didn't say AfD-keep was wrong! Nor that one shouldn't make a decision based on a pay firewall source (it was all fairly looked into, and the full source-text is readable at '100 Club, topic 1088' although that website's host is unfortunately Wiki-blacklisted, preventing direct cite-ref). Having come across the article from an unbiased/neutral position and looked into the article subject quite deeply yesterday (also read various cite-refs including ones deleted in early April) I feel there's an even stronger case for keeping it. The subject is worthy of remark for a) her longevity, b) her having known and worked with some major film stars, although she herself did not achieve fame, and c) because the article states her husband accompanied Chaplin (!!) to the USA on his first? visit. I think more may emerge about this in time (the article only makes the barest mention), and therefore both this article and a possible future one about her husband could well become important silent film era "stubs". Pete Hobbs ( talk) 18:16, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Looking at the !votes, I believe a keep close is not justified. Of the six keep !votes, three (Futurist110, sophiahounslow, ExRatargue that the person is notable because of her age. However, notability is not for us to judge but for reliable sources to state so these three keep !votes should have been ignored. A fourth, Oscarlake, states that the combination of age and acting makes her notable. But, again, that's a personal opinion and needs to be backed up by a reliable source. The Listmeister keep !vote is sounder but the "oldest" statement is sourced to IMDB which is definitely not a reliable source. The final keep !vote, Miskatonik, quotes the Press-Telegraph article which, at least in the free summary, doesn't really assert notability. All in all, I'm not sure what the rationale for a keep decision is here. -- regentspark ( comment) 20:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• There's a clear consensus to keep, and the closer correctly identified it, so no blame attaches to him and I would prefer not to use the word "overturn". If he made an error in not checking the debate participants' contribution histories, then it was an understandable one. But I agree with the nominator's comments about the risk of sockpuppetry in longevity-related discussions, and I can well understand his concerns. There's honest doubt about whether this consensus is real or engineered. Relist with a semi-protected AfD so that we can have a discussion that's convincingly sockpuppet-free and will give the nominator confidence in the outcome.— S Marshall T/ C 07:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Somaya Reece ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No consensus was reached in the discussion. Discussed with closing admin first. JHunterJ ( talk) 11:18, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse looks like the closing admin explained it pretty clearly regarding triviality of sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:05, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse what Andrew Lenahan says. I also took a look at the sources and concur with the closing admins opinion. -- regentspark ( comment) 18:41, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per WP:HOTTIE. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:29, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Jokes aside, I find this a very hard one. It's on a murky line between "no consensus" and "delete" depending on interpretation of specific words in the GNG. If the nomination was from a less clueful editor, I'd be quick to side with "admin discretion". Given that an experienced admin disagrees with another's application of discretion, I'm leaning Relist for another 7 days, hoping for further participation, current participants positions already well stated. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:32, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review Altho a BLP, I see nothing potential derogatory or harful to prevent temporary restoration. DGG ( talk ) 16:20, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Discussion-based processes on Wikipedia are not a sham. They are genuine and meaningful attempts to seek consensus and implement it.

  In my view, the reason why Darkwind, Starblind and RegentsPark are wrong is because their reasoning is based on the closer's evaluation of the sources. It's not up to the closer to evaluate sources. Sysops do not make content decisions. They're not empowered to. Sysops evaluate consensus.

  If it was up to sysops to evaluate sources, then there would be little purpose in discussion-based processes on Wikipedia and we might as well replace AfD with a list of articles for administrators to examine and delete or retain based on their personal judgment. But we don't do that. Our processes are not a sham.

  I was assisted in reaching this conclusion by one of my big red flags of a poor close: the closer uses the closing statement to give you their opinion. That's a really annoying habit because it falsely implies that the closer's personal opinion was actually the consensus in the debate. It's not what closing statements are for. If you want to express an opinion, vote. Your closing statement is your chance to explain your assessment of the consensus in a neutral way. It should be used only for that purpose.

  Overturn and relist for another sysop to close based on an assessment of consensus rather than his opinion of the sources.— S Marshall T/ C 08:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  I believe that the sources are evaluated in the discussion itself, i.e., the delete !voters have pointed to the weaknesses in the sources. If a !voter says that the sources amount to "trivial coverage", how can the closing admin evaluate that claim without looking at the source itself? (I assume darkwind did not merely accept the claim at face value.) -- regentspark ( comment) 13:58, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  And the keep !voters pointed to the ways the sources met the guidelines, and there was no consensus between them. It's not that the keep !votes were using reasons outside the guidelines (and so the closing admin should have discarded those arguments), it's that there was no consensus whether the guidelines were met. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:50, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  There's a difference between a disagreement and a consensus. The difference is that a consensus is based on the weight of previous discussions in the form of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and that consensus is that trivial coverage of this type does not warrant a Wikipedia article; disagreeing does not create "no consensus" in that regard any more than it would create a "no consensus" that VH1 is an independent source for this article. - Sudo Ghost 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  The coverage is trivial according to whom? Whose judgment prevails?— S Marshall T/ C 16:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  Good question. But, if one user says that the coverage is trivial and another says it is not, then do we close every such discussion as 'no consensus' because the closing admin should not read the source? If that were the case, then everything that is mentioned in any source at all would be an automatic keep - which doesn't make sense. Our policy says that trivial mentions are insufficient for notability and it is the closing admins job to evaluate whether the mention is trivial or not. -- regentspark ( comment) 16:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  According to the elaboration given at WP:GNG. When an editor's judgement is that VH1 is an independent source for someone on a VH1 reality show, it doesn't inspire confidence when they then say that a single brief mention in a reference is anything more than trivial coverage; this is one of the articles he added that supposedly showed notability, and that is as trivial as a source can get. That editor's judgement is the only "keep" rationale given, the other two were "per JHutnerJ" and an IP editor claiming that biographies shouldn't have to show notability. That single rationale might be a disagreement, but it does not create lack of consensus in doing so. - Sudo Ghost 16:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

RegentsPark's argument is that where two users disagree, sysops need to look at the source to decide which is right. This is a respectable argument, and I agree that can happen where one user is obviously and plainly mistaken. I don't think this was in that discretion area. JHunterJ's a user of sufficiently distinguished contribution history to command any closer's respect; the points he raised should not have been disregarded in that way.— S Marshall T/ C 17:51, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• There is a difference between "being disregarded" and not making a rationale consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines; I didn't give that example as an "AfD round 2", it was linked to show that JHunterJ's rationale was not based on Wikipedia's definition of trivial, per WP:GNG, and therefore does not give much weight in determining consensus. Are you really suggesting that "a user of sufficiently distinguished contribution history" should be given more consideration than other editors on the sole basis that they have a longer contribution history? - Sudo Ghost 18:09, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not all users are equal. This is not a democracy; there's no bill of rights here. Our processes exist to support content contributors, not the other way around. Content contributors are given a great deal of leeway.

  While everyone has a voice in debate, I think it's undoubtedly true that to an experienced closer, some voices carry more weight than others. Certain users seem to have special needs of some kind, or perhaps edit while medicated, and are best quietly disregarded. Users with a handful of contributions who focus on a single topic area; users who always !vote to "keep" everything regardless of how trivial and unencyclopaedic; users who always !vote to "delete" because even when the title should be a bluelink, it's easier to start with a clean sheet; users who create few articles and are mainly discussion-page gadflies rather than encyclopaedia-builders; these are examples of less credible !votes that will sometimes, rightly, be given less weight. On the other hand, users who have long and varied experience, a track record of well-reasoned and thoughtful comments in discussion, and a long string of solid and unproblematic content contributions to their credit, who are clearly here to build an encyclopaedia, are less lightly dismissed.— S Marshall T/ C 19:49, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I disagree completely, I think the rationale should hold more weight than who says it. It is true that experienced editors tend to give more convincing rationales that are in-line with how Wikipedia operates, but such an opinion is given more weight because of the rationale, not because of the editor who says it. Conversely, an editor with very few edits can make a wonderful rationale, the amount of time spent on Wikipedia does not detract from that nor is it given less consideration for that fact. When an experienced editor gives a poor rationale, it holds little weight because the rationale doesn't hold up when viewed through the lens of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies, that fact shouldn't be ignored simply because there is a claim of "long and varied experience". That is an argument from authority and isn't how Wikipedia operates on any level. - Sudo Ghost 20:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Which neatly brings us back to the question of whether Darkwind counts as an "authority" who can evaluate the sources.— S Marshall T/ C 20:14, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Again I disagree, there is a difference between "authority" in administrative decisions and "authority" in an individual's capacity as an editor; one exists, the other does not. - Sudo Ghost 20:19, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Admins don't make content decisions. They evaluate consensus. They're not authority figures.— S Marshall T/ C 20:36, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• That is exactly my point; I never said anything about administrators making content decisions, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say there. - Sudo Ghost 20:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I would refer you to my first comment in this thread.— S Marshall T/ C 21:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I don't agree with your first comment's assessment, because the sources are evaluated in the discussion; explaining why there was not a "no consensus" does not mean it was an opinion of their own. I also don't think that a flimsy pretext of "these very trivial sources aren't actually trivial" by a single editor would create a "no consensus" that would enable the article to be kept on Wikipedia. The article has been deleted via AfD discussions twice now, and if there truly is "no consensus" that this has changed, it shouldn't be kept anyways when multiple discussions have already determined that it doesn't belong on Wikipedia and there is "no consensus" to the contrary. - Sudo Ghost 21:16, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Per my comment above (disclosure, I nominated the article for deletion). - Sudo Ghost 15:00, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. This is the third time the article's been deleted. The admin closing the discussion didn't draw their own conclusions about the sources because several of the commenter (myself included) pointed out the weakness of these sources. In the articles pre-AfD state, all of the sources were primary, either from VH1 or from Reece's own websites. The 6 third-party sources were added during the AfD discussion and they were all on the same citation; in my opinion they were rushed strictly for the purpose of adding third party sources instead of making the article more robust Wikipedia content. And rush these sources were, a couple of them didn't even mention the artist's name. All of the sources were about the show. So a !vote to overturn this deletion is saying that a single citation point from six sources (which is overkill) of which some didn't even mention the artist's name is grounds for notability. I disagree. -- NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 20:30, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  There was nothing rushed about the citations that were added. They were added quickly during an AFD, which is perfectly normal. They all mentioned the artist's name, so apparently you did not read them. Please do not start from your conclusion and then work backwards through your argument, casting disdain on the normal editing process of others along the way. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 21:17, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  • I never said there's anything wrong with adding content during an AfD, that's quite normal. The claim being made here is that an article that is loaded with primary source citations but has a single innocuous line in the lede overloaded with six citations from third-party sources (and yes, a couple of them didn't mention the artist's name UPDATE: Self-struck, reviewed version of article before deletion) constitutes notability. That simply does not meet WP:N. The grounds for your deletion review are based on counting !votes, the case you pled on Darkwind's talk page, instead of weighing the strength of the arguments. The deleting admin did the correct thing in weighing the arguments in determining consensus and determined that the consensus was that notability was not sufficiently established for this article to exist. -- NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 03:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist per SMarshall's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 11:24, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no-consensus. I do not think an immediate relist will get any result other than non-consensus, , but that's a valid alternative. I think we fundamentally simply have no overall consensus about what to do about this sort of a career. My own feeling about the problem is that this sort of notability is as valid as many other popular music artists. FWIW, a more modest article without such promotional content as "Reece is working on launching her own fitness brand that includes DVD's, fitness wear, and protein shakes. " would probably attract less opposition. When I see something like that, my first reaction is to try to find some reason to remove the article. DGG ( talk ) 20:29, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • So if an article is deleted via AfD twice, the individual's PR people should just recreate the article until there's "no consensus" to delete it? If there's "no consensus" my understanding is that the previous consensus holds until a new consensus changes that. JHunterJ has been the only editor to take part in all four AfDs, so that's certainly not something that has changed in determining any sort of consensus. - Sudo Ghost 02:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  If the previous article had been recreated, you might be onto something, but since the current article is not the article that the last AfD reviewed, there is no previous consensus on the current article (except perhaps for any particular stable version of it). And your link to the individual's PR people notes that those PR people are no longer involved in creating it, so that bogeyman doesn't seem particularly scary. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 02:13, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  • That's not how AfD works; the subject is discussed, not the article. Crap articles are kept all the time because the subject is notable. The consensus that the last two AfDs found was that the subject is not notable, the article has nothing to do with that. The PR claim certainly doesn't check out, given the contributions of those involved with creating the article (you being the exception). - Sudo Ghost 02:22, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  And the claim to notability of the subject changed between AfD3 and AfD4 -- JHunterJ ( talk) 02:57, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  • According to the lack of independent sources describing the post-AfD3 matter, it did not, and consensus did not change either. Given that you are the only editor to give keep rationales (none of which were consistent with Wikipedia's guidelines) throughout all four AfDs and are one of the article's creators, it is both unsurprising and unconvincing that you believe the article should be kept, but consensus has repeatedly determined that the subject is not notable enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. Claiming that trivial sources aren't trivial or that Vh1 is an independent source for someone on a VH1 reality show does not create a lack of consensus in that regard, because those arguments hold no weight whatsoever. - Sudo Ghost 04:14, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Overturn and relist Although the article is mainly sourced to primary sources, a quick Google search turns up the following independent reliable sources. Somaya Reece Dishes on Her Absence From 'Love & Hip-Hop,' Meeting Beyonce, Not Hearing From the Cast Somaya Reece EXCLUSIVE: 'Love & Hip Hop' Star on Being A Latina Rapper: "I Just Want To Break Barriers" TELEVISION REVIEW; Basking in a Rapper's Glow, Feeling Burned Will Somaya Be Back for Season 3 of Love & Hip Hop Somaya Reece Bosses Up Vibe, in particular, appears to have written dozens of articles about her. [10] A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 13:02, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• DRV is not AfD part 2, DRV does not exist to give AfD arguments, and at any rate those sources would justify a redirect to Love & Hip Hop, not a standalone article; there's nothing useful to extract from those articles that could be used to show notability; gossip articles do not provide anything. - Sudo Ghost 20:31, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Item #3 of Wikipedia:Deletion review says that Deletion Review may be used...if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page. I've discovered significant new information. You're welcome. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 20:42, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I don't think you've read the discussion then, because at least one of those were discussed at the AfD. That is anything but significant, just an AfD argument at DRV. - Sudo Ghost 21:49, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Great, one of the sources was discussed at AfD. What about the dozens of other new sources I discovered that weren't discussed at AfD? I don't why you keep going on about "AfD arguments at DRV". In accordance to Item #3 of WP:DRV, I've discovered significant new information that wasn't brought at the AfD. This is one the things Deletion Review is for. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 22:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• You searched Google, something most people at AfD do before commenting on any given article. That's not special, nor is it "significant new information". - Sudo Ghost 00:30, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Apparently, they didn't. Which troubles me. It seems to me that we have a huge hole in the deletion process if so many sources can go undiscovered. Tell, you what, I'll do you a solid, and change my !vote to Overturn and relist. Let the community decide now that these new sources have been discovered. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 00:48, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Fair enough. I do think that if an article is to be deleted from Wikipedia, it should be because it truly doesn't meet Wikipedia's requirements, not because editors didn't have information available to them. I disagree, however, that these present anything different in any way or that editors were unlikely to see them upon searching; most of those were already in my browser history when you posted them, according to the color of the links. They are not new sources, (they were there when the AfD was ongoing), and aren't significant in any way that would change the notability of the subject. If the subject were to achieve some notability or some source were written after the AfD, that would be "new information". I'm not suggesting that "I'm right and you're wrong", I just wanted to clarify that I disagree that these sources would warrant overturning consensus, that's all. - Sudo Ghost 01:00, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Those sources are terrible – they look like a blatant WP:SOURCESEARCH, especially the comment about Vibe. Your first Vibe link is a repost/content aggregation of this blog post on Mommy's Dirty Little Secret (intentional redlink). I looked at the first few Vibe search results: I found Love & Hip Hop episode recaps and a post about a Twitter feud between Joe Budden and Fabolous over Reece. This interview with VIBE Vixen may be useful, but it seems to focus on L&HH, and the VIBE Vixen print magazine folded in 2007 (going online only?), according to Vibe (magazine)#Other Editions. The AskMen page is some sort of aggregated bio. The Latina source looks like a brief interview with their online department. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The XXLMag.com ( XXL) interview covers L&HH questions, then Reece plugs her tequila brand. I'm willing to review any specific sources that you find. I would prefer to avoid interviews unless you confirm that they are focused on something other than L&HH. Flatscan ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, within admin discretion. I'm fine with closers checking sources against participants' claims. I prefer "comment, don't close" if detailed analysis or novel arguments are required. Name-dropping a high-quality source like The New York Times, as User:JHunterJ did with this comment, is a red flag: if the ref doesn't speak for itself, it is likely a passing mention or focused on a related topic. "Basking in a Rapper's Glow, Feeling Burned" ( User:A Quest For Knowledge's link, the article ref has the same title) is a review of Love & Hip Hop that doesn't go far beyond identifying Reece as "one of two struggling musicians". User:Nintendude64's response that "They are talking about the show, not her. ... The show she is on is significant, not Reece herself." is a standard WP:NOTINHERITED rebuttal. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • "Actress wants role in student programs" (link thanks to User:Darkwind), The Orange County Register article, is a nice human-interest piece about Reece's work with local rec centers. The article is from 2005, and the community service has no connection to her current activities. Somaya Reece Fires Shots At Joe Budden: "He Only Fights Girls, He'll Never Fight A Man", a SOHH article inserted into the Further Reading section by User:Schissel, has a heavy gossip tone, starting with its title. The interview with Power 95.3 Orlando spends most of its time discussing Love & Hip Hop. Flatscan ( talk) 04:55, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Flatscan, Nintendude said the New York Times (and the others) were primary sources. I corrected their factual error. If that sets of red flags for you, your red flag criteria need adjusting. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 10:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • JHunter, you are mischaracterizing my statement and treating it personally yet again. You have got to stop this behavior, it is not helping your argument. I make it quite clear that the New York Times is a third party source and I quite clearly state that VH1 and Reece's web pages are the primary sources -- which make the the vast majority of the sourcing for this article. And I agree with Flatscan that namedropping a source is a red flag, as is overloading a single line with an unnecessary amount of citations as I pointed out. -- NINTENDUDE ⁶⁴ 13:43, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • You are correct that the members of your list are neither primary nor blogs, but Nintendude64's reply that I quoted still stands. Going back to my "red flag" comment, a user needing to emphasize The New York Times – especially in a collection of sources and not on its individual merits – is usually a sign of contention and often a hint that someone (possibly either side) is being unreasonable. Flatscan ( talk) 04:24, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply

      Going back to your "red flag" comment, since I didn't emphasize it, just listed the sources I added, I agree that one side is being unreasonable. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:27, 23 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist per SMarshall's analysis and new sources by AQFK. Cavarrone ( talk) 07:36, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Scooby-Doo 3 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

While the consensus on the relevant deletion discussion was obviously clear, I think that considering it's been 6 years since the page was protected against creation, the protection should be lifted. I just want to turn it into a redirect page that would link to Scooby-Doo_(film_series)#Cancelled_third_film, since I think this would be useful. I posted this request in a couple other places first, and then saw something saying that I should post it here. Alphius ( talk) 04:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

List of Wikipedia controversies‎ ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This AfD was closed less than 3 hours after it opened, even before several of the contributors to the article had had a chance to discuss the deletion request. There was aggressive off-site canvassing on this AfD within minutes of it being posted, which undoubtedly prompted several of the "keep" !voters to make their presence felt before the wider community had a chance to look at it. There is no need for hurry in dealing with deletion requests and this closure was grossly premature. Many of the issues I raised, such as sourcing and compliance with WP:LISTN, remain unresolved. I'm seeking to have the deletion request relisted and this time run for a proper length of time so that the wider community can comment on the matter. Prioryman ( talk) 23:17, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Prioryman, you're way to emotional whenever any Wikipediocracy-related topic comes around, and it hardly surprising that your bad-faith nomination was met with near-universal rejection. This was a perfectly reasonable interpretation of WP:SNOW, which calls for early closure if there is no likely chance of the outcome changing. Like it or not, the project has been embroiled in several controversies over the years, so a list of them is not all that unreasonable. As our vainglorious Article Rescue Squadron is fond of pointing out, WP:ATD is policy, so if there are BLP concerns and whatnot with the article, those can be addressed via regular editing practices, not deletion. Tarc ( talk) 23:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not thrilled with this - I'm not thrilled with this. There's certainly a reasonable argument that this constitutes novel synthesis. It's one thing when you have something like List of lists of lists where all of the elements of the lists are Wikipedia articles. But lots of these incidents are not especially notable and do not themselves have Wikipedia articles. Some of the elements are not really controversies at all and are better categorized as tabloid trash (like the thing about Jimbo dumping Rachel Marsden - how in the world is this a "Wikipedia controversy"?) I think there's certainly a legitimate argument about the appropriateness of this article. But rather than having that legitimate argument, debate was rapidly cut off. I'm not under any delusion that Wikipedia is going to someday turn into an encyclopedia and delete three-quarters of the self-referential articles ... but that doesn't mean that discussions about them should be forbidden. -- B ( talk) 00:46, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. That was the consensus, and it will probably remain the consensus. A certain degree of interest in oneself is natural to an organization. The main problem is just with the title -- much as I dislike the word "controversy, I find it hard to think of an alternative in this situation. FWIW, the incident referred to just above was a WP controversy, because looking on it as a relative newcomer at the time, it seemed to cast doubt over the general judgment of an individual who had at that time essentially sole power. DGG ( talk ) 00:55, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-list. Two hours and forty minutes was not enough time to determine the consensus. This is because there is at least some possibility that the people who wanted to keep may just have been slightly faster off the mark than those who would have voted to delete, rather than being more numerous. Cardamon ( talk) 03:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-list The discussion seems tainted by off-site canvassing and promotion which make the early returns suspect. The !votes up to the point of the close were not unanimous and there were no calls for a snow close. As the discussion itself seems controversial and the topic involves BLP considerations, we should follow due process rather than IAR. Warden ( talk) 05:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The WP:SNOW result will just be repeated. This is an unnecessary bureaucratic move.→ Stani Stani  06:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment If someone honestly thinks there is a chance that further discussion will decide differently then vote re-list, but I don't think that's very likely. Whether you consider the list as needing to serve as a navigational aid to notable controversies or a grouping that needs to meet notability requirements, it clearly meets all the criteria necessary for inclusion.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 07:01, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. IMO no legitimate argument was raised against it in the AFD and it was obviously snow-keep. Relisting is unlikely to change that unless someone can come up with another policy it may violate. And unless someone gets REALLY creative, I dont see that happening anytime soon. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 07:50, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Keep . The AfD nomination was flawed, and its concerns were addressed by the discussion at AfD; thus the snow closure. The list has plenty of reliable sources confirming the notability of the topic; most of the individual items have plenty of reliable sources. Improving the list would be valuable. Of course lists always have problems of upkeep, but our policy is to keep such lists. Kiefer .Wolfowitz 09:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• relist Given the "local" nature of this it's possible that only one set of editors got there quickly. I really find it unlikely that this will be deleted (and I'll be !voting to keep if it gets relisted) but B raises reasonable points. There is a case to be made for deletion and folks should have a chance to make it. Hobit ( talk) 14:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist let it run for a little bit longer than it did the first time, so more editors will be aware of it. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C • Sign AAPT) 14:45, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Since Prioryman only gave me 10 minutes to consider his reps during the middle of my night before raising this DRV I haven't actually closely reviewed the close although I'd be a liar if I claimed not to have kept an eye on this DRV. My expectation is that this will close at worse as no-consensus to overturn as I think the AFD outcome was stark staringly obvious and the evidence of notability for wikipedia controversies was clearly evidenced in the discussion. As such, I can't see that AFD ever closing as delete and I think a snow close is technically acceptable here. That said, when I closed it, I only read the arguments and didn't look at the timestamps and I would agree with hindsight that 3 hours is a short timescale and that ideally we should have allowed more time for arguments to emerge. I'm fairly agnoistic at this point about whether we should relist this as the outcome is already clear (to me anyway) but I have no objection to someone reopening the discussion (don't relist - just open the old one) but I doubt very much given Prioryman's agression that we will profit much by doing so except the feed the drahma addicts. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:52, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

A little ironic for you to complain about lack of time under the circumstances, doncha think? It's always in the middle of the night somewhere - the AFD was only allowed to run between 3 am and 6 am as far as Australia is concerned (if I've got the time difference right). I wonder how people would feel if an AFD attracting a lot of interest was closed after 3 hours at 6 am on North American time zones? Johnbod ( talk) 21:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

There is a big old difference between 10 minutes and 3 hours and as I indicated above I hadn't picked up it had only run 3 hours myself. Given time to evaluate this myself, its quite likely I would have relisted this without requiring a DRV but instead we are process wanking here for a week. Do you get off on these little snide snarky comments or do you honestly think they make discussions more useful? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:53, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The latter. Johnbod ( talk) 13:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist "Be bold, be bold, and everywhere be bold", but "be not too bold". Give it a day and it will sort itself out. Otherwise we may have to add this controversy to the article!!!! LOL Redddbaron ( talk) 17:22, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The result of the discussion was a clear snow keep. DRV is not for people to file for appeals when they don't agree with the clear results of an AfD. With all due respect to Prioryman, he appears to have an unhealthy fixation on any topic regarding Wikipediocracy, appears to have a WP:COI, and should refrain from these types of nominations. Continuing to push this gives the appearance of a personal agenda and is quickly becoming disruptive. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:36, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Strange then that this review is very far from a snow keep, isn't it? Best to avoid personal attacks. Johnbod ( talk) 21:46, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

False accusations of personal attacks are personal attacks. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 21:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - This was transparently WP:IDONTLIKEIT from the get-go, which is always a specious rationale at AfD. Carrite ( talk) 18:56, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• I placed a WP:Copying within Wikipedia reminder at Talk:List of Wikipedia controversies#Copying within Wikipedia. The copying can be fixed and should not be used as a pretext to speedy delete as G12. Flatscan ( talk) 04:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - per Carrite and DGG. Mr T ^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 06:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Too much of the nomination was not germane. Other parts seemed refuted. The discussion had already been well participated. Good WP:SNOW close. See Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion for some advice. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:49, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn There should have been more time given to explore, among other things, the obvious conflict of interest issues, as hopelessly conflicted articles have been subject to deletion in the past. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:25, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and re-list The time elapsed before closure was just too short, especially for a topic likely to attract large numbers of commenters. The article had been mentioned & linked to at various places, & it is likely that the early voters may not have been fully representative. At less than three hours this just wasn't given its place in the sun. That some people don't like the nom is beside the point. Johnbod ( talk) 14:36, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - No harm in relisting it. The end result likely won't change, but editors should be given the chance to weigh in if there is doubt in the closure. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 14:54, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close and keep Prioryman is correct in the technicalities of not "Seven days"; but I think the "WP:SNOW" was valid. I'm also not a fan of Bureaucracy just for the sake of Bureaucracy. — Ched :  ?  15:44, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Relist - Obviously I think the article should (and will) be kept, and I was surprised at the low quality of the arguments made in the deletion nomination. However, as Delicious Carbuncle says above, there's no harm in relisting it if this many editors aren't satisfied that they had a chance to air their views. I would hate to have the article kept with an odor of having escaped deletion through gamesmanship.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 18:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• You should actually vote relist rather than overturn if that is your desire. Voting overturn at DRV carries the implication that the article should be deleted.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 19:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, I changed it. I've never voted in one of these before.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 19:38, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

There was really no need to alter anything, Mr. Devil's advice here was woefully off the mark. All an "overturn" vote in a DRV is is a call to reverse the closing admin's finding, which in this case was an early close. A WP:SNOW close as keep would never be directly overturned to a delete. Tarc ( talk) 19:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't think you should say never, but, at any rate, it does help to try and avoid confusion.-- The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 20:53, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and re-list. I think that the article needs to be kept, but there needs to be a more thorough discussion of its scope than it has gotten. There is a total lack of perspective in the article, with major issues thrown in alongside with pin-pricks. It definitely should be kept, and I personally found it educational, for it told me about a lot of things that I didn't know and needed to know. But there was also a lot of indiscriminate minor issues. Clearly Wikipedia doesn't do a good job of writing about itself, along with a great many other things that it doesn't do well. Coretheapple ( talk) 21:01, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Note there are other things beside keeping it as an article in article space, like making it an essay, given the conflict of interest issues. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:51, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The article is becoming such a mishmash of "anything about Wikipedia" that I'm not sure it belongs anywhere. For example, somebody named Chris Anderson plagiarized from Wikipedia. How is that a Wiki controversy? Coretheapple ( talk) 16:45, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist - Considering the off-site canvassing associated with this AfD, it should be relisted and allowed to run for the full 7 days, to ensure that those who were not canvassed have an opportunity to contribute. ‑Scottywong | speak _ 21:03, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I don't see how relisting this will result in anything else but a snow keep, and I also have problems with the nominator's rationale. As stated in the AFD, it amounts to little more than "I don't like it". I don't necessarily disagree with his point about off-Wiki shenanigans, but that's neither here nor there. As an AFD close, it's spotless. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:41, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• If it was spotless, it wouldn't be here. Even the closer allows that he didn't check all the details and that more time should have been given. For an example of a similar case where the article was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Criticism of The New York Times. The different result there indicates that the result of these discussions cannot be predicted with certainty. Warden ( talk) 12:20, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• A clear SNOW keep is, by definition, not time constrained. And we're not talking about prediction, but consensus, which I see there, even without considering the flawed nomination, which is also often valid cause for snow keeps. I wouldn't draw a parallel with criticism of anything else, since the only clear argument for deletion in this case (as far as I'm concerned) would have been the fact it is too "meta" for inclusion in mainspace, but that was never brought up, and there are plenty of other navel-gazing articles about Wikipedia that can serve to establish precedent for keeping this one. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:48, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse but Relist - There is simply no reason to have closed the original AfD in less than 24 hours. Doing so only increased the drama. Although, the article title clearly indicates that this is really about drama. The preferred approach would be to integrate the content into the main article. Obvious sourcing question for a reopened AfD: Which reliable secondary sources which treat the collection as a group? aprock ( talk) 15:03, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist - When an AfD is closed within a few hours of the AfD being created as a WP:SNOW keep, but then multiple editors ask to relist it at DRV, I think that alone is reason to relist it. If it belongs, great, but WP:SNOW implies something that has been shown to be not quite the case here, what's being said here at DRV. - Sudo Ghost 07:36, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Very fair point. As I indicated above I'd be fine with any admin relisting this and that now looks to be the outcome of this DRV. The only question is whether anyone wants to do an early close on a DRV complaining about an early close. I bet the relisted AFD still closes as keep but that's for another day. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:14, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • As a point of principle, I'd say that no AfD should closed in less than 24 hours, except for obviously disruptive or malicious ones. There should be a lower time limit for WP:SNOW closures. If one can snow close an AfD after 2 hours 40 minutes why not 1 hour? Why not 30 minutes? A non-malicious AfD should be allowed to run for at least a certain pre-defined minimum period. Prioryman ( talk) 08:28, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
      • As I said earlier, I hadn't picked up on the length of time allowed for discussion when I closed it, just the comments and the evidence of sourcing that demonstrated that wiki controversies had some notability. In retrospect allowing more time wouldn't have hurt and its a learning point for me for the future but I'm not entirely sure that we need to be prosecriptive about it. How does your argument about allowing discussions time to develop equate with allowing me 10 minutes to consider your objection during the middle of my night before deciding to raise the DRV? Sauce of the goose surely? Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
        • It's a fair point, but on the whole I think it's a good thing that the community has been able to have a say on the matter. Prioryman ( talk) 08:47, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as clearly accurate reading of discussion, likely disruptive nature of nomination, and negligible expoectation of a different outcome. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 11:20, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Missing from this debate are details on where the canvassing occurred. RockMagnetist ( talk) 01:21, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• The canvassing occurred on Wikipediocracy, which was offering cash prizes to people to edit the article (yes, paid editing). Quite a few Wikipediocracy members have turned up here as well. Prioryman ( talk) 09:43, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• See the reward board listing for details. -- SB_Johnny |  ^talk✌ 12:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I think it would have been better left open longer, but the close was reasonable given the discussion, and it seems very unlikely that a longer listing would give a different result. I don't see any point in relisting just to satisfy the process. Kevin ( talk) 03:50, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'm conflicted about this. On the one hand, it's a fatuous waste of time to relist this because it will not achieve consensus. But on the other hand, DRV is supposed to see that the deletion process is correctly followed. SNOW is always, and inherently, a decision to disregard the process, so DRV can't really endorse a controversial SNOW. On the one hand, sysops are supposed to have the good judgment to bring pointless drama to an end. But on the other hand, closing a controversial discussion before everyone's had their say never brings the drama to an end. It just brings it here.

  On the gripping hand, while I'm sure that there has been canvassing on Wikipediocracy—which is a convalescence hospital and mutual support group for the badly butthurt about Wikipedia, and therefore the perfect place to stir up oceans of pointy drama—that doesn't make the Wikipediocrats wrong. They're right about this. Wikipedia's supposed to be open and we should be open about everything, including our own failures and the damage we've caused. This list is a perfect repository for that openness. Yes, okay, some of the controversies aren't massively notable, but individual list items don't need to be notable. And we have a duty to own up to them notable or not.

  See also Raul's 301st law.— S Marshall T/ C 13:32, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Slightly reluctant endorse. The list clearly has merit, and we should judge it on its merits—not its authors, their motives, or its origins. It could possibly be merged into Criticism of Wikipedia, although the list seems to have a wider scope. Regardless, there's no realistic prospect of deletion, so the close was appropriate. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 16:41, 21 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The results of the AfD were clear and the closing admin acted in accordance with those results. Based on the above arguments, a relisting would only result in yet another keep, or at best a no consensus, and therefore would be a waste of time. And with the huge list of references in that article, I can't see it failing notability. This discussion seems like a waste of time. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:14, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist - while the AFD discussion certainly looks like a fairly clear consensus, three and a half hours is far too early to close an AFD that wasn't blatantly out of procedure or made in bad faith. I don't expect a different outcome, but this one should be relisted simply to ensure that process is followed and to allow for a longer discussion. There was no good reason to close it early. Robofish ( talk) 10:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist - Given the cash award for expanding this article, it is possible that some of the people voting "keep" in the AfD had a conflict of interest. We shouldn't leave the decision with a question mark like that over it, even though the result of a relist will probably be the same. RockMagnetist ( talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I assume that the same logic holds for contests that offer prizes (i.e., a trip to Gibraltar in the case of Gibraltarpedia)? Anyone participating in that contest had a conflict of interest when voting in AfDs, promoting Gibraltar hooks for DYK, or debating a moratorium on Gibraltar DYKs by that standard. I agree. Delicious carbuncle ( talk) 15:25, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Don't Relist: While I agree that the AfD was probably closed a bit too early, it's pretty clear that there wouldn't be consensus to delete, so yet another 7 days of AfD discussion would just be a minor drama-fest. The article's talk page is very active, so presumably any issues with the article are being worked out in a normal and healthy manner. -- SB_Johnny |  ^talk✌ 19:06, 22 April 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Maria-tallchief-mike-theiler.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore) deleted as claimed from reuters; however, photo clearly from Washington Post photo [11]; [12]. photographer Mike Theiler. there is no evidence of the photo at the reuters website [13]; or corbis [14]; or Getty [15]. perfectly in accordance with Fair Use policy. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 00:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Deleting admin's comment: Slowking has repeatedly claimed he found the image on that washingtonpost obituaries page he links to, but several other users (me included) have been unable to see it on that page, and he has failed to explain to us where exactly it was. As was pointed out to him, there is another website [16] that unambiguously credits the photo to Reuters, and I see no reason to discount that claim. Also, if the attribution to photographer Mike Theiler is correct, you will see if you search for that name that his images on Washington Post and other news sites are regularly credited via Reuters, AFP or other such agencies, so it's clearly commercial work. Status as a commercial agency photo means it falls under CSD:F7. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:04, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• FWIW this shows the image in relation to the Washington Post, so it appears it was there at one point, I personally can't see it there now either. However I'm not sure it helps much, without being able to see it now we can't see how it was credited, and I can also see from the "more info" area a couple of other sites using it and crediting it to Reuters. I think regardless of who produced it, it's being used by commercial news sources so there is a commercial value in it. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 07:41, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

links to image given above:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/maria-tallchief-ballet-star-who-was-inspiration-for-balanchine-dies-at-88/2013/04/12/5888f3de-c5dc-11df-94e1-c5afa35a9e59_story.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rf/image_296w/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2013/04/12/Style/Images/Merlin_54369.jpg

wp:NFCC No.2. "Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media." smaller thumbnail will never replace pool reporters photo, in photo distribution channel. hard to impact value of commercial work, if not for sale on the internet.

Misuse of CSD. No. 7 not from a commercial source. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 11:59, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• No need to repeat your links, The first as commented I cannot see the image on as apparently is true for others, It won't matter how many times you post it, that isn't going to change. The second merely shows that they are currently hosting it, it doesn't give us any concept of how it may or may not have been attributed. Even if it did give an indication when we have sources such as the one above, and this one attributing Reuters the most cautious approach would be to assume the "worst case". Even if we assume these other sources are wrong in their attribution, it still demonstrates that the image has commercial value. The size of the image is little to do with NFCC#2, the image vendors sell images at various resolutions for use in different media i.e. it doesn't detract the commercial value. NFCC#2 is more about transformative use. NFCC#3B contemplate resolution issue with regards minimal use, if it were a factor in NFCC#2 it wouldn't be required for NFCC#3. The fact that you personally cannot find the image for sale currently on the internet doesn't really ssem to prove much relative to it's commercial value, it may be being sold by "invitation" only, or by non-internet sales, or merely not have been presented in the catalog, not available for sale in the region you are in, or merely that you haven't looked hard enough to find it. Additionally items not currently for sale, don't become valueless, there are various reasons a vendor may choose not to sell their property at a given instance in time. For example let's imagine that the reason I can't see the image is that actually the Washington Post bought an exclusive license for that territory, and I'm in a different territory, so the Washington Post suppress it's visibility to me. The vendor may no longer publish in their catalog for that territory (as it's already been sold for exclusive use), the commercial value is still there and certainly using it for the same purpose elsewhere would be a detriment to that value (perhaps even more so because of the exclusivity). Of course I don't know if this is or isn't the case, merely that just an inability to find it for sale does not mean the issues of commercial value are removed. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 13:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

i repeat the links so that others can follow the fact that i am linking to the washington post site. no, all the reuters attributed photos prove, is that they are a distributor. if they distributed public domain photos would you speedy those? if it has commercial value why can't i buy it from them? the fact that they don't indicate it's theirs on the internet indicates that they don't own it. it's a perverse form of intellectual property that would rather delete information, rather than allow scholarly fair use. their private distribution agreements are not a monopoly on the work of every stringer or pool reporter. far more likely that they assigned a stringer to the Ken Cen event, and distributed photos. it is not my fault you can't see the washington post site; go to the library and use their paywall license. no, when the washington post puts things behind the paywall, it destroys value; when we demonstrate what is behind the paywall, we create value. swooping in and speedy deleting images that are under review, is a perverse misuse of tools. why have NFCC at all? we'll just let you speedy everything, since you "know" what is commercial value. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 18:30, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'll simply note that I can see the image. I can take a screen shot if that's useful for some reason. Hobit ( talk) 19:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

"no, all the reuters attributed photos prove, is that they are a distributor" ok, say you are correct and reuters is distributing it. Clearly since you personally can't buy it there is no commercial consideration, so I guess Reuters are doing so out of the goodness of their hearts? "why have NFCC at all? we'll just let you speedy everything, since you "know" what is commercial value." - Well as an IP I can't speedy anything, so doesn't seem a good solution, but Yep, I guess we have no need for NFCC and discussion surrounding the application, we can just ask you and you'll put us straight on the true source of the image and that it's not being used commercially - sorry the onus by NFCC is on the person wishing to use the image to show it can be used, so getting upset that people want to discuss it or disagree with you is not helpful. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 20:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

This file has a non-free use rationale and complies with WP:NFCC and WP:NFC#UUI. Neither WP:NFCC#2 nor WP:NFC#UUI §7 prevent the use of images from any newspaper website. The image is not likely to replace the original market role of the copyrighted image due to its low resolution. The guideline WP:NFC#UUI is meant specifically for agencies, not newspapers. Slowking4^{Farmbrough's revenge}⇔ †@1₭ 22:36, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, obviously. Incidentally, while I was searching for possible replacements, I found [17]. Note how in their photo, they say, "Reproduced by permission of Archive Photos, Inc." That's what other encyclopedias (encyclopediae?) do - they get permission or they pay royalties for their photos. Meanwhile, at the supposed free content encyclopedia, we slap a fair use tag on a press photo and call it a day. Anyway ... are we really supposed to just accept that a public domain photo does not exist for someone who was a prolific public figure in the 40s and 50s? There are newspapers that didn't renew their copyrights. There are playbills that were published without a copyright notice. Hey, guess what I found in under 30 minutes of googling? http://www.ebay.com/itm/1955-Maria-Tallchief-Frederic-Franklin-Ballet-Russe-de-Monte-Carlo-Trade-Ad-/230950410396?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_0&hash=item35c5b7989c It's from 1955 and there's no copyright notice! Guess what! It's public domain! That's why we don't settle for fair use crap. -- B ( talk) 23:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Nothing wrong with the admin's close. Put in a bit of effort and go dig around for a free alternative. Not having one immediately handy doesn't grant you a free pass to fallback on non-free content. Tarc ( talk) 00:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• By the way, Maria Tallchief now has a public domain photo. I guess it wasn't so irreplaceable after all! -- B ( talk) 01:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the FFD close insofar as it kept to the norms of that venue (and, leave the image deleted anyway because there is now a free alternative, one that seems more appropriate, even). BTW, I can see the photo (credited to Mike Theiler) on the Washington Post page. Thincat ( talk) 10:44, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply

List of bus routes in Bristol ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

When Buses in Bristol was created, the edit summary was "Material moved from List of bus routes in Bristol". If this is correct, the history is still needed and should be undeleted. The title is unsuitable for a redirect, as possibly misleading, but it could be moved to a subpage of Talk:Buses in Bristol and the content replaced with a note explaining its purpose. Peter James ( talk) 20:23, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• The text that needs attributation is :

Whilst many bus and coach companies operate over the Greater Bristol area, First Bristol and First Somerset & Avon has a virtual monopoly on ::the area's public transport. Although Wessex Connect has a growing number of mainly council supported services.

Other companies offering services include: Abus, Bakers Dolphin, Buglers, Eurotaxis, Megabus, National Express, Somerbus and Stagecoach.

I have fixed the attributation history by cut and pasting a list of the contributors to the now deleted list to a separate sub-page and redirecting this to Buses in Bristol. problem now fixed. [18] Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Iron Man franchise ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There is not a clear consensus to merely merge Iron Man franchise to Iron Man in other media. There was a discussion about the various scopes possible for the topic, and at the very least, there should have been a closure for no consensus and to leave the matter to the talk page to better define the scope and what specifics can fall under it. Erik ( talk | contribs) 15:20, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no-concensus, based purely on vote counts. At 6 keep votes, 4 delete votes, 2 move votes and a merge vote, I don't see how the final merge vote takes precedence. Funny ^Pika! 21:11, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Consider where to merge We don't decide by counting votes.There was certainly no consensus to delete. i think there was a rough consensus to merge, and that is generally a very reasonable solution; however, there was no real consensus about what to merge it to. This is probably not the place to decide, nor is a Del Rev needed. The material can be discussed on some one relevant page, and then the material moved around without needing to come here. If there's deleted content that need to be undeleted to make whatever merge is decided on , I think any admin can reasonably do it. DGG ( talk ) 21:52, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  Do you not see a move to Iron Man in film as a viable option here? Moving, not just merging, was part of the discussion, in order to better define the scope. The reason I posted at DRV is so that those who did not want a stand-alone article cannot just point to the closing argument to prevent a stand-alone option. Erik ( talk | contribs) 21:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Note: I participated in the AFD. That said, there was no clear consensus for a merge, and it did not seem like a popular idea with in the AFD; i.e. it was one of the lesser proposed and supported arguments. It's important to note that a move to Iron Man in film and a merge to Iron Man in other media are completely different scopes and outcomes to the article. Mkdw ^talk 06:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, it sounds as the most reasonable solution and does not conflict with the AfD consensus. The article (patently) is a (confused) sub-article of Iron Man in other media, and its contents does not even reflect what Iron Man in film should eventually be (the Marvel Animation films are not even mentioned and about one third of the article focuses on Iron Man in video games) .Merging the little non-duplicate contents in the parent article appears to me as a win-win solution. Cavarrone ( talk) 07:39, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  I am arguing that there is no consensus to do a mere merge. Another option is to make it an article about Iron Man in a filmic scope. We have Superman in film, Batman in film, and Spider-Man in film. The "Video games" section was added after the AfD was closed, and I would argue that it should not belong. Several editors supported moving this article to adjust the scope, which is why I do not think there is a consensus to merge. Let's leave it to the talk page. I'd be happy to whip it into shape; I just want to ensure that the closure does not mean that we cannot do any work on a new stand-alone article. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:35, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (weakly). I read the discussion as achieving a pretty clear consensus not to delete but don't see any consensus between the options of merging to Iron Man in other media versus renaming to Iron Man in film and rescoping. That said I think that the close is a reasonable attempt to cut to the heart of the matter rather than saying "No Consensus, work it out on the talk page". Nevertheless, I don't think that we can give our fully endorse the merge as something backed by the consensus of an AfD (since it really isn't) rather than the (good) idea of several users. Eluchil404 ( talk) 10:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• As the closing admin and after rereading the discussion and rethinking the situation, I have no problem changing the close to 'no consensus'. Had this been discussed with me prior to sending it here I likely would have changed my close but since there is an 'endorse' opinion here I'll let it run its course. J04n( talk page) 12:22, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  Sorry I didn't message you beforehand! I read the instructions, and it seemed to only suggest making contact if the article was deleted. Erik ( talk | contribs) 13:23, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus, per analysis by FunnyPika ( talk · contribs), above. Cheers, — Cirt ( talk) 17:07, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn seems reasonable given the situation. Nom gets a small WP:FISH though I agree it isn't hugely clear that the same process is to be followed if the image wasn't deleted. Hobit ( talk) 19:10, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  I've tried to clean up the language about contacting the closing admin to make it more clear... Hobit ( talk) 19:15, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  That wording is much better. Thanks! :) Erik ( talk | contribs) 19:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn There was no consensus to merge to a particular destination. Warden ( talk) 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the non-binding close. There is a consensus to look into doing something like that. The discussion should continue on the talk page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:55, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  That is all I want to confirm, that merging is not binding. It is completely possible for this article to continue being stand-alone when its scope and contents are refined, as I mentioned in the AfD. I don't want anyone to say, you can't do that, you have to merge. Erik ( talk | contribs) 12:35, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I believe the AfD closer took into full account the content would still be present on Wikipedia at Iron Man in other media which can cover what is currently there. It's not like we're actually losing the content or saying teh topic isn't notable. At the moment a second article just doesn't justify what is there; if the "Film" section of Iron Man in other media is developed to the point that it could sustain an article in its own right then it can be split out, but until that occurs there is no point having a separate article. Betty Logan ( talk) 18:06, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

  Iron Man in other media never had the content that is currently at Iron Man (franchise). Part of the discussion was whether or not it was okay for the Iron Man films' figures to be solely encompassed at Marvel Cinematic Universe (outside of the individual film articles' reporting, of course). I'm willing to transform this article into Iron Man in film with content that fits that scope, such as greater context about the critical reception and box office performances (comparing between the two and soon the three). I hope you will not object to not merging when the article is changed and uniquely expanded. Erik ( talk | contribs) 18:31, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I don't oppose an Iron Man in film article in principle, but I think the appropriate course of action would be to develop the section at Iron Man in other media, and once it is substantial enough to warrant a split, then it could be split out if there is a consensus to do that. I don't really see the point in just having a separate article to host just a couple of tables. Also, in a recent edit, User:Mkdw decided to add video game content to the Iron Man (franchise) article, so I'm still not quite seeing the distinction between a franchsie article and Iron man in other media. Betty Logan ( talk) 23:45, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Betty, that "recent edit" was restoring content that was there since April 15th and 15 hours prior to the AFD result... I did not introduce new content after the AFD result... Mkdw ^talk 00:55, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

While you technically added the content a few hours before the Afd closed, your edits fundamentally altered the scope of the article that was discussed during the original AfD. What we discussed at the original AfD was a poorly titled film article, and the content you added extended the scope to a general franchise article. In short, your edits changed the whole nature of the debate. The AfD review should review the original debate in its original context i.e. the article should be the version that was actually discussed. Betty Logan ( talk) 01:25, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry but you've just done the very same thing. The whole DRV and the AFD close up until now has been based off a version that had video game content in it. You've now removed and changed the article significantly after everyone here has made a comment, effectively doing the same thing. How can you justify that? Mkdw ^talk 01:39, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The article under review was created as a "film series" article, and the original discussion was torn between merging the article, deleting it, or turning it into a general Iron Man in film article. I don't think anyone is really arguing for a general purpose franchise article that would cover things like films, games, comics etc, since that would overlap too much with Iron Man in other media. There may be scope for replacing Iron Man in other media with Iron Man (franchise) and a List of Iron Man media, but I think that's a separate discussion quite honestly. This review should solely be focusing on whether we need a separate film article or not. Betty Logan ( talk) 02:06, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I understand your 'point', but I hope you can understand that it basically looks like you've changed the article to support your comment in the DRV, changed the article so it's different in reference to those who have commented above, misrepresented the truth when you said, and I literally quote you above, " recent edit (Apr 18 dif), User:Mkdw decided to add video game content" when I was restoring content from April 15th, and you made J04n's close look even worse because he selected Iron Man in other media opposed to Iron Man in film since that decision was clearly based off the fact that there was other information in the article. He cited this in his closing statement. I added the video game content 15 hours prior to the close of the AFD and noted it in my comment so J04n clearly knew what was happening. He could have easily said merge to film. Rather than mentioning that occurrence here at the discussion and letting the article be actually representative of the state in which J04n actually closed the AFD. Furthermore, the result was merge, not change the article so it supports your idea of merge to film. Mkdw ^talk 03:40, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

For clarity, this is the main version [19] that ran for the majority of the Afd discussion, prior to Mkdw's later edits. Funny ^Pika! 07:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn the merge and multiple redirects and, as consensus was not "clear", and endorse a simple move to the one appropriate title for a sourcable and searchable topic... per the growing consensus for such being created with the article while it was being actively edited to address issues while at AFD. And we do not dismiss improvements that work to address a nominator's concerns, specially as we encourage the improvement of improvable topics while they are at AFD. The multiple redirects (while well intended) and the expected merge to a wider topic (also well intended) would overtax the suggested target (if not immediately, then quite soon) because while all Iron Man films are part of the "Iron Man franchise", not everything in the "Iron Man franchise" (toys, games, video games, books, comic books, etc.) is part of the "Iron Man in film" topic. Second point: Expected and proper expansion at the target of the various films' analysis and commentary would eventually result in a proper and expected spin-out in any case. Let's take care of it now. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 16:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Sanco S.A. ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Although I do admit the company has received insufficient coverage, the company's website claims it has won rare awards. Revolution1221 ( talk · email · contributions) 00:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily restored this for the purposes of discussion at DRV Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:29, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Note that I have notified the deleting admin. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:31, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Which rare awards does it claim? The only thing I came across was"Very early for Greek industry, apparently in 1998, Sanco S.A. is qualified with certifications of international organizations for the quality of its products, environmental protection and personnel safety". I don't think we could base an article on such a vague and unsubstantiated claim, but they also sound pretty run of the mill type certifications, my local cafe has certificates on the wall for hygiene standards, they don't make it notable. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 09:20, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• endorse I'm not seeing anything that doesn't come from the company website. Mangoe ( talk) 12:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment as closer Thank you to Spartaz for the notification of this DRV. I haven't been able to find coverage of this company that would show notability by GNG, and I dispute the claim made here that the website claims it has won "rare" awards--what I read on the web site doesn't appear to make the claims Revolution1221 says are there. -- j⚛e decker ^talk 15:37, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse even if the company website does claim that the company has won awards which would confer notability, WP:V forbids us from having an article on a topic with no reliable third-party sources. Hut 8.5 09:24, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The problem of being used for promotion means that organisation are held to a strict interpretation of WP:N and WP:CORP to be allowed an article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 11:59, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I don't see anything that would demonstrate notability, or even anything to pass WP:CORP. hmssolent\ ^{You rang?} _{ship's log} 04:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Holistic Management International ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Misinterpretation of debate consensus. Failure to acknowlege additions made after the original deletion request. Redddbaron ( talk) 19:07, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• overturn The vote was 4 keeps 3 deletes and a couple redirects or merges. This is not a consensus for delete. And not every reference has to establish notability, finding 1 or 2 references that don't establish notability does not mean no notable references were present. Plenty enough references were added to the article to establish notability after the initial deletion request was made. So the person who deleted misinterpreted Wiki policy. Redddbaron ( talk) 20:11, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The vote is irrelevant. The point of the AfD process is to discuss and come to a consensus, but if the minority makes a good case, the majority may not always win. Revolution1221 ( talk · email · contributions) 00:19, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

To a degree you are correct. I'll accept that. But in this particular case there is a reason all 3 deletes were also the first 3 votes. They did make a good case, and the page changed to fix it. Now their case is irrelevant, although legit when it was stated, because it no longer applies. Redddbaron ( talk) 00:39, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily undeleted this to assist this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:27, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (though possibly 'userify' would be an alternative) based on the discussion at AfD. I admit, I was initially surprised to see the closing decision was 'delete' without any qualifying explanation. However, one 'Keep' vote was based on finding a few brief mentions/non-mentions. The other 'Keep' votes were all from Redddbaron, whose argument was tenuous, based on a profile with the USDA and admitting that a merge to Allan Savory's article would be an option. Overall there was no convincing argument made to keep the article. All that being said, I'd have no problem with the article being moved to Redbarrron's user space to let them work on the article and resubmit it to AfC. WP:NONPROFIT confers notability on international non-profit organisations if the information can be verified by independent sources. A lot of the article was not independently sourced. Sionk ( talk) 11:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Endorse - I think the close was a good one, considering the delete crowd fairly comprehensively accounted for each of the potential sources put forward by the keep crowd, providing good arguments for why each was not reliable. If you really think a good case could be made for the article's recreation, you could ask for it to be userfied (I'm sure an admin would be happy to give you a copy), add all of your sources and return here in a little while to seek permission for it's recreation. After all, consensus can change and a case for notability can improve if more sources can be found. But I would suggest you try to move away from articles by "project partners" and "sponsors" and the like, as they probably wouldn't be considered independent enough. Stalwart 111 11:57, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Please don't lie. there were 4 keeps only 1 was mine.1)Sgl11453 2)Salix 3)SmartSE 4)redddbaron Yes I made a bunch of edits. I was researching a different page that I wrote Holistic management and as I ran across references I added them. But I am not in any way associated with HMI. The heading said "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." When there were 6 references 5 of which were primary. The article had 29 references by the time it was deleted, so 23 sources were added by me and others, at ~ 20 +/- of the new references were from non-primary sources. Now if you wan't to endorse, fine. That's your opinion. Just don't lie about it. If you want new editors such as myself to actually work on wiki pages as you asked for us to do. Then ignore that work like it doesn't even exist, or tell lies like we somehow are a part of the organisation or attempted to "own" the article. You'll find editors not willing to do any work for wiki EXCEPT the ones associated directly with the pages. I know I have a bitter taste in my mouth over the whole thing. I sure don't want to be scouring the web for references for an article about an organization I knew nothing about before the research, just to have someone accuse me of being a "project partner" or "sponsor" Redddbaron ( talk) 14:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC) PS I don't even own a cow, I am a dirt farmer who went to wiki to research the possibility of adding livestock to my market vegetable operation. I found the articles in wiki lacking and not helpful to my research, so I rewrote the articles so the NEXT person who is interested won't have to spend days on the computer searching for reliable information. Isn't that the purpose of Wiki? Redddbaron ( talk) 14:15, 13 April 2013 (UTC)PPS The farm aid page has only 7 references, 6 of which are either broken links or primary sources, and you don't have a single note at all on their page for delete or even improvement. It's a thinly veiled attack and double standard. Redddbaron ( talk) 14:35, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Not sure who that is directed at but you might like to read both preceeding comments again before accusing people of lying. I can't see where anyone suggested ownership, though we mentioned userfication (very different). My comment about "partners" and "sponsors" was about the publishers of the sources (who referred to themselves as such), not about you. I can't see that anyone has accused you of having a COI. I was simply encouraging the use of independent sources. Stalwart 111 14:56, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Fair enough. I sincerely apologise for that, but still doesn't change the fact that ~20 new references were added. So it is a lie that all the references are sponsored. I guarantee you the USDA is not sponsored by HMI! It is ridiculous. It is the other way around, HMI has received millions of dollars in grants from USDA to run education programs all over the country. That's a third party. The references are there now and were there when the article got deleted. That means it was deleted improperly. Simple fact told plainly, the deletion was based on a lie because the original cause, although true at the time, was no longer was the truth by the time it got deleted. They weren't before, they are now. So it is a lie to say they are not there and only primary sources are there. Redddbaron ( talk) 15:50, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Okay, but I probably still wouldn't use the word "lie". Again, I didn't suggest HMI was the sponsor. Entities like the USDA that have given money to HMI (millions, as you say) might not be considered independent as producers of neutral/non-promotional editorial about HMI. They kind of have an obligation to say nice things about HMI; doing otherwise would suggest they mis-spent those millions on a sub-par service. It just wouldn't be as neutral as a newspaper report or book. And I didn't say you shouldn't have any of those - just that you should avoid them in favour of some better ones if they exist. Stalwart 111 22:18, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

What do you mean "If they exist?" See that's what got me angry in the first place. You said right in your first statement "considering the delete crowd fairly comprehensively accounted for each of the potential sources put forward by the keep crowd", and that simply isn't true. Now again you ignore (I won't say lie again) that there were many references added AFTER and BECAUSE OF the criticism of the early references. Now you just said if they exist, and they are in the article! Sweetwater Reporter, Country World magazine, Country Folks New England Farm Weekly, Conservation Magazine. Now if for some reason you don't like those magazines or news papers because you think their circulation is too small, then say it plainly. Don't pretend they don't exist and are not in the list of references right beside the USDA and the Farm aid links. Look, the only reason I even got involved in this controversy is I grow vegetables for market. As an organic small farmer, I have to look for alternatives to my normal sources of manure, compost and mulches because of the new aminopyralid class herbicides being sprayed in pastures and hay fields. Aminopyralids are so persistent that not only are they in the hay, even after eating the hay they are in the manure, and even after the manure is composted they are still capable of killing or severely damaging my crops. So whether I want to or not, I am forced to consider raising my own animals in some way that is reasonable to the animals and profitable to me. So I am setting up a test trial integrating anything I could find. As I said before, I would have prefered to be able to just quickly go to Wikipedia and find the information I needed. It wasn't there. The few pages there were terrible and marked for delete. (rightly so) So I did it the hard way and researched in over several days and many many hours and added what I could so the next person could find the info if they needed it. You say the USDA links are poor quality sources. But anyone looking for an educational program on HMI (sponsored by the USDA) might have an entirely different view of that. Redddbaron ( talk) 00:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) I mean I'm not making a judgement either way, because that's not the purpose of DRV. I believe they did comprehensively account for the sources put forward in that particular AFD discussion (as you have acknowledged as, "criticism of the early references"). If other sources were subsequently added to the article while the AFD was ongoing but weren't raised during the AFD discussion, it's very hard to consider them. I can't see a sudden, emphatic swing towards the keep side as a result of those additions. But DRV is not AFD, Round 2. The purpose of DRV is to consider whether the close/deletion was valid, not whether one side or the other could have made a better case. I acknowledge there were quite a few sources by the time the AFD finished and had I contributed to the AFD (towards the end), I would quite possibly have supported keeping it. Which I why I say I wouldn't be opposed to userfication and recreation at some stage in the future. But I think the close and deletion were technically valid, based on what the admin had in front of him in the discussion. We would be very critical of an admin who interpreted the discussion then super-voted with a keep close based on his own read of the sources. But (again) I'm not opposed to recreation at some stage though (again) I would caution against the use of certain sources in doing so. I'm even happy to help work on a new draft in your userspace! Stalwart 111 00:42, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Here is the quote from the AfD, "OK I added several links. Here is some more........Redddbaron (talk) 06:56, 11 April 2013 (UTC)" The ONLY two commenters after that were a merge and a keep discussion. Not ANY delete votes or discussions after that and the admin just deleted it based on delete discussion PRIOR to the links being added. Even then there was no consensus since the vote was actually 4-3 in favor of keep. So not only were there no delete votes or discussions after the links were added. It was noted in the AfD that the requested changes were made. No comment at all from the original delete voters or any new delete voters. It was an improper delete by admin. Redddbaron ( talk) 03:07, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure, yeah, but the keep opinion was from you and the merge opinion noted, "This page is really straddling the border of notability". A vote count is inconsequential, as has been explained, and I think you've misinterpreted "improper" in this instance. Like I said, I'm happy to help with a new user space draft because I think this probably could be brought back. But I think we're going around in circles rehashing the AFD. It's there for all to see and there doesn't seem to be much support for overturning the decision. Best bet would be to put your energy (and mine; still happy to help) into a new draft with better sourcing (clearer, with less "padding") that puts notability beyond doubt. Stalwart 111 04:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

You are right we are going round and round. But the Keep you see from me really is just me restating my vote because all my other votes were deleted, crossed out or tagged. I was refering to Salix who was discussing the merits of the merge. There was a discussion of the reletive merits of a merge VS the merits of a keep. NO WHERE was anyone after that discussing delete. Possibly that's where both the admin and you both misunderstood?. Anyway you want to show me what you think is a proper rewrite, go for it. I did my best, if that's not good enough, then someone else needs to take a stab at it. I still contend there was no consensus on the AfD page though. Redddbaron ( talk) 06:09, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

And you certainly have that right. And I understand the keep from you in it's context. If it gets userfied, I will happily contribute to a new draft. Stalwart 111 06:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The article was a borderline case, and it would have been nice to have a closing rationale. I think best fate is to merge the relevant details into Holistic management which has undergone quite a bit of improvement since its deletion, draft and recreation. Most references discuss the technique rather than one of the groups promoting it. -- Salix ( talk): 15:55, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment as the closing admin, I apologize for not having given a more complete rationale. In short, it's this: the deletes were based on a lack of independent sources. I looked through the added sources, and they ranged from clearly bad to borderline, with nothing that seemed to come close to overcoming the initial delete objections. What Redddbaron sees as added sources, I saw as simply being more of the same problem that the delete votes were complaining about.— Kww( talk) 16:34, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Savory Like Kww, I would not have closed as keep, & for the same reasons. But I would have made a redirect to Savory, and I suggest that for this name, and the earlier ones.. It is reasonable that the name mightb looked for) The USDA grant indicates to me that there is a likelihood that this organization will be notable in the future--but little has been published by third parties on what the organization has done since then. The nearest ones so far is the quite impressive on in Journal of Arid Environments, which was not obvious since it was not properly cited, and Conservation Magazine, and I consider them much more suited for an article on the concept or the person than the organization. I see this as another example of the recent tendency of trying to make as many articles as possible for a mildly notable topic: better one strong article that will be less open to challenge. BTW, as a result of seeing this I have taken a look at the WP article mentioned above [[Hollistic Management], and made some comments on its talk p. Kww, any objection to the redirect? DGG ( talk ) 21:06, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The problem I have with a redirect to Allan Savory is that they split in 2010. I think that is was less than amicable as neither organisation mentions the other. The split also shows the larger $4.8M UDSA grant is not relevant here as the grant went to "Africa Centre for Holistic Management" which is one of Savory's organisations and not HMI. HMI did receive a more modest $537K grant from UDSA. [20]-- Salix ( talk): 05:25, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

That we split the articles 2010 years does not precent us from deciding to merge them back again in 2013. Both splits and merges are reversible. We may have a more realistic view of it now. And that he he has multiple overlapping organizations is a particularly good reason to merge. DGG ( talk ) 21:46, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The biggest reasons it shouldn't redirect to Savory is that one, Savory left, and two, Savory institute is not non-profit, while HMI is non-profit. So Savory institute redirecting to Allan Savory is fine and justified, but HMI shouldn't. They need their own page.

• I have no objection to creating a redirect. I don't see any particular reason to have the history of this article sitting underneath it, though.— Kww( talk) 17:38, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Overturn - Appears to have enough coverage to meet WP:N. Revolution1221 ( talk · email · contributions) 19:44, 14 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse — per the rationale provided by Kww. Mr T ^{(Talk?) (New thread?)} 12:57, 18 April 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Some years ago, this page was deleted because of stated copyright violations of the company's web site at http://www.aeris.net.

Unfortunately, I had not noted that this had occurred till considerably later. I attempted to contact the administrator who had deleted the page, but did not get any response to my request.

Recently, I was reminded that this page was still not back in place. Therefore, I am re-asking here for a restoral. Here are the reasons for this request:

1. The page was created and edited at various times by Nancy Levin and Syed Zaeem Hosain (i.e., myself) - both employees of Aeris Communications at the time.

2. Nancy was the Marketing person who also wrote much of the content on the Aeris web site home page. Naturally, there appeared to be considerable similarity in the information, since the same person was responsible for the content on both the Wikipedia page and the Aeris web site.

3. I also provided content at various times for that page. I am a Founder and still the Chief Technical Officer of the company.

4. In my previous communication with the administrator (when the page deletion was noted), I observed that as an officer of the company, I could easily "authorize" use of the text that was believed to be in copyright violation - with whatever supporting letters were needed for this purpose.

5. Unfortunately, I did not receive any response to that request.

6. Most importantly, at this point, the current Aeris web site: http://www.aeris.net has changed substantially over the past four years, and even the old Wikipedia page on Aeris is no longer possible to be interpreted as a copyright violation of the current site.

Therefore, I am asking for the Wikipedia page to be restored so that I can edit and fix the content - with attribution that meets Wikipedia requirements, as necessary.

If this is not possible, then I request that the page be restored as a blank page perhaps, so that I can create new content that meets requirements.

If you need verification of my identity, I can be reached at "Syed.Hosain at aeris.net". My blog noting my name is at Blog Link.

Here is the current web site link to the page where a link to the PDF shows me as an officer of the company: http://www.aeris.com/aeris-news/media-kit/

I hope you will consider this request for restoral and make it happen, or certainly allow the page to be restored for me to create new content. And I would appreciate notification at "Syed.Hosain at aeris.net" when this is done.

Thanks much!

P.S: I am not sure how to leave a notification at the talk page for the administrator - I did not see a place where I could cleanly leave a message without messing up the information he/she has on it currently: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ERcheck.

Z (
talk) 17:19, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
reply

• The place you want to be is Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials, not here. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:32, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Though, given that the article was on afd when the copyvio was discovered, it seems unlikely that it will be restored even then. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:35, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• The state of the current site has no bearing on if it would be a copyvio or not, if it was a copyvio then, then it still is. A release would of course fix that. However I suggest you read our conflict of interest guidelines and refrain from directly editing the page. If it was an apparent copyvio of the original web site, there is a good chance it won't be suitable content for wikipedia anyway. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 18:57, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• @ User:Szhosain. Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials is actually a bit premature and of course, really doesn't answer your questions. Unfortunately, User:ERcheck has not been actively editing Wikipedia since December 2012. The first thing I recommend is reading the guidelines pertaining to Conflicts of Interest. Once you have done that, request an email copy of the previously deleted article from an administrator, explaining that the deleting administrator is no longer active. There is no need to blank the content from Aeris Communications, Inc., since there is no existing article under that name. (And article naming conventions would not include the suffix.) Once you receive an email copy of the deleted article, compare it with the organization's web site content to determine what, if anything you wish to change. Then simply create a draft of the new article at User:Szhosain/Aeris Communications. 1. If the newly drafted article does not contain content protected by copyright, simply come back here, let us know that you would like to create an article for Aeris Communications, which was previously deleted due to copyright violations. Provide a link to the newly drafted article to ensure administrators that the new article is free of copyright violations. If there are no copyright violations, make sure to (at the very least) indicate how the company is significant or important. Prior to requesting permission to recreate the article, I highly recommend establishing notability, by providing significant coverage in reliable and independent sources. At the same time, make sure that the article is not presented to merely promote awareness of the organization. Make sure to maintain neutrality at all times. And again, read, review, and become familiar with the Conflict of Interest guidelines. 2. If you draft your new article and choose to use close paraphrasing or content protected by copyright from the organization's web site, make sure to follow the instructions for donating content to Wikipedia. Keep in mind that we cannot allow copyright violations even in the sandbox. Make it very clear at the top of your draft that you have followed the process for donating content to Wikipedia and have forwarded release of the content to the OTRS team. Then come back here, identify yourself as a founder and Chief Technical Officer of the company. Let us know that you have recreated an article for Aegis Communications, you have followed the procedure for donating content to Wikipedia and have sent the OTRS team a release (permission to use) the content on Wikipedia. Provide a link to your newly drafted article, then request permission to move the article to the mainspace. When the article is back in the mainspace, please make sure to declare yourself as a {{ connected contributor}} to future editors and readers of the article, by placing a notice on the article's talk page. Keep in mind that while editing with a Conflict of Interest is not forbidden, at the same time, it's not recommended, since most editors find it very difficult to maintain neutrality. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact me anytime. Best regards, Cindy( need help?) 19:13, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion Not sure about a new article, but we really can't have the previous one coming back even if the copyvio aspect is cleared up, it was a very clear advertisement with straight-from-a-brochure phrases like "Since 1992, Aeris has provided superior reliability, higher quality coverage, lower latency, and unsurpassed customer support and managed services." Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:09, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

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

The page for the video sharing/hosting service ZippCast.com was recently speedy deleted under A7. However I believe that this is incorrect and bias towards competing sites if you kindly take a look at List of video hosting services. You will see that many equal sized less heard of sites with much less features are listed. This site is recognized by websites such as Urban Dictionary http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Zippcast. ZippCast is frequently refereed to in online discussions so users (as i myself did) will and have come to look it up Wikipedia giving it a high encyclopedic value. The page at time of deletion was not in a complete sate and will be expanded if returned but it still qualified for use in Wikipedia. Please note this is about the deletion on 7 April 2013 not any previous deletion. I have discussed this issue with the admin that deleted the page prior to posting this. Mainline421 ( talk) 21:45, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Are there any reliable sources that mention the site? I looked at the links you gave in the deleted page and none of the mainstream sources given there mention ZippCast. I don't see any evidence of notability. -- B ( talk) 22:26, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse If there's something out there that's absolutely never, ever, ever, ever a reliable source, it's UrbanDictionary. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:17, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 15:27, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion and recommend WP:SALT. WP:OSE is no reason to undelete anything. Note that this article has been speedily deleted before. This article shows no importance of the company and the article borders on an effort promote the company. I smell WP:COI. Toddst1 ( talk) 18:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Lets look at the top ten Google results, shall we? 1. Their website 2. Their Facebook page 3. Google Product Forums 4. Their Youtube channel 5. Encyclopedia Dramatica (ouch) 6. A bicycle repairs website 7. Their Twitter page 8. Their blog 9. The Top Tens and 10. Urban Dictionary. Yeah, no, not worth a page. Revolution1221 ( talk · email · contributions) 00:10, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Little Face Mitt ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

The Little Face Mitt page was recently deleted without a current or recent discussion, and I believe this decision was reached hastily and prematurely. I tried discussing the matter with the mod who deleted it, but he offered no legitimate reason why beyond a discussion that was outdated and he sent me here, saying he was on vacation and didn't have time.

My reasons for why it should be overturned are because the moderator cited a discussion consensus that was reached far before the subject reached its peak of notability. The sources included at the time of its second deletion far exceeded that which should qualify as notable.

In the initial discussion, a user even said "While there has been some coverage in independent sources, it's a flurry of initial coverage with nothing really beyond that. It remains to be seen whether or not this will be notable in the long run, and it's not Wikipedia's job to hold on to something in the hopes it may eventually be notable."

While it could be agreed that at the time deletion was appropriate, the subject seems to have established itself as indeed notable as time surpassed. The subject went on to amass articles in Gawker, UPROXX, CollegeHumor, Buzzfeed, PostSecret, Mother Jones, Funny or Die, The Washington Examiner, The Huffington Post, Complex Magazine, BoingBoing and, of course, The International Business Times. It was also included in Mashable's Top 10 memes of 2012 roundup. And Barack Obama's headquarters used the images as well. The Young Turks also covered it in a segment.

I'm sure I'm even missing some of the sources but they were all properly formatted on the original page. If that many articles doesn't assert enough notability, I'm not sure what will. Please consider overturning the deletion as it was a rogue act that doesn't really justify itself. -- 129.89.130.109 ( talk) 13:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC) 129.89.130.109 ( talk) 13:54, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 15:32, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• I've activated the link to the original AFD discussion; keep in mind that it was closed back in September of last year. Mangoe ( talk) 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• submit to AFD I would be on board with speedy deletion as re-creation of deleted material (the first version after the original deletion was not markedly different from the last version before the AFD), but that wasn't the reason given. I don't think the article has improved to overcome the grounds given in the AFD, but I think enough has changed to where pepole might have a different opinion. Mangoe ( talk) 16:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

It was tagged with {{ db-repost}} before being deleted (see this version) and was deleted on that basis. But agree that the immediately prior PROD wasn't great. Stalwart 111 23:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I wouldn't oppose an "endorse" outcome, but my personal sense is that I'm considerably harder on the notability of these political memes than the average editor. Mangoe ( talk) 09:58, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - as Mangoe said, the re-creation was basically the same as the article deleted at AFD. The only thing in there resembling a reliable source is one brief blurb from the Washington Examiner. I don't see that anything has changed. If the humorist that made this up were notable enough for an article, this title could be redirected to his title, but I don't see any way that this is an appropriate topic for an article by itself. The AFD was rightly decided and nothing has changed, so I endorse the deletion. -- B ( talk) 18:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Okay, for a start, criticising a volunteer admin at a volunteer project for being on vacation and then calling his deletion work a "rogue act" won't get you very far. By all means, make your case, but please try to stick to the old adage of playing the ball rather than the man. Yeah? On the article itself, the AFD result seems fairly clear. There are a couple of sources that have appeared since then but I can't see that they change the circumstances very much. Much of the available sourcing is a bit circular - each one referencing another, referencing another with all roads leading back to the original primary source. Some are little more than a string of examples with little text - hardly "significant coverage". I'm not entirely against recreation if more becomes available in the future and, of course, consensus can change. But right now, I can't see enough to justify overturning the AFD result. Stalwart 111 23:49, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Even if the deletion was a tad hasty, the article wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of surviving an AfD. It still lacks coverage from reliable sources (Funny or Die? Seriously? That's about as reliable as Uncyclopedia) and fails WP:N. If it gets covered by something that isn't essentially a democratic version of Know Your Meme, then maybe, just maybe, it is worth an article. But not right now. Revolution1221 ( talk · email · contributions) 00:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse procedurally. Deletion complaints from IPs should be given a weight of precisely zero. Either login with one's actual account, or learn something about notability guidelines and the project in general before partaking in deletion review. Tarc ( talk) 13:42, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • There are plenty of good faith editors who do not, for whatever reason, choose to create an account. Though obviously I do not agree with this user's request, it should not be ignored just because he or she chooses to contribute via an IP address. -- B ( talk) 15:26, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Tarc has a point. Sure, there's good IP users, but there's almost nothing in history for this one, so it's very likely a user logging out to avoid scrutiny. I wouldn't say this DRV should be auto-closed or anything, but generally we're quite right to frown upon when users log out to avoid associating doing something dumb with their normal account. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:46, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see a procedural justification in this because I don't see a procedure that says that IPs can't do this. It's somebody's opinion. Mangoe ( talk) 17:09, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry I've offended everybody. I don't know why Wikipedia mods always jump to the most negative conclusions, however. In response to "Tarc," I found that rude and presumptuous. Please don't try to discredit me or my intelligence, because I am very aware of the notability guidelines. With that said, there are easily 15 sources that assert notability according to the notability guidelines of web content. Claiming that Funny or Die is as credible as Uncyclopedia is not the point. It clearly states that if a source proves the subject has attracted notice, then it is a valid source. All of these links have been viewed thousands and thousands of times and the Young Turks, a nationally viewed program, discussed it at length. Since this is an online phenomenon as well, validity of sources have to be challenged much less harshly because just the fact that there are items covering it proves the popularity it attracted. It's not like there will be false information in the pieces. Little Face Mitt existed and was popular. That's that.

As for the assertion that nothing about the article has changed, I also believe that to be false. Keep in mind that while Little Face Mitt is something I believe to be notable enough to merit an article for the reason of spotlighting at least one of the most important memes of the 2012 election (which some have called the first real social media election), it still isn't groundbreaking enough for a gigantic article. So the changes, while minimal, were all inserting the valid sources to back it up. If somebody had made more significant changes, you'd probably be even angrier than you already are.

My point is that just because you haven't heard of something directly or don't like the way it's written isn't enough basis for deletion if there are more than ample sources to back up its existence, especially since many lesser things with far fewer sources have existed and continue to exist without even being challenged. If anything, it should be a call to action to improve what was already written and set in place instead of inspiration to squash something where it stands.

(And P.S. Saying that the mod went rogue wasn't an insult as much as it was just my way of saying he deleted it without consulting anybody democratically. Please don't always assume the worst.)

(P.S.S. Please don't call me dumb, Starblind.)

-- 129.89.130.116 ( talk) 16:52, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion Oh dearest me, a volunteer admin had the nerve to take a vacation! However did they undo the leg shackles and disable the shock collar? I'd file a form 27B-stroke-6 to have their pay docked immediately, if they had any. Ok, in all seriousness, endorse as the subject doesn't appear to have become any more notable since the AFD, and that isn't likely to change in future, either. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:07, 11 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I'm honestly unsure why you are being so rude and unprofessional about this. I'm trying to have an adult discussion here about this and all you can do is make fun of me yet offer no legitimate basis for your stance. While you said the subject's page hasn't changed since it was created at first, it is proven that's patently false. Why do you deny that? How can you deny all the sources? On Wikipedia, sources are supposed to be king, aren't they? And this article certainly has sources. The fact is that this was an unalienable aspect of the 2012 election that exemplifies the social media factor that in many ways will define this election for future generations. I get you don't approve of the sources, but why? Nobody is saying why. Everybody is endorsing the deletion even though nobody has made a clear case against it. Widely viewed coverage is legitimate for this sort of subject, and the reason I favor the undeletion is because this is a very well known meme and in many ways more significant than other ones because it showed the new way people can make fun of candidates. Do you see tiny face pictures online? Have you seen the widely circulated Kim Jong-Un picture that has been featured in many articles? Thank this meme. It's not the most sophisticated and was relevant at a time now in the past which is why I feel the tide has turned so harshly against it, but if you can subtract that perspective and look at it from the standpoint that it had the exposure that brought it to an audience that was actually in the millions, I don't see why you could still endorse the deletion.

And as an aside, since Starblind has decided to violate WP:PA by seemingly insisting I said something overtly critical about the original moderator going on vacation, let me defend myself for that lest you all think I'm some kind of monster now. I criticized him for deleting the article without consulting anybody else. Did I say anywhere that he had no right to go on vacation and that I was angry at him for that? No, I didn't. If all you can contribute to this discussion is that kind of bush-league rhetoric that uses mockery over logic and sense, please take it elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.128.108.125 ( talk) 00:21, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

To begin with, I would strongly suggest you start logging in each time you comment here or anywhere else. You've used about 5 different IP addresses which just gets confusing and might even result in someone accusing you of sock-puppetry, which is exactly what happened at the AFD. You are quite obviously Funkychunkybeans who created the article originally, !voted to keep it at the AFD and then left the first (unsigned) note on the deleting admin's page, which you edited with two different IP addresses after that. Given your "still waiting" comment was left on the admin's talk page only 25 mins after your first note, it seems obvious to me why people would draw the inference that you were angry/impatient or had not noticed the note at the top of his page about his vacation. But all of that is besides the point - DRV is not AFD, Round 2. There was a perfectly valid AFD discussion, it resolved to delete the article and any subsequent recreation of the article needs substantially better sourcing to justify overturning the AFD result. So far I've seen one article that might be considered a reliable source (might) dated after the AFD. I remain of the view that we still need a lot more than that to overturn a valid AFD result. Stalwart 111 06:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

By the way, "rude and unprofessional" would be a comment like this one. Yeah? Stalwart 111 07:01, 12 April 2013 (UTC) reply

ARGUMENT FOR KEEP AND COMMENTS Ok. I fail to see how that's "rude and unprofessional." What it is is impatient. It was written, obviously, in response to being demeaned at the time for trying to save my article. It's no more rude and unprofessional than literally being called dumb and being accused of things I didn't even do. I'm growing impatient again as you can see because nobody is listening to me and everybody is trying to justify this deletion with an outdated argument that is no longer valid. There HAS to be at least somebody in here who sees where I am coming from. What I am getting is an odd over-eagerness to bypass discussion and destroy this page. The main and only argument against undeletion I am seeing is the false assertion that the page was recreated with no significant changes. How is more than doubling the sources that were originally featured not a significant change? How is completely changing the format and condensing it to make it feature more with a shorter length not a significant change? You tell me. I don't understand. So what I am going to do now is cite another article of similar if not a lesser degree of notability than Little Face Mitt. I know what you are going to say is that results of other discussion have no relevance in this discussion and that it doesn't matter and whatever else. That's what happened last time. But the result of the AfD discussion for President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF) was an overwhelming keep and many of the points addressed in there that contributed to its survival also apply here. What I will do is post the full closing statement as to why it survived deletion -

* Keep Worthy of note. Easily sourced topic showing the solid meeting of WP:GNG and the meeting of SNGs WP:WEB and WP:NF (and yes, NF can applied to video lampoons as well as to feature length films), despite the WP:WAX comparisons and the cherry picking of a few weaker sources as if they were representative of the overall available. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, We at Wikipedia can also respect the First Ammendment and accept that we US citizens are allowed to mock and spoof our leaders and sometimes such lampoons meet inclusion criteria, like it or not. As an aside, I think THIS one is funnier. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 07:07, 29 July 2011 (UTC) reply

All of that argument applies here in almost shockingly similar ways. The only difference are the locations of the sources. But I can't imagine any scenario where The Washington Examiner, The International Business Times, NBC, and The Young Turks aren't sufficient enough. And the volumes of views the other articles received should speak for themselves also. And would you like me to include articles that reference the Little Face Mitt VIDEO? Because this article only concentrates on the image macro series. Discussing the video, which acquired nearly two million views, would add even more ample sources. Is that what you'd like?

I hope somebody can recognize my arguments instead of jumping on the bandwagon and trying to brush this off.

Yeah? -- 72.128.108.125 ( talk) 04:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• As the Admin who deleted before going on vacation, I only want to say that I did not feel insulted by the IP editor, but do consider he could have been a little more polite and use the magic word in his request. I did answer him/her basically telling him/her to come here in my absence. I stand by the deletion as it was correct in my view. -- Alexf ^(talk) 12:58, 15 April 2013 (UTC) reply

ARGUMENT FOR KEEP AND NEW SOURCES Hey, here's a bunch of additional sources that were missed the first time -

From BoingBoing - http://boingboing.net/2012/09/05/little-face-mitt-launches-vide.html

From TrendHunter - http://www.trendhunter.com/trends/little-face-mitt

From SometimesThingsHappen - http://sometimesthingshappen.com/dang/little-face-mitt/

From WeKnowMemes - http://weknowmemes.com/tag/small-face-mitt/

From FunnyJunk - http://www.funnyjunk.com/funny_pictures/4061618/Little+Face+Mitt+Has+A+Little+Face/

From Bite TV - http://www.bite.ca/bitedaily/2012/08/little-face-mitt/

From Glittarazzi - http://www.glittarazzi.com/election-2012/113257-little-face-mitt.html

From TheFW - http://thefw.com/little-face-mitt-now-getting-the-video-treatment/

From DailyOfTheDay - http://dailyoftheday.com/little-face-mitt-is-now-a-video/

From Mashable, again - http://mashable.com/2012/08/28/mitt-romney-tumblr-pages/

From DangerousMinds - http://dangerousminds.net/comments/little_face_mitt_romney

From BostInno - http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2012/08/28/republican-national-convention-live-stream-watch-the-rnc-online-video/little-face-mitt-10/

Are these, in addition to the multitude already cited, still not good enough? I see absolutely not one single reason why. -- 72.128.108.125 ( talk) 04:49, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• As far as I can see, those are mostly just reposts or examples of the meme with little by way of text or detail. They wouldn't really be considered "significant coverage" under most circumstances and I would query whether some of those (without authors, dates, publishing details, etc) could be considered "reliable sources". There's one or two that might be okay for citing things in-article, but not much there for conferring notability. But, hey, I've said my bit and others might disagree with me - I'll leave it to others to respond as they see fit. Stalwart 111 11:23, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist at afd I do not want to make a judgment on the merits of the actual article here, but the additional material was significant enough to prevent G4, since it included material showing it was still getting discussion even after the election. That's relevant enough to notability for memes that a new discussion is obviously needed. At the earlier AfD, I see many of the arguments specifically said it was not notable unless there was continued coverage after the election, and the closer therefore specifically said there was no prejudice against recreation. That AfD close should have had an effect upon the decision to use G4. The speedy was therefore incorrect, because the material did very specifically meet the original objections . We should reverse incorrect speedys, regardless of what we think will be the eventual fate of the article. That's what we mean when we say DelRev reviews deletion decisions, but does not serve as an AfD2. All admins, including myself, have a tendency to stretch the boundaries a little because of the mindset when engaged in deleting many bad articles. I've reversed maybe 1% of my deletions, because if someone has a potentially plausible good faith case,and the material is not harmful, it's fairer to let the community decide. The community has the right & indeed the need to interpret things at deletion broadly or narrowly, but admin actions are not the place to stretch the boundaries, except when necessary to delete something that will be really harmful, which is rarely the case with a G4 and was not the case here. DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 13 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD per DGG. Hobit ( talk) 19:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Polytechnic University of the Philippines College of Communication ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am hoping that this page will be an article and not a redirect page. PUP's College of Communication has achieved Level 3 accreditation from AACCUP and was a Center of Development according to CHED. PUPCOC is notable given the following reason(s). Sources: http://www.aaccupqa.org.ph/PolytechnicUniversityOfThePhilippines.html and http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/380623/up-pup-ust-named-journalism-centers. PH 0447 ( talk) 03:48, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• endorse redirection These references do not constitute extensive discussion of the college, and really ought to be used to support text in what is really a pretty short article for a university. Mangoe ( talk) 16:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close / keep redirected. In order for it to be appropriate, there would need to be reliable sources giving you meaningful information about this college, not just mentioning it in passing. Neither link even mentions the College of Communication by name. -- B ( talk) 19:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, I suppose. The AfD nomination was to merge to the parent University article and, although the close was to redirect, the closer left it as an option to merge the content. All rather strange. "Merge" was clearly the appropriate thing to do so I don't think any of this was needed and a merge could have been done directly. If no one else does so, I shall merge the material at the end of this DRV unless there is consensus against. So, PH 0447, I think it highly likely that most of this material will be retained but as part of the content of the University article. Thincat ( talk) 17:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Theory of supreme relativity ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Unfortunately I came to the AfD too late to see the article, but I am almost sure that the sysop applied the WP:CSD#G1 criterion wrongfully, because it is quite restrictive. Could someone extract first one or two sentences to check whether it was really a nonsense? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Sure:

The theory of supreme relativity is a concept of origin of the universe. It considers the Theory of relativity given by Albert Einstein and Kepler's laws of planetary motion as primary theories. Secondary theories are Newton's laws of motion<ref>For explanations of Newton's laws of motion by [[Isaac Newton|Newton]] in the early 18th century, by the physicist [[William Thomson, 1st Baron Kelvin|William Thomson (Lord Kelvin)]] in the mid-19th century.</ref> and center of masses of universe, galaxy, solar and planetary systems.

It only gets worse. The article references a book by Einstein and a web document in Hindi (?). There is a list under the heading "Concept accepts" that includes "Origin from Zero" and "Space as primary, and Air, light, water, earth as secondary". The author obviously has strung together references to well-known physical theories with no clue what they mean. If you're not convinced, I can restore it and let the debate continue, but I think the article should have been nominated for speedy deletion in the first place. RockMagnetist ( talk) 20:59, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

The definition I am using from WP:NONSENSE is the second one: "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." I think this qualifies. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I am convinced only in a gross misjudgment of a recently elected admin about the CSD institution in Wikipedia. Why not let the AfD follow its legitimate way, which should last its prescribed one week? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 21:12, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

"recently elected admin" sounds like an ad hominem argument to me. The WP:SPEEDYCLOSE policy does allow me to close the discussion early, if speedy deletion requirements are met. RockMagnetist ( talk) 21:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Please be mindful of WP:Copying within Wikipedia#Reusing deleted material when quoting from deleted pages. Standard practice is to undelete in place and tag with {{ TempUndelete}}. Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Seems a little point-y to me to bring this to DRV. Why not just raise the issue with RockMagnetist, ask him to restore the deleted article and re-open the AFD? The outcome of the AFD itself, quite frankly, was going to be no different. I was being nice as I am wont to do when I provide deletion rationales, but this was nothing more than gunk someone made up one day, uploaded to Scribd and decided to publish in Wikipedia. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 21:31, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Had Incnis Mrsi asked me on my talk page, I would have been happy to restore the article. The truth is, I only meant to nominate the article for speedy deletion, but the same menu option in Twinkle that I used for nominations before I was an admin now deletes the article immediately! I considered restoring the file, but decided that the case for G1 was strong enough that I might as well leave things as they were unless someone objected. RockMagnetist ( talk) 22:52, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• OK then, that's also a good object lesson in being careful with your broom § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 23:24, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'm confused - why would you nominate an article for speedy deletion if you're not 100% sure it qualified? When you tag a page for speedy deletion, you should be saying, "if I were an admin, I would be hitting the delete button now but since I'm not, I am asking someone else to do it on my behalf." -- B ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Because it was a judgement call and I wasn't 100% sure that other people would accept my judgement. It's obvious nonsense to me - true nonsense, not an "implausible theory" - but someone who isn't familiar with the scientific terms might not be able to tell that they are put together in a nonsensical way. If I had listed it and someone else had deleted it, I doubt there would have been a review. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Nonsense in the common use of the word is not the standard that WP:CSD#G1 gives. If you and I are talking, we might say, "Bob's ideas about politics are nonsense", meaning, we vehemently disagree with Bob's ideas and he does not have a good solid grasp of reality. But G1 defines nonsense as "Pages consisting entirely of incoherent text or gibberish". A page where someone banged on the keyboard or where students are weauxfing about who will kick whose posterior is patent nonsense. A page that uses complete sentences is not patent nonsense. -- B ( talk) 05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, reopen AFD, which will result in a rather rapid, but procedurally correct SNOW close. G1 expressly excludes "implausible theories"; and while this was quite implausible, and the Google-cache version is disjointedly written to the point that the essence of the theory can't really be made out well (if at all), it doesn't fall to the level of utter gibberish required for G1. You can often make a case for administrator discretion in applying the NONSENSE standards to prose as bad as this, but when the content falls as squarely into a G1 exception as this content does, the AFD should run. I think the nom's decision to start a regular AFD was prudent and more procedurally correct. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 21:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Speedy relist as a reasonable contest of G1, and let the AfD run its course. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:09, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - it's obviously not a valid G1 by any remote stretch of the imagination, but unless someone can offer a reasonable argument that this is an appropriate encyclopedia topic, I don't know that "process for the sake of process" is a useful endeavor. Yes, deleting something out of process is bad and if it's a marginal case, deleting something out of the process is a way to game the system (ie now it requires a consensus to undelete instead of a consensus to delete), but this article doesn't look like a marginal case. -- B ( talk) 03:02, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• How is an application of WP:SPEEDYCLOSE out of process? You may disagree with my judgement on G1 (and after all, it's always a judgement), but I think that my actions were consistent with policy. RockMagnetist ( talk) 05:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • A speedy close is fine if and only if it's a valid speedy deletion that meets one of the criteria. G3 might be applicable - a blatant hoax - but if it has complete sentences and coherent thoughts, it doesn't meet our definition of patent nonsense and is not G1. -- B ( talk) 05:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• The seven day process ensures sufficient opportunity for the newcomer to engage in conversation. The main purpose of this conversation in cases like these is the education of the newcomer. Hmmm, am I assuming that Incnis Mrsi is a newcomer? Maybe Incnis Mrsi is doing this on behalf of the lurking newcomer author? Otherwise, this should have gone to User_talk. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:25, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• I would not object against keeping it deleted if some experienced and trusted sysop amended the log to cite a valid reason: does not matter as CSD, with link to this discussion, or in own prose. The current situation with this deletion can encourage future investigators to overturn this apparently incompetent sysop’s decision, especially if RockMagnetist will later become notorious for other breaches of rules. A person who doesn’t understand properly the wording of G1, or does not feel himself obliged to follow established rules, got 98 support votes quite recently. This fact diminishes my trust to English Wikipedia community, which was previously very high. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 07:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• An ad hominem argument, a personal attack and rant about a single questionable deletion diminishing your trust in en.wp and this is what classifies as an "oops!". LOL. Stalwart 111 09:10, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Something is bad with my grammar? Wrong preposition, I guess? How the correct English should be written for it? Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• If you consider "incompetent sysop" to be an error of grammar rather than personal attack then I would strongly suggest you consider replacing the userbox on your user page that suggests you contribute here with an advanced level of English. Stalwart 111 01:13, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Incnis Mrsi, in your above statement, you seem to be saying that you are primarily concerned that this deletion decision could later be overturned. So how does starting a deletion review avoid that? RockMagnetist ( talk) 16:47, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

My primary concern is incompetent deletions, especially deletions which cite invalid reasons or are forged in some other way. Using the CSD to push personal agendas and tastes is a dangerous trend which could create an atmosphere of distrust and paranoia in this wiki, because there are much less eyes to look on deleted articles than on other sysop actions, and they are less prominent in any case. A deletion review could result in a valid, legitimate deletion log entry, which would prevent further discussions on this incident. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 18:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Good grief. This is horribly unfair to RockMagnetist. He isn't pushing a personal agenda - he is a brand new admin who made a mistake in applying the policy and will learn from it. DRV is not about beating an admin into submission, it's about restoring content that is good for the encyclopedia. If this content isn't beneficial to the encyclopedia and has no chance to become so, then it should not be restored. And I'm not quite sure what you think DRV does regarding deletion log entries. Nobody is going around annotating deletion logs - an overturned deletion looks exactly like any other deletion in an admin's deletion log. -- B ( talk) 22:20, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - this DRV is obviously about attacking an admin rather than producing an outcome that is in the best interests of WP, so I'm changing my position. That's not what DRV is for. Relist, I suppose, though I'd be just as happy for it to remain deleted per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY. Was it the best G1 ever? Nope, obviously (I see that as being more for complete gibberish or random characters, not badly-formed ideas). Is it a good opportunity for a newish admin to learn without breaking WP? Yep (seriously, is he going to G1 anything else in a hurry?). Want to relist it so others can pile on for a proper WP:SNOW close? Go for it; doesn't look like the admin in question would object one bit. Stalwart 111 07:52, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• "Is it a good opportunity for a newish admin to learn without breaking WP? Yep (seriously, is he going to G1 anything else in a hurry?)" - you got that right! RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Relist, which will as mentioned above, result in a rather rapid snow delete verdict being returned. Not anywhere near a valid G1. While I'm sympathetic to the view that the article will be deleted anyway, the procedures exist for a reason, and the content of the article isn't heinous enough to invoke WP:IAR. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC). reply
• Comment - I'm content with a decision either way, so I hope that I won't annoy anyone by exploring the policy a bit more. I just want to understand how it applies. The second definition of NONSENSE is "Content that, while apparently intended to mean something, is so confused that no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of it." Doesn't a statement like "Concept accepts ... Origin from Zero ... [and] Space as primary, and Air, light, water, earth as secondary" fall under this heading? If not, what is an example of something that meets this criterion but is not random gibberish? RockMagnetist ( talk) 13:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just because something uses broken English ("Particles moved fast in extremely less time") doesn't make it patent nonsense unless the English is so incredibly broken that it does not form a coherent thought. You are a scientist and so you know that the theory espoused on this page has no basis in reality. But G1 deletions need to be clear-cut cases where any person of ordinary intelligence - not just someone skilled in the art - would recognize that the article is nonsense. -- B ( talk) 14:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

    “No basis in reality” is not a valid deletion reason at all – here is Wikipedia, not a textbook for university students. Even if a theory is demostrably disproved thousand times, it can belong to Wikipedia if it is notable and described in reliable sources. Incnis Mrsi ( talk) 16:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• B, I think you have identified the core issue. Certainly no reasonable person can be expected to make any sense of this article, but they also need to be confident that the fault lies in the article and not their own lack of expertise. I'll keep that in mind in future. RockMagnetist ( talk) 17:38, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• endorse Searching for the article title gives exactly four hits, on on Wikipedia. If there is a subject to be found here, it's certainly the case that this is not the right name for it. If you think it's salvageable, get it userfied and write a better article under some other name that people actually use for it. Mangoe ( talk) 16:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• The source given for a duplicate of the image that was on this article pretty much states outright that this was original "research". Endorse per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY even without seeing the article beyond the excerpts above. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
  • ...which has now been speedied for being a duplicate. The text in question, which isn't on the other image, was "Designed the image based on the concept in my mind"/"Previously published: not published, designed based on the concept". 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:57, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. Fractionally better than nonsense but if restored would undoubtedly be rejected as original research so no point in restoring - WP:SNOW applies. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 17:40, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion -- G1 was clearly incorrect, but as RHaworth points out above, there isn't a snowball's chance in hell that re-opening the discussion will change the result. -- SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Speedy relist, it does no harm to wait a week. The distinctions and limits for speedy need to be observed, because they have reasons.The reason here is to avoid prejudice against Fringe and pseudoscience. Much of it is indeed nonsense in the common use of the term, and things like homeopathy and astrology I wouldn't hesitate to call nonsense in ordinary speech. But to maintain our NPOV, before we delete an article as being non-notable fringe, rather than notable fringe, we need to discuss it. However absurd this theory , it needs the community to look at it to see if by some weird chance it might actually have been discussed so much that it's notable. There's no other safe way of proceeding. I don't blame the admin, however--his explanation makes perfect sense to me. When I first started using twinkle, I made that same error , and continued making it from time to time until I learned how to change the default. Nominating it and asking for a check by another admin is a reasonable thing to do--most admins would have turned down the speedy, and that reduces greatly the margin of error. That's what was intended. Not buro is a very good principle,and I do not hesitate to use it, but one place it rarely applies is to speedy deletion--and the reason for that is for every times it's used sensible, some admins will have a different approach and use it where it would not be obviously supported. That's the criterion for speedy--that nobody who understands WP would rationally object. DGG ( talk ) 03:31, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I was asked on my talk p., How do you change Twinkle defaults? This is one of the oddest ad hoc features of the interface. Go to Wikipedia:Twinkle/Preferences. It looks like it's a general page that would set universal defaults, but it actually operates to set your own individual preferences. The explanation of the options is at Wikipedia:Twinkle/doc. As I said, it was some while before I figured this one out DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion as there's absolutely zero chance of this staying, and the only result of sending it back is to let an absolutely terrible article sit on Wikipedia for another couple days. That doesn't benefit the encyclopedia or its readers. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:48, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Incorrect G1, but weak keep deleted. The article is readable enough to escape G1, but it will certainly be deleted at AfD. The only advantage of an AfD is that G4 may be used in the future. Flatscan ( talk) 04:23, 10 April 2013 (UTC) reply