Category:Greek loanwords ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The deleted category was one of a series of many categories by language and a sub-category of Category:Indo-European_loanwords (it also includes Celtic, Germanic, Hindi, Iranian, Latin, Romance, Romani, Slavic and Urdu loanwords) which is a sub-category of the parent Category:Loanwords. The category was wrongly nominated for deletion, considering that it had valid categorization and was a significant part of a large series. (note: I took this to requests for undeletion but they redirect me here. Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion#Category:Greek_loanwords) Macedonian ( talk) 10:25, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I've edited the nomination statement because the links weren't working for me. I have not changed any of the wording.— S Marshall T/ C 12:11, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• DRV participants should probably read the 2012 CfD for Category:Loanwords as background to this.— S Marshall T/ C 12:15, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Okay, this is a complete and utter mess. We are said to have a consensus to delete Category:Loanwords. This consensus was said to have been reached in a discussion some twelve months ago, but in the event it has yet to be implemented. If we do rightly have a consensus to delete Category:Loanwords then it would be mind-bogglingly perverse for DRV to overturn the deletion of Category:Greek loanwords, so if the consensus at the 2012 CfD for Category:Loanwords is correct, then this is surely a snow endorse on the basis of simple common sense.

  However, at first blush the Category:Loanwords CfD is itself defective. The conclusion reached was "Listify and delete" but this flies in the face of WP:CLN, which essentially says that if you can have a category then you can have a list and vice versa. And as well as being contrary to the guideline, I put it to you all that even though that CfD was well-attended, the conclusion was just plain wrong. Loan-words is a perfectly encyclopaedic topic. I have a bookshelf full of excellent sources concerning the evolution of the English language and I can point to detailed examples of loan-words.

  Anyway, because this is such a mess, the way I suggest that we proceed is to suspend this DRV for the moment. DRV can then, on its own motion, open a discussion about the 2012 deletion of Category:Loanwords and discuss that. (I'm willing to be the nominator.) When and if we overturn the deletion of Category:Loanwords then we can proceed to consider Category:Greek loanwords; is anyone unhappy with this suggestion?— S Marshall T/ C 12:29, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

WP is an encyclopedia (not a dictionary) so we categorise articles by subject (science, art etc) not by the form of the article title. WP has many articles whose title is (or includes) a loanword, but very few articles actually about loanwords. The whole of Category:Loanwords should be deleted or replaced by a redirect to Wiktionary which (1) is the correct place for such categorization and (2) already has a much more comprehensive loanwords category structure (see for example Wiktionary:Category:English terms derived from other languages). DexDor ( talk) 20:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

We don't have an article about people born in 1971, but we have Category:1971 births. We don't have an article about guitar-players from France, but we have Category:French guitarists. The fact that we don't have many articles about loanwords doesn't mean we can't have categories for loanwords—that simply does not follow.— S Marshall T/ C 20:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Being a French guitarist or being born in 1971 are both characteristics of the person (the subject of the article), not of their name (the title of the article). We don't categorize people based on their name (e.g. there's no "Category:People with a double-barrelled name"). Most (if not all) of the articles in loanwords categories have been placed there (incorrectly) by categorizing based on the characteristics of the title, not on the characteristics of the subject. DexDor ( talk) 00:28, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

So if I understand you correctly, you feel that because (for example) déjà vu is a property of the mind, but its Frenchness is merely a property of its name and origin as a concept, there is no benefit in having a category:French loanwords for déjà vu to be in. Is that right? To take what seems like a parallel case to me, would you also advocate deleting category:French mathematicians? Or is someone's Frenchness a property of them rather than merely a property of their name and birth?— S Marshall T/ C 08:01, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Category:French mathematicians is for articles _about_ French mathematicians (however that's defined) which is fine. Are you really unable to see the difference between categorizing based on an article's subject (art, science etc) and categorizing based on an article's title (loanword, abbreviation etc) ? DexDor ( talk) 20:25, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I think you're seeing a simple dichotomy where I see shades of grey. Sapir–Whorf hypothesis, and ISBN 978-0748638420.— S Marshall T/ C 22:05, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply

The subject of cats is within the subjects of mammals, carnivores etc. The subject of cat (the word) is within the subjects of English language, 3-letter words etc. Where's the grey area ? DexDor ( talk) 19:51, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply

With that particular example, I don't see any grey area. As far as I'm aware "cat" is standard Indo-European, hence le chat, die Katze etc., and I would not see it as useful to characterise it as a loanword. We can have articles about cats and felidae but there's nothing useful to say about the word "cat". That far, I'm with you.

However, you (and Johnpacklambert and others below) generalise from examples like "cat" and "plunder" to say that loanword categories can never be useful, and that's a clear fallacy. Well aware though we all are of WP:NOTDIC, Wikipedia can and does have encyclopaedic articles about words in cases where the word is linguistically interesting enough to have scope for them (e.g. thou, generic you, singular they, yes and no, y'all). These articles about words have frequently been taken to AfD and tested against NOTDIC. They survive. And given that we do have articles about words as opposed to about concepts, it's right that we have categories to deal with them properly.

Now, this is where the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis comes in. In English, we distinguish between house and home. To an English speaker, they're separate concepts. But it's linguistically interesting because few other languages make that distinction. Its came about probably in the ninth century when "house" (or hús) was the Norse word and "home" was the Saxon. Likewise we have for example a distinction between "skill" (a Norse word) and "craft" (a Saxon one); the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis is that these words for similar but related concepts are linked into their root language. Under the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis Weltschmerz isn't just a German loanword, it's also a product of German thought that has its own particular quality because of its source language. Déjà vu isn't just a French loanword, it's a product of French thought in a French language. The evolution of language becomes a way to trace the evolution of thought. And what that means is that classifying, say, kitsch as a German loanword is as fundamental and relevant to its meaning as classifying seven as a prime number. Make sense?— S Marshall T/ C 01:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC) reply

If it's clear that a concept (deja vu, kitsch etc) originated in a particular country then that's a defining characteristic of the subject and could be used for categorization - maybe in the existing "Inventions of" categories. The article about deja vu would be eligible for such categorization whatever title was chosen for the WP article (see Tip of the tongue for a similar concept that has different names in different languages). There are some words whose use is sufficiently notable / interesting to have their own WP article (personally, I'd like all such articles to have a title containing "(word)") and some such articles could be categorized as loanwords, but approx 95-99% of the articles in the existing loanwords categories aren't articles about words and (as others have pointed out) "loanwords" is so ambiguous that it's not a good basis for categorization (cf Wiktionary). DexDor ( talk) 08:25, 3 February 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm with Mangoe about taking the whole category tree to RFC.— S Marshall T/ C 13:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC) reply

If the Tip of the tongue article was renamed to its synonym "Presque vu" would you then want that article to go in the loanwords category ? If yes, then you're categorizing by article title rather than by subject. If no and you still want the Deja vu article in the loanwords category, then you're being inconsistent. Living people categories generally contain a significant number of articles appropriate to the category, unlike loanwords categories. DexDor ( talk) 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

• submit whole category tree to RFC As the nominator of the parent, deleted category, I've reviewed the various loanword CFDs. All nominations for specific language categories except this one ended with no consensus. My sense is that we need to address the subject again, on a comprehensive basis, in a more widely advertised forum. It's clear that there is a fairly strong core of people who object to all of these categories on general principles, and I must admit to belonging to this group. On the other hand the fact that the parent category more or less sailed through deletion, while specific languages mostly did not, suggests that a lot of the support for this class of category comes from people with connections to particular languages, and that they weren't paying attention to the parent category deletion discussion as a result. The consensus thus seems imperfectly formed. I think we need to repeat the 2012 discussion and make it more widely advertized. Mangoe ( talk) 15:19, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
  • That makes things easier. I feel that the deletion of the category in question was well within policy but that it might be the "wrong" result (IMO). That's not generally a good reason for DRV to overturn. But as the inconsistency of results exists and the original nom is okay with revisiting this via RfC, seems like a good way forward. Hobit ( talk) 20:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse we categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. Ther whole category tree is a mess, but there is no reaon to overturn the decision here. The articles are on things, not words. This is an encyclopedia not a dictionary. Categorizes like this encorage people to write dictionary articles. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment I have come up with the best description of why this category is a downright horrible idea. We have an article Looting, which we then say is exactly the same as sacking, plundering, despoiling, despoliation, and pillaging. The article should still be in the same categories no matter which of those names we place it in. However if we moved it to being at plundering, whicb is a redirect to this article, we could not put it in Category:Hindi loanwords because plundering comes from German. However since plundering and looing are the same thing, they should be in the same categories. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 00:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse – the argument of John Pack Lambert is entirely sound: this is categorisation by a property of the name of an article, not by the topic of the article. And WP:CLN does not say that lists and categories should exist together, but that the existence of one does not preclude the existence of the other. (IMO a list would suffer from exactly the same problem: Looting might be on a Hindi-list, plundering on a German-list, ransack on an Old Norse list, and they all redirect to an article which mentions none of these languages.) Oculi ( talk) 02:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the decision to delete the category - per arguments above by JPL, Oculi and myself. DexDor ( talk) 18:32, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The logic for retention was offered at CfD and consensus was strong that this was an inappropriate topic for a category. I don't see any issue with the close or any new evidence that would justify overturning the consensus in the original CfD. Alansohn ( talk) 04:45, 7 February 2013 (UTC) reply

Jami Floyd ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The original Jami Floyd article was deleted in Fruary 2010, and I wish to make it clear that while I felt the version in 2010 might have stayed and been improved over time and through regular editing, I do not dispute the deletion by User:NuclearWarfare of an article that was then not then a properly sourced BLP. It's been 3 years since deletion, and though its taken a while, I decided to improve the one-source version that was deleted in order to create a better article to serve the project. In speaking with the original nominator User:Sandstein, he remarked that he would not be inclined to re-nominate if returned to mainspace [1] and when discussing with the closing admin, he granted that my improved version was not a CSD#G4, and that if I wished a version returned to mainspace after 3 years, I should take the question to DRV. [2] The NEW verison is similar to the OLD version, but that is naturally due to the topic being the same.... the differences herein being that the NEW version shows and sources far better than did the old the we have someone who meets WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT and is thus worthy enough of note. Assertions have been sourced and through effort the new version is superior to the old and is a decent BLP that can serve the project and its readers. I request that the OLD version be undeleted and then overwritten by the NEW with a hist merge of the work performed that improved the article. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 21:26, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I indicated at the original deletion discussion that substantial coverage was lacking. That has been remedied in this proposed new version: User:MichaelQSchmidt/sandbox/Jami Floyd. While in-depth coverage is still lacking, I do not feel that that should be an impediment to the article's re-creation. -- Bejnar ( talk) 21:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation: Original close was fine (as noted), recreation 3 years later with good faith intent and better content is fine.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 22:03, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation but folks can obviously still bring to AfD if they wish (though I don't think such a move would be successful). I don't think there is a need for DRV here and I'd suggest this just be closed and the article moved to mainspace. Hobit ( talk) 22:58, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Here on the advice from the deleting admin. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 23:05, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Understood. I just don't think there is an actual need at this point. It clearly isn't a speedy at this point and you are clearly experienced enough to make good judgement calls here. I applaud you for taking the deleting admin's advice, but suggest that this be closed as an unneeded discussion. Hobit ( talk) 03:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation - can be valuable to get some WP:CONSENSUS on things like this, even if it seems like unnecessary bureaucracy. Yeah, obviously Schmidt, should understand that such an article could still be taken back to AFD (and he seems to understand that entirely). But if the sources have improved, I don't seem any harm in having a crack at recreation. Stalwart 111 00:23, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• No jurisdiction DRV is not for things that don't meet G4 and don't have the same problems as the deleted version. Jclemens ( talk) 05:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Regardless of whether or not this is technically within DRV's purview, I do think it was reasonable and appropriate for Nuclear Warfare to recommend a DRV discussion. NW's message to Michael Q is clear: NW recognises the vast improvement in the draft article, but he also doesn't think the reasons for deletion have been overcome. And I can understand that view. Michael Q's version is well-written, technically well-formatted and shows every appearance of being a worthy Wikipedia article. But does it really overcome the well-founded consensus in that AfD? Reasonable people might disagree on that.

  Even though I do think NW's referral to DRV was reasonable and appropriate, I also think that it's well-established that DRV is not AfD round 2. In other words, we're here to supervise the process, but it's not our role to make a close inspection of the sources. That should happen at AfD. So in this case it's right that we allow re-creation but we should say explicitly that we do so with NPASR.— S Marshall T/ C 09:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Let's cut the red tape and close this DRV and let it go forward. AfD can follow if it must. Michael came here on a recommendation and showed extra bonus points of good faith. I and many others would just have re-created it in this type of instance, knowing AfD was possible if we were not right about it.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 13:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Da-Wen Sun ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

As Orangemike's advice, I have carefully removed any promotion quotes. I believe the page is no longer promotional. However it was deleted unilaterally by Sandstein. Then Graeme Bartlett restored it, but it was deleted again by Sandstein. I believe the idea here is to improve Wikipedia, not to delete things that one does not like. By looking at the history, for some reasons, it seems that Sandstein has a strong view against the page although the page has been edited by many experienced Wiki Editors in the past few years Mayonglan ( talk) 13:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 18:30, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore and edit further. Examining the article, at this point it is not a G11, though there remains promotional content: the lists of conference keynotes is usually so considered, and so are inclusion of minor awards, including awards given by one's own university). But these can easily be removed by ordinary editing and I will do so after the article is restored. I also object to Sandstein's most recent deletion as wheel-warring. Graeme Bartlett had the right to reverse a deletion, though normally we ask first, but when an admin action is reverted, rightly or wrongly, for the original admin to revert that back to their own state is unambiguous wheel-warring. I do not think a single case is grounds for de-sysop, bur unless Sandstein will himself revert his improper actions, it should probably be discussed at a suitable admin board. (That the action seems to be contradicted by the plain facts makes it a little worse, but wheel-warring is never permitted and I would say just the same were this in fact a highly and unfixable promotional article) . . DGG ( talk ) 18:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I object to the contention that I was wheel-warring. Per WP:WW, that only applies to actions "you know that another administrator opposes". I undid Graeme Bartlett's out-of-process undeletion only after he did not reply to my messages on his talk page, in which I sought to discuss the issue with him, for three days, while he was otherwise editing actively. Two days before I undid his restoration, I wrote to him: "Because you have not replied to my message, but have edited in the interim, I assume that you do not object to my re-deleting and re-salting the page". Not replying to this for two days, while otherwise editing normally, must in good faith be construed – at least – as a lack of opposition, but such opposition would be required for the reversal to constitute wheel-warring. See [3].  Sandstein  19:23, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Mayongian did not notify the deleting admin, which he should have done; I have now notified him,and also GB.. DGG ( talk ) 19:01, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• I maintain that my WP:CSD#G11 speedy deletion was valid. G11 applies to "pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten". I contend that this applies to the article at issue. It is limited to fawningly listing and highlighting the subject's accomplishments in a manner that one would expect in a CV. Such CVs and lists of accomplishments are how academics promote themselves. The article is therefore exclusively promotional. Furthermore, the content was written by accounts such as the nominator, Mayonglan ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), that are either single-purpose accounts or accounts whose editing pattern suggests that they likely have a close affiliation with the subject. That makes the content profoundly suspect, even to the extent it may superficially appear salvageable, as we would need an editor without a possible conflict of interest to double-check each sentence to verify that it is true and neutrally worded – in effect, rewriting the article. For these reasons, the article also meets the requirement that it would need to be fundamentally rewritten.

  In brief, this is an example of what we used to call vanispamcruftisement, although admittedly one of the less obvious and glaring examples, and such practices should be repressed rather than supported by administrators.  Sandstein  19:40, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Graeme Barlett's unilateral undeletion was discourteous but it might have been better if Sandstein had brought his protest to DRV rather than unilaterally undoing the unilateral undeletion. I don't think there's any benefit in wrangling over whether there has been a technical violation of WP:WW, since I don't think this case belongs in front of Arbcom, but, trouts all round.

  Do we need a biography of this person? My immediate sniff-test says, no. Despite the long and superficially impressive list of sources in the deleted article, we're missing basic biographical facts. Properly-written biographies begin with some variant of "<Name> (born on <date> in <place>) is a <nationality> <profession>" and go on to explain why we have an article (i.e. an explanation of the chap's notability). In this case we don't even seem to have reliable third party sources for such basic biographical information as his date of birth. What we do seem to have is a laundry list of accomplishments, cobbled together from sources that aren't independent plus sources that are independent but aren't about Professor Sun. I see no hint that anyone's ever disagreed with him at all and no hint that he's ever done anything controversial.

  Still, we can't sustain a speedy deletion in the circumstances. Speedies are for when it's clear-cut, and I see good faith disagreement. We have to send it to AfD. But I wouldn't expect it to survive AfD in its current form.— S Marshall T/ C 19:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• From what I understand, I could not have brought a unilateral restoration to deletion review, because this case is not listed in WP:DRVPURPOSE. It would rather have been incumbent on Graeme Bartlett to bring my original deletion (or re-deletion) here.  Sandstein  19:59, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I was seriously considering bringing it to DRV at that point, and Sandstein and I were talking on our talk pages, even if we were not agreeing. However it was re-deleted soon after. I considered that G11 did not apply to this page as editing could easily remove the CV like big lists of awards. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 20:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Okay, Sandstein, I take your point. The important thing I wanted to get across here is that it's undignified for administrators to keep reversing each other. One of you should have sought community input before it got this far and I feel as if you're both somewhat to blame. I don't think it's a major issue and it shouldn't lead to any drama, but I do think it's a slight falling below the expected standards.— S Marshall T/ C 20:10, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I understand what you're trying to say, but frankly not every disagreement between administrators needs an ANI thread dedicated to it. In the event, my re-deletion remained uncontested by Graeme Bartlett – both before and after the action, although I do find some of his comments a bit difficult to parse. As far as I and apparently he was concerned, that settled the matter without needing to involve others.  Sandstein  20:21, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I agree that we don't need an ANI thread. In this case I had other things to do that I thought were more important rather than continue to support the WP:REFUND request by undeleting again. My opinion is that a speedy delete can be challenged at WP:REFUND. If an administrator agrees that the speedy delete was not appropriate it can be undeleted, but notify the deleting admin. Instead I think we need to focus on the article here rather than how many times it was deleted and restored without community discussion. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 20:31, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Article looks like spam, but A) the subject appears to meet our inclusion guidelines and B) the process we've had thus far means that AfD is almost certainly the right way to go. The article needs a huge amount of clipping though. I also think feel the admins involved could have dealt with this a LOT better. Hobit ( talk) 22:53, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • • Actually, I agree that a discussion here serves the same purpose as AN/I. To a considerable extent, this page should be considered the most suitable place for review of admin actions dealing with article deletion. . I've stuck my suggestion above. My apologies to Sandstein. DGG ( talk ) 00:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment on notability Of course articles need checking. But the 3 key elements for notability are easily checkable, the editorships, the membership in the national academy, and the books written. I tend to be skeptical on both counts, and always check them for academic bios , to see if it's really ed. in chief, not just on the ed. board, and the books are actually written, not just edited, or even just chapters, etc. etc. I've checked all 3: for the editorship, see the journal's website--note that this is an international journal from a major publisher , with a very high Impact factor for the subject, 4th out of 138 in the subject category. this meets WP:PROF criterion 8. I have also confirmed the membership in the Chinese Academy of Science, from Xinhua, the official Chinese news agency (also, Royal Irish Academy) That meets criterion 3. As I rather expected from the titles & publishers, Worldcat shows that the books are mostly ones which he has edited, not written entirely. This of course needs to be said in the article. I think editing this group of books from Wiley, a major international publisher, helps notability under WP:PROF, though I would not accept it as showing notability as author. As Sandstein says, items in articles like this need checking, not taking at face value. But there is enough. Similarly, rather than taking the h factor at face value, I'd look at the actual record.

as for promotionalism, yes, I too get quite concerned at bios listing who's who among the awards. We can take several approaches: 1/ we can throw out every promotional bios, even though it shows provable notability and is easily edited, 2/ we can throw out the ones with marginal notability, even if easily edited, 3/ or we can keep anything we can edit into a borderline acceptable article, if it doesn't take too much work.. I follow the middle course. But even so, if it's marginal I'd be reluctant to use speedy, instead of AfD or prod. Borderline or marginal should imply a need for a community decision. (I will admit that, reluctant though I am, if it's truly borderline and needs more editing than I'd like to give it, I have recently been using speedy--like everyone else here, I'm getting pretty exasperated.) And as applied, here, this is not borderline notability: it meets at least 2 of the necessary criteria--and it does not take much editing. I'm still patient enough for this, though who knows what I may feel like in a year or two if the present trend continues. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Notability is not relevant in a G11 speedy deletion, which is what's being reviewed here, and therefore notability merits no discussion here. If an editor deems the subject to be notable, about which I personally have no opinion, they can recreate the article in a non-spam version, possibly after userfication.  Sandstein  06:46, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Overturn: While the page has a promotional tone it does not seem to me exclusively promotional and could easily be edited to produce a an article on a scholar who I think passes WP:Prof. Speedy deletion under G11 there seems to me wrong and editing the article a better approach. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 10:16, 31 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

Category:Native American actors who performed in a Native American language ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

(No one bothered to notify me of the discussion or nomination)

This is a very important category w/ respect to Native American languages as it shows their continued use. It is therefore a valid category for both linguistic as well as cultural purposes. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:33, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• At the CfD, Johnpacklambert's argument was that this category is inconsistent with the category structure elsewhere in the wiki. In other words, we don't have Category:French actors who performed in French or Category:Swedish actors who performed in Swedish. Or, perhaps more relevantly, we don't have Category:Jewish actors who performed in Yiddish. This argument seems to have persuaded the closer. The other participant in the debate, Peterkingiron, made a point about "a significant characteristic", which I found a little harder to understand and it does not seem to have persuaded the closer in any case.

  Can DRV sustain this close? There's a real debate to be had about that because it's not obvious that the close is correct. We don't delete content because other parallel content doesn't exist; that's an argument in the form of WP:OCE and DRV does not give weight to argument in that form. (Arguably it is important that categories are consistent. I can understand and sympathise with the reasoning behind Johnpacklambert's point. But there is no weight of policy or guideline to support it.) As far as I can see, the guidelines governing this content are WP:COP and WP:OCAT and I can find nothing that would unambiguously preclude this category in either of them.

  If there's no basis in policy or guideline for the close, then is there at least a consensus to support it? Here I think the closer is probably on firmer ground. The discussion consisted of three opinion statements. Two of them agreed. The one dissenting opinion raised some questions, but the dissenter did not return to answer them. It's not exactly a strong consensus, and in some venues the discussion would have been relisted, but CfD is poorly-attended and I think that's probably as much input from the community as we can reasonably expect.

  Personally I might have gone with "no consensus", but I also think that close might have been within discretion on the basis of consensus if not policy.— S Marshall T/ C 12:56, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment we don't even have Category:French-language actors or Category:Chinese-language actors. We do not anywhere categorize actors by their language of performance in any way. Language is not a way we categorize actors at all. I think it is more than enough to categorize Native American actors. The next logical division would be by group. Anyway since Navajo, Cherokee, Lenape, Dakota and Salish are all mutually uninteligible the resulting group would not even be able to communicate with eachother in the languages mentioned, so it would hardly be a unified group. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:48, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This one is an exception. We expect that French actors perform in French, do we not? We expect that English actors perform in English, no? Therefore it of course isn't a surprising or noteworthy fact. However, for Native Americans, most people will find it (sadly) unique to see them perform in an indigenous language. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• comment Why is language not a suitable way to characterize actors? Surely the language they perform in is much more closely related to their notability than their nationality? It is also something that can easily and unambiguously be determined --keeping in mind that they might perform in several. Perhaps we don't make those categories because it is 95% of the time the same as their nationality, but that is not always the case. I assume most Native American actors perform in English (or Spanish or French or Portuguese, depending on what is the dominant language in their area); the ones who perform in their own language (or conceivable even other Native American languages) would be a small minority (actually two minorities, those who perform only in their own language, and those who perform in both.) It is reasonable that people should have a way of finding the bios. This would certainly apply to the Jewish example--it matters whether someone of this group performs in English or French or Russian or German; it also matters whether they perform in Yiddish or Ladino (most but not all who have performed in those languages will also have performed in a majority language-- and there's the added possibility of Hebrew, which depending on places and time is a minority or majority language) This is always very prominently mentioned in published work about them when its other than the expected language of the country they live in.

Whether we go further into the individual Native American language would depend on the number of people. That's not a valid objection. (And I note the same argument will apply to writers; singers often perform in multiple languages, including often some they do not actually know, so that's a somewhat different problem.) What can be more basic to any creative professional than the medium they use to practice their profession? DGG ( talk ) 18:47, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Language is a horrible idea because many actors have performed in many languages. Since actors just play parts performing in a language does not actually required knowong the language. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:51, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I'm intrigued! Could you give us an example of an actor performing a part in a language he or she does not speak?— S Marshall T/ C 20:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Maybe not quite what you're after but Victor Kiam did perform all the ads for Remington Razor's in the native language without being a speaker of those languages [4] apparently claiming to know "29 seconds worth of 15 different languages" -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 22:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Also not necessarily what you are after, Laurel and Hardy shot a few of their early sound films in Spanish, French, Italian, and/or German, speaking their lines phonetically without knowing the languages. (Dubbing dialogue into foreign languages was not yet in common use.) -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

it is of course necessary to distinguish dubbing, especially in those films where the various characters each speak in their native language, & this can be different in different versions; a famous example is The Leopard (film). I cannot see, btw, why "knowing" the language is relevant--knowing how to pronounce it well enough to be convincing is what is relevant, especially in forms such as opera. We're not classifying whether a person has a command of a language, only whether he acted speaking it. This is almost always unambiguous for any play or film with normal documentation. I remain really puzzled by the objection that some people perform in multiple languages: people can be in multiple categories--this is not the commonly difficult situation where we're trying to find a single adjective for a lede sentence. So the situation is both complicated, and interesting, and worthy of full attention in categories as well as in articles. DGG ( talk ) 06:21, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • It might be unambiguous, but it is hardly defining. If you look at a lot of films made in Europe they had international casts, and lots of people have appeared in films made in France, Italy and Spain as well as a few other countries. This would just lead to overcategorization, categorizing people by having appeared in one film in some language. This will just lead to a proliferation of categories, which we do not need. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• relist Seems there are issues that were not brought up at the CfD that might be worth actually discussing. And given the discussion didn't have a lot of participation (2 folks with different views is all we've got), I don't see problem with allowing more discussion. Hobit ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• different comment If not a category, I can easily make it a list (referencing that will be a piece of cake); I just wasn't sure if that would seem defiant in a way, and if making it a list would lead to "more work, same deletion-discussion". If the discussion here is an exercise in examining policy 5, paragraph 456, section IX and what it says about which categories are allowed, I'm not very interested in that. If the question is about notability of a fact, I'll keep arguing my point, because it is without question a highly notable and relevant one. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 01:49, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Relist per Hobit, otherwise 'endorse by default because the nomination makes no argument why the XfD closure was procedurally incorrect (e.g., wrong assessment of consensus). DRV is not XfD round 2, we're not here to reargue a XfD on the merits.  Sandstein  06:57, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Editors do not have a right to weigh in on a deletion discussion regarding something they have contributed to, they are responsible for keeping track of topics and articles, that is why we have a watchlist. No Round 2's here. Tarc ( talk) 16:43, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Relist. No harm in a fuller debate. Mackensen (talk) 23:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist. No harm. More participation at CfD is a good thing. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:34, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment -- Native Americans might be appearing in drama in two contexts (1) in native languages for the benefit of natives (2) Westerns - cowboys v Indians. When I was young, few of the Westerns fell into that category, and my mother told me it was because no one wanted to play the Indians; it was mostly good cowboys v bad ones. The lanugage of most Westerns is English. In the past, I suspect that the Indians were English-speakers who spoke gibberish; that would not be acceptable today, and we would expect a genuine language to be used. It is of course expected that French actors speak French; etc; but Scots actors are unlikely to speak Gaelic (as it is a dying language). Do those Native Americans who are not living on reserves usually speak their native language or are they being assimilated into wider society? My initial vote was on the basis that Native Americans are uniquely qualified to play Native Americans; East Asian acotrs to play Chinese parts; and so on. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:54, 1 February 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. There is a guideline at WP:OC#PERF against categorizing performers by performance. If this category gets relisted, I doubt it will survive the new CfD. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:53, 4 February 2013 (UTC) reply

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

This page provides information regarding a reputable FREE tool referenced in many authority software web sites and magazines and also included in the PCWorld 2013 issue CD:

• http://www.pcworld.com/article/232391/folder_size.html
• http://windows.appstorm.net/how-to/utilities/explore-your-hard-drive-with-folder-size/
• http://download.cnet.com/Folder-Size/3000-2248_4-75157388.html
• http://suite_101.com/article/top-5-free-tools-to-fix-a-slow-running-computer-a316249
• http://www.techsupportalert.com/best-free-disk-space-analyzer.htm#Folder-Size
• http://downloads.zdnet.com/product/2248-75157388/
• http://folder-sizes.en.softonic.com/

Please do not remove this page as it is a useful information regarding disk cleanup for home and professional users. Allancass ( talk) 15:05, 28 January 2013 (UTC) Allancass ( talk) 15:11, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • temporarily restored for consideration here DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore and send to afd This was deleted twice, once for A7 no indication of importance, and a second time for being exclusively promotional, G11. It qualifies for speedy under neither count.

As for G7, the article text does not have any one statement make it clear what the importance is, but the article has links to acceptable references which do more than show importance, they show notability,. Even the first version had a joint review with another similar program from PC World, the present one has in addition an individual addition review from CNET. These are full reviews, not mere mentions. They are both editorial reviews, offering opinions from named writers, and are not just copies of their press releases. Both sources have a good reputation, and are frequently used here as RSs for software notability. The deleting admin took the reviews into account, a/c his talk p., but I see he objected there were only two of them. That's an invalid criteria, even for notability, let alone a mere indication of importance. (naturally , more do help; from that discussion, they seem to be available). There have been recent discussions at WT:AFD about the inadvisability of deleting a sourced article via A7; my own view was that we needed no prohibition against it, because any admin would check if the ref were a possibly acceptable source--but perhaps I was wrong and we do need such a rule.

As for G11, this is a straightforward factual description of the main features of the program. that is not advertising. An article about software should be composed primarily of such content, with addition matter about the reception (normally quoted from the reviews--the present reviews would do), often something about its degree of adoption by users; and something about the company and the production of the product. The opportunities for promotionalism are correspondingly: inclusion of a biased selection of positive reviews, or excessive quotations from them; excessively detailed description of minor or routine features; uncited irresponsible statements about its wide use, or long lists of companies that may have bought a copy; panegyrics about the quality and fame of the company or the programmers. And,of course, direct praise of the quality and usefulness of the program. None of these are present here.

I note that though there are good reasons for the appeal, some of the reasons given by the author are not valid--that the program is free is irrelevant, and we do not have the practice of telling people about what we personally consider useful things until they have been recognized as such by independent sources. But despite their unawareness of policy, they seem to have written a probably acceptable article.

I greatly respect the deleting admin, but he seems to have a higher standard of notability than the encyclopedia. He also blamed the user for going to DelRev not, as he had advised, REFUND, saying "I hate to be ignored" I think that amounts to biting the newbie. for one thing, it makes very little difference, except Refund is faster, and it's unreasonable of us to expect newcomers to recognize the importance of such fine points. In fact, if he thought it uncontroversial enough that Refund was acceptable, he could have restored it himself. Expressing annoyance at newcomer mistakes is inappropriate in any case, and I think he owes the new user an apology. (I agree the new user probably has COI, but that's no reason for disrespect, especially if they write a possibly acceptable article and aren't a nuisance about it. ) DGG ( talk ) 18:21, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• First of all I would like to thank DGG for the detailed analysis above and with no intention to flatter you I would say that I am impressed by your knowledge and competence. Thank you again for taking the time to provide so many details. I updated the page slightly and put it in the SANDBOX as instructed by RHaworth. I believe the update complies with all the guidelines that you have pointed and if you grant your permission I will restore it permanently. Thank you once again for your effort and time. Allancass ( talk) 02:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment - the A7 deletion of an article with two decent sources is clearly inexcusable. The G11 suggestion is ... close. I hestitate in whether I'd say it needs a substantial rewrite or a fundamental rewrite. It's probably the former, and I'm probably being set off by the use of the second person (which only occurs once). But I don't want to say "restore the article" - I want to say "Remind the admin who A7'd it that they shouldn't A7 articles that indicate the subject is significant, then write a decent stub for the subject that doesn't have a salesman-y tone.". Wily D 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• The part of WilyD's post that I disagree with is the words "clearly inexcusable". New pages patrollers are playing an endless game of whack-a-mole, doing a boring, repetitive and typically thankless task, unpaid. It's unrealistic to expect 100% accuracy from them. NPP errors are annoying, and BITE-y, and they're an issue for editor retention, and the patrollers are in need of better supervision and support than they currently have. They're not inexcusable. But having said that, where DGG and WilyD are right is that DRV can't possibly sustain the speedy deletion in the face of the source-based arguments from good faith users that have been raised above. If anyone still wants to delete this then let them bring the matter to AfD, following the proper process in an orderly way.— S Marshall T/ C 12:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore, with the understanding that it will likely be at AFD soon. Let's be honest, if the article was spammy enough to be SD'd twice then it's going to need a lot of work, even if those SDs weren't ideal. But I can't see any major issue in letting someone do that work if they want to. There are obvious WP:COI and WP:SPA issues attached, so the editor should be prepared for that from the get-go. Perhaps sending it through the WP:AFC process would be a better bet - that way the author is made aware of WP:N ( WP:CORPDEPTH / WP:PRODUCT) and WP:V. Stalwart 111 00:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Restore You know, I've come to the conclusion that any speedy brought to DRV should be overturned by default unless it can be demonstrated that the original speedy was correct, while allowing immediate AfD nomination by default as well. In this case, it has been demonstrated above why the speedy deletion criteria were not applicable when applied. Jclemens ( talk) 05:51, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I would agree that in practice, most speedies that are brought to DRV by good faith editors should be listed for a full discussion. The view that any speedy brought to DRV should be overturned by default strikes me as a bit overstated and it sends the wrong message. Sysops need to have confidence that DRV is generally going to back them if they make a reasonable call.— S Marshall T/ C 10:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Restore A revised version of this article is located in my SANDBOX. Are there any further steps that should be performed or shall I upload it to the original location? Allancass ( talk) 17:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Please don't do that until Spartaz someone closes the deletion review. If we decide to overturn this deletion then the article history must also be restored, so that our contributors receive full credit in accordance with our terms of use which are linked at the bottom of every page. This means that the original article will have to be undeleted, not the copy in your userspace. Once that has been done, you can of course edit the restored article however you wish. Technically speaking, you shouldn't have an unattributed copy in your userspace and it's subject to speedy deletion as a copyright violation, although in these particular circumstances what you've done is understandable and no reasonable sysop would delete it until the DRV is closed.— S Marshall T/ C 20:56, 31 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Talk:IPad 3 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The talk page of iPad 3 was deleted for the following reason: " G8: Page dependent on a deleted or nonexistent page". iPad 3 exists, so CSD G8 is not a valid reason to delete this corresponding talk page. Perhaps, the deleting administrator, who is inactive, made a mistake. 24.6.164.7 ( talk) 22:46, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Guatemala-India relations ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

does not meet requirements for WP:NAC. not unanimous keep. at the very list it should be relisted or closed by an admin. LibStar ( talk) 02:57, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

User:Rich_Farmbrough/blog ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closure is not consistent with policy. User is hosting a blog on his webpage in violation of NOTBLOG, a close of keep is not permissible under the current policy. I recommend this close be overturned and deleted per policy.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  13:36, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Kosh is just repeating his argument from the discussion. There was no consensus support for that position and so the close was accurate. Warden ( talk) 14:09, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Actually NOTBLOG is the currernt consensus.  KoshVorlon. We are all Kosh ...  14:16, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the consensus at the MFD was correctly respected by the closing admin. The Rambling Man ( talk) 17:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own close Kosh has made it clear on my talk page [5]that he is under the impression that policy is absolute and dictates what we must do in all circumstances, without exception. I have endeavored to explain how deeply flawed this idea is and that consensus is how decisions are made here and his reply was a bunch of vague links to old ANI discussions. Hopefully somebody can get through to him about what consensus is and how it is determined, I seem to have failed in that regard. Beeblebrox ( talk) 18:42, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the close at MFD Sheesh! — Maile ( talk) 18:47, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close. Discussion clearly supported "keep". -- Orlady ( talk) 20:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. When not a single person supports the nom, and several oppose, and the nom misreads the intent of policy, and the is an inappropriateness, SNOW is appropriate. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:07, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and add that this DRV seems a little POINTy.-- Gilderien Chat| List of good deeds 20:37, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Since Kosh does not believe that consensus determines what we do with pages I don't even know what we are doing here. By his own line of argument there is no no for debate and the page must be deleted no matter what consensus was arrived at at MFD or here. How anyone can honestly believe that is beyond me and I have given up trying to explain it to him, he is utterly convinced that consensus is meaningless in this case and uses random statements at old ANI threads as proof. I see little to no hope of him ever understanding what consensus is or that it is in fact how we make decisions here. Beeblebrox ( talk) 21:41, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Closure in accordance with consensus. Jarkeld ( talk) 21:35, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Snow endorse- Consensus was perfectly clear at the MfD, and there is not the slightest possibility that it will be overturned here. Reyk _YO! 21:46, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Snow endorse - Consensus was clear. A blog is fine. This user is, as Beeblebrox said, convinced that consensus is meaningless. Vaca tion 9 21:48, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse My earlier comment on Beeblebrox's user talk was edit conflicted, but I'll repeat it here. Voting does not supersede policy, however community discussions interpret how policy should be applied in to specific situations. There really needs to be some sort of alteration to policy to deter plainly disruptive DRVs like this. MBisanz ^talk 21:50, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment It appears the problem is that Kosh Vorlon thinks this decision was the result of consensus trumping policy, when it was actually a case of consensus interpreting policy. Also, while I'm here, Endorse as consensus on how to interpret policy in this case was crystal clear. -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:52, 22 January 2013 (UTC) (Oh. I guess it would have been easier to say "what MBisanz said.) -- Floquenbeam ( talk) 21:53, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hiroyuki Tsuchida ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I made a good article for a start about a notorious case of murder in Japan that drew attention to the Otaku World and toward anime. I don't understand why it was speedy deleted. Maybe too many English spelling mistakes? Thank. Kotjap ( talk) 02:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I speedy deleted it because it was nominated under WP:CSD#G4, because it had already been the subject of a deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hiroyuki Tsuchida. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 02:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The cached version shows no secondary source content. Other websites show the basic information; it is all primary source fact-type information without commentary, without which it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. It fails WP:BIO1E and WP:BLP. There is no corresponding article on the Japanese Wikipedia. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:10, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• However, given that people are interested in discussing, and someone says that the second content is dissimilar, send it to AfD. CSD#G4 is for when there is nothing new to say. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:51, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I temporarily undeleted it. I figured someone would want that. Wily D 09:28, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. As per the previous AfD, this is a WP:BIO1E piece. The sole reference source provided in the reposted version is actually a dead link, and I am unable to find the original news article even using the Wayback Machine. Maybe Kotjap can provide a working link to the reference source he based the article on, as I would like to see hard evidence for the "shock waves" and "moral panic" this incident supposedly caused. Googling for "Hiroyuki Tsuchida baseball bat" doesn't turn up any reliable news articles - only chatter on game forums, so the social impact of this one-off murder appears minimal and highly transient. -- DAJF ( talk) 10:02, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Having now looked at the restored original version of the article (I didn't realize that that was also now visible when I wrote the comment above), I agree that this is not a simple repost of a deleted article, and a new AfD is probably the way to go. I'm still curious about where the reference link in the article came from, though, as the fact that it was dead on arrival when the article was created is what immediately made me think it must be a reposted article. -- DAJF ( talk) 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

An Anime News Network article from December 2003 ^[6] lists that dead link as its source. I searched using the bare URL and found an online forum post quoting it in English. Since the link is dead, I have no idea if the post was quoting an official translation, a machine translation, ANN's summary, or another source. Note that Tsuchida was not convicted until February 2004, nearly three months after the original article. Flatscan ( talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. You treat me as a liar. I live in Japan. When Tsuchida killed his mother there was a moral panic against otakus and hikikomoris. And it clearly sent shock waves across the nation. Kotjap ( talk) 12:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Randomly and inappropriately using adjectives like "clearly" isn't very convincing. I lived in Japan during this "moral panic" and seems to have been a fairly invisible one. -- Calton | Talk 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment WP:CSD#G4 appears to be slowing down, not speeding up, deletions. The original article was correctly deleted. The new article would highly likely be deleted at a future AFD (but no one person should be deciding that). But the two articles are "not substantially identical" so the new one should be excluded from G4 deletion. In the current spate of G4-related DRV discussions people are (understandably) discussing the encyclopedic merits of replacement articles, or saying the CSD criteria are not to be regarded strictly, or, and this puzzles me most of all, people have radically different understanding of what "not substantially identical" means. I'm beginning to wonder whether (1) should these cases should be batted to AFD with minimal discussion here, or (2) DRV should discuss directly whether the article should be deleted and not consider the correctness of the G4 speedy deletion. Thincat ( talk) 12:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Just to respond to Thincat's point (2): DRV isn't AfD round 2. We're here to supervise the process, not to second guess what the AfD or speedying sysop should already have decided. It follows that with a G4 speedy, our only role is to decide whether the deleted version was "substantially identical". If it was then we overturn and if not we endorse. The reason we have trouble with this is because different people have different understandings of how to apply "substantially identical" in practice. Personally I take the view that G4 is for bad-faith recreations where a user is trying to perform an end-run around consensus. Good faith recreations, which this one was, belong at AfD.— S Marshall T/ C 14:17, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD I strongly suspect we shouldn't have this article under this name (as a BLP it's probably a "one-event") but there may be a case for the event (murder, media reaction and trial). That said, it will take a native speaker to find sources. I don't see this as a G4 for the reasons S Marshall lists. Hobit ( talk) 16:57, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Agree with Hobit that an article on the even and reaction to it is more likely to be acceptable than a biography. However, as Kotjap ( talk · contribs) lives in Japan, speaks Japanese, is new to the English Wikipedia, and as the event was in Japan, all involved were Japanese, and all sources appear to be Japanese, why doesn’t he attempt to write an article on the Japanese Wikipedia? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:01, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse on the grounds that this doesn't stand a chance at AFD, looks like a textbook BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:27, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist G4 usually does speed up deletions, because most G4s are indeed unaltered or almost unaltered re-creations, and are not challenged. When one is challenged in apparent good faith, the obvious thing is simply to send it to AfD again; I have always done that if there's a reasonable challenge to by G4s, or to any of my speedies for that matter. What takes time is sending them here as an intermediate step. What is needed to change is the resistance of admins to challenges to their speedy rulings: it's not an exact science, and the simplest way is to let the community decide. For this particular article, the question of whether it can be handled properly to as to meet the BLP requirements has been reasonably raised, and needs to be discussed at AfD. This isn't the place for it. "Not having a chance at afd " is only reasonable here if it is undisputed. That's not the case. DGG ( talk ) 04:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, as the recreation is quite similar to the AfD'd version. There are differences in organization, but the details, such as the Neon Genesis Evangelion quotation and why he started with a family member, are the same. I think it is because the article is built on the same root sources (and the English sources have few details). The Anime News Network sources given as external links in the AfD'd version ( [7], [8] I fixed the outdated links) refer to Japanese news stories. The December 2003 story cites the dead link in the recreated version as its source. This is still a BLP1E with terrible sourcing. The "moral panic" could be a notable topic if there are adequate sources. Tsuchida should be mentioned in that article, not vice versa, which would tend towards a WP:Coatrack. Flatscan ( talk) 05:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A better approach to the topic would have been an article entitled something like Murder of X, where X is the mother's name. However, the English sources [9] [10] do not appear to list the mother's name. Also, the English language sources are not detailed enough for an article on the topic, making it difficult to get over the G4 "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" hurdle if only English language sources are used. I think a new article on this topic also would have to be source from Japanese language sources to get over G4 and be named something like Murder of X to address the one event issues. -- Jreferee ( talk) 10:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The articles at the end of the Murderpedia page match the corresponding ANN articles word for word. Flatscan ( talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. As I commented above, the requirements for G4 speedy deletion are not met. Another matter DRV can legitimately consider is whether different speedy criteria apply but none have been mentioned and I do not see any. The article can appropriately be considered at AFD. Thincat ( talk) 18:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn speedy deletion and list at AfD. This was a good-faith creation, nearly three years after the deletion discussion, written by a different author, citing a different source, organised in a different manner. In no way was this "substantially identical" and was not a valid use of G4. Whether it would be deleted at AfD or not is irrelevant as it doesn't meet any criteria for speedy deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 18:42, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per the others above noting that G4 was not appropriate in this case. Jclemens ( talk) 05:26, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment I am near to get a Japanese source. Please be patient, don't delete it please, hold on please. Kotjap ( talk) 14:10, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Kotjap was given two Japanese sources by User:御門桜, which he used to rewrite the article. I ran them through Google Translate to get a basic idea. Both are newspaper articles rehosted elsewhere. They are dated July 5, 2003, less than a month after the murder. I see nothing about later information such as Tsuchida's motive or an Evangelion connection, but they are used as refs anyway. Flatscan ( talk) 05:20, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy deletion Perfectly straightforward, wikilawyering about G4 notwithstanding. Besides, "because I said so" isn't evidence of anything, and if it ws such an important case, why is there no Japanese Wikipedia article on this supposedly important Japanese topic? -- Calton | Talk 03:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Thryduulf and Jclemens; since G4 requirements were not met, this should have been a community process decision. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 01:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Wildebeest (comics) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

I once requested that the page for Wildebeest would be undeleted. There were different Wildebeests in DC Comics and that Baby Wildebeest was a popular character. We also had information there for the Wildebeest Society (who were recurring enemies of the Teen Titans), the New Wildebeests, and the Cybernetic Wildebeest. Even though I was a recurring contributer to it's page, I still should've been informed of the page's nomination for deletion. How can we have it's page there in the event that a version of Wildebeest makes an appearance in upcoming issues for The New 52? Rtkat3 ( talk) 11:33, January 21 2013 (UTC)

• It looks like it was deleted due to lack of reliable secondary sources. Are there any new ones that weren't considered in the AFD? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:39, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 04:13, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Although Baby Wildebeest's had references, I haven't been able to find the references for the other Wildebeests until now. If the Wildebeest page is officially restored, the other Wildebeest sections should be referenced when I get to it. Any objections? Rtkat3 ( talk) 10:58, January 22 2013 (UTC)
  • Could you show an example of in-depth coverage in a reliable secondary source for this subject? Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 18:23, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • What do you mean by that? More references? An external link? Rtkat3 ( talk) 1:55, January 22 2013 (UTC)
      • Are there any reliable secondary sources that discuss the topic in depth? See WP:RS for what qualifies as a reliable source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:49, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment - A better approach would have been to write an article entitled something like List of DC Comics Wildebeest characters. Another problem with the original article is that it used the DC comics themselves as the sources (e.g., Adventure Comics #483, "SUPERMAN: THE MAN OF STEEL" #20 (February 1993), Titans Sell-Out Special #1 (1992), and Blackest Night: Titans #3 (December 2009)). The sources for the Wikipedia article should be independent - not connected to - the DC comics themselves. See WP:GNG. Independent sources help show a viable Wikipedia reader interest in the topic and help create a NPOV article. -- Jreferee ( talk) 11:08, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • What do you suggest we do since there are a lot of Wildebeests in DC Comics? Rtkat3 ( talk) 11:58, January 23 2013 (UTC)
    • An easy way to determine what to post in Wikipedia and what to keep out is use reliable sources independent of the topic. Merely being in DC Comics is not enough to add such Wildebeests information in a Wikipedia article because material in DC Comics is not independent of DC Comics. If the only place you find information on a particular Wildebeest is in DC Comics, then that information should not be added to Wikipedia. Wildebeests DC Comics is mentioned in some books that are independent of DC Comics, [11] so that information would be fine to add to Wikipedia. Such a list also would need to meet at least one list purpose. Another thing you would want to consider is whether there is some sort of connection between Wildebeests in DC Comics. You can start with a draft article in your user space and return to deletion review to ask whether such a draft article is good enough for article space. -- Jreferee ( talk) 07:27, 24 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Before I go with the Sandbox idea, I'd like to point out that the person who started the Wildebeest page had also redirected Wildebeest Society and Baby Wildebeest to that page. Just letting you know that. Yet this link is only thing I found on the link provided which lists information on Wildebeest's action figure from the Teen Titans cartoon. Rtkat3 ( talk) 10:52, January 24 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion - I'm not convinced that significant coverage in reliable secondary sources exists. The original article was sourced only to the comics themselves. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:00, 26 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Let the page stay. Even though the references and external links are associated with the character, I haven't found any other outside sources yet. Rtkat3 ( talk) 7:18, January 26 2013 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion if we can't find any thing beyond the absolute trivial coverage in reliable secondary sources we shouldn't have an article. It maybe a mention of them can occur in some other article, but it doesn't meet the standard for a standalone article. To answer "How can we have it's page there in the event that a version of Wildebeest makes an appearance in upcoming issues for The New 52?" - by applying the same standard, if it appearsin the New 52, and reliable sources take some note of it, then the GNG is possibly met, then we have an article. If no reliable sources take any sort of notice, then why should we? -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 10:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Where can we find reliable sources outside of the issue references, the DC Comics Wiki, and Comic Vine? Rtkat3 ( talk) 3:05, January 27 2013 (UTC)

Harry Dunn ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No problem with the original deletion. However, it created a WP:MALPLACED disambiguation page, Harry Dunn (disambiguation). The now-red-linked base name Harry Dunn had fifty-odd incoming links, most or all of which intended the deleted article, so I could not simply move the disambiguation page to the base name. The deletion consensus was that the article did not meet the general notability guideline nor the football notability guideline. I re-created the article (moved to my user space) and added citations (NEW LINK after undelete: [12]) throughout the article that might meet the GNG, and checked with the deleting admin. After discussion, I moved the article back to the mainspace. An inaccurate speedy request was made, which claimed the article was speediable under G4 as a "substantially identical" repost of the deleted article. I contested it with the note that it was not substantially identical, and that the changes were made to address the GNG problem (the deletion reason), and also that the presence of the article benefits the encyclopedia in solving the problem of the malplaced disambiguation page and the incoming links to the base name. Discussion with the speedy-ing admin suggested a DRV (even though I don't think the original delete was incorrect). I think the speedy should undone. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

In order to help participants in this discussion to asses the situation, I will explain why how I came to delete the article, why I did so, and why I still think I was right to do so.

The article was deleted following an AfD discussion. The nominator has said both "No problem with the original deletion" and "I don't think the original delete was incorrect". However, the nominator found that this caused what she/he thought were problems, regarding redlinks and a disambiguation page. She/he proceeded to add references, evidently with the purpose of showing notability, and used that as justification for overturning the result of the deletion discussion. The article was then tagged for speedy deletion as a repost of an article deleted following a discussion, and I accordingly deleted it. It seems that the nominator is objecting to my deletion, on the grounds that the article deleted the second time was not "substantially identical" to the version that was deleted the first time.

Apart from adding some references, and a few details such as adding his date of birth, and three "citation needed" tags, the only difference was the addition of a paragraph beginning "He is sometimes confused with another long-standing Scarborough player called Harry Dunn". I do not think that constitutes evidence of notability or a substantial change to the article. So that anyone participating in this discussion can judge for themselves whether they agree with that account, the diff between the version deleted first time and teh version deelted the second time is here.

Turning to the added references, none of them, as cited, is to an online source, but I have managed to find online copies of three of them, and an excerpt from a fourth. One is a report in The Evening Chronicle about Tommy Cassidy, with a brief mention of Harry Dunn, consisting of one sentence plus a two-sentence quote from him. Another is an article with a two sentence mention of a different person called Harry Dunn, and a one sentence statement that the Harry Dunn who is the subject of the Wikipedia article had his name listed as Harry A. Dunn to disambiguate him, that being the only mention of him. The third is a five-sentence report on the fact that Harry Dunn had left a club he used to work for. The excerpt does not mention Harry Dunn, and, although he may be mentioned somewhere in the article excerpted, it is clear from the excerpt that he is certainly not the subject of the article, and it looks very unlikely that the whole article will contain substantial coverage of him. In fact, I can see no evidence of substantial coverage of the subject in any source, let alone multiple sources.

In view of the remarks made above about the fifty-odd incoming links and the disambiguation page, together with comments made elsewhere by the nominator, it looks very much as though the changes were made for the purpose of justifying restoring the article in order to avoid what the nominator saw as difficulties with the links and dab page, rather than because the subject seemed to be notable. However, regardless of the motivation in doing it, the issue is whether the restored article was a substantially different one from that which was deleted. Very simply, it wasn't. It was the same article, together with a few hastily collected references which do not establish notability and a handful of minor edits in an attempt to justify the claim that it was not substantially the same. It does nothing whatever to address the reasons given in the deletion discussion. JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your detailed and thoughtful analysis of the changes to the article and its new references. I am sure the community would be grateful if the article could now be made accessible for discussion. Thincat ( talk) 17:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The nominator (I) did not go through the trouble of finding and adding citations as the easy way out over changing the red links and moving the dab, as JamesBWatson implied. Every other WP:MALPLACED I address I do exactly that way: change the links and move the dab. In this case, it appeared better for the encyclopedia (not better for me) to address the problems raised in the AfD and restore the article with the concerns of the AfD met (not overturn the result of the deletion discussion -- no decision was overturned, and discussion with the decider was held and agreement reached before the article was recreated in the mainspace). Your explanation of what you did and why includes too much speculation on why I did what I did, and is generally incorrect when it does so. You dismiss the principal change as "Apart from adding some references" when that is the core of the change, not the fringe, and does indeed keep the article from being "substantially identical". (So you got my objection correct.) None of the sources need to be to online sources, AFAIK. I did not find any online copies of any of them (searching on the quoted titles), although I did find the excerpt; I'll be happy to add the URLs to the article if you'll share them. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 14:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, as original nominator - sources dredged up seem to consist solely of extremelt cursory passing mentions in very parochial local media, I stand by my contention that he does not meet the requirements of WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 21:36, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  The Times is parochial local media? And the Independent on Sunday? -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorese - Decision to delete was well placed. 50+ incoming links notwithstanding. The article is not Wikipedia material, and to be honest, some of the logic in favor of overturning seems quite convoluted to me. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  An unconvoluted version of the logic: find problem (article deleted for lack of notability, created malplaced dab), try to address problem (add additional citations to meet GNG). -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endore deletion - as the person who nominated the article under G4. As already stated, the sources listed are routine sports journalism, and by no means sufficient for WP:GNG. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 03:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  And here I don't know what the difference is. Many of the articles are not about Dunn (and don't need to be), but his mentions in them are not trivial. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and multi-trout JamesBWatson, ChrisTheDude, Sue_Rangell, and Sir Sputnik. All of you have failed to understand what G4 says "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy". Note that it doesn't say "sufficiently similar", but rather "sufficiently identical". While one could make an argument that the article is similar to the AfD'ed version, JamesBWatson clearly lays out above how it was not identical. Note also that the "and" is not distributive with respect to the two clauses. Looking at an old revision of the policy, "substantial" existed before the rest of the text was condensed into "unimproved". If references have been added, the material was clearly neither identical nor was it unimproved to the previous version. G4 is for unambiguous recreations of deleted material, not for good-faith efforts to address the concerns brought up in the AfD. If the concerns were inadequately addressed, then the inadequately-improved page goes back to AfD, not to CSD at some admin's whim. Remember, CSD is only for deletions where no good-faith Wikipedian would disagree with the outcome, so the process can be short-circuited. If someone recreated the page with additional sources, then that obviously is not met... unless such an add-a-source is done in a disruptive manner, which a single recreation with multiple sources is not, no matter how much those added sources may be found to be inadequate. So, this fails G4 1) because it's not sufficiently identical, 2) because it's not unimproved, and 3) because good-faith editors can disagree with this outcome. Jclemens ( talk) 05:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . I ask again if I'm the only admin who cares about doing this? DGG ( talk ) 06:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn for reasons given by Jclemens. Moreover, G4 deletion "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" and, despite JamesBWatson's conclusion, his analysis shows the page is not substantially identical. AFD and not DRV is the place to discuss any merits of the article. Thincat ( talk) 08:57, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - new article substantially addresses the concerns at AfD; Whether it's sufficient that a subsequent AfD would result in keep or not isn't the issue. A grossly inappropriate deletion. Wily D 10:46, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G4 exists for a reason: to ensure that deletion discussions are actually binding, and to ensure that the community doesn't have to waste time considering the same issue twice. Getting past G4 requires more than a mere good-faith attempt to address the concerns of the debate. If JamesBWatson's analysis is accurate then I don't see any need to reopen the issue. In addition I don't think it would be appropriate to conclude that a source was not considered by the participants in the debate just because it wasn't present in the article at the time. Hut 8.5 10:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Really? It is an appropriate conclusion given the actual debate. [13] -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  The more I think about it, the more ridiculous that claim is. Of course we conclude that a source was not considered by the participants just because it wasn't present in the article at the time. The alternative is to assume that all participants in every AFD are aware of the the entire contents of the entirety of the set of reliable sources, with full indexing. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 13:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  If the participants were at all competent they will have attempted to find sources that weren't in the article. If a participant found a source which in their judgement didn't demonstrate notability they would be unlikely to note this fact in the AfD discussion. No, we can't assume that they were aware of every source in existence, but neither can we assume the opposite. Hut 8.5 19:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Yes, we can indeed assume that they did not consider any sources that aren't in the article, by the continued absence of those sources from the article and the AfD discussion. There is no reason to assume otherwise. They may have tried to find sources (although I would not put such a barrier to entry to participating in an AfD discussion), but that does not mean that we need to assume that even if they had that they found the sources I found. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 20:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  I'm not assuming anything. I'm saying that we ought to take into account the possibility that the participants in the AfD noticed one or more of these sources. You, on the other hand, are assuming the participants didn't follow best AfD practice. Again it is not at all typical for someone who has identified a new source which they believe does not demonstrate notability to add it to the deletion discussion, let alone the article. Hut 8.5 21:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  You're assuming that they considered a source when you "don't think it would be appropriate to conclude that a source was not considered by the participants". That's what that means. I'm not assuming anything about the AfD discussion except what was said in the AfD discussion, which is a much better approach than trying to guess what the participants may or may not have done, said, thought, or experienced outside of what they wrote in the AfD discussion. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 21:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Nother discussion that hinges on the exact meaning of G4. Bad faith re-creations of deleted material should be G4-able. Good faith ones, and particularly ones where new sources have been added, imply that an AfD is warranted.— S Marshall T/ C 11:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, based on the analysis above. Clearly within the spirit of what CSD G4 is meant to cover. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC). reply
  • Not a policy-based opinion The spirit of G4, even if correctly interpreted, is simply not relevant. Per WP:CSD "The criteria for speedy deletion specify the only cases in which administrators have broad consensus to bypass deletion discussion, at their discretion, and immediately delete Wikipedia pages or media. They cover only the cases specified in the rules below." (emphasis mine, obviously) Jclemens ( talk) 02:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Inappropriate use of G4; clearly a new article which needed to be considered on its own merits. Mackensen (talk) 14:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This may still get deleted at an AfD, but the article has changed enough that the issue should be delt with again. When articles significantly change from the form they were in when deleted they should not be speedied. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The original AFD rested in large part on the lack of "of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources". The revised article added references to multiple third-party sources as references. Perhaps that coverage is not enough to demonstrate notability but the new sources were enough to make the issue one for determination by the community rather than an individual admin. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 03:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 and send to AfD, notifying previous participants. While the number of sources tripled from three to ten, half the article is straight job history. According to JamesBWatson's analysis of four of the added sources, they are not very good, but they are not awful or irrelevant. They look to be roughly the quality of the previous sources, being either local papers or passing mentions. JHunterJ got approval to move to mainspace from The Bushranger, the closing admin, but I wish that he had taken the hint to come to DRV first. As a point of precision, the Harry A. Dunn paragraph was moved, not added (a source was added). Flatscan ( talk) 05:17, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • No, nothing needs to come to DRV first unless it's been salted by consensus, and even then, DRV is just one of the venues that can agree to unsalting a previously create-protected article. Anyone who has made a good-faith improvement to the article can recreate it--repeated non-good faith recreations, those that wouldn't pass G4 as properly interpreted, are cause for sanctioning the editor who edits in such a disruptive manner. AfD only holds sway for the version deleted and any substantially similar and unimproved copy--anything else needs a new discussion if someone wants to delete it again, not a prior restraint DRV without which it cannot be re-created. Jclemens ( talk) 05:59, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

    "I wish" indicates my preference. I believe that DRV is an effective way to inoculate a recreation against G4. The potential tagger and reviewing admin should review the page history, and pointing to the DRV should produce a quick overturn if G4 deletion occurs. There can be large gaps between "good-faith improvement", potentially ready for mainspace, and actually ready. I'm okay with skipping DRV if it is obviously fixed (e.g. completely unsourced → significant coverage in several excellent reliable sources), but DRV deals with those expediently, sometimes closing early. Flatscan ( talk) 05:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

    BTW, I visited DRV first and followed its instructions to see if the issue couldn't be resolved by simply checking with the closing admin, which I did. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 12:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Thanks for doing that conscientiously. To clarify, I meant this reply from The Bushranger. Flatscan ( talk) 05:27, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I know. The hint that you read there doesn't exist. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 11:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Send back to AfD - the G4 is understandable, but based on this discussion a further discussion is now needed - though having seen the article I doubt it will meet GNG. Giant Snowman 17:07, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist at AfD It will be simpler to do so and argue the actual merits there. If there's this much objection from established responsible editors, the speedy was not obvious and a new discussion is necessary. I have no opinion on actual notability. DGG ( talk ) 00:16, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Snowman, and DGG. You both seem to be arguing that a lack of consensus should overturn the deletion. Am I understanding correctly? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 20:12, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I'm saying there are enough people here who wish to overturn the deletion, and it should go back to AfD. Giant Snowman 10:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. I am amazed that there are people who think that the new article was substantially different from the old one, and I can only wonder how they come to that view. There were only a few trivial changes, and as for the statement that there were new references, yes there were, but not ones which were of significant value, or that did anything to change the validity of the concerns raised at the AfD. Elton Bunny ( talk) 16:18, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  OTOH, I am amazed that there are people who don't know the difference between "was substantially different" and "was not substantially identical" (that is, the difference between "identical" and "similar"), and I can only wonder how they come to that view. See User:Jclemens' note above. -- JHunterJ ( talk) 17:14, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Could you explain why the references aren't significant? I'm not seeing a way to read them, but on their face they seem to be in reliable sources. What do you know that I'm missing? Hobit ( talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to AfD. New sources were added; the article was "not substantially identical", and so is not covered by G4 speedy deletion. JamesBWatson's analysis of the new sources is thoughtful, but it is the kind of analysis to be presented in an AfD discussion, not one for one person to make in absence of a discussion with other editors. Paul Erik ^{(talk) (contribs)} 00:45, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn pretty much "per above" I'm seeing a lot of additional references (which I can't easily verify). Given the article wouldn't have been deleted had it met the GNG, I really don't see how an article which appears to now meet the GNG isn't worthy of discussion at AfD. Frankly, I'm having a hard time even understanding the claim that it meets G4. Now if people have looked at the sources cited and can claim they really don't provide anything even close to significant coverage, I could see the argument I suppose. But even then, a good-faith attempt at fixing an article should have a shot at AfD. Hobit ( talk) 02:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

After discussion with one of the wikipedia administrator, I have made substantial improvements to Genius_Inside's page and believe all sources are now up-to-date and with solid references. Moreover, as one of the company in the project management software business, I do believe this page has an importance in this sector and in informing the users of project management softwares. At the beginning, the page was deleted because the administrator stated it did not "provide sufficient evidence that the company is notable" Rbernard84 ( talk) 07:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The changes since deletion at afd. Maybe an encyclopedia article could be written on (not by) this company, but this will clearly never be it. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 08:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Rbernard84, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest - writing about your own company is strongly discouraged. I also note that you use "we" rather than "I" and describe Genius Inside as "our page", are you familiar with our polices about Shared accounts and ownership of articles? Thryduulf ( talk) 12:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment.Thryduulf, thank you for your comment. Indeed I am not a wikipedia expert, but I am the unique owner of this account. I have modified my text and will now use the correct wording. Also, I speak for all the persons in the project management field when I state that I believe this page about this company is of useful information to this sector. Thank you for your review. Rbernard84 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:21, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Decidion to delete was done properly, and was well considered. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion.  —  Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The AFD closed as delete despite numerically the decision going down the middle (7 keep, 5 delete [2 were weak delete], 2 merge). Lists of characters have been retained at AFD at the past (ex. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Alice Academy characters, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Arcana Heart characters). The only way this page is different is that it doesn't have "List of" in the page title. I believe this deletion should be overturned to at least no consensus, as there were poor rationales on both sides, but no clear consensus to do anything. — Ryulong ( 琉竜) 06:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- I've read the closing admin's rationale and in my opinion it correctly summarizes the debate. Reyk _YO! 06:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Part of his rationale was because List of Power Rangers villains is at AFD after having been at DRV for similar reasons (a DRV he was aware of). And as many poor keeps there were in this AFD there were as many poor deletes. This is a no-consensus situation. Not a "closing admin casts the deciding vote" situation.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 07:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I understand your position, but I disagree with it. Badgering endorsers is not going to help. Reyk _YO! 21:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. I do not believe that an outright "delete" was the correct reading of this discussion as conensus did not appear to be established. Although having said that, both sides did have some poor rationales for the respective causes of action. Till 08:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Having advocated deletion, I believe the closer was correct in giving those arguments more weight in the light of applicable policies and guidelines. The "keep" arguments can be summarized as WP:USEFUL, that it's a spin-off subarticle and that it lists (some) notable characters. However, these arguments do not address the principal arguments for deletion, which are grounded in WP:V, a core policy: first, that the article contained almost no sources, and second, that article topics (including list topics) must be notable as shown through coverage in independent reliable sources ( WP:V#Notability and WP:LISTN).  Sandstein  09:07, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  What needs to be verified in the article? And I provided 8 scholastic sources that discussed this group of characters in some fashion. The only reason this page was singled out was because of the AFD on List of Power Rangers villains whose original author falsely assumed that the page was identical to this one, which also soured the original !votes on the AFD.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 09:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment although technically Ryulong consulted the closing admin first, I kindly request next time that he/she check whether the admin in question is actively editing before stating that he/she has "given enough time". I would gladly have answered on my talk page, after finishing work and my post-structuralism exam at college. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:51, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  I apologize for having not waited longer, but I felt there were issues that needed to be addressed.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Extended rationale from closing admin.

AFD is not a headcount, it is a discussion of the worthiness of one or more individual articles. The DRV nominator was one of several keep !voters in the discussion and, admittedly, gave the strongest argument. Some other !votes were... Rtkat3— WP:ITSUSEFUL, PortlandOregon97217—Just keep, followed by WP:NOHARM. Others were based in policy but failed to address the concerns of overlap brought up by the nominator. As I stated in the close, iff the other article is kept, merging from this one is still possible. The scope will need to be defined extra carefully, however.

And before someone launches "you didn't watch PW" at me... yes, I did. My brothers and I broke two beds trying to act out the show. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 11:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• These "concerns in overlap" were unfounded. MBisanz only put the page up for deletion because of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Power Rangers villains's original close as delete and because someone thought that the content of List of Power Rangers villains and this article were identical, when in fact the latter is a subset of the former. This was a problem I also brought up at the DRV that resulted in the relisting of the other article. And then people are faulting the content of the page when it is a list of characters and there's not much more that can be said of them other than character biographies and all this crap I found on Google Scholar in a search for "Rita Repulsa" ( [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22]) and "Lord Zedd" ( [23], [24]). So if the two fictional characters who were leaders of this group seem to be notable enough to be mentioned in major publications (child psychology it seems) why wouldn't the group that they led be notable enough to be given a list on this project?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 12:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Also if a merge is to happen, it should likely be at some page that is not List of Power Rangers villains but at some new list that covers all of the characters from the show so we can be rid of some of the shoddily written individual character biographies on each and every Power Ranger.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 12:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  WP:NOTINHERITED, for one. HB Jassin headed several magazines... doesn't mean all of them were notable. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:37, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  If the fictional characters (let this be A) in charge of other fictional characters (let this be B) are notable, why aren't B notable as a group alongside A?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 12:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Why are they? Also, why would we treat real and fictional organizations differently? —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 12:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Well, I'm arguing more for coverage of the chairmen of the board (recurring characters but not the leaders) rather than the rank and file employees (the monsters of the week).— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 13:00, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Consensus was to keep. Notable series, such as this one, have always had character lists for them. There are multiple villains on this list which are blue link, they having their own articles. Any list of significantly related things which has multiple items on it that have their own Wikipedia articles, should be kept. We just need to change a guideline page somewhere, or create a guideline for list articles to stop this debate from happening constantly. User:Dream Focus/Wikipedia:Notability (lists) Dream Focus 12:34, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I was the nominator and did so pursuant to the close of a different AFD. This close appears to have been done at the appropriate time and was done following the process for assessing consensus of participants at the AFD. As such, I believe it should be endorsed. Also noting that the DRV requesting party gave the closing admin four hours to respond to inquiries before coming here, which seems insufficient. MBisanz ^talk 12:42, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak Endorse - As noted, normally lists of characters from notable works - even if there are no sources - are normally kept; however, arguably, sub-lists of such lists are not kept (eg "List of characters from Mighty Morphin' Power Rangers" or "List of villains from the Power Rangers series" would likely be find, but just limiting it to the villains of one specific iteration would not be). There's a larger problem that the lists of various Power Rangers characters are all over the place - it doesn't help us that the show itself has umpteen million iterations with a new set of characters and villains each cycle. Given that there is so many and a lot of inconsistent approaches, it would probably be better that those involved with the Power Rangers articles look to normalize all their character lists articles. To that end, I'd support an overturn or at least userficition to give editors the ability to work with the material in this effort. But without that, I do endorse this close, agreeing with the closure in the shape of the discussion. -- MASEM ( t) 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Consensus seemed to be to keep, and at best no consensus was reached. I also feel that the keeps had more varied and policy based talking points. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus, at best.  —  Statυs ( talk, contribs) 03:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to non-consensus. There is no consensus here either about the article or the applicable interpretation of the guidelines. The admin closed according to his interpretation, but failed to recognize that this did not necessarily have consensus. There is as repeated AfDs have proven not even consensus over what manner a stand alone list proves notability. Especially, there is not consensus that this should be evaluated as such, rather than an article split for convenience. And finally, if it were concluded that it should not stand as an article, the conclusion should have been merge, I want to point out that in general people only object to these lists when they deal with popular fiction, so it represents more of a view that we should cover fiction is less detail than other subjects, which is a personal opinion that may or may not be widely shared, but is not actually consensus either. I've been arguing these fiction lists and subarticles for 6 years now, watching the fluctuations. I've pretty much stopped arguing, because it has become clear to me that we are unable to resolve the disagreements. DGG ( talk ) 06:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus, a lot of the Keep arguments were very feeble, but there's clearly no consensus there to delete. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:10, 16 January 2013 (UTC). reply
• Overturn and retain content. This is a list spun out of a broader article, and there appears to be no dispute that the subject merits some sort of encyclopedic coverage. The dispute principally covers the form that coverage. The case for acting contrary to expressed community sentiment is weakest in such disputes, and absent a substantive policy violation there is usually no reason to act against that expressed sentiment. And DGG's cogent analysis is also compelling. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:23, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• I have temp undeleted this for the purposes of this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:13, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - "I disagree" is not a proper use of Deletion Review. Tarc ( talk) 15:24, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  "Deletion Review may be used: 1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly,..." I'm sorry Tarc but isn't that the case here?— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The common sense outcome is to treat this as a subset of List of Power Rangers villains. We should wait for the second AfD for List of Power Rangers villains to close and then follow the result. If the consensus is to keep the list, then this content clearly needs to be smerged in, keeping the history under a redirect for attribution purposes. If the list is deleted then it would be quite illogical for this content to be kept. NB: I'm well aware of WP:OCE and I'm disregarding that essay with all due forethought. Consistency is to be preferred here.— S Marshall T/ C 22:46, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• overturn I'm tempted to say overturn to keep as the deletion arguments were largely so horrible (sources for individual members of a list aren't useful in retaining a list article? That's at the least a novel way to treat list articles). But in any case, the keep !votes, including sources and the like, were stronger and more numerous. I'd have closed it as no consensus and don't believe a delete outcome can be reasonably reached here. Hobit ( talk) 01:51, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AfDs are not majority votes, outcomes are based on strength of argument. Here, the keep !votes are extremely weak ( take a look at this one) and are mostly variations of WP:ILIKEIT. The delete !votes are well-argumented and more in line with our content policies and guidelines, which currently don't advocate leniency for plot-only pages. It was well within the closing admin's prerogative to discard the numerous ILIKEIT votes and give more weight to comments pointing out the list didn't meet our guidelines. As Masem said, there might be a tolerance for character lists, but not for sub-lists such as the one we're discussing. There was no way this could have closed on anything else than "delete". Folken de Fanel ( talk) 17:43, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  There was absolutely one "ILIKEIT" keep !vote. All the other people arguing against deletion cited policy. Your arguments in all of these debates have been that it's a violation of WP:NOTPLOT. Well please tell me in your opinion what a list of characters article should be about, because it seems that your argument is basically against all lists of characters in current popular media rather than this particular article. I provided sources to show that members of the list are notable on their own and the only arguments against it were selections of characters on the lists who were patently not notable or derisions that the article is WP:Fancruft, which isn't a policy or guideline and suggests that before sending anything to AFD there should be some attempt at improvement. Masem at least has suggested the creation of lists of all characters for each installment rather than lists of protagonists and lists of villains for each installment, which I agree with. However, that can't be done without having this page and the others like it as stepping stones.— Ryulong ( 琉竜) 01:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Last Res0rt ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Okay. I nominated the page for deletion, and it did. After I nominated Schlock Mercenary for AFD, it got speedy-kept despite having only a small handful of reliable sources. I felt that this source was sufficient to argue notability for Last Res0rt, so I asked an admin to undelete the page. He did, but within 4 hours, he renominated it for a procedural AFD, where it got speedied via G4 despite two "keep" !votes. I feel this was an invalid, hasty move, and should at least get a proper discussion. It seems that webcomics are held to a lower standard, so getting any sort of attention at all is usually enough, and I feel the New Times SLO article linked here is sufficient, even though I did not believe so in the last AFD. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 03:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment As the closing administrator, I'd like to point out that G4 is a fairly bright line: Is the article a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy ... of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion"? In this case, the answer was yes. The only thing that had changed was Ten Pound Hammer's opinion concerning one of the sources. —  Malik Shabazz  ^Talk/ _Stalk 04:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Which is why I feel that the article needs a second look, not just a hasty deletion merely 4 hours after coming back to life. I, as the nominator, changed my opinion, and would like to see if consensus has changed with me, particularly in light of the Schlock Mercenary AFD. Did I mention I got attacked by several people on Twitter, including the author of Last Res0rt, for the Schlock AFD? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 04:48, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse DRV is not to be used simply because you disagree with the outcome, after the fact included. This is the kind of behaviour that would be par for the course for a brand-new editor, but TPH should understand our procedures better than this. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• So I'm not allowed to change my mind, nor see if anyone agrees with my change of opinion? The "keep" by someone else in the second AFD is irrelevant? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 05:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The first one ran for two weeks and garnered many comments less than a year ago. As far as I can tell, the subject has gained no significant notability in the interim. You want to undo consensus and have another bite at the apple simply because you changed your mind, apparently prompted because the author was mean to you on Twitter? Frankly, I'm pretty disgusted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The Twitter fight is not by any means the only reason I reconsidered myself. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 06:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• You as nominator have no special powers. A dozen other people called for deletion, A lot more than most AFDs have comments on. What makes you so special that those 12 people should have their opinions thrown aside because you are sensitive about what is said about you on twitter? duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:32, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• WP:CCC. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 14:29, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment The first AfD got the attention it did because TPH and I were running a little hot arguing over the validity of the sources in the first place. Don't say "a dozen other people happened to agree with you" when really most of those people weren't as invested in the article as TPH was in trying to delete it. Veled ( talk) 20:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Concensus can change. But has it or is it only you that has changed? Did you consider asking any of the other dozen people who called for deletion if their opinion had changed? Or is it all about you? duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The entire point of the AfD was to see whether consensus has changed or not by asking the community, including those who contributed one particular opinion to the previous discussion (and thus avoiding any accusation of WP:CANVASSING). Unfortunately the discussion was closed before the question you are now asking had been answered. Thryduulf ( talk) 16:03, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (undelete and unclose the AfD). Most speedy deletions, G4 certainly, are for saving time where standard process is so obvious it would be a waste of time. They are not to be used to shut down discussion. Somebody arguing against deletion (the AfD shows two) means that the discussion is worthwhile. That said, the generic "Speedy overturn on the basis of a reasonable contest to a speedy deletion (except for some few exceptions)" applies. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:11, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AfD as a contested G4, albeit under unusual circumstances. And let's not attack the nominator, eh? Reyk _YO! 05:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. (G4 nominator). This is the very definition of a repost, exactly the same. The Schlock Mercenary afd is not relevent, it was kept due to Hugo nominatios, not because of the above source. This drv and the comment in the second afd seem to be trying to make a point about "lower standards" for webcomics. Suggestion Malik Shabazz deleted the article to shut down discusion is not helpfull ( agf), especially after the about explaination for deletion. duffbeerforme ( talk) 07:28, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 speedy and relist. Speedy deletion only applies when it is clear that the very strict criteria apply and a discussion would always result in a consensus to delete. When there is an ongoing deletion discussion it is very rarely acceptable to speedy delete. When that discussion includes one or more good faith recommendations for an action other than deletion, then speedy deletion cannot apply by definition, because it is not certain that the discussion will end in a consensus to delete. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:15, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • The strict criteria applies. This is exacly the same as the article deleted at afd. A good faithed "i've changed my mind" does not overide the other dozen people who called for deletion. Restoring this to game the system is not a positive way to build a credible encyclopedia. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • In addition to the nominator there was also another user recommending a keep - the requirement that CSDs are applied only where a discussion would always end in delete is so fundamental that it applies to every criteria without needing to be mentioned. The nominator's rationale wasn't just "I've changed my mind" it was "Given changed circumstances [the keeping of a similar article], I think it is worth re-examining this." It is not gaming the system to have a second discussion, and in the absence of legal issues (and none were even suggested in either AfD) then having a deletion discussion does not harm. It is quite possible that the deletion discussion would have ended in delete, but there were good faith recommendations to keep made by established users meaning that the outcome of the discussion would depend on the evaluation of keep and delete arguments meaning that it is not eligible for speedy deletion. If you want to put it another, simpler way: Good faith recommendations to keep always trump the speedy deletion criteria for everything except confirmed legal problems (usually copyright violations) and WP:OFFICE actions. There were no legal issues and no office actions, therefore speedy deletion in the face of keep recommendations was incorrect. Thryduulf ( talk) 14:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • And that other user had already had their say in the previous afd. Nothing new there. duffbeerforme ( talk) 12:58, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • What any user said in a previous discussion is irrelevant: speedy deletion is never for situations where there are good faith recommendations to keep and no legal issues or office actions. This applies regardless of who makes the recommendation, why they do so or what your opinion of the article is. What is difficult about this concept? Thryduulf ( talk) 13:44, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Regarding your assertion that speedies only apply when "a discussion would always ... delete", the current version of WP:Criteria for speedy deletion contains only the phrases "no practical chance of surviving discussion" and "in the most obvious cases". You attempted to insert your preferred wording, "As speedy deletion is only for pages that would always get deleted following a full discussion, if there is any doubt about whether a criterion applies then speedy deletion is not the appropriate course of action.", during a larger dispute ( WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Declined speedies, page history, August–September 2011), and you were immediately reverted by User:Fuhghettaboutit. The page was eventually fully protected, and there was no net change to the lead. (Bit of trivia: the ANI that started the discussion was WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive713#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer.) Flatscan ( talk) 05:42, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I think Malik Shabazz's rationale as closing admin is compelling. As someone who voted delete the first time, I don't see anything new that would change my vote. I don't know what to make of the off-wiki campaigning conversations. But I think that Starblind's comments above are getting a little too close to personal on a page that should be about cut-and-dried policies. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 22:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment I didn't ask TPH to undelete the page -- he did this on his own after I complained on Twitter with regards to the Schlock Mercenary AfD. In the absence of other evidence, I want to believe that he actually has had a change of heart. Veled ( talk) 22:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (recommend placement in Article Incubator) I believe that the comic is sufficiently notable, but insufficient time was allowed after the undelete to demonstrate this, hence the G4. As it seems that consensus for a Relist will not be reached, I propose that the deleted article for Last Res0rt be placed in the Article Incubator so that it can be adequately improved to meet WP:WEB. Sulucamas ( talk) 01:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Ah, hey! Never knew that existed. Veled ( talk) 04:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The article was a "sufficiently identical and unimproved copy" of a previously deleted version. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:37, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn (recommend placement in Article Incubator) I made no changes to the restored article because, quite honestly, no new acceptable sources have appeared in the time since its deletion (and I try to limit my edits on that article now to the addition of new sources as they're published, thanks to WP:COI). Considering that all it really needs is a good newspaper article (or three) to meet WP:WEB, I would prefer the article be taken into the Article Incubator until sources materialize. After all, if WP:N is the only issue with the article, I'd rather it be kept somewhere where it can be fixed rather than having to have these messy arguments over and over again about whether or not my next source is good enough. Veled ( talk) 04:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse G4 deletion, oppose new AfD unless better justification provided; no opinion on userfication or incubation. Aside from the wrinkles that the requester TenPoundHammer was also the last AfD nominator and admin User:Martijn Hoekstra restored it, this is exactly the situation that G4 is intended to prevent or short circuit: an extra AfD with no material differences. duffbeerforme points out that nominators do not receive "special powers"; for example, after others have commented, they cannot force WP:Speedy keep by withdrawing. Martijn Hoekstra was uneasy with unilateral restoration without confirmation at a second AfD ( 1, 2). The two keeps at the new AfD were TPH and User:Veled, an active supporter of the article at the first AfD. The two minor differences I see are 7–8 months and TPH's personal opinion of the New Times San Luis Obispo source, which was discussed at the first AfD.

I don't understand why TPH filed at WP:Requests for undeletion, where it's clearly out of scope. DRV can be used to request recreation, per WP:Deletion review#Purpose #3. He also asked the AfD closer, User:Sandstein, but reverted his request a few minutes later, commenting "Don't see much point. He has a whole lot on his plate it seems." TPH provided a new source ( Santa Maria Sun, List of newspapers in California) at WP:REFUND, but he did not mention it at the new AfD. Flatscan ( talk) 05:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The Santa Maria Sun article is clearly a rewrite of the New Times San Luis Obispo one. It has the same author – the byline reads "Anna Weltner was an intern for New Times, the Sun’s sister paper in San Luis Obispo." – and same structure, and it was published eleven days later. The relevant section is basically unchanged. Flatscan ( talk) 05:09, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• As it was mentioned here, I reviewed TPH's Twitter account (linked from one of his user boxes). I found this tweet: "@lastres0rt I'm not an admin, so I can't do the deletion myself — community decides delete/keep. You can go to WP:DRV & ask for undeletion." TPH knew the proper process and chose to subvert it. Flatscan ( talk) 05:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn CSD processes do not take precedence over XfD except in the clear cases of content not subject to community input (G9, office actions and G12, Copyvio) Even in the generally-applicable cases of G10 and G11, if multiple editors in good standing are arguing that an item is not an attack page or not purely promotional, then the community discussion process should settle that matter, not one admin. Again, CSD is to shortcut the process when no one disagrees with the outcome, not a way to force an outcome despite community input to the contrary. Jclemens ( talk) 05:39, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn on the grounds of common sense . If the nominator has changed his mind, even after it has been deleted, we should let there be a new argument. Restore, and let someone who wants this deleted relist it. Details of procedure for bringing it here are irrelevant, we're NOT a BURO. DGG ( talk ) 06:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Why does the nominator deserve special privileges? Why should the other delete supporters be ignored? I can see a rationale if it had been an excellent, comprehensive nomination with lots of WP:PERNOMs and the nominator discovered a critical error. The nomination and its source breakdown were good, but Logical Cowboy, SudoGhost, and Dricherby (to name a few) obviously did their own source evaluation. TPH merely changed his mind, apparently in response to off-wiki criticism, and has yet to provide a compelling justification.
  • Regarding WP:BURO, DRV filers of all experience levels are routinely chastised for failing to contact the deleting admin first. Isn't it reasonable to expect a user who has filed hundreds of AfDs and MfDs ( TPH's WP pages created) to be familiar with basic deletion process and etiquette? Even if TPH was rusty, there are explicit instructions in the header of WP:Requests for undeletion: deleting admin, then DRV. TPH gained a significant advantage by getting the article restored directly into mainspace – he has the support of G4 overturners here and benefits from no consensus at both DRV (my guess is that Spartaz will send to AfD in that case) and AfD. Flatscan ( talk) 05:12, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Note that people here recommending that the G4 speedy deletion be overturned would not necessarily !vote to keep in an AfD. For example, I have not evaluated the article at all as that is not the purpose of DRV. My concern is simply that the speedy deletion was out of process (something that is always harmful to the project) and the community should have an opportunity to express their opinion - regardless of what that opinion is. Thryduulf ( talk) 11:27, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • That's my point, sort of. You support overturning the G4 speedy, but you might not support undeletion if this were a recreation DRV on the merits of the article. I asked Reyk to comment on this point, as I think he's the overturn most likely to switch to keep deleted. Flatscan ( talk) 05:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Well, I'm sorry to have to disappoint you. Isn't the purpose of G4 to prevent people circumventing the deletion process in bad faith by continually reposting their article? I don't see why we should necessarily apply it to what TPH has done, which I think was in good faith even though it's turned out a bit of a mess. I get where you're coming from when you say the original AfD nominator has no special privileges. However, it's a fact that nominators come under scrutiny and, often, personal attacks for their nominations ("rahrahrah you didn't WP:BEFORE" and the like), so it is not the case that the nominator is the same as anyone else. If I'm held accountable for something and I later come to believe I made a mistake, I had damn well better have the right to try and fix it. Reyk _YO! 10:30, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • I read in a previous G4 discussion that G4 was created to handle an overwhelming flood of reposts, but I don't know its origins well. The text of the criterion does not mention the recreator's intentions or good/bad faith. I'm reasonably sure that an AfD'd article recreated months later by an inexperienced user copy/pasting a Wikipedia mirror (covers the "identical" clause) would be G4/G12'd without much consideration of his or her motives. The closing admin and DRV were available to TPH, but he made the decision to avoid them. I think I didn't communicate it clearly, so I will restate my intended hypothetical situation. Let's say that TPH contacted the closing admin, was declined, and came to DRV with a restoration/recreation request. Would you recommend restore, restore and send to AfD, keep deleted, or something else? Flatscan ( talk) 05:06, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
            • I found WP:Criteria for speedy deletion/Proposal/G4. Flatscan ( talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, somewhat predictably. Speedy deletion is the bluntest "this needs to be gone now" tool we have. The article adheres to the letter of G4. Still, speedy deletion should never be used to delete anything there may be disagreement about. This should weigh far heavier than the article adhering to what we happened to have written down as policy for CSD G4. Speedy deletion shouldn't be used this way. If a policy pages says we should, the policy page is wrong in this case (unless this turns out to be a clear endorse, which would mean that the policy page does actually reflect policy). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 08:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • How did you see TPH's request, and why did you fulfill it? It appears that you do not patrol WP:Requests for undeletion, as I found only one edit, from March 2012. Your deletion log has few restorations. You restored the page 21 minutes after TPH's initial request ( TPH contribs, MH deletion log, MH contribs). Flatscan ( talk) 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Oops, I didn't see this one earlier. I saw TPH's request off wiki. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Perhaps it's process wonkery to say so, but this was just done the wrong way by TPH. The original AFD outcome was overwhelming; TPH's change of opinion would not have reversed the outcome there. He should have begun with a DRV if he simply wished to reinstate an unaltered or little-altered form of the article. The fact that there's some support for keeping the article is no reason whatever for ignoring the G4 standard; the underlying AFD didn't have to be unanimous. What G4 is based on is the community consensus established in the previous AFD, not any lack of disagreement. Reversing this deletion just encourages attempts to evade consensus outcomes, shifting the burden of proof. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 12:36, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • comment while this is a valid position to hold, please do recognise that this position means there is no way to re-visit a decision to delete, made by a tiny minority of the community that showed up to an AfD. In other words, this means there should be no avenue to check if consensus may have changed on an AfD decision. DRV is certainly not the venue to do this, DRV is to review the original deletion process. I regard this as a very very bad idea. In case I'm reading you wrong, and you believe that this DRV should close, and TPH should open a new DRV on the closure of AfD1, rather than this DRV on the closure of AfD2, then yes, I would agree with you that it's process wonkery. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I linked WP:Deletion review#Purpose (it's transcluded from WP:Deletion review/Purpose) #3 above, and I quote it here: "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page". Identical wording, "if significant new information has come to light since a deletion", was present in WP:Deletion review/Header, September 2005. Flatscan ( talk) 05:10, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What do you know, you're completely right! Thanks! Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 10:36, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Process wonkery all you want but an arbitary overturning of a heavily populated afd is direspectfull of all its participants. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:16, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Disrespectful? To re-visit (note, not overturn, but revisit) a discussion that took place almost a year ago, where one of the strongest proponents of the deletion changed his mind? Or do you actually find it a good idea to wait untill this discussion has ended, and if it ends in endorse have TPH start a new DRV on the original AfD? It is completely beyond me how you can find that a good idea, or - if that's not what you think he should do - what you do think a good venue would be to re-evaluate a deletion. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

It should not have been restored at refund. That is not the venue for overturning AFDs. It should not have been arbitarily restored. Talking to the deleting admin is the first stop. Crap about too much on their plate is not an exuse not to try that. The next step is here where a discussion on it's merits can take place. This should not have been restored without some form of discussion. (No disrespect intended towards the admin that restored this at refund, a quick reading of the request may have led to the beleif that TPH was presenting a new source instead of pointing to an existing source that was specificly discussed in the afd). You note that it's revisit not overturn but it was overturned. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

There was an AfD, which is a new avenue for discussion - not an overturn. Whether it would have been preferable to discuss at AfD or at DRV is largely irrelevant. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 13:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

There was an afd. It ended with a very clear consenus to delete. It was overturnd at refund which states that it is not a venue for overturning afds. duffbeerforme ( talk) 14:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

So, what do you propose, if TPH wants the community re-examine the suitability for inclusion of the article? The way I interpert what you are saying is close this DRV as endorse, then have TPH start a new DRV on the original AfD. That can't be it, can it? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:11, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

TPH should start with a discussion with the deleting admin. A thowaway line about being busy is not a valid excues to not try. If that comes to nothing he should raise at at DRV to allow discussion on it's merits. Running to a venue that is not about restoring articles deleted by afd is not the best choise. duffbeerforme ( talk) 14:22, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What advantage would that have over just having let AfD2 run its course? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:31, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

What advantage would any attempt to remove spam from wikipedia have? It would help wikpedieas credibility. What advantage would letting AfD2 run its course? It would aviod helping the coi editors attempt to use wikipedia as a means of poromtion. duffbeerforme ( talk) 14:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Also, how would doing this through DRV2 be better to avoid spam than doing this through AfD2? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 14:59, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes. duffbeerforme ( talk) 15:13, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I am - honestly and in good faith - trying to make sense off this. So far, I'm not succeeding. Could you pretend I'm really really stupid for a moment, and walk me through your reasoning? Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 15:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I think Duffbeerforme has mixed up some of his facts (and had a little too much of his username). The only COI on this article is MY COI, and I've acknowledged it. I'm not the one who brought the page back (or even asked for it to be brought back), TPH did. I've made my comments above and I've already said I'm cool with putting this thing in the incubator if that's what it takes to bring this argument to an acceptable compromise. Veled ( talk) 15:49, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Veled, what, specifically, is your COI? I asked about this on the first AfD and you did not respond then. Thank you. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 16:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I didn't want to mention the specifics of my COI during the previous AfD because I wanted the arguments to remain focused on notability, NOT any perceived motives on my part. That said, I've been limiting my edits to the article at this point to adding sources just because it's easiest for me to add them as they occur vs. putting the burden onto someone else, and again, I didn't ask TPH to put the page back. I was willing to "play the long game" and wait until another newspaper article or something similar came along to bolster arguments for notability; now that I know the incubator exists, I'm in favor of putting it there until that happens, so editors like Sulucamas and the folks over at WikiProject: Furry, who have expressed interest in the article, can continue to work on it in the meantime. Veled ( talk) 17:08, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Veled, what, specifically, is your COI? It would be worth having a look at WP:BESTCOI, including WP:BESTCOI#Don't push. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 17:17, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Provided that Veled has declared their COI and proceeds to adhere to WP:BESTCOI, repeated inquiries into what, specifically, their COI might be do not seem especially pertinent to the ongoing discussion of the fate of this article. Sulucamas ( talk) 22:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hi Sulucamas, welcome to Wikipedia! It's not clear that Veled has followed the recommendations in WP:COI and WP:BESTCOI. For example, voting in this deletion review and the two AfDs, without even mentioning the COI when voting, do not seem to be in the spirit of things. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 23:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Neither is trying to force me to reveal my identity, which is something that you have attempted to do repeatedly. Declaring the specifics may be important in terms of enforcing WP:NPOV in the eventual article, but shouldn't come into play in debating whether or not the article should exist at all. Veled ( talk) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I haven't tried to force you to reveal your identity. However, the closeness of the relationship is relevant; this issue is mentioned in WP:COI. When you are voting on things, you should declare your COI. You didn't do that, three times. If the COI is particularly close, you probably shouldn't be voting at all. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 02:31, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Fine, it's my comic. I'm striking out my comments and vote. Do whatever the fuck you want. Veled ( talk) 03:51, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Hello Logical Cowboy. Thank you for your warm welcome, and for all of the helpful edits you made to my Talk page. It's clear from your tenacity and courtesy that you are truly an asset to Wikipedia. As such, would you be willing to provide your informed opinion on the potential placement of this article in the Article Incubator? Sulucamas ( talk) 19:16, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

OK with me. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 22:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Fantastic! Sulucamas ( talk) 14:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Alternatives include userfication or projectification at WP:WikiProject Furry or WP:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group. Flatscan ( talk) 05:08, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Worth pointing out that before we talk too much about project groups, we should probably make sure either of them want it. Furry seems pretty sparse with the exception of GreenReaper, and I've not spoken much with the other work group. Veled ( talk) 03:47, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Good point – it would be polite to ask first. Flatscan ( talk) 05:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Reply to Martin. AFDs are often sparcly populated. People with COIs or points to make can have more influence on the result. DRV is watched by more neutral editors so a proper balanced result is more likely. duffbeerforme ( talk) 11:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I think we should have a fairly high bar for use of G4 to speedy. Letting this go through a regular AfD seems reasonable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 19:01, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment' If it was this sort of situation that G4 was intended to short circuit, it's obviously not doing its job. Rather, G4 is for cases where any responsible person who understands WP would agree. The nom or anyone else except the person who introduced the new article could have stopped the AfD before it was deleted, so there's no reason why they can't do it afterwards if any sort of a reasonable case can be made that has the support of reasonable people here. Speedy is for when any knowledgeable person who understands WP would agree. If they don't it needs a discussion, and it's usually better to discuss the merits at AfD than to discuss the procedure here. Once there's a rational contest over whether a re-creation is sufficiently improved, it should always go to the community. DGG ( talk ) 00:23, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I see G4 as a special case, supported by the last deletion discussion, in this case, WP:Articles for deletion/Last Res0rt. Consider this comment by User:Atama (September 2011, from WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 44#Once kept, NEVER G4-able): "Alone among all of the criteria, G4 actually requires that a consensus be reached in a deletion discussion that supports the administrator's deletion. So again, it's the least unilateral form of speedy deletion." It's supported by the tagger, the admin, and the consensus of the last deletion discussion. In my opinion, they easily overcome TPH's and Veled's poor keep rationales. How can anyone argue that the "re-creation is sufficiently improved" when it hasn't been changed at all? Flatscan ( talk) 05:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I repeat my point above as you apparently haven't understood it. When there are good-faith recommendations to keep it is ineligible for G4. Always, Every time. No exceptions. Regardless of how good, bad, strong or weak the "keep" recommendations are. Regardless of who they are from. Even regardless of whether the article has changed or not. All these require evaluating the rationales, which is not a task for speedy deletion. Speedy deletion only applies when every reasonable person agrees that it would be deleted every time, when there are good-faith recommendations to keep then by definition not everybody agrees, and so it is ineligible for speedy deletion. Thryduulf ( talk) 08:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • I have read and understood your point. I am aware that it enjoys substantial support (probably consensus struck after closer review of WP:CSD history and WT:CSD archives Flatscan ( talk) 05:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC)) among the WT:Criteria for speedy deletion regulars. I think that it is too hardline and inflexible and that it gets this case wrong. Very little evaluation is needed to see that TPH's and Veled's keeps are "TPH changed his mind about one of the sources" with no new material information – egregiously insufficient. Flatscan ( talk) 05:07, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Ah, It seems this DRV has somewhat returned to reason. As some background: the underlying reasoning for 'don't speedy when there is any shred of doubt' is somewhat wikisophical in nature: on a wiki pretty much everything is reversible and can be changed and can be changed - without process, discussion and what have you - by any user. Deletion is an exception to that, and as such, needs to be tested for community consensus - which is viable to change, as evidenced by TPH's change in opinion in this case. Speedy deletion was invented for those cases where it is so blisteringly obvious there is consensus that no wikipedian in his right mind would disagree, and we can forgo the discussion. We have always struggled to define who exactly is a 'wikipedian'. This long was 'everybody who ever edited', but this proved problematic for CSD, since new editors with their first article started removing speedy tags, and would themselves be the single wikipedian in their right mind (per everybody is a wikipedian and AGF). This was clearly not the intention, so the provision that the creator couldn't reject the speedy was baked in. TPH however is a long standing member, and his sole 'no, this shouldn't be speedily deleted' suffices for me to reject speedy deletion - regardless of the criterion (bar G10/11). Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:26, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • I have browsed and searched WT:CSD's archives and examined WP:CSD's page history.
            • WP:CSD: "These criteria are worded narrowly, and generally so phrased that, in most cases, reasonable editors will agree what does not or does not fall under a given criteria. When there is reasonable doubt whether a page does, discussion is recommended, using one of the other methods under Wikipedia:deletion policy." was added in May 2006 by User:Pmanderson. The sentences were simplified ( "Where reasonable doubt exists") in February 2007 by User:Xiner. "discussion ... is recommended" was reworded to "discussion ... should usually occur instead" in April 2007 by User:Amarkov. There was a dispute April–June 2007 that settled on "should occur" and a sentence about "survived a prior deletion discussion". The wording remained stable until May 2009, when there were discussions ( WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Simplify policy RfC, WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 34#Fundamentals) and many edits. The outcome contains "no practical chance of surviving discussion" and "most obvious cases", which persist through today's version. There was a dispute August–September 2011 ( WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Declined speedies, page history), but there was no net change to the lead.
            • WT:CSD:
              • contest for any reason: WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 38#CSD of blanking by only editor? (March 2010), WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Procedure for contested speedies (June–July 2011)
              • decline for any reason: WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Declined speedies (August–September 2011, WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive71#Disruptive CSD Tag Warring by user:TenPoundHammer), WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 36#Can a non-admin decline a speedy deletion request? (October 2009)
              • AfD keep: Nothing relevant
            • As I wrote to Thryduulf above, your restrictive interpretation ("any shred of doubt", "blisteringly obvious", "no wikipedian in his right mind") is not reflected in the wording of WP:CSD. I found support for requiring that a removal/contest dispute whether the cited criterion applies. No one has argued that the article did not meet the letter of G4.
          • Flatscan ( talk) 05:43, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • I encourage you to read the linked discussions in Archive 43 (mid-2011) before you draft a RfC. It's a messy dispute that ended with no consensus for any wording changes. Flatscan ( talk) 05:15, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - If it was the same content as as an article previously deleted, then that is what G4 is in place for. Period. Tarc ( talk) 15:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• What a mess. I think nearly everyone involved did something wrong here. Given the high-participation discussion, I don't think the article should have been undeleted at the request of the nominator--I'd buy it if there were only 2 or 3 folks and the discussion wasn't close, but I just don't see it here. But it was undeleted. And then sent to AfD. Speedy deleting something that has keep !votes on it at AfD is nearly always a bad idea (BLP and other issues aside) and so _that_ was a bad idea. I'm loath to endorse any of the actions taken here, but feel keep deleted is probably the right policy-based idea with some fishwacks going to the admin that undeleted and the admin doing the G4. Not real smart guys. struck as snarky, sorry That said, I'd personally prefer to see the AfD go forward as there are some worthwhile issues here and I think it has a chance of being kept. But that's not policy-based, that's Hobit's personal preference. Hobit ( talk) 02:00, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I humbly accept your offerings of trout: going DRV would have been better than going restore - AfD (though I maintain with little practicle difference). Going Restore - AfD - G4 - DRV - (endorese | overturn - relist) as we are doing now is positively the worst route we could have taken, so I completely occur with your analysis apart that I think the proper - eventual - outcome would be to userfy or incubate. The pragmatic closure here would probably be one of those, but it is hard to find consensus here for that (good luck, closing admin!). Unfortunatly, we seem to have driven off the editor who could possibly make this article work in the indeterminate future. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 11:05, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, I'd likely be inclined to do exactly what you did if TPH asked for something similar from me--if he thinks an article has a chance it probably has a chance. Hobit ( talk) 13:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Martijn, I have a lot of respect for your views. But surely what you are suggesting (getting that one editor to make this article work) would violate the letter of WP:COI and the spirit of WP:AUTOBIO. Cheers. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 15:52, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • LC, I see and understand your point. In theory, articles are collaboratively edited. Some articles work that way. Most article have one, or a handfull of de-facto maintainers. While they must not exhibit WP:OWN issues, that is generally not a problem. I expect this article to be no different. A regard where it is different though, is that that maintainer has a strong COI. That is as we all know and realise problematic. I have seen good faith behavior despite the COI. Acknowledging it, opinionating that the article as it currently stands doesn't meet WP:N. It's tough to keep an article NPOV while you have a COI, and it sure requires extra eyes. On the other hand, as long as the article is out of view, in the incubator to be worked on, I frankly don't really care who the person is that is nurturing the article, or if they have a COI. As long as NPOV is checked thorroughly once it comes out of the incubator, that's fine by me. Once it has had a good NPOV check, then the COI issue should be prevented. Once it's out in main, things can be arranged with editrequests. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 16:03, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Hi MH. I suppose so. But the question is not whether the article is notable, but whether the topic is notable. "Work"ing on the article shouldn't change the notability of the topic, and the community already opined on that, strongly. (The consensus looks even stronger if you leave out the author's own vote.) To make the topic notable would require something in the outside world to change, like the comic winning some kind of award or at least some more 3rd party coverage. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 23:41, 19 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • A year ago the community expressed its opinion on this article. Subsequently the nominator changed their mind following the community expressing the opposite consensus about an article with similar sources. Based on this the nominator sought a second AfD to see whether the community's consensus had changed - imho an entirely reasonable course of action. If there are COI issues then these need to be evaluated by the closing administrator of the AfD - such evaluation is not within the competence of speedy deletion. Almost all defences of the speedy deletion seem to be attempts to ensure that consensus cannot change, without any plausible reason given for why this prejudgement must take place rather than allow the community to decide whether it holds the same opinion as it did a year previously. Thryduulf ( talk) 04:11, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
            • Hi Thryduulf. Schlock Mercenary isn't at all similar. Those sources are stronger: Wired Magazine, Washington Post, Ars Technica, the Inquirer, a couple of books, etc; and there are multiple award nominations and awards. Cheers. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 04:35, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
            • Going from 7–8 months to a year is pretty aggressive rounding. I would be happy to treat this as the recreation DRV and discuss the article's merits, if TPH (or anyone else) would update and improve his argument. I made the effort to investigate the Santa Maria Sun source. Flatscan ( talk) 05:44, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • Hey LC, keeping a preliminary article on a (so far) non notable subject in userspace or the incubator - as long as it's not horribly spammy - is not really a problem AFAIC. Martijn Hoekstra ( talk) 17:50, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply
            • Yah, userfying or projectifying or incubating all sound OK. I sincerely hope the comic gets some more 3rd party recognition--it looks pretty good. Logical Cowboy ( talk) 18:04, 20 January 2013 (UTC) reply

              Hey, look, a compliment! FWIW, I continue to strongly suggest incubation - other editors have requested access besides me, and because of the aforementioned COI issues, I'd much rather get people other than just me used to working on it, which is the whole point of putting it in the incubator vs. userfication. Veled ( talk) 03:34, 21 January 2013 (UTC) reply

              • For the record, I have no objection to userfication or incubation it's easier to post this here than disrupt the discussion strand following my recommendation above. Thryduulf ( talk) 00:33, 22 January 2013 (UTC) reply

AssaultCube Reloaded ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

AssaultCube Reloaded is not a copyright violation because the media from AssaultCube allows reuse, and their code is using the zLib Licence. 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 17:02, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment may well still be a copyvio, though can't assess that properly without the material in question : the license for assaultcube seems to be various, the game itself is Non-Commercial only, which is incompatible with wikipedia. Similarly it specifies "The content, code and images of the AssaultCube website and all documentation are licensed under "Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported" Creative Commons, again NC which is incompatible. Some media within the game package may be licensed differently which would allow use, so we'd have to check each part in question to see if there was a valid license or not. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 18:01, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • AssaultCube Reloaded is a fork of AssaultCube 1.0.4. You have posted a link to the 1.2 website licence. What does their site licence have to do with the actual game itself? The 1.2 code licence is still zLib, but their media licences might have changed. -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 19:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The site where that is the licensing section for [25] states on the right hand side: "Version: 1.1.0.4". Readme.html from the 1.1.0.4 release [26] refers to that page as the license. The source directory says zlib license at [27], however none of the media is within that structure. For example some of the textures are within that 1.1.0.4 source tree licensed as per [28] "As the original licenses to these 4 files are unknown, unless you're able to find the original source and adhere to their license, you MUST assume that the data is COPYRIGHT and you are NOT allowed to redistribute that data outside of an UNMODIFIED AssaultCube package(s)." i.e. That page seems descriptive of the licensing not all content is available on a free "commercial friendly" license, and we cannot blanketly say it all is. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 20:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • 1.1.0.4 isn't 1.0.4. -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 23:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Here's a link to the 1.0.4 package licence: [29] -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 23:41, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • How about the past version of that file for you? Here: [30] "these textures are free for use in any project whatsoever, and can be used in commercial games or anything else unconditionally." -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD as a reasonable contest of a speedy deletion. It is reasonably assert to not be a copyright deletion. So maybe it was an A7? Dubious notability? This discussion needs to be at AfD, not DRV. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It was already deleted, so we need it to be undeleted. -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 17:05, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • It has never had an XfD discussion. If it is worth a DRV discussion, it is worth an XfD discussion. Even if the only reason is for someone to learn something. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Isn't User_talk:RHaworth#Request_Undelete an XfD discussion? -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 01:29, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • No.— S Marshall T/ C 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'm finding this really confusing. Is it alleged that the article text was a copyright violation? Or is it alleged that the game itself is a violation of a third party's copyright? Because it's okay to have an article about something that violates a law. Wikipedia can't infringe, but other people's infringements could very well be the subject of an article. (By analogy: Wikipedia can't libel someone, but there's no reason why we couldn't have an article about a notable libel, such as Berezovsky v Michaels.) I'd be interested to see RHaworth's commentary here. And what I'd particularly like to see is confirmation that the article violated copyright.— S Marshall T/ C 15:10, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It was alleged that the game itself was a copyright violation. "13:33, 17 December 2012 RHaworth (talk | contribs) deleted page AssaultCube Reloaded (this game contains a lot of the original content from the original AssaultCube game. As such, it is violating the copyrights of that game. As such, as per Wikipedia's policy, it has been scheduled for deletion. Example: Some map files are completely "c...)" -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 16:58, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• I am sure it is stated somewhere that it is a wiki sin even to link to a copyvio. So certainly to write an article about something which is a copyvio is also a sin. The exception is that if the act of copyright violation is itself notable and the article discusses that violation, then that would be acceptable. But that did not apply in this case. As I have already told the author: "never mind copyvio, I could also have deleted it as advertising. And, since A7 does not apply to games, we would have had to use AfD but it would probably have been deleted for lack of independent evidence of notability." So I endorse my deletion but if you really want to restore and drag it through AfD, go ahead, — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 00:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Where does it say that? -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 01:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I can't see that it'd follow that being disallowed to link to copyvio's (It's in WP:ELNEVER) means we can't have an article on something which is a copyvio. It would restrict some references e.g. we quite possibly couldn't link to the official site. As above even in the 1.0.4 version there are files which don't fall under a free compatible with wikipedia license, the ones I found in the source tree were only available for personal use (I didn't look through all of them so there may be others more restrictive). Those ones aren't a copyvio though when hosted on the other site, they are just media we can't host. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 07:41, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I agree with 62.254.139.60's analysis, and I can't seem to see a speedy deletion criterion that applies. I think we've got no choice but to send it to AfD for a full discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 11:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
      • Since it is already deleted, isn't AfD for deletions and DRV for undeletions? -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 20:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC) reply
        • Not exactly. DRV is for reviewing deletion decisions. It's true that if material has been deleted then you can come to DRV to appeal the decision---but equally, if after a discussion it was decided not to delete the material, then you could come to DRV to appeal that decision too. Basically, DRV is where we supervise and scrutinise deletion-related decisions. If no supervision or scrutiny is needed, then you can go to WP:REFUND instead of DRV.— S Marshall T/ C 10:29, 17 January 2013 (UTC) reply
          • I put this into WP:REFUND. -- 23.17.148.90 ( talk) 00:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Josh Wood Productions · ( talk |  logs | links | watch | afd | afd2 | afd3 ) · [ revisions

Josh Wood Productions does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. It is not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It is not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. - Luisa Pisani ( talk) 14:17, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Undelete Article does not qualify for the speedy deletion criteria under section G4. This article is not a copy of a previously deleted article. This article describes absolutely deferent company than the one previously deleted for the lack of notable references. Article equal to the following articles Silver Pictures, Samuel Goldwyn Films, Imagine Entertainment, Millennium Entertainment, Amblin Entertainment, Crystal Sky Pictures, Skydance Productions, ect... articles mentioned hereby do not even have references, although some of the articles created in October 2010, remains without any warning as it is clearly violates Wikipedia guidelines (better job to do). Josh Wood Productions was not identical to the previous article which was deleted. It was not unimproved copy of the previously deleted article. For the above mentioned reasons the article is clearly not qualifying to be deleted under criteria for speedy deletion section G4, therefore must be reinstated. Thank you very much for your time reviewing this issue. -- AllisonID ( talk) 14:45, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Need to see a side-by-side comparison to determine if it was a valid G4.— S Marshall T/ C 23:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• send to AFD It's possible the speedy rationale is inaccurate but given the benefit of that doubt my examination of the Google cache leads me to bleieve that it's highly unlikely this would survive a deletion discussion. Mangoe ( talk) 00:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment appears to have been undeleted by a different admin as not a G4, so this may now be moot. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 12:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Up to the last minute there were 3 delete !votes and the nomination, total 4. There was only one keep !vote and it was from the creator and only editor of the article. This user also tried to dismiss the AFD by saying I had a grudge against him for some reason which is not true, and were told they should AGF. At the very last minute someone !voted keep and just said the opposite of the nomination text and also said that none of the other positions in the delete !votes were strong. This keep !vote did not specifically reference any wikipedia policy but all of the 'hdelete !votes did. Based on this it was closed with no consensus. Looking at other AFDs it looks like standard procedure in case like this is to keep it open to gain consensus. I think consensus was reached to delete but even if it wasn't it should not have been closed before no one could respond to the !keep vote. I already asked the closing admin who did what they thought is right but did not see all aspects to me. Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 01:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - relisting is not a substitute for no consensus and such a close is reasonable in cases where there is genuinely no consensus. It doesn't matter whether someone gives their opinion 5 minutes after an AFD opens or 5 minutes before it closes, AFD closes are not a head-count and the closing admin gave a comprehensive explaination for the close (as is appropriate for a no consensus close). Stalwart 111 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • reply It does matter because AFD is a discussion. If someone replies and 5 minutes later it is closed then there was no time to discuss what they said. MarioNovi ( talk) 09:22, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I never formally endorse my own closures on DRV, but comment here to note that MarioNovi inquired about the closure before the DRV. A longer analysis of my thought process when I closed the AFD can be found here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closing rationale (and the closer's subsequent discussion) seems strong and justified to me. A relist would also have been a good option but the final "keep" could have attracted support just as much as rebuttal. On any occasion when new evidence is brought forward (or there is lack of participation) there may be a very good reason to relist but closing shortly after a !vote is not a problem in itself. Thincat ( talk) 12:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the original closing decision. The editor MarioNovi ( talk · contribs) is acting in bad faith. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. That was within discretion on the basis of Sandstein's late input.— S Marshall T/ C 19:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse While I personally would have relisted it, I see no abuse of discretion here. Monty ₈₄₅ 21:03, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Close was procedurally sufficient and within the bounds of discretion. MBisanz ^talk 21:51, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Closing editor sums it up well with "The combination of Sandstein's well-reasoned objection, and the possible option of a biographical article on Joly MacFie seems like sufficient grounds to call this a "no consensus" despite the 4-2 majority for deletion.". I agree, and it is a good close. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:11, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• comment I see that it was closed according to policy so want to withdraw this. Sorry to waste your time. MarioNovi ( talk) 06:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Contunation of User_talk:Anthony_Bradbury#Masshole and User_talk:Emmette_Hernandez_Coleman#Masshole. G4 is for "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy, having any title, of a page deleted via its most recent deletion discussion. This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version" The Masshole page that was previously was an article about the word "Masshole"., this was just a disambig pointing readers to Massachusetts#Demographics (which describes the people of Massachusetts) and Reckless driving [32], I didn't recreate the deleted article. A3 is not for disambigs that don't have the disambiguated term in the target article, By the standard that a term must be listed in an article for a disambig (or redirect) to target it lots of disambigs would be deleted under A3. Emmette Hernandez Coleman ( talk) 21:14, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment neither article you say this would disambiguate contains the term and the only reference you give is to a source which wouldn't be accepted as reliable. Even if that reference were usable, the link to Reckless driving wouldn't match the definition. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 22:38, 12 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment The requesting editor is technically correct, in that when I first deleted this article i did it as a G4, which was incorrect. I restored the article at the same editor's request, reviewed it and both items it was said to be disambiguating, and re-deleted it when i confirmed that it was an inapproriate didambiguation, the link to Massachusetts being obscure and that to reckless driving being non-existent.-- Anthony Bradbury ^"talk" 10:54, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Comment Technically incorrect, OK. However, if restored as it stood, it'll be tagged for deletion at the latest when I see it pop up on my watchlist, for being an inappropriate deletion. The reckless driving thing seems to be a mainly Urban Dictionary and not encyclopaedic. If anything reliable is found, it'll still only be a dictionary definition and Wiktionary's territory if they want it. It's one of those run-together words that people think they're clever creating. May be notable in the future - but will need far better than Urban Dictionary to support it. Till then, possibly even countable as an attack on the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and its drivers... Peridon ( talk) 11:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• • Comment regarding the "attack", it possibly is but in researching the redirect Masshole Commonwealth (see Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 8#Masshole Commonwealth) I found that it is also used self-descriptively. It is thus not eligible for speedy deletion under criterion G10 as it has another purpose beyond being an attack (if it ever was). Thryduulf ( talk) 14:41, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Endorse - I am not even convinced that this even qualifies as WP:DICDEF. This is more like slang. In fact I was able to find it here: Urban Dictionary. I do not think that this would be an article appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:19, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Not a reasonable nomination. The term does not occur at the redirect target. We do not encourage redirection for derogatory terms, even if a possible search term. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

List of Dragonlance artifacts ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion was inappropriately closed by Sue Rangell, a non-administrator. Per WP:NACD, "close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." In this case, four editors believed that this article should not be kept, and four were of the opposite opinion. This is a close call, requiring the weighing of arguments in the light of applicable policies and guidelines, and should be made by an administrator. I ask that an administrator reclose the discussion. I also believe that the closer's assessment of consensus was in error, but will reserve any arguments in that regard for a possible second DRV depending on how the re-closure is argued.  Sandstein  22:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

The discussion at User talk:Sue Rangell/Archives/Monday 18th of March 2013 09:33:17 PM#Non-Admin Closures indicates that making inappropriate XfD closures is a persistent problem with Sue Rangell.  Sandstein  22:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Not that it has anything to do with this particular discussion, but if you take a very close look at my NACs, you will find that the only persistant problem is reverts of my closures by non-admins, which is against the rules. Inevitably, with only an exception or two, an admin eventually comes around and closes the discussion the exact same way I did. I've been editing Wikipedia for years, I'm identified, and have Account Creation responsibilities. I think I can be trusted to close the occasional discussion. In this case, the decision seemed pretty straightforward to me. Four (5 really) of pro-policy Keeps well out-balancing two deletes which seemed rather weak to me. These things are often judgment-calls, but this particular discussion seemed pretty cut and dry to me. Thank you. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Four keeps, three(including nominator) deletes, and one guy saying "withholding my vote based on the new sources found". Anyway, I reverted her before on such an issue, stating I didn't think someone who wasn't an administrator could close anything where everyone wasn't in agreement. Dream Focus 23:40, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yes, and your reversion (of an 86-0 snow keep) was against the rules. Per WP:NACD only an administrator can revert a close. That revert of yours was eventually followed up by an administrator who closed the discussion the same way I did. The problem is not my close, the problem is when the closes are muddied up by people who break the rules. Now, this discussion is not about me, or some other closure, it is about List of Dragonlance artifacts, and whether the article should be Deleted instead of Kept. Can we please discuss that? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:48, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• There were 5 Keeps, and one guy who said delete, and was still discussing it, and it had not been 7 days yet. Don't distort what happened. [33] After it reopened, one more person said keep, and eventually it closed as keep. But you do NOT have the right to close something after only two days. Undid revision 526762658 by Sue Rangell (talk) you can't do that unless everyone agrees or its been 7 days) Dream Focus 00:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I am not distorting anything. You illegally reverted This SNOW Keep. I did not report it because I do not like to make waves. (It was also the first close I ever did) I will point out again that it has nothing to do with this discussion. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:07, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• And someone else then reverted you for that [34] and told you what you did was wrong. And that's not the first or only time people have told you that you are closing things inappropriately. I did not "illegally" do anything at all. You made a mistake, and two different people had to hit undo that time on you. Dream Focus 01:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• That somebody else ALSO acted illegally against policy. Two people acting illegally does not make the action correct. ONLY ADMINS can revert a close, that is the rule. You broke that rule. (as did the other fellow) Now, may we PLEASE discuss the matter at hand? ie., List of Dragonlance artifacts Thank you. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:40, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Where do you see a policy, or even a guideline, that says only an administrator can revert an improper close by a non-administrator? And this is the matter at hand, you refusing to accept you did anything wrong. Dream Focus 01:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Please read WP:NACD. Note that the word administer is underlined. And I will point out that my history is not the matter at hand. The matter at hand is whether or not this article should be deleted, and clearly there is no consensus for that. It would be really nice if the personal attacks could stop, and we could instead discuss the content of the article. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I doubt you'd find that codified anywhere. It would certainly be a terrible idea. Thankfully, it seems you are patently wrong. -- No unique names 05:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question - This might seem like a dumb question, and feel free to trout me for asking, but this article wasn't deleted. Is this the proper venue for this discussion? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 23:59, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• revert and let an administrator close users are split almost equally between deletion and conservation, and per WP:NACD, close-calls should be left to admins. I also completely disagree with Sue Rangell's assessment of the discussion but as Sandstein said, that can be left for later depending on how this is reclosed. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 00:18, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Request to close - Can we close this discussion? This is not the proper venue. It is easy enough to put the article up for AfD if the editors think the article should be deleted. This discussion is wasting a lot of everyone's time. The proper venue for this discussion is AfD. Thank you. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Per WP:DRVPURPOSE, this is the appropriate venue. We're here to discuss whether it was appropriate for you to close this AfD. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 00:31, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  It doesn't make any difference. If you think the article should be deleted, then you should bring it up for AfD, where it can be properly discussed. This discussion has all the appearance of WP:WITCHHUNT, or at least that's how I feel. Some of you seem more intent on having the decision overturned for the sake of having it overturned, than for the article to be deleted. It is easy enough to overturn the closure (as that seems to be the true intent) simply by bringing the article up for AfD. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  Its not a witchhunt when this keeps happening, and so many people tell you that you shouldn't be doing it, and you refuse to listen. And why are you suggesting someone bring it to AFD yet again if they don't agree with your closure? That's just plain ridiculous. Can you just admit you did something wrong, and promise not to do it yet again? Dream Focus 01:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Wow, in the spirit of WP:AVOIDYOU, I will only respond that I am sorry that my Decision to keep the article was not embraced by the two editors above who !voted to delete. I don't see any Right or Wrong, there is no need for drama. This is simply a difference of opinion, can we please have this discussion keeping that in mind? -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I voted Keep in both of the AFDs in question. Its about you doing something wrong, not someone complaining they didn't get the results they wanted. Dream Focus 01:19, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• And you think that closing a discussion (where Out of 7 total !votes, only two were to delete) as a KEEP was "wrong" to the point of going through all this? You will have to forgive me if I feel a bit picked-on here. At best this is a difference of opinion, let's not use it as an excuse to burn the witch at the stake, put the article up for AfD if you think it should be deleted. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• As I said, there were four keeps, three deletes(including nominator), and one who said he was "withholding my vote". If four people say keep and three people say delete, then its not something a non-administrator should be closing. Dream Focus 01:49, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• There were only two !votes to delete, out of a total of 7 !votes, hardly a consensus to delete. The non-vote just commented below that he was leaning to Keep. I will also add that the two delete !votes were extremely weak and were basically dupes, while the Keeps were varied, and fell more in line with policy. This wasn't a "close discussion", it was a cut-and-dry Keep. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 01:59, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I think you're too involved in the general controversy surrounding your NACs to be reacting in good faith here. You should step back and let the discussion unfold before making any more extravagant and groundless claims. NACs are only acceptable when the closer doesn't have to weigh !votes, and you did just that. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 02:23, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Facepalm The !votes were dupes, as in "duplicates", not the editors being misled as dupes. ... and I'll refrain from further comment on your comment. Jclemens ( talk) 02:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Jclemens, what a surprise, I was wondering when you would come. I'm sorry you had to wait that long to find something to nitpick about in my comments. Folken de Fanel ( talk) 02:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• To the extent that nitpicking includes pointing out when an editor completely misconstrues the statements of those with whom he is currently disputing, I plead guilty to nitpicking. You, on the other hand, might find it appropriate to apologize to Sue for the AGF failure in how you interpreted her remarks. Jclemens ( talk) 04:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Folken de Fanel, I agree with your statement "NACs are only acceptable when the closer doesn't have to weigh !votes". We need to change the WP:NACD guideline section to specifically say that to avoid future problems. I joined a discussion where I mentioned that on the talk page. Dream Focus 03:08, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• As much as I was happy with the close decision, I agree this would have been better done by an admin.....hence I'd be content with an admin re-open and close (sorry Sue). Casliber ( talk · contribs) 00:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Revert and let administrator close. Too close for NAC. GregJackP  Boomer! 01:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Note not that it matters much, but I was the withholding voter and I was going to lean towards keep for a number of reasons. Web Warlock ( talk) 01:24, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, with no prejudice against immediate renomination of the article for deletion. The discussion ran for the alloted 7 day time period, with 4 !votes to keep, 3 !votes to delete (including the original nominator), and one effective abstention (leaning keep as noted above). With valid policy arguments on both sides of the debate, a reasonable decision on the part of an uninvolved admin would be to close with no consensus, defaulting to keep - which is the effective end result of User:Sue Rangell's non-admin closure. Assuming this resolution is taken, any subsequent renomination of the article should link this review to prevent procedural close arguments. Vulcan's Forge ( talk) 02:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak endorse - would I, personally, have closed it? No, probably not (I've NAC'd quite a few AFDs, FWIW). But I'm not convinced that's not a matter of the closing editor taking a slightly more liberal view of NAC than I. Even a WP:SNOW NAC requires some interpretation (eg. are all votes from one wikiproject or article contributors only?) and the point of NAC is that we trust editors in good standing to use some common sense and close some things that admins haven't had a chance to get to. NAC should be obvious, but not automatic or robotic. But I also tend to operate on the basis that if editors later have a strong objection to one of my NACs then I have no objection to them asking an admin to revert/relist. I don't think a DRV is needed for that, but hey... whatever. I can't see anything hugely wrong with the close, but I also don't think the editor in question would leave WP in protest if an admin was calmly asked to relist her NAC'd AFD and did so. Stalwart 111 05:11, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure, Trout nom. Brought to DRV based on NAC status of closer is intolerable. I'd suggest reminding nom that adminship is no big deal. -- No unique names 05:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• You don't need to be an admin to evaluate consensus. Anyone can do it, and there are mechanisms like DRV to ensure get it right. Our admin corps is generally well-meaning but let's face facts: it includes a number of children and even among the adults, they're not always editing sober. If you spend any appreciable time at DRV you'll learn that discussion-closers need supervising, whether they're admins or not. The only valid question before us is whether the close was right.

  On that score, I agree with Sue Rangell's assessment of the strength of the !votes, and I think that was pretty far from being a "close call". I would comment that if you'd given me a list of names participating in that debate, I could have told you how most of them would !vote without looking. JClemens wanting to keep something fictional; Folken de Fanel wanting to delete it; BOZ wanting to keep a roleplaying game-related article; Dream Focus wanting to keep anything at AfD; not exactly amazing stuff, is it? All making valid arguments, but I think that what it demonstrates is that AfD outcomes depend on who shows up.

  Another question that's arisen during this debate is whether NACs can be reverted by non-administrators. In my opinion if the close is early then the answer is yes, per WP:BRD; early non-admin closes are always bold. (It would be nice if we could revert early admin closes that way on the same basis, but I'm sure the sky would fall if I ever did that.) If it's a close after due process, i.e. after 168 hours had elapsed and not obviously in error, then overturning should need some kind of consensus; but it wouldn't need to be a full DRV, just dropping a note on a sysop's talk page to get the close re-assessed. The sysop might overturn it on their own authority, let it stand, or bring it here.— S Marshall T/ C 08:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

A little rhetorical there about Dream, as of course he does vote delete for articles which aren't net positives for the Wikipedia, such as attack pages. Otherwise your comment is spot on. Re the skyfall scenario you mention, I've long thought it's one of the communities worst mistakes not to have made you an admin. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I do seem to be unfairly stereotyped. I certainty don't vote KEEP at every AFD I participate in, I always have a legitimate reason. I have recently even sent a spam article I came across to AFD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Antonia Polygon. Dream Focus 15:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

A lot of what's said on project pages seems to be purely political, with no relation to reality. Sadly this kind nonsense if so prevalent that even normally sensible editors like S Marshall can be influenced by it. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 15:22, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Careful, I didn't say that Dream Focus always !votes keep. I said two things: (1) It's not exactly amazing when Dream Focus votes "keep"; and (2) I could have predicted that he would want to keep this.— S Marshall T/ C 17:51, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - no reason to do process for it's own sake. Wily D 10:09, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the closure was a correct interpretation of the discussion so whether the closer is an admin or not is irrelevant. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:20, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse While not a complete slam-dunk, the keep votes were more convincing that the deletes, so consensus was clear enough for an experienced editor such as Sue to make a NAC. FeydHuxtable ( talk) 14:55, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This was in no way an uncontentious close. Both Delete !voters offered multiple policy-based rationales for their positions - this was not something that should have been NAC'd as Keep. Had I, as an admin, run across this, I'd have either relisted it or called it as No Consensus - it's not an obvious Keep at all. If it gets relisted I'm obviously not going to touch it, but I'd be interested to see how it was reclosed. Yunshui  雲‍ 水 15:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Reopen I agree with the final result, but had I been considering closing this--which I would not do, because I am heavily involved in the topic--I would instead have relisted for further discussion. This should not have been an NAC. The question of whether such lists are valid articles is much disputed. I very strongly think they should be so considered, and have explained why in the past, and will explain why in detail again if the afd is re-opened or there is another afd. It's not necessary to argue the matter here. Very little about articles or lists in the field of fictional elements has consistent consensus--we have tried to find an acceptable guideline so many times that I and I think everyone else much involved have given up trying, and just argue individual cases. Some afds on them will nonetheless be obvious one way or another, so I can't say afds in the field could never be the subject of a NAC. But most will not be: especially one where there is a close against an opinion expressed strongly in good faith by an experienced editor--as here; especially one where the question of the interpretation of policy is disputed--as here; especially a close that would need a discussion of why certain arguments were accepted and others rejected, not just apparently on vote-counting--as is being done here.

Of course we could just re-nominate, but the basic purposes of Deletion Review is to correct errors in procedure--this also includes errors in the result, because correct procedure should produce a correct or at least plausible result. One of the ground at RfA which is most frequently disputed is whether the candidate has the judgement to close disputed afds, which shows the general acknowledgement that it requires certification by the community before a person should close them. (There is also a question in this case of whether an editor's experience is long & deep enough to recognize where serious problems or basic disputes are involved--another frequent consideration at RfA. I think it appropriate therefore that this close not be simply endorsed. We need to reaffirm our limits. DGG ( talk ) 21:38, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Mujeeb Zafar Anwar Hameedi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• The article was previously deleted, though during the discussion reliable sources were provided, in my opinion there was lack of neutrality and was some kind of error to delete the article. Nevertheless, I recreated the deleted article with new information and different version with most reliable source, independ and sgnificant coverage of the subject, was speedy deleted without accessing the new information. Rules should be applied everywhere in neutral way so that reliability of wikipedia remains. Please take a look at this source and its editorial board of editors. The article should be restore that the subject is notable. I ask my excuses that I am not familair for this page, if any error please make it correct.Thanks. Justice007 ( talk) 01:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Postdlf's close was clearly correct; but we should assess any new sources that have emerged since the AfD. Are there any such?— S Marshall T/ C 12:10, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Yes I have provided new reliable source, That was not provided during the deletion discussion this and its editorial board that is independent and has significant coverage of the subject. Since 2010, needed at least one reliable source but there are more. My question is not that Postdlf's close was correct or not, here is reliable source, on this ground article was recreated on 9 January 2013, but was speedy deleted again.

Please take a look at and review it again, it establishes the notability. Justice007 ( talk) 14:11, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• "Since 2010, needed at least one reliable source..." refers to WP:BLPPROD actions, not notability. It is not the number of RS that is important, it is whether the subject meets WP:GNG. That may be one RS or ten, dependent on the contents of the source. GregJackP  Boomer! 14:22, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Right, you validate my point, it is not the number of RS, one or more. In the deletion discussion, main issue was lack of "significant coverage" of the subject. You are not addressing the facts, don't you see 1 2 reliable sources, and above one, those do significantly not cover the subject, direct addressing his notability?. What is then notability in your view?. Justice007 ( talk) 15:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The governance.pk source does not meet the standards because it is not independent; Mr Hameedi is the managing editor of the publication. The other two sources listed above were considered at the AfD. Is there anything else?— S Marshall T/ C 17:34, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• (Later) My mistake: I read this source with insufficient attention and confused "Hashmi" with "Hameedi". I retract that with apologies.— S Marshall T/ C 19:51, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Please maintain the neutral point of view, that I do not see here, what do you mean, "it is not independent; Mr Hameedi is the managing editor of the publication." How do you conceive or figure out that Hameedi is the managing editor of the publication?. I do not see anywhere that. Fairly and boldly, here is just going the lines that have no proper and exact concept and description of the wiki-rules. When you declare "The governance.pk" is not reliable, independent source, I think I am wasting my time here to discuss. There is no anything else because that will be also declared "not reliable and independent". Justice007 ( talk) 18:28, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I have to say, I'm not seeing any evidence of Hameedi's connection to governance.pk either. Can you toss us a link demonstrating that? (N.B. I'm not disputing the truth of the claim, but I'd like to verify it properly myself, since I'm the one that suggested Justice007 file a request at WP:REFUND (not here, but that's beside the point now...)) Yunshui  雲‍ 水 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The close was correct. Subject did not show notability, despite claims to the contrary. It seemed that many of the keep !votes were not concerned with notability, but in making a memorial for the subject. GregJackP  Boomer! 12:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • not quite a "memorial" since he is not dead, just an effusive homage/promotional advert. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:04, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review (am I the only admin around here to do these chores?) DGG ( talk ) 15:43, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Support close; it was an entirely correct assessment of the consensus. I disagreed with the subsequent G4 deletion due to the new source, but if S Marshall is correct (he usually is) then I reckon G4 was justified. I'd also argue that the amount of spam we had to deal with from Hameedi's supporters should be a factor in considering recreation; my talkpage has certainly been a lot more peaceful since the article was removed... Yunshui  雲‍ 水 19:13, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Well, that was kind of you to say and it makes it even more embarrassing that I was just plain wrong. I retract that completely.— S Marshall T/ C 19:55, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• comment, while the subject of the article might not be a member of the governance board and thus automatically disqualify the source as non independent, the "About us" Our objective is to build a sovereign and prosperous Pakistan by embedding the values of honesty, transparency, and truthfulness. This paper is based on purely constructive writings not only to figure-out the governance issues but to suggest solutions in order to address them as well. Its basically a platform for all those patriots who see far beyond mere criticism and want to rectify the governance issues of the country with the force of their intuition. Its not the matter of "Bad-governance" it is lack of knowledge or limited options available with government officials to bring "Good-Governance". We believe that highlighting issues will never serve our purpose until and unless we suggest pragmatically plausible action plans to rectify them. ...Our priority is to refurbish the personality traits of the masses those have been lost in the clouds of oblivion. ... We arepromoting (sic) every perspective of life in order to keep the diversified target market interested, but our primary objective of positivism will be taken care of at any cost. ... we need to bring all innovative ideas together, and those can change the destiny of the nation. We strongly believe that what we persist in doing becomes easier for us to do; not because the nature of the thing has changed, but because the power to do it has increased. strikes me as very much an advocacy paper and not necessarily an NPOV source and so I still question its utility. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 20:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Neither I will talk about good faith or bad faith, nor your advocacy or someone else. I never search the skin of the hair. I do not impose my personal choices, that I like this and I do not like that. I am here to do my best for the reliability of the wikipedia. Justice007 ( talk) 20:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - postdlf closed the article exactly as I would have done. The opinions to keep were not convincing to me at all, and came off, at least to me, more like pleading per WP:ILIKEIT, with no real policy-based arguments. The delete votes, and there were quite a few, were varied in reasons, and firmly rooted in policy for the most part. I find those arguments to be most impressive. I think that bringing this to DRV is a waste of time, as there is nothing new to say that links Hameedi to governance. -- Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 00:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Rahul Easwar ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

A lot of substantiation & News Links from India's most credible channels were given. It was deleted without giving opportunity for counter arguemnt> Alex.mathews ( talk) 14:17, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Reason 3. A lot of new information & News has come regarding the subject. Please Review ( Alex.mathews ( talk) 14:23, 9 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

• Endorse per lack of reasoning. Nom claims that "new information has come" but doesn't specify what or how it might change anything. Deleted by consensus at AFD in January 2012 here, and it would take a pretty revolutionary change in notability to reverse such a recent decision, which I don't see either in nom's staement or the most recent deleted article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:21, 9 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I deleted the article as a repost of an article deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Easwar (2nd nomination). Yesterday, Alex.mathews posted to my talk page questioning the deletion, to which I gave a reply, briefly explaining why I saw no evidence of notability. Alex.mathews posted again, indicating that he/she was not persuaded by my reasons. I explained that I had to go offline, but that I would try to give a more detailed reply today. However, I happened to find by accident that, rather than wait for me to do so, he/she has posted this deletion review. It is fortunate that I happened to find it, and unfortunate that the poster did not think to inform me of it.
• The arguments put forward for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rahul Easwar (2nd nomination) apply just as much to the latest repost as to the version discussed there. Probably the most significant arguments put forward were (1) the sources cited are not essentially about the subject of the article, but rather about issues on which the subject of the article is campaigning; (2) the article appeared to be aimed at promoting a cause. Both of these comments are every bit as true of the repost as of the article discussed there, as are other comments in that discussion. Below, I post a description of each of the references in the version of the article that I deleted. Not a single one of them can reasonably be considered as substantial content about Rahul Easwar, and the reposted article still suffered from all of the defects mentioned in the deletion discussion, including those I have mentioned.
• The "references" in the article were: (1) a page inviting readers to "Chat with Rahul Easwar on what Baba's legacy means to you", i.e. a blog page run by Rahul Easwar, not about him; (2) a YouTube posting of a discussion in which Rahul Easwar takes part: again (partly) by him, rather than about him; (3) a five-sentence report that Rahul Easwar has called for a board to accept all applications for appointment of priests, irrespective of their caste; (4) another YouTube posting of a discussion partly by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (5) a dead link; (6) another YouTube posting of a discussion partly by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (7) a news report containing a single sentence mention of Rahul Easwar; (8) an article by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (9) a YouTube posting of a talk by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (10) another YouTube posting of a discussion partly by, not about, Rahul Easwar; (11) a link to a list of YouTube videos including Rahul Easwar. JamesBWatson ( talk) 11:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• We need a side-by-side comparison of the deleted articles to assess whether G4 strictly applied.— S Marshall T/ C 12:05, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review I think all the versions are in the edit history I restored. DGG ( talk ) 15:44, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, DGG. I'm afraid that to a strict analysis of procedure, this is an open-and-shut overturn. This is the version deleted in 2005 at what was then VfD, and this is the version deleted under G4 in 2013. They're not substantially identical, and even if they were, DRV would not normally enforce G4 after a 7-year time gap. It's not for JamesBWatson to evaluate the sources on his own authority. As an administrator JamesBWatson is empowered to assess consensus and to perform speedy deletions where certain very narrowly-defined criteria are met. He isn't an arbiter of content. AfD is where sources are evaluated. On procedural grounds there's simply no way we can endorse this and if the nominator insists then the deletion must be overturned and the material listed at AfD instead. However, this would be a very bad idea because in the real world, if put to AfD in this state, it would be a SNOWBALL deletion.

  In other words, although I've said that JamesBWatson isn't empowered to evaluate sources on his own authority—and I'm not either!—I do think JamesBWatson is completely right and I think it would take an absolute maximum of seven days at AfD for this article to be deleted again.

  I'm normally a dogmatic man who likes to see the procedure followed to the letter, but even I'm not prepared to recommend that. I think it will be best if the content is userfied to Alex.mathews so that he can provide at least two sources that fully meet our standards for reliable sources. At that point Alex.mathews should consider returning to DRV with his draft article for us to reassess it. Is that acceptable to everyone?— S Marshall T/ C 17:57, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  • You seem to be overlooking the January 2012 afd, which ran for its full length and should control, not the 2005 vfd. The version of the article discussed there was this. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 23:15, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I don't think those two are substantially identical for the purposes of G4 either.— S Marshall T/ C 09:00, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Reply to JamesBWatson

FIRST of all Apologising to James, Because being a junior Wikipedian, i was not aware that my behaviour of posting in deletion review, when i was awaiting your response is not right. Sorry for that.

PRECISE REPLY

1. It was not a Blog Post. I was a CNN IBN Channel Official Page, where they invite noted figures to air their opinion abt people who passed away. IT WAS AN OFFICIAL CNN IBN page.

2. TIMES NOW - OFFICIAL PAGE - http://www.youtube.com/user/timesnowonline/videos?query=rahul+easwar - where many videos where he participates in discussion

3. Article by Him on Leading News paper which makes him Writer / Author - http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/7434202.cms?prtpage=1

4. As James B Watson rightly pointed out 1 link was dead link - But it was active when I searched it. This is now not appearing, may be maintenance issue - http://www.hindu.com/mp/2006/02/18/stories/2006021802420100.htm ( a googling can make us understand it was there) ( I assume, it was the problem of the website )

5. He has participated in all Major channels in India, Times Now, Cnn Ibn, Ndtv, Headlines Today - http://www.istream.com/t/news/rahul+easwar

I strongly Feel, & request JamesBWatson to go through this & kindly re evaluate

(and apologies for writing it here earlier, I have written some in your talk page & here too: Pls tell me if it is not good behaviour, I ask because i dont know.. Happy to correct my behaviour upon suggestion from you ) ( Alex.mathews ( talk) 13:32, 10 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

Whether the word "blog" is appropriate for the first reference is of little relevance: the point is that it is run by Rahul Easwar: it is not an independent, third party, source about him. Under point 3, you say "Article by Him on Leading News paper which makes him Writer / Author". Nobody disputes that he is a writer, but once again, something written by him is not evidence of notability, as we need writing about him by others. Likewise, at points 2 & 5, you say that he has participated in discussions, but once again we need evidence of substantial coverage about him, not by him. The deletion discussion attached importance to the fact that the cited sources were not substantially about Rahul Easwar, and that was still so for the repost. Thus the repost did not address the issues that led to its deletion. JamesBWatson ( talk) 17:52, 10 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Dear JamesBWatson, thank you for engaging. If some errors have occured from my part, I apologise. I will be more careful articulating my view points to you. and would like to point out 1 thing along - being the spokesperson of 1 of the largest Pilgrimages in the World - Sabarimala - according to Forbes Traveller, MSNBC itself is a sign of notability. You can see, there are millions of pilgrims coming to the place. & as you rightly said - many articles are by him, he is participant in those discussions.

please see this too - ARTICLE / Coverage ON RAHUL EASWAR - http://www.hindu.com/mp/2006/02/18/stories/2006021802420100.htm (THis site was down, perhaps, when you checked. This is one of the most credible news papers in India - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hindu )

I hope you wont disengage & continue to grant me a little more time. Thanks & regards. ( Alex.mathews ( talk) 20:47, 10 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

I think the page should be reinstated. lot of media citations on the subject. ( 62.150.123.160 ( talk) 08:01, 11 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

Requesting the administrators to reinstate the page. Enough & More valuable content & links & sources are available on Rahul Easwar ( 96.231.55.214 ( talk) 13:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

These much materials are available, the page should be created ( 208.7.38.227 ( talk) 18:26, 13 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

• Well, I actually came here to say that, although I disagree with S Marshall's interpretation of the speedy deletion criterion, having thought the matter over, I was prepared to withdraw my deletion, and allow a chance to improve the article. However, when I got here, I saw a string of IP messages saying that the article should be reinstated, all saying essentially the same thing. Looking into the matter further, I found that at least two of the IP addresses are proxies. I also found that one of the IPs refers elsewhere in the past tense to posting here, although that IP had not, at the time, posted here. There is no way that I am going to withdraw my deletion under those circumstances. If the person or persons responsible for this clear attempt to rig this discussion (presumably mistakenly thinking that the review would be decided by a vote) would like to contact me on my talk page and explain exactly what he/she/they has/have done and why, then I will be willing to consider whether or not to go back to my intention of withdrawing the deletion. Please note that I am not by any means ruling out the possibility of doing so, but simply saying that I am not going to do so unless and until the clear impression of attempts to get that result by dishonest means is removed. JamesBWatson ( talk) 21:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Dear James B Watson, as a person who raised this issue with you & apologized when I was not exhibiting right behavior according to Wikipedia standards out of ignorance, I have always requested you as a senior wikipedian. Would again request never to bring any personal element to wikipedia editing. Iam sure, being a senior editor, you have the right, seniority, knowledge to delete any article. But bringing in a personal element against any ip address, or any people who are doing any wrong action is unfortunate & junior people like me who are seriously & sincerely watching may be disappointed. So, would request you to improve or let carolchris contribute more or any one who wants to contribute, allow them to, & also protect seriousness of Wikipedia ( Alex.mathews ( talk) 21:59, 14 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

And Iam posting here, because I hav posted some messages in your talk page too. May be because of your schedules, you couldn't give attention to it. Hope that it ok. & I hav given interviews not just by him, News on him & interview of him. [ For your ref, : http://www.hindu.com/mp/2006/02/18/stories/2006021802420100.htm]

Pls bear in mind that there is nothing personal or "want to somehow counter you stuff". Regret any wrong communications from my side. Happy to learn from you & at the same time, contribute. ( Alex.mathews ( talk) 22:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)) reply

Dear James B Watson, I would like to show here a recent news article about a program in which Mr.Easwar was honoured in Kuwait - http://www.arabtimesonline.com/NewsDetails/tabid/96/smid/414/ArticleID/191771/reftab/36/t/NSS-Mannam-Jayanthi-2013/Default.aspx

This establishes that Mr. Easwar is notable even outside our country. So please tell me how to reinstate my page.

Carolchriskevin (
talk) 09:50, 15 January 2013 (UTC)kevin
reply

• Looking back, I no longer think that the new version of the article was substantially the same as the one deleted following the last AfD, so I have withdrawn my deletion. I might have reached this conclusion earlier, had discussion focussed on the one relevant question, namely "was the article substantially the same as the one deleted following the last AfD?" rather than bringing in irrelevant issues, such as comparison with an article deleted years ago, and arguments over whether the subject is notable. (Not to be confused with arguments over whether the re-created article showed that the subject is notable, which is not the same thing.) JamesBWatson ( talk) 16:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC) reply

Cacique Cheese ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

page does not contain "advertising", it was a simple history of a company that exists similar to many others currently on wikipedia Delijim ( talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

This page was added as a general reference to an existing company that I have absolutely no affiliation with.

There are several other companies in the same industry with current wikipedia pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borden_Cheese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kraft_Cheese

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorrento_Lactalis

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saputo_Incorporated

Also, there are companies in the same industry with current wikipedia pages that are much smaller in size than Cacique:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castello_cheeses

There was no "advertising" on the original page, just a brief history of the company and a link to the company's web page, which appears to conform to all of the pages listed above.

Please reverse the speedy delete.

Thank you Delijim ( talk) 22:49, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment over the years I must have seen 100s of DRVs which start out like this and as a rule of thumb it doesn't bode well. The status of other articles is not significant, the question is purely about this article so concentrate on that. I can't see the article (it's not in the google cache) to assess if the unambiguous advertising criteria fits, but it'll rest on that and that alone. (Note it's possible the product does "deserve" a page, but the one created was just "wrong" for an encyclopedia, this deletion will have no bearing on any future article which does meet the correct criteria) -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 23:18, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - the article contained some claims such as "number one brand of Hispanic cheeses and largest fresh cheese maker in the United States" which require an independent reliable source, and there was an unencyclopedic phrase of "the ultimate authority, the very best and the pinnacle of experience". Looking at google news, the company exists, and has some, but not much coverage. Overall, I think deleting the page was a reasonable decision, but removing the claims without independent reliable sources and removing the unencyclopedic content would have also been ok. PhilKnight ( talk) 23:40, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. It may be possible to create a neutral, notable article on the subject, but this ain't it. Starting with nothing is better than starting with the existing text, although it could be userfied to someone who plans to write an article. Wily D 08:28, 7 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review . Technically the claims made there are a claim to importance, but in the absence of sources, I doubt most admins would take them very seriously. You're welcome to rewrite the article with some good references providing substantial coverage from 3rd party independent published reliable sources, print or online, but not blogs or press releases, or material derived from press releases. Please be aware that when a relatively little known company tries to claim equivalence to the best known manufacturers in the world, as are the first two of the ones mentioned, it tends to encourage skepticism. The other two articles could probably use some improvements, but that's another question. DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. This stub appears to have been cribbed from the firm's website and might also qualify as a copyvio. In three sentences, it manages to make the following unsourced claims: "number one brand of Hispanic cheeses", "largest fresh cheese maker in the United States", and 'the name "Cacique" signifies...the very best and the pinnacle of experience.' A proper encyclopedia article might be possible on this subject, but in its form when deleted, it served only as brief company press release, whether or not that was the author's intent. -- Hobbes Goodyear ( talk) 12:13, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment I'm preparing to recreate this article from scratch. The company is, from what I can find, notable, and was involved in an epic trade secret battle which it won against another manufacturer. The current version by contrast could use some tender loving WP:TNT. Mangoe ( talk) 14:07, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

I would invite comment over whether we want to put this under a different article name, say, Cacique (company) or the like. Mangoe ( talk) 14:11, 8 January 2013 (UTC) reply

If you believe the primary source of notability is the company, then yes Cacique (company) is better. Cacique cheese, Cacique Cheese and Cacique (cheese) should all be blue links though, either as an article or as a redirect. Thryduulf ( talk) 12:26, 11 January 2013 (UTC) reply

File:The Simpsons 5F24.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

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

File:File:MaggieAynRand.png ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

File:Robotic Richard Simmons.png has been "relist"ed. Like that file, each had two "keep"s, but the administrator, who is now retired, closed it as "deleted". No need to further explain this rationale for review. -- George Ho ( talk) 05:19, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Response Actually, there is. The simple fact that he's retired now doesn't somehow invalidate his closes, nor does it justify the inclusion of non-free media. Each piece of non-free media has to be justified on its own merits, not with a blithe catch-all like this. What about these particular images requires review? — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 06:06, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Since we can't see images, we might depend on arguments made in original discussions. Also, this discussion would result the same as the other review. Same rationale, same analyses, same closer, etc. What else am I missing? -- George Ho ( talk) 06:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn all Same rationale as below: if there's a reason that unanimous non-nominator keeps can be legitimately closed by an admin as delete, then something is very broken with the community input process. Jclemens ( talk) 06:54, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
  • You mean "above"? You may remove this reply if corrected. -- George Ho ( talk) 07:05, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply
    • No. He means "below", in the other DRV on this subject.— S Marshall T/ C 10:41, 6 January 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Page was deleted, I contacted editor who had a few reasons, after correspondence he explained the main issue was "Notability" and he is unwilling to restore the page. Mobileye is a very well know company in its field (collision avoidance systems) in fact if you search for Mobileye on Wiki you will find many articles with the name in it, the company is a pioneer in the industry. and should be on WIKI. Please undelete the page.

UFC 157 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I had considered taking to DRV shortly after the closure, but decided against it. However, the more I think about it, the more I find it hard to accept that deletion was the consensus in this discussion. If anything, the consensus was a clear keep and, with no offense meant, this closure seems very much like a supervote. I did not attempt to discuss the matter with the closing admin as he had already discussed it with other editors and also indicated that he would not be offended if it was taken here. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C)

• Comment All of the deleted revisions got restored at WP:REFUND and moved to User:Oskar Liljeblad/UFC 157, which was later speedied under U1, user-requested in userspace. I'm going to ask Oskar for permission to undelete. Nyttend ( talk) 19:10, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• To clarify — what I've asked is simply to undelete it and leave it at its current location. I wouldn't put it back in mainspace without Kww's agreement or without consensus from other people. Nyttend ( talk) 19:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I think anyone reviewing the AFD will agree that I have explained my close rationale in excruciating detail. I carefully weighed each argument against policy, and took over an hour dealing with this close. It was carefully considered, and well within policy.— Kww( talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

  I appreciate the time and effort you put into your closure (I don't know if I've ever seen a more thorough close), but it still seems to me that the consensus was to keep the article. AutomaticStrikeout ( T • C) 19:26, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• The way we deal with MMA articles on Wikipedia is frankly crap. Looking at the articles in {{ UFC Events}}, we've got UFC 120 and UFC 148 as GA nominees, UFC 36 at AfD, UFC 140 at peer review, UFC 158 at deletion review just below, and a substantial number of them have been AfD'ed, particularly since June 2012.

  Black Kite said it well back in June in the AfDs for UFC 2, UFC 3, UFC 4 etc.: "it is clear that the relevance of this type of event to the guideline [meaning WP:SPORTSEVENT] needs to be re-assessed". That re-assessment is underway at an RFC here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mixed martial arts#Event Notability. Once we actually have proper consensus-based guidelines in place about how WP:SPORTSEVENT interacts with MMA, then there will be some point in reviewing past discussions. Until then I would suggest deferring individual discussions such as this one. However, even though I feel this discussion should be deferred, I can see no consensus in the discussion that's the subject of this review. I acknowledge KWW's commendably thorough closing statement but I would suggest that it sees a policy-based consensus where none exists.— S Marshall T/ C 19:41, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• I think i kind of dropped the ball on how i attempted to mediate that conversation. it never did become an actual RfC, i was attempting to redraft the guidelines as people gave their input. We got near unanimous support when the bottom fell through. i'm still willing to work on it but people expressed that they weren't happy with the format i was using (the "versions"). I still think it could possibly get through an RfC, but i don't have a good handle on doing it the right way. 66.190.16.30 ( talk) 15:20, 7 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Oops, didn't realize i wasn't logged in. Kevlar ( talk) 15:21, 7 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Oskar's declined my request for permission to undelete his userspace page. Nyttend ( talk) 19:48, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- I find it hard to argue with anything in Kww's lengthy closing rationale. This is a clear example of strength of argument outweighing strength of numbers. Reyk _YO! 22:39, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Congratulations to Kww for grappling with this beast and surviving to explain his every move but along with S Marshall I have not spotted the policy-based consensus myself. Oskar says the article is incorporated in its entirely in the newly created 2013 in UFC [35] so I hope that can be accepted and no one will begrudge UFC 157 redirecting there. Restoring the history behind the redirect would preserve attribution. Is there some way of getting to this position? Thincat ( talk) 23:55, 4 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• There was a recent discussion at WP:AN (section "Providing text of deleted article to offsite location?" of AN archive 243) precisely about this. Most people (including me, admittedly) supported the idea of redirecting pages instead of deleting them and/or freely undeleting the contents of redirects, as long as there's nothing bigtime wrong (e.g. copyvio or blatant attacks) with the content. There's nothing outright wrong with the deleted revisions (i.e. we wouldn't mind random Internet users seeing it), so there shouldn't be anything wrong with undeleting the history. Nyttend ( talk) 01:24, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• It makes it easy for people to skate around what should be a case of WP:CSD#G4, so yes, there's a lot wrong with undeleting the history, unless you revdelete the content of the history and preserve only the editors names and edit summaries. In general, this is why it's a bad idea to undelete articles unless you are confident the editor intends to create a complete standalone article from the result. REFUND and merging are logically incompatible.— Kww( talk) 01:53, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• No; we can close the AFD as "delete", redirect it to a relevant page, delete copies as G4, and protect the redirect after the first instance of someone un-redirecting it. I'm confused by your final sentence; merged content may not be deleted for copyright reasons, so REFUND and merging appear to me to be mandatory when someone wants to use the deleted content in an appropriate manner. Nyttend ( talk) 01:59, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• Or, better yet, do as I have done: move the history of UFC 157 under the target of the merged article. That way, you have both preserved the history for licensing and not changed a delete into a redirect. If someone later splits the content out, the history chain will be complete and correct.— Kww( talk) 02:35, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply

• That's somewhat confusing (it makes the page history look rather odd), but in my opinion it's better than leaving it deleted when there's nothing illegal or otherwise bigtime problematic in the history. I'll close this request. Nyttend ( talk) 02:45, 5 January 2013 (UTC) reply
• I prefer WP:Merge and delete#Move to subpage of talk page over a WP:HISTMERGE. Since the combination article was created after the deletion, there is no history interleaving, and this is not a bad histmerge. Consider if there were multiple deleted event articles with overlapping histories – histmerging them together would be inappropriate. Flatscan ( talk) 05:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC) reply