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

The "keep" !votes were not grounded in policy, and the outcome is inconsistent with the more recent, more thoroughly argued Chris Kyle [1] and Steenkamp Tropika [2] FFD's, and the closer's rationale for the latter is particularly well-thought-out and convincing. The recent death of a public figure is not carte blanche to use nonfree images in a bio article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 17:07, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• So let me get this straight... one FFD went one way, a couple of more went another way, and you want us to overturn one just because others went a different way? Isn't that textbook WP:WAX? Endorse unless a more convincing argument about how the particular deletion discussion was fundamentally wrong in its conclusion, rather than just different than the others the nominator likes better. Jclemens ( talk) 23:08, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• No. The outcome was fundamentally wrong because the keep arguments expressly disagreed with fundamental aspects of WMF policy concerning nonfree content, which can't be relaxed or have exceptions created by en-wiki consensus. When keep !voters say things like "I would presume that there is no non-free image until one is produced" or argue that because they can't find an image identified as free using only a Google search, they're making arguments incompatible with WMF policy that nonfree content is not allowed if "we can reasonably expect someone to upload a freely licensed file for the same purpose." As I pointed out in the FFD discussion, without any disagreement, the article subject "was a public figure who made regular public appearances. Apart from concert performances, Google image search shows the subject appearing at the sort of public events from which WP regularly receives free images from photographers." No one came up with any basis for denying that those circumstances create a reasonable expectation that a free image could be made available. This FFD discussion is a rather plain departure from policy principles, perhaps a unique one, as is evident from the outcomes in parallel discussions, particularly the ones cited. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 20:43, 7 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• comment The comment from Jimbo is now over six years old, and can be tested against the reality of our being able to obtain publicity pictures. It does not in fact seem to me to be borne out. What seems to me to be the case is that we are generally not able to wheedle people into giving us their existing images, and that therefore once a person is dead (or to be more realistic, is out of the public eye), we will never get a free picture; there is no reservoir of potentially free pictures for us to draw upon. If we want to set an explicitly higher standard (e.g., not using non-free images less than, say, fifteen years old), fine. The "reasonable expectation" standard is proving to be problematic in its interpretation; it seems reasonable to me to say that one could never expect to get a free picture which one of us hadn't taken. But there's really no way to come to an objective conclusion about what is reasonable without running a study on how many of these deletions are resolved by replacement with a free picture. My experience is that they are deleted and never replaced, and never will be replaced. Given further discussion about another case, the policy is self-contradictory on this point: we must simply eliminate these fair use claims and delete all these images without regard to the "reasonable expectation" clause, because commercial use trumps it in every case. Mangoe ( talk) 03:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC) Struck in favor of later comment. Mangoe ( talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Not sure how to call these sorts of things, obviously there was a weak consensus to keep, but what does one do when the consensus is based on abject ignorance of copyright? "I like articles with pictures" and "I don't think I can find a free one" sentiments carry the day sometimes, and that isn't right. Tarc ( talk) 15:51, 1 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Tarc, the policy does not ban non-free images. The method to determine if the criteria is met or not met is precisely an XfD. What about when arguments that are about "non-free content shouldn't be allowed, period" carry the day, and that isn't right either. And to be honest, having monitored and participated in more than a few of these, I can say with certainty that most often than not the argument against inclusion wins the day, even when it shouldn't have under the law and under the principles. That said, this is a policy discussion that is as old as the encyclopedia, but one of the problems is that there is a camp of editors who only want a purely free images policy, out of principled commitment to free documentation principles, who are perfectly willing to sacrifice encyclopedic quality for it. It is a tension that exists between the goal of a free (As in beer and as in freedom) project, and the goal of an encyclopedia. Some of us believe there needs to be a middle ground and this middle ground is indeed allowed by copyright law. That said, in this particular case, the consensus - however thin - is that the policy caveat was met. If this was incorrect, what method do you suggest we use? Because the reality is, the only decision making process we have is the XfD. -- Cerejota ( talk) 01:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, quite clearly no consensus to delete. The criteria that the nominator tried to get the image deleted under is inherently subjective, and obviously those that cared to respond did not agree with their view of it. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:40, 2 April 2013 (UTC). reply
• Endorse. It is hard to see why arguments of the form "no free alternative is available because none has so far been found", which is objectively falsifiable, should be discounted by the closer in favour of arguments of the form "a free alternative might be available" which is not falsifiable and therefore subjective. In the absence of a consensus for the second argument the closer has no choice but to keep. Spinning Spark 09:55, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• delete This needs to be deleted because it transgresses against the "commercial use" clause. The "reasonable expectation of a free alternative" is hopelessly subjective and is irrelevant. Mangoe ( talk) 12:44, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply

How would a picture of a dead singer on a Wikipedia article about the singer negatively affect anyone's ability to profit of her?-- 64.229.164.74 ( talk) 22:26, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply

It's not about profitting off her, but about making money from selling the photograph. Mangoe ( talk) 12:04, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse There was no consensus to delete. Warden ( talk) 09:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Those who claim it was against policy are wrong. Our policies do allow non-free content under specific guidelines. And in the examples of these guidelines it explicitly says:

"Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely."

The purpose of the discussion is to determine if this burden is met. The discussion clearly determined that it is met. So the objections here and there for deletion based on policy largely have the policy wrong. They should argue that a substitute is reasonably likely to emerge, which they are not. We have very strict policies around non-free content, but we do not have a blanket ban on non-free content. This is the mistake most arguments for deletion are making. I do agree that this policy opens the door to subjective judgement where none should be, but this is a problem of the policy itself. In the application of this ambiguity we rely on XfDs and !votes and in this case the closer made a decision entirely within the discretion allowed to closers and in accordance to the policy on non-free content, which allows such content under certain conditions. The arguments to delete here and there are somewhat circular in this respect, as well as being subjective while denying the right of people to be subjective in the opposite direction. -- Cerejota ( talk) 21:50, 8 April 2013 (UTC) reply

MAPS International High ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Notability concern (which was the reason for the AFD) was not addressed. No valid reasons for keeping were presented, yet the closer decided to keep.

• One "keep" alleged that sources may exist somewhere but did not show proof, counter to WP:NRVE.
• Some "keep"s claim that there is consensus that all secondary schools are notable but, when asked (multiple times) for a link to the discussion where the consensus was established, none of them provided any such link, counter to WP:CCC. Additionally, there are many guidelines which explicitly say that every article must prove its own notability and that notability is not inherited.
• Some "keep"s say that the article should be kept because the school is verifiably real. However, this still does not address the issue of notability. Verifiability does not equal notability.
• Some "keep"s cite WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. However, that page is not a guideline or policy, but simply a record of past decisions on other articles. The outcomes page itself says that "previous outcomes do not bind future ones", "All articles should be evaluated individually", and "When push comes to shove, notability is demonstrated by the mustering of evidence that an article topic is the subject of multiple instances of non-trivial coverage in trustworthy independent sources." -- Atlantima ( talk) 19:40, 30 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse because it seems the rough consensus was to "keep". Were the "keeps" not valid? Well, they were within policy although they did not follow the WP:GNG guideline, nor were they required to. It looks as if the WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES essay describes the outcome of this AFD discussion just fine. Thincat ( talk) 21:41, 30 March 2013 (UTC) reply

WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is meant as a record of PAST AFDS and as such has no relevance to whether THIS SPECIFIC ARTICLE has proven notability. Did you even read what I wrote right above you?-- Atlantima ( talk) 22:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Yes, I did, and I have no idea why you think there is a policy that articles are required to have "proven notability". The outcomes essay says that AfDs on high school articles tend to result in "keep" and that is what happened in the present case. "Delete" would have been (very) surprising. The deletion rules you refer to below concerning notability simply do not exist except in limited cases of possible breach of the law or Wikimedia policy, or serious unpleasantness. I am puzzled that you feel so strongly that non-administrators should be prevented from seeing this material. Thincat ( talk) 14:38, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - the closing admin correctly closed the AfD in accordance with the discussion which was clearly in favour of the article being kept. As WP:DISCUSSAFD states "AfDs are a place for rational discussion of whether an article is able to meet Wikipedia's article guidelines and policies." The participants decided that this article was so able no doubt bearing in mind that high schools, with sufficient local research, normally meet WP:ORG and that no sources in Malvinian have yet been examined. The standard doesn't require that the article currently meets guidelines rather that it is "able to meet" and it was entirely valid for the participants to come to this conclusion. TerriersFan ( talk) 22:15, 30 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, there is absolutely no way that the discussion could be interpreted as a consensus to delete. Closer made the right call. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:31, 31 March 2013 (UTC). reply
• Endorse as plainly accurate reading of sound consensus. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 16:59, 31 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Gee, I was under the impression that AFD was not simply a count of votes, but a discussion on whether the article meets Wikipedia criteria. When I edit a deletion discussion, I see the text "Welcome to the deletion discussion for "article". All input is welcome, though valid arguments citing relevant guidelines will be given more weight than unsupported statements." I guess that is not correct, because I cited a bunch of relevant guidelines that would indicate that deletion was the correct action, and I did not make unsupported claims about an alleged "consensus" that goes against all guidelines, yet the AFD was closed as "keep" when the "keep" voters did not cite any guidelines and continually made unsupported claims about "consensus". -- Atlantima ( talk) 22:10, 2 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Its not a personal affront that your personal opinion is not prevailing.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I never said it was. I said that the deletion rules appear to have not been properly followed. Additionally, I don't think it's just my personal opinion that articles should follow guidelines.-- Atlantima ( talk) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse DrV is not AFD round 2.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 01:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I never said it was. I said that the deletion rules appear to have not been properly followed, which is why I brought it to deletion review. Please assume good faith.-- Atlantima ( talk) 12:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

I am assuming good faith. There was no way that AfD could have been closed differently. Also, I note a reasonable merge occurred after the AfD closed, so there's really no reason to have this DrV even if outcome was in question.-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 13:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Per WP:NOTLAW, "Disagreements are resolved through consensus-based discussion, not by tightly sticking to rules and procedures." And the consensus was to keep. Warden ( talk) 09:40, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse keep (though it's merged now, which is also ok). Absolutely no way any admin could look at that debate and close as "delete". Besides, through literally years of precedent virtually no high schools are ever outright deleted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:05, 6 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Organizations of The Elder Scrolls ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This one really wasn't given a fair chance. One user said that it "Seems like the definition of gamecruft to me", apparently ignoring the fact that there was moderately detailed, sourced analysis of the development of the concept, its significance within the game and reviewers' responses to it. Another user claimed that the aspect is "Not a unique or truly notable part of the games"; the cited sources beg to differ, considering it at length. A designer of one of the games called the faction element " Huge part of the game, huge ... we’ve made that a big part of it." Another user clearly hadn't even looked at the article when (s)he declared ""List of characters" articles are usually notable, but not merely races". This was significantly more than a mere list of factions (and was never a list of races...), and, if recreated, I'd be happy to trim it down a little, as I appreciate that the topic does have a tendency to attract crufty detail. The OR-y paragraphs at the start of each game's section could probably go. That does not mean, of course, that the topic as a whole is not worthy of an article. J Milburn ( talk) 10:56, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

This can probably be closed, I've reopened the AfD. J04n( talk page) 14:09, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply

British Rail Class 68 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Information from official sources and reliable third party sources has since confirmed the claimed name "Class 68". Extra information is also available, including a reliable source reporting that the specifications of the Class 68 are different to the standard Vossloh Eurolight. DRV is being proposed rather than simply creating a new article to avoid CSD G4. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Question Are the sources you are asserting those currently referencing the section in the Vossloh Eurolight article? DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Yes. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Usery and close don't see what there is for DRV to review. The initial problem of verification of the classification looks like was resolved during the XFD, the outstanding issue of if there is enough information to build a standalone article seems to be an editorial one. The discussion on the current article talk pages seems to mainly be wanting the original article back, which the original deleting admin offered to usefy on request in their close. The nom should simply ask the admin to userfy it, fix the problems, agree in the current discussion, then move it back into place (or have an admin do it since the redirect will be in the way). -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 07:31, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • As stated, the DRV is to avoid a potential CSD G4. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Well I don't see that can be done without seeing an improved article rather than a vague assertion. Get it userfied, improve it, then bring it back for review if it pleases you. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 16:35, 1 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• leaning endorse, at least for now. At any rate it's not going to hurt to leave things in the current state of a redirect to a short section in the article for the manufacturer's classname. I gather that part of the problem is that this is a bit WP:CRYSTALline since these locomotives aren't scheduled to be delivered for six months or so. If that section expands to the point where it's out of proportion to the rest of the article, then a split-out can be justified. But considering that the British subclass is, according to the article, the only one being manufactured for service, it's hard for me to see a split at this time. Mangoe ( talk) 11:20, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • This incorrect. These locomotives are not the only ones being manufactured. The standard Vossloh Eurolight is already operating in mainland Europe. There is no crystal ballery on the Class 68 as all relevant facts are referenced with reliable third party sources. As stated and as cited in the article, the technical specifications of the standard Eurolight and the UKLight/Class 68 are different. Zombie Aardvark ( talk) 01:00, 29 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I'm not seeing evidence of any beyond the British sales, but no doubt you will enlighten me if there be others. Still, we're talking about a section of the main article that is composed of seven short sentences. I'm not seeing the compelling need for anything beyond a redirect now, though of course matters may change. Mangoe ( talk) 12:48, 30 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The name issue has been resolved, but the other main issue at the AFD was that the article was too short to justify a separate page. If the editors can create a new page with expanded content and more references then CSD G4 will no longer apply. If they cannot, it is not for DRV to overturn the original decision. Spinning Spark 10:14, 4 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Arin Hanson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I have found at least two reliable sources that give him significant coverage in the form of an interview. [3] and [4] I have tried convincing the closing administrator on his talk page but failed. [5] Note that in the AFD no one mentioned any sources, just said other things. Dream Focus 02:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse extremely non-RS-looking blog interview isn't enough to overturn AFD consensus, especially not one that ran 2 weeks and was overrun with socks. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 02:55, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per my rationale in my talk page, Dream Focus should know better. Sock/meat infected AFD in which none of the them gave any policy based argument. Secret ^account 03:45, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  Whether someone socked or you just had fans of the guy coming over, can't tell. And there was a policy based argument in the form of him passing WP:ENT do his notable voice acting roles. The article had other proof of notability within it. [6] He also is mentioned in various reliable sources such as Screw Attack [7] and Joystiq.com [8]. He gets mentioned for his work in a print magazine GameAxis Unwired [9]. The article doesn't stop being notable because no one thought to point out the reliable sources in it giving him significant coverage. This article should be restored. Dream Focus 05:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  • Well Tokyogirl79 rationale explained the lack of reliable sources perfectly well including the ones that you mentioned. WP:ENT like WP:ATHLETE, etc.. is only for borderline cases, but it doesn't overrule WP:GNG Secret ^account 16:58, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

    • WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if it meets the general notability guideline below, and is not excluded under the What Wikipedia is not policy. A topic is also presumed notable if it meets the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right." And that box includes one for people, which has the section for entertainers on that page. WP:ENT Dream Focus 17:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

    If gamer blogs are your idea of a reliable source, especially on something as sensitive as a BLP, you need to seriously rethink your participation on Wikipedia. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

    • Which references are you referring to? Screw Attack is a reliable source, and has a show called MAGFest XI which featured him. [10] Do you not consider that significant coverage in a reliable source? What about the rest of them? Dream Focus 18:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

      • I think I've made my position very clear, but if you absolutely insist: ScrewAttack (and similar blogs) would be a questionable source even for simple, non-controversial information like what colour a particular video game's cover art is. For biographical information about a living person who could potentially sue for libel, it's totally unacceptable as a source. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 05:02, 5 April 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse p b p 15:33, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review; altho a BLP, I see no harmful content that would prevent this. DGG ( talk ) 22:22, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - obviously a significant portion of the last half of the discussion was an ongoing conversation between me and another editor. We civilly (I think) agreed to disagree, but I stand by my opinion of the sources at that point and DRV isn't AFD, round 2 anyway. I think what is being asked here is whether, a short time after an AFD, the article can be recreated if new sources have come to light. I'm not sure I'd be happy to concur with recreation this soon after an AFD on the basis of the sources provided above. The screw attack source is an interview with the subject, something I am regularly told should be considered a primary source. I'm not really sure about the Joystiq one that says the subject was the source. I suppose they might mean the video, but I can't see that the text would be considered "significant coverage" without it. But I did participate in the original AFD and I shouldn't get a chance to prosecute the case all over again and I won't. I think the close accurately reflects the consensus and on the question of recreation, I'd probably like to see some more substantive (new) sourcing first. Stalwart 111 01:21, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  If the AFD didn't bring up the specific reliable sources in the discussion, then it wasn't really considered. It shouldn't be about the AFD itself, but about here and now, look at the sources, and consider whether that is enough to prove notability. If it meets the notability requirements then it should be recreated. And interviews count for notability, you just can't trust the content from a primary source alone with some things, while its find to trust them for others. Someone claims in an interview they did something, they could be lying. But it still counts as significant coverage in a reliable source. How do you feel about the interview in Destructoid [11]? Dream Focus 04:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Well, the other editor and I discussed them in detail, in the context of inclusion criteria. The fact that neither of us posted specific links to specific sources doesn't mean they weren't discussed, nor does it make the discussion any less valid, in my opinion. But I appreciate where you're coming from and I have tried to address some of the specific sources here, given your suggestion that there might be some that weren't taken into account. For the record, those sources were in the list when this was being considered at AFD and most of them are purple links for me (as in, I did look at them before commenting at AFD or while my conversation with the other editor was ongoing). My problem with the Destructoid one is that I'm just not sure it's reliable. Sorry, but I have to question the editorial review process of a site that prints (word-for-word) suggestions from an interviewee that someone should lick his genitals. He calls another group of developers a "buncha C**TS". The profanity doesn't bother me in the slightest, but you have to question the editorial integrity of a interviewer whose technique is limited to one line prompters that illicit those responses and not much more in the way of substantive content. The intro is okay. Like I said, I'm uncomfortable allowing recreation if those are what is on offer in terms of new sources. Even less so given they were in the article previously and are not actually new. Stalwart 111 06:17, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• When asked about a show he was on, he said "The Tester can lick my nuts." If if its a reliable source, then you can't dismiss it simply because they published the answer the guy gave to a legitimate question. The interviewer isn't saying such things. Dream Focus 06:25, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Absolutely, I agree. But it also doesn't tell us much about the subject either. It's not exactly "significant coverage" if all we come away with at the end is that he thinks certain people should do certain things to his nuts. Yeah? I'm not dismissing it either, I just don't think it's particularly "significant coverage" (it's basically his opinion of certain things with a bit about some things he's been working on) and I have to question how reliable it is (1, as a partially primary source and 2, because of the editorial concerns I have). After all that, it's still probably one of the better sources we have so I don't hold out much hope. Stalwart 111 07:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Two blog interviews still aren't much. He still fails WP:N, and quite frankly possibly CSD A7. Revolution1221 ( talk) 21:05, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  Those aren't blogs interviewing him. The Destructoid article for example had an Associate Editor, a paid staff member, interview him. Dream Focus 22:08, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• ( edit conflict) Vacate  (1) Closer successfully prodded this article for deletion on 2009-12-01T14:10:32.  Therefore, closer is WP:INVOLVED.  (2) In this 2009 prodding, closer did not notify the article creator [12].  This shows disregard for the deletion process.  (3) In the recent closing, closer stipulates to "ignoring all these non-policy based WP:SPA accounts".  But AfD is not a vote count, and knowing that participants were ignored means that the close was not properly conducted.  IMO, those "non-policy based" !votes as a group show good understanding of policy.  For example, the third paragraph of WP:N shows that if a topic passes WP:ENT, the topic is wp:notable, whether or not it passes WP:GNG.  77.117.246.211 asks, "Isn't WP:ENT relevant for this article?" and never gets an answer.  The word "improve" was mentioned by many editors recommending "keep", and WP:IMPROVE is a policy.  (4) Closer salted the article without notice in the closing and against consensus (the one comment is, "But it would be silly to delete such an article and decree that it should never be created again ( WP:SALT)." [emphasis in the original]), see log.  (5) Closer does not rule regarding the suggestion to merge to (a new article?) Metal Gear Awesome.  (6) The final point I want to make in recommending a vacate is that the closer does not issue a ruling as to whether the deletion was based on notability or based on a content policy.  The nominator mentions BLP, and one of the deletes mentions the guideline WP:RS.  Tokyogirl seems to be looking for sources to satisfy WP:GNG, but in doing so talks about WP:RS.  99 edits were added to the article after the nominator expressed concern as to whether or not BLP was satisfied, and the issue never came up again.  And DGG has already advised above that the content is not so BLP "harmful" that we can't review it.  And again, WP:IMPROVE is a policy.  This is a critical point, because with so much attention being given to notability, the discussion doesn't seem to develop a consensus about deletion for content.

Additional notes:

• I see nothing to refute the claim that WP:ENT#2 is satisfied by two different criteria, and this establishes wp:notability even if WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:CREATIVE are not satisfied.
• The article was prodded for deletion seven minutes after creation, and nominated for deletion 29 minutes thereafter.
• 99 edits were added to the article between the time it was nominated and the time it was deleted. 
• 10 articles currently reference "Egoraptor". 

Unscintillating ( talk) 21:23, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• • With the WP:INVOLVED it doesn't make any sense, look at the article history, I prodded the article back in 2009, probably while in New Pages Patrol and was deleted soon after, so it never came up in the history that I originally prodded the page, how is that WP:INVOLVED? I don't know the subject area at all, and I just closed a debate by looking at the policy based commentating. Secret ^account 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Crunchyroll is a reliable source. They interviewed him also. [13] Dream Focus 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• The article changed greatly from the time the first people commented in it. Also, why dismiss all the Keeps? Can you prove these are all socks, and not just fans? The article had 13318 from the time it was nominated for deletion to the time it was deleted. Note that one of the Keep votes has a long edit history [14]. They should not have been discounted. Dream Focus 22:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Addressing why the "keeps" were discredited: I know Andrew said "socks", but I'm pretty sure we all knew it was meatpuppetry, hence {{ not a ballot}} being added. Those who don't have a firm grasp on Wikipedia policy or who submit shaky arguments don't really sway the discussion. If we go through them one by one...

• User:Jeran: His first edit in five years on a limited editing history, !voted keep but even admitted himself: "to really bring him to notable levels, more of his work that has gone outside of the internet should be considered, and added. I dont know how much there is, and if not enough can be found, then i would push for deletion". We can safely ignore this. Ignored: 1, Good: 0
• User:CardsOfTheHeart: Eh. Single purpose account, but made a decent argument and volunteered to re-do the article. The re-done version is the one that everybody on DRV is seeing when they look at the latest revision (well, before DGG's), and the current consensus isn't to overturn the AFD.
• User:66.229.185.4: Not policy based. And this was the IP's only edit, unless you count the one from 7 years ago. Another one of the "Keep, but improve" !votes that the single purpose accounts all used. Ignored. Ignored: 2, Good: 0, with CardsofTheHeart rewriting the article.
• User:SuperTiencha: Fair. Ignored: 2, Good: 1, with CardsofTheHeart rewriting the article.
• User:Danadewaal: Single purpose account that obviously doesn't have a firm grasp on Wikipedia policy. Ignored: 3, Good: 1, with CardsofTheHeart rewriting the article.

-- ikseevon ^{(T) (E)} 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Undelete if Dream Focus commits to working on it. The AfD was a bit messy. No criticism of the closer. Looking at the deleted article, it is not so unreasonable. This is a minor public figure, it has sources, and the subject has many existing mentions in other articles. The Section "Personal life", sourced solely from the subjects facebook page, has to go. Facebook should never be considered sufficiently reliable. An external link to the subject's facebook page would be bad enough, a citation to his facebook page, no. Suggest giving it a couple weeks before renominating at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Per SmokeyJoe's and and Unscintillating's sentiments, and though this is a little unorthodox, I'd be okay/!vote for the outcome of this DRV looking this:

• CardsOfTheHeart's version of the article being re-listed at AFD, with the stuff about Arin's personal life and other unnecessary/unsourced materials being removed and deleted from the history (essentially making it a new article by him/her and User:LinesToThePaper).
• None of the people participating in this DRV may participate in the new AFD. There's a lot of overlap between the people who !voted for deletion and are endorsing it here (and I'm one of them, as the nominator!), so perhaps that will give the Wikipedia community the final consensus necessary on whether this article is ready for inclusion.

-- ikseevon ^{(T) (E)} 01:16, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Neutral. I like the Destructoid source as far as crediting it as a RS goes, but the RPoncho source is of the nn blog variety and not really something we could use as far as sourcing goes. I agree that the Facebook link as a source should be removed, though. My biggest concern is that so much of the sources on the article are primary in one form or fashion. Egoraptor is a pretty busy guy when it comes to contributing/participating with various sites, which is double edged in that it means that coverage that would otherwise help show notability becomes a primary source sort of by default. To kind of help clear my head, I'm piling the sources into the following sections:

1. In-depth RS coverage: [15]
2. Trivial or semi-trivial RS coverage: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]
3. Debatable': [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]
4. Primary in some form or fashion: [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [ [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44]
5. Unusable: [45], [46], [47], [48]

The big issue here is that most of the coverage that's about him is so light. I would count the ScrewAttack article as a RS and I definitely count his time as a contestant on The Tester towards notability, but the big issue here is that most of the coverage of his webseries has been trivial or semi-trivial in tone. The stuff I put in "trivial" were the mentions that were under a paragraph or only had him mentioned once. The stuff I put in debatable could work towards notability. I'm mixed on the SA entry that showed him hosting an hour long panel discussion, as that's sort of just a rehosting of a video. That he was asked to host a panel is good, although some might be able to argue that it's not that difficult to get a panel. Being guests at cons and/or hosting panels are sort of a grey area as far as notability goes because while some conventions are harder to get into as a guest (Anime Expo), others will invite a wider variety of people in order to fill space. I put the CrunchyRoll link as debatable because while it is hosted on CR, that doesn't automatically make it a RS and I'd have to know more about the backgrounds of the people who made the movie and such before considering it a RS. The articles that are in-depth about his time on Tester are debatable because by all accounts he was a memorable enough guy on the show while he was on it, but the trouble is that the show never really got that much visibility. It's not exactly on the same lines as the slightly more known shows such as King of The Nerds. There were a lot of primary sources, which are invalid as far as showing notability goes. The ones that definitely need to go are the unusable ones such as the facebook link, the YT video search, and the link to a YT video taken by a random congoer at an AX panel. It shows that he was there as a panel guest, but it's something that's of such dubious usability that I'd recommend not using it at all.

Sorry for this going on so long, but the other issue here is that at times some of the content feels slightly like a fan page rather than a Wikipedia entry. I know that this wasn't DF's intent, but we don't really need some of the extra content such as Hayder commenting on the MGA series or the tweet about the show, among some of the other stuff. It's interesting, but we've got to remember that we have to think about what will ultimately need to be remembered years down the road. Assuming we keep the article it's important to note that Hanson was on the show and that he created MGA, but it's not really all that important to note each person's reaction to it, especially if the sources for these things are relatively dubious or somewhat unusable in nature. The other thing to remember is that while this stuff might be interesting, it can also keep a page from being taken seriously, which is why I kind of hesitate at including a lot of extraneous information- especially if it's something that will often be debated like Hanson. Some of it would be interesting to add at some point, but only if we can get some better sourcing for it. In the end I'm neutral over this. I don't necessarily think that this is ready for the mainspace again just yet, but I can't deny that Hanson is popular and has a decent fan following. I'd like to say that this should be re-added, but he falls ever so slightly short of notability guidelines. There's coverage, but it's mostly trivial. I guess I'd say userfy it for a few more months and see if anything else comes out about him? If we had just one or two more in-depth interviews or articles about him and his work in sources that were undeniably notable (such as GameSpot, EGM, or GamePro), then I'd say it should be kept. I won't argue if it does get re-added, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 04:11, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

All that matters as he got significant coverage in reliable sources. It doesn't matter what you think about the show he was on, or whatnot. Whether something is remembered years down the road or not is not relevant, nor has it ever been. Otherwise 90% of Wikipedia articles are debatable. Actors and musicians are interviewed on talk shows, and that counts towards their notability, even if the interviewer only asks them about their latest movie or album, without a lot of detail about themselves. The fact is, reliable sources gave them significant coverage. Dream Focus 05:56, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• The founder of Wikipedia helped clarify this. [ [49]]. Interviews with someone about themselves or something they created count towards notability, it a secondary source in that case, not a primary one you can just discount towards notability. We have enough reliable sources that interview the guy, to thus prove he is notable. Dream Focus 18:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

With all due respect to Mr Wales, long-established community consensus seems to be that interviews (as primary sources not independent of the subject) are not sufficient for establishing notability ( this recent AFD being one example of such a consensus in practice where I originally argued otherwise). Mr Wales is not a Chief Arbitrator of Content, nor of Policy. His opinion is respected but it carries no more weight (as I understand it) than anyone else's. Of course, consensus can change, but I'm not sure it has and opinion from on high doesn't really change that. Otherwise I'll take the opportunity to un-userfy Villemin's article, too, plus about a dozen others. Stalwart 111 23:55, 27 March 2013 (UTC) reply

It's also worth noting that Dream Focus has attempted to make that change to WP:PEOPLE [50], and it was reverted within a couple minutes because it's a change that has not been properly discussed [51]. The current discussion at User talk:Jimbo Wales and Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) does not seem in his favor, and Mr. Wales comment, in the first place, didn't exactly draw a clear line between interviews and notability. -- ikseevon ^{(T) (E)} 01:17, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I assumed it was worked out, but some disagreed. I have been in dozens if not hundreds of AFDs where interviews with the person counted towards their notability. Its just strange how suddenly after years of that being considered common sense, now some are arguing that it isn't. Dream Focus 01:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I think the value of an interview to WP:N depends on the interviewer, where published/broadcast, and the subject covered by the interview (about himself, or something else). It's complicated. Non-notable people don't get formally interviewed. Or was it promotion? In any case, these are questions for AfD not DRV. Let the article stabilise and then get retested at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

@ Dream Focus, your WP:BATTLEFIELD mentality, trying to change policy, and canvassing just because you didn't like a deletion debate is starting to get tiring here. Secret ^account 05:24, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

That's not what's going on here. I am simply confirming that interviews prove someone notable, as it has in countless AFDs over the years I've been at Wikipedia. If things were written specifically one way or the other in the guideline pages, then we wouldn't have this problem. Dream Focus 09:59, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment: For the record, I just noted that Arin Hanson is listed on WP:TOPRED this week, a page which tracks the most popular redlinks on Wikipedia on a weekly basis. However, almost all the hits came on March 13, while the AfD was pending [52].-- Milowent • ^{has spoken} 18:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I wouldn't see that as making any difference. Looking at WP:TOPRED, I don't see anything even in the top 10 that might make a valid article, it's mostly random searches that suggest that a lot of people think Wikipedia is some sort of yellow pages search: "18k Gold Watch", "New Jersey Photographer" and "Florida Mitzvah Disc Jockey" are all in the top 10. TOPRED might have other uses, but fishing for needed articles doesn't appear to be one of them. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 14:10, 3 April 2013 (UTC) reply

Indians-Tigers rivalry ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted almost 2 months ago and although I can't view the article anymore to verify overall quality, based on the discussion it seems like there was definitely enough policy based reasoning to have resulted in a relist or no consensus. The debate seemed to hinder upon the interpretation of what a rivalry is, with some people claiming there needs to be more of a serious documented history and the others saying that there is enough sourced notability to allow for a possible article. Other notes include, that it was a flat delete with no explanation, and one user, Ultimahero, appears to have "voted" twice. RoadView ( talk) 06:17, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Additional Comment - Now that the article has been temporarily restored, I can see that it was definitely lacking. However, based on the afd discussion, I still lean towards the result being no consensus or further relist as the sources provided were not legitimately invalidated in my opinion. But I'll live if this one is destined to stay deleted. - RoadView ( talk) 14:02, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - arguments in favour of keeping the article had little or no basis in policy and generally just argue that the two teams are rivals. The double !vote from Ultimahero didn't affect the outcome in my view. -- Michig ( talk) 07:33, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 20:01, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse see WP:NRIVALRY: "Sports rivalries are not inherently notable." No serious problems with the debate, although it's correct one guy did vote twice. Many of the keep votes failed to make their case or presented a total unfamiliarity with Wikipedia (or both), for example one guy just said they "play in the same division 18 times a year so it is a legit rivalry". It was even relisted once and if anything after the relist consensus was even more clear. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:39, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - all of the delete arguments are along the lines of "I just don't feel it's notable". While some of the keeps are "I feel it's notable", PortlandOregon97217 shows that it meets WP:N. There's no way an even headcount + all the policy/arguments on the side of keeping can be closed as delete. Wily D 15:16, 24 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse without prejudice to recreation  DRV reviewers must analyze the closing to determine what it means.  Statements in the article such as "The rivalry was intense in the 1940's and the 1950's" that have no citation could be WP:OR, so I would expect that this article was deleted and properly so because of WP:V (although it was WP:NOR that was argued in the AfD).  The message for article creators is to create articles that from the start have inline citations that satisfy WP:V.  What about the notability of the topic?  WP:NRIVALRY makes things simple by pointing to WP:GNG.  Yet we see arguments like, "Hardly outrage, like we would expect from a notable rivalry."  "Outrage" is not a word that can be found in WP:GNG.  Likewise, "No one outside the fan bases cares" is not a WP:GNG argument.  Then there are !votes with zero weight, such as, "Definitely not notable enough for its own article".  Ten sources listed in the below comment refute the claim, "Sources that describe the two teams as long-time rivals just aren't there."  None of the !votes arguing against notability provide evidence that searches for reliable sources turned up empty.  There are similar problems with four invalid keep arguments, but there are also four valid notability keep arguments.  With a clear delete outcome and relatively few policy-based notability !votes, the closer may have wanted to avoid the notability issue.  No one mentioned potential redirect targets, but where would editors point the redirect if one existed?  As for the objection to the title of this article, I don't personally see the problem, and we already have precedent at Brewers-Cubs rivalry.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment  List of references mentioned in the AfD, plus one book reference:

• [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61]
• Jason Porterfield (2009). Baseball in the American League Central Division. The Rosen Publishing Group. ISBN  978-1-4358-5042-2. Retrieved 2013-03-24. The rivalry developed during the 1920s, 1930s, and 1940s, as both teams enjoyed success, including winning world championships. The rivalry has intensified in recent years, with both the Tigers and Indians becoming competitive once again...

Unscintillating ( talk) 01:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I really don't understand where WilyD overturn argument comes from as Ultimahero made a reasonable case that all those sources are simply trivial mentions and thus successfully rebutted. I don't see anything that indicates a consensus change. Secret ^account 02:11, 25 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Nothing wrong in how the closer interpreted the consensus of the discussion. Nothing more needs to be analyzed. Tarc ( talk) 15:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to History of the American League, and encourage merging. Individual historic rivalries are a bad way to organise material. By focusing directly on specific rivalries, the page is drawn into WP:OR, constructing material from the original news stories (now primary sources), and lacking context or historical perspective. I imagine that coverage of the historical rivalries within the affiliated sport governing body could make for very suitable and interesting material, if placed in the context and perspective of all the teams and rivalries collectively. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:33, 26 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Christmas in Spiceworld ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was previously deleted in a July 2008 AFD and turned into a protected redirect. In November 2009, a new article was created at a different title to subvert the protection. That article has existed since then. While patrolling CAT:CSD today, I saw a request to delete the former redirect and move this article back to its original title. When I did so, I saw the deleted revisions and saw that the new article obviously started out as an unattributed copy/paste of the old one ( see comparison) and so I restored the old revisions for the sake of having the full history.

Obviously, though, the fact remains that the last time there was a discussion about this article, the decision was to delete it and the article in its current state is even less of a quality encyclopedia article than the one that was deleted in 2008. So I'm not comfortable with just leaving it there without some sort of discussion overturning the previous AFD. I'm not especially looking for an "endorse" or "overturn" since there isn't really anything to "endorse" or "overturn" - maybe a relist, re-delete, or leave as is. Thanks. -- B ( talk) 03:35, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

DRV is not the right place for this. If it's been changed, it's not G4-able, so if you want it deleted, send it back to AfD. Jclemens ( talk) 04:19, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Well, it is deletable under G4. So pretend I had deleted it under G4 and that decision is being reviewed. -- B ( talk) 04:39, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

(As the one who requested the above), I hadn't noticed the article's history. I really don't have time now (as I have to write an essay for school that I have been putting off all week), but I'll try to expand it more later. As a reunion tour of sorts for the group, who lost a member in the middle of their last tour, I'd say that it would hold enough notability for its own article.  —  Statυs ( talk, contribs) 04:45, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Send to AfD to establish a fresh consensus; the original AfD is nearly five years old, had only four participants, and was closed as redirect (implemented as delete and redirect). I would have supported a timely G4 on the January 2009 version, as the main differences were a paragraph on stage design and formatting the tour schedule into a table – nothing to do with notability, the AfD's main concern. The January 2009 version fails to mention Geri Halliwell's absence. Thanks for recognizing and fixing the cut-and-paste move and restoring the old revisions (the General information sections look similar in my diff). Flatscan ( talk) 05:29, 22 March 2013 (UTC) reply

File:Lincoln Bank Tower.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Was no consensus to delete. Davodd ( talk) 04:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - a photo of a groundbreaking ceremony might be important to a reader's understanding, but if that's the case here, I don't see how. Certainly, no one has made the case. Wily D 10:31, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Straightforward application of NFCC. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 10:46, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close but not the closing rationale. "Images can only be used under a claim of fair use if they are essential to the user's understanding of a topic" is a considerable mis-statement of policy. The actual criterion is at WP:NFCC#8. Thincat ( talk) 11:02, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• For those reviewing this, here is the diff where I removed the image from the article so you can see how it was used. Neither the image nor even the event it depicts were even mentioned in text is usually a good sign that it's not increasing a user's understanding of that text. Note that the original source for the image is here (if that link doesn't work, go to [62], and search for 00004632). It is distinctly possible that the image is public domain and if you are interested in retaining it, it couldn't hurt to call or email the library and ask if they can tell you anything about the copyright status. If the library themselves is the actual copyright holder (which their page seems to be claiming, though you never know just from reading these things - a lot of libraries claim to be the copyright holder any time they have a physical image), you could ask them if they would be willing to release it under an acceptable license. -- B ( talk) 12:25, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'm also going to endorse the close (the statement that this image - which wasn't of "the construction of a building", which might be defensible, but of men standing around a hole in the ground - doesn't help understand the subject is hardly bizarre) while repudiating the closing statement. Closing a deletion debate with an extended statement that summarizes the consensus is a best practice. Closing a deletion debate with an extended statement that introduces a new argument for deletion is a supervote, and patently unfair since there's no opportunity to rebut the argument. If the image was a speedy candidate, then B should have said so; otherwise, "The result of the discussion was: '''deleted''' ~~~~" would have been a better close. If you really think another administrator might close a debate differently than how you'd like, or that closing it that way doesn't seem quite justified without some more reasons, then the right course of action is to add a statement to it, not to try to jump on it first. (Plus, what Thincat said.) 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 15:00, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just to clarify here, if you look at the dates, I closed this IFD a month after it was opened. I was hardly trying to jump right in there and impose my own view. There was a massive backlog of IFD nominations - see here for what it looked like at the time and I was processing that backlog. While I certainly agree with you that I should not introduce a new argument in closing, I did not view it as introducing a new argument - I viewed it as explaining (in my own, admittedly flawed words) what the person nominating it for deletion was saying and why I accepted that nominating statement over the view of the person seeking to keep the image. If, by the way, any admins would like to help out at IFD, there is a much smaller backlog there, but the vast majority of the nominations that haven't been closed are ones that I am unable to close because I have participated in the discussion. -- B ( talk) 15:51, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I don't know how I missed the change of month between Stefan2/Davodd's remarks and the close; I apologize, and have struck that part of my comment above. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 16:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
      • No problem. -- B ( talk) 18:38, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• endorse There is a definite bad pattern of inadequate/misleading rationales in image deletions, but there's no point in running this around again when the closing remarks show that the situation was accurately assessed. There's no mention of anything remarkable about the groundbreaking ceremony, and thus no reason to suppose that the image tells us something above and beyond the text. Mangoe ( talk) 15:54, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Inadequate yes, but misleading? A problem is that FFD conflates "crap to delete" nominations with serious discussions. 95% of the images listed there are orphaned images that have no encyclopedic use. The problem with listing everything together is that they drown out the other 5%. With some images, there is a legitimate discussion to be had, or, at least, a need for a good explanation to be given to someone not intimately familiar with our fair use practices, but when those few nominations get lost in the midst of the mass nominations of useless stuff. If I had my druthers, we would split IFD into two separate categories - one for "orphaned images with no apparent use in a current article" and one for everything else. That way, the "everything else" category can get the attention it deserves. -- B ( talk) 18:37, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • I suppose in the end it doesn't matter when most everything that comes through here gets deleted no matter what the rationale is. But I find that some non-trivial portion of the time, "unencyclopedic" means that the nominator apparently did no research on an image other than determining that it was orphaned. I find a lot of these images were of people whose articles were deleted for lack of notability; I also find images which were obviously intended for specific articles but were never referenced, for whatever reason. It takes me five minutes or so to do the most basic checks, and when I discard all the logos and album covers (I just assume they're all non-free) it's not that much work. Of course when people label logos and album covers "unencyclopedic" I waste time looking at them. It would save a lot of time just to give some idea in the nomination of what it's a picture of. I suppose it depends a lot on whether you think it's worth it to sift through the trash, but then the people who do mass runs of nominations here apparently have more expansive ideas of what is trash than I do. Mangoe ( talk) 20:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Our page should be undeleted because INgrooves (parent company- Isolation Network, Inc.)is a legitimate corporation. We are a 150+ person music distribution company with offices all over the world. We do not use Wikipedia for advertising or promotion so it should not have been deleted in the first place. If you would like more info on our company, you can visit our website. www.ingroovesfontana.com. I already reached out to the person who deleted our page, RHaworth, via his Talk page, however he just referred me to deletion review. 38.111.144.18 ( talk) 00:26, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily restored this for the purposes of deletion review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:13, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Note: Its appears that there was previously some sourcing that would have protected this against A7 but this was removed on 15 March 2012. The articles was extensively reworked by a user blocked as a spammer and probably got deleted in the cleanup. [63]. I was therefore going to undelete it by fiat but then a I noticed that the user who removed the links was the nominator who self declares as the company. So this looks like COI/spam and the sources were barely adequate. I'm not therefore prepared to assist and endorse the deletion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• I don't have time right now to look through the entire history for the best revision, but the one before the edit Spartaz links just above looks a whole lot less like a G11 candidate than either the one after it or the state the article was in when it was deleted. (Nauseating that that was never reverted.) 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 02:32, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - references are sufficient to form a claim of significance. G11 claim is laughably bad - only the sentence beginning "The Company’s proprietary ONE Digital enterprise ..." is at all problematic, and that's more obtuse jargon that requires a copyedit than something that requires a fundamental rewrite. Wily D 10:28, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and undelete The situation is sufficiently problematic that speedy deletion is not appropriate. Any deletion should only be after discussion. Thincat ( talk) 11:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn - technically not a great SD. But I strongly suspect this would struggle to survive an AFD nom. The "keep rationale" provided in this DRV (along with the obvious COI) wouldn't make for much of a case. Are we providing false hope by undeleting for the sake of a 7-day afterlife? Stalwart 111 12:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I see a Forbes article [64] and various info on the parent company re financing in places like Variety which make it clear there's no real notability problem. Mangoe ( talk) 15:43, 21 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I am not sure it's notable, but that's for AfD to determine. It was deleted as G11, entirely promotional, and it is not overly promotional: it just needs a few words deleted. Now, I am advocating that we set a high bar at AfD for somewhat-promotional borderline-notable organizations, rather than try to fix them. But this decision has to be made at afd; it should not be made by an individual administrator. I say this especially strongly, because I have come to learn that my judgment for what articles of this class should be kept or deleted does not always match the community decision: a fair number of AfD of this sort that I nominate at AfD are not deleted. This decision is not one for speedy DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 23 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Yale College Democrats ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The Yale Dems page was recently swiftly recommended as an AfD with questionable evidence for deletion. I respectfully ask that this decision be overturned for the following reasons.

On notability, the original request by GrapedApe for deletion claims the page has no original notability and inherits its notability from both the University and the CDA. However, as the 37 sources (local, state, and national) testify, the organization has "significant coverage" as outlined in Wikipedia:Notability and independent of both organizations.

On the redirect to College Democrats of America, the Yale College Democrats is not officially linked to the CDA, and thus a redirect would be misleading. There is substantial information within the Yale Dems page that cannot be replicated on the CDA page, as the deletion discussion group promised.

On the overall deletion discussion, the original request was made as a sweep of AfDs by GrapedApe that resulted in the elimination of several liberal college groups from Wikipedia (See: Harvard College Democrats, Texas College Democrats, Notre Dame Queer Film Festival, Bruin Democrats, all recommended for deletion by GrapedApe) while adding content to conservative groups (See: Republican Party (United States), List of chairpersons of the College Republicans). The user's nomination was then approved largely on the argumentation from User:RightCowLeftCoast, whose profile claims the user "recognizes that many articles on Wikipedia have liberal bias and understand that other editors may attempt to protect that bias, even if it is against the pillar neutrality."

The page warrants an objective debate over deletion, and I respectfully request that administrators reconsider the merits of this much-frequented page on Wikipedia. Tsblackmon ( talk) 18:44, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I have notified the editors involved in the original Afd at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yale College Democrats. I don't monitor RCLC's contribution history, but I have noticed that he/she has !voted redirect for various articles on conservative candidates, too. I don't want to "out" User:Tsblackmon with publicly available information, but it does appear that he should disclose a COI. Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies) may be relevant here. Otherwise, I have no strong opinion on this. Location ( talk) 19:15, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict)I was informed of this DR here.

Please make arguements on the basis of policies, not on the basis of who commented. I have been involved in a number of AfDs, including those that are about College Republican organizations, that I have supported a redirect, so this has nothing to with the fact that this group is a Democrat group.

Also please look at WP:ORG#Local units of larger organizations, the organization has received significant coverage, which my opinion does state, however the vast majority and weight of that coverage is from that group's local area. Coverage that originates outside of that local area is at best passing mention, and IMHO does not (in total) add up to significant coverage of the organization. This is the primary reasoning for the redirect.

If the organization is independent of, is not part of of the group, who is the subject of College Democrats article, than that article may need to be renamed or reworded to reflect that there are different College Democrat organizations. In doing so a section about the Yale Democrats can be included in such a reworded article. Another possibility is that the organization, being part of Yale University, could have a section on that article page.

If the subject of this AfD is independent of Yale University, then it is an independent organization, and not a constituent of a larger organization, and then the AfD should be reconsidered as then it's notability will have to be determined differently against a stand-alone WP:ORG review, which it would pass.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 19:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

As RightCow admits, this comes down to a question of degree. Having established that the page should not be a subsidiary of the CDA, we should now compare the notability of this page with other pages within the Yale affiliation in order to establish a degree of notability appropriate for retention/deletion. For context, see Eliezer Society, Yale Model Congress, Mixed Company of Yale, Just Add Water (improv troupe), Purple Crayon, Exit Players, Red Hot Poker, and Afro-American Cultural Center at Yale (to name a few), all of which display significantly less notability and external references under WP:ORG than the page in question. If we are to assume that the dozens of Yale-affiliated pages with independent Wikipedia pages in List of Yale University student organizations stand up to this test, a page for the more notable Yale College Democrats must, by definition, warrant a separate page. Tsblackmon ( talk) 20:19, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close but allow the redirect to be changed as normal (redirect targets aren't binding). On Wikipedia, we assume good faith of others and nakedly accusing editors of political bias without proof isn't acceptable. Besides, very few student groups at a single school are notable enough for individual articles. With the nominator wanting deletion and two people saying to redirect, there's absolutely no way the debate possibly could have been closed as 'keep'. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:51, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. There seem to be COI's all over the place here, and I want to make it clear that I find it very uncomfortable that such mudslinging is happening on this page. However, I must reluctantly endorse an overturn here. I have looked over both the original AFD discussion and the List of Yale University student organizations referenced above. It seems the original discussion did not take into account the relative notability of the original page, which seems to be the crux of the problem. In comparison to the other organizations listed, this page has several more verifiable references. I disagree wholeheartedly with the tactics, but I must endorse the end result, overturning deletion.-- WhizKid462 ( talk) 21:17, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Having a political interest is not really a conflict of interest, especially in this instance where politics wasn't even mentioned in the AFD. Being an elected official responsible for promoting an organisation while editing the article for that organisation here, however, is a very obvious conflict of interest. But you should feel free to explain what prompted you to come here and lodge an WP:OSE !vote using an account that hasn't edited since January 2009. Stalwart 111 00:56, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close and refer obvious conflict of interest to WP:COIN. That creating a page for your association is/was a requirement of your elected role is of no interest to editors here. You are clearly WP:NOTHERE to build Wikipedia but to promote your organisation (see WP:PROMO and WP:NOBLE). The AFD had nothing to do with politics - RCLC made an argument that referenced WP policy and that view was endorsed by another editor and not disputed by the nominator. There were literally no editors that argued keep, despite the attempts immediately afterward to edit-war the article back into existence by reverting the redirect. Having editors who have not contributed here since 2009 suddenly show up to comment at DRV speaks volumes (see WP:MEAT). We absolutely should not, "now compare the notability of this page with other pages", because, 1. WP:OSE and 2. DRV is not AFD, round two. Suggest if you want to recreate the article, that you do so in your own userspace (at, say, User:Tsblackmon/Yale College Democrats draft) and then return here to ask exactly that. You would need to demonstrate notability (not just with comparisons to other articles) and substantiate that it is not simply an exact recreation of a previously AFD-deleted article. And you would obviously need to address your conflict of interest, too. As for the close - not the greatest of WP:NACs but, again, there was not a single dissenting opinion. Stalwart 111 00:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse AFD was proper, redirect rationale was legit, and those making allegations of political bias should meet kettle.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 02:01, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• CommentThe implication of political bias by me is especially stupid allegation by Tsblackmon, since I AFD'd or PROD'd all local chapters of College Democrats and College Republicans. Like this, this, and this.-- GrapedApe ( talk) 01:52, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse A review of the original article in the history shows how little noteworthy content there was. The first paat gives a list of routine political club activity and a list of the notable people who have spoken at their meetings, and seems to take direct responsibility for the club for the enactment of major legislation. the second part list the candidates they campaigned for. The third talks about the tragic death of the former club president. None of this is worth an encyclopedia article. It is possible for a political clib at a university like Yale to be notable, but there is no evidence for it. Some of the other Yale organization listed here are distinctive to Yale, or otherwise of historical or current importance. DGG ( talk ) 03:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Predators Watch ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

No delete votes at all and no good policy reason for deleting it. Talked with administrator already. Article has references. MarioNovi ( talk) 04:37, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Userify if someone wants to develop the article. There's some very recent press coverage which might support notability. [65] [66] [67] [68] "Potential Prostitutes" could only be included if there are reliable sources that the sites are operated by the same organisation – I have only found bloggy stuff about the connection. [69] The AfD looks like "no consensus" to me but if I saw the article and its references I might accept "delete" as being within discretion. Thincat ( talk) 10:26, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• I've looked at the article, and I think the nominator's concerns were justified. The sources cited by the article either mentioned the subject only in passing or were unreliable scam report sites and forums. There was no rebuttal to these concerns in the AfD despite two relistings. Endorse the AfD closure, but if there are any other sources on the topic (Thincat's sources were not in the article at the time of deletion) then userfication may be acceptable. Hut 8.5 12:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I put in real coverage like boingboing and others I can not see now because it is deleted. There was real coverage but there was a lot of old blogs I did not remove because I think it is bad remove sources during AFD correct? Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • The presence of blogs or other unreliable sources isn't a problem. The problem is that there was no coverage in reliable sources to make up for it. Our general notability guideline says that a topic is notable if it has significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. The article at the time of deletion did not contain evidence that this standard was met - all the sources cited were either not reliable or didn't constitute significant coverage. The boingboing link is a case in point: even if we consider boingboing to be a reliable source (since it is a blog I don't think we can), it still wasn't significant coverage of the article subject, because all it said about Predators Watch was Along with Predators Watch, a nearly-identical sister site aimed at "potential" sex predators.... Hut 8.5 20:20, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• I don't consider userfy to be an appropriate solution, as the article is riddled with BLP violations to the point of being compromising to its entire existence. Moving a BLP violation from mainspace to userspace doesn't make it any less of a BLP violation. Daniel ( talk) 14:18, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

In that case the present material should not be salvaged. However, neither the AfD nor the later discussion even hinted at BLP in any way. There might be no need for a satisfactory article to mention any individual person at all. Thincat ( talk) 16:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

There was no BLP issue article did not even have names except when vandal put it in. Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 19:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse As original nominator. The article wasn't taken to AFD because of BLP issues, it was taken to AFD because it was not notable. The BLP issues were resolved after they were reported via OTRS, although obviously the coatrack remained. All the additional sourcing added to it while the AFD was in progress referred to another website, called "Potential Prostitutes", and I did mention that I wouldn't be averse to redirecting this article to that one, had it existed, since it does seem to have received coverage, and it's operated by the same people and/or company. I would also be against userify, since that brings back the coatrack. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:28, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I did not move it to Potential Prostitutes because I think you can't move while it is at AFD. Can we restore to Potential Prostitutes? Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 05:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

And that's fine, but my entire point was that there should be an article about "Potential Prostitutes", but not about this one, because it's not notable at all. In fact, if this is undeleted then it could be immediately moved to that title, leaving the redirect behind. Which is another thing I said could be done. Instead of filing a DRV, you should have asked the closing admin for the text, and used it to source the new one. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 20:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I am sorry I do not know all procedures here yet. I thought that the closing administrator would have read the whole AFD and if he thought it was possible he would say he can do it. If we can do that that is fine too obviously. Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 20:43, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

You can ask the admin for the text in question (you can ask any admin, but ideally it will be the one that closed the AFD), and then start the other article. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 00:26, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

He comment above and it seems that he does not want to do it, yes? Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 06:25, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Permit recreation., The references since the AfD are sufficient to justify an article, and to justify it under the present title. there could be a separate one for Potential prostitutes, or one article with a redirect since mush of the content will be similar. DGG ( talk ) 17:08, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • May I work from the old version of th article to recreate it? Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 19:18, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted. The subject has serious problems. Negative BLP issues. Neologism. The only sources are sensationalist news stories. Coatrack dangers. I don't see this being capable of being a suitable article until there are sources that can be described as serious and academic. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I am confused is there a way to see the article still? Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 06:24, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Administrators can see deleted articles. -- B ( talk) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I have chosen not to undelete the article, because it raises serious conserns. If you want to see it, Ican email it to you, if you activate your email from your user preferences. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I see. It does not look like SmokeyJoe is an administrator so how does he still see it? Another way? Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 05:19, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I have not seen the article. I could not find a google cache version. My !vote was based on the nomination here, the AfD, the references listed by Thincat above, the links at AfD, the closer's closing statement, and my own google searching. I see that the page was categorised under vigilantism and activism (a WP:NOTADVOCACY redflag) and I could find no evidence of historical significance. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 17:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - the only reliable sources in the article don't even mention this site. -- B ( talk) 14:36, 18 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I'd be extremely leery of anything in this topic area, especially "editors" who seem fervent in the defense. The "sister site" about prostitutes was discussed on the Wikipediocracy awhile ago regarding potential BLP nightmares, but the site itself is a hoax and a front for escort services. Would rather not see an encyclopedia serve as advertising for a non-notable, illegitimate business. Tarc ( talk) 13:59, 19 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Do you have a source for what you say? Thank you, MarioNovi ( talk) 07:11, 20 March 2013 (UTC) reply

The Dating Guy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is a request to create a redirect (to marblemedia), not a request to restore the article. This redirect should be created for the following reasons:

• WP:CON has previously been established in an extremely similar case at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2013 January 25#Futz!. In that case, the WP:CON in the deletion discussion was far stronger, with multiple requests for WP:SALT, yet the community decided that the redirect should stay. A different decision here would be inconsistent with that one.
• This is the only Teletoon Original Production (currently out of 83!) with a WP:RED. This is also inconsistent.
• Per WP:DRV: "1. if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly" - the protecting administrator (after the deletion discussion) misinterprets the delete outcome to also preclude the creation of a redirect. In this particular case, the article was deleted per WP:N, which does not apply to redirects.
• Per WP:DRV: "3. if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page" - the information that has come to light in this case is that the option of a redirect was unfortunately not mentioned in the deletion discussion at all, so the community likely did not even consider it.

As a side note, this option was in fact mentioned by another user at the first deletion discussion for this article. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 10:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Note as closer - the point re: DRV #1 is incorrect. I did not interpret the deletion outcome to preclude the creation of a redirect; I did not WP:SALT the article. User:Toddst1 did. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 10:38, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I've corrected my mistake. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 10:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply

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

I don't think this article qualifies for Speedy Deletion A7, as it had numerous references to nation-wide, albeit non-English, newspaper articles that featured the company, rather than simply mentioning it in passing. Please note the (proposed) revised page content at User:Cheolsoo/sandbox/NKIA. Cheolsoo ( talk) 01:24, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The article appears to have been sufficiently sourced that speedy deletion was not the preferable way to deal with the article. If notability is in doubt, the article can be taken to WP:AFD to allow a full discussion. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• I have temporarily undeleted this for the purposes of DRV Spartaz ^Humbug! 02:15, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse with no bar on a new attempt at the article, the version nominated made no claim to any significance other than a list of clients and products sold. LGA  _talk ^edits 07:14, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - Deleting an article whose sources show it plausibly meets WP:N as an A7 is never, ever appropriate. Wily D 09:48, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I have no prediction on how AfD will turn out, but having sources that might possibly show notability is one way of showing plausible importance. Perhaps we need to actually say this at WP:CSD. DGG ( talk ) 19:03, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • It would seem so, given the discussion below, and how often this error in understanding occurs with inexperienced Wikipedians. Wily D 10:24, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - While the claim of significance probably needs to be in prose, there is no requirement that the A7 indication of why its subject is important or significant needs to be in prose. Reliable sources deciding to write about NKIA indicates why NKIA is important or significant and citing those sources in the article makes it an article that indicates why its subject is important or significant. -- Jreferee ( talk) 03:57, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment to Metropolitan90, DGG, Jreferee, and Wily I ask you to again view the the article that was nominated there were no claims to anything, it was one line on the history of the company, one line giving a list of clients and a list of Products and Services, as for the sources listed did anyone visit them ? because if you did you will see that none of them are in English. Coming on to the CSD criteria and I quote " An article about a real person, individual animal(s), organization, web content or organized event that does not indicate why its subject is important or significant" so yes as nominated (and as deleted) the article was correctly deleted the article made no such claims. If I had seen the article linked to above which does meet the criteria and I would not have nominated it and I doubt any admin would have deleted it but to say that the original deletion was in any way wrong is a total misrepresentation. LGA  _talk ^edits 07:14, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, viewing the version that was nominated as A7, the only possible correct admin action would be to decline the request. The references section is sufficient to establish a claim of significance. The sources aren't in English, mais il y a beaucoup de persons qui parle les autre langues, aussi, on peut utiliser http://translate.google.co.uk/ - or any other translation service - to get a handle on the gist of the sources. Which is fine for the purposes of speedy deletion - if a deletion decision requires a lot of nuance, that's why we have WP:AFD. Wily D 10:22, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, "indicate" means "indicate", not "prove", About one-third of what passes speedy will be deleted rightfully by Prod or AfD, most often for insufficient evidence of notability--but they need the opportunity for discussion and improvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Seems to have been a judgement call on the A7, but there's no harm in letting this one have its day at AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:18, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Bad A7. Go to AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at Afd. I can understand the A7 call given that it lists products and clients yet does not explicitly explain why it is significant within the article. Sourcewise, three of them link to the same PR release and the other two my browser thinks is held on an attack site (etnews.com?). I don't think either version meets WP:NCORP but that's not for A7 to decide. Funny ^Pika! 17:05, 16 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Simply not eligible for A&, particularly per DGG's points. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ( talk) 15:57, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Comment to FunnyPika: etnews (aka 전자신문 or Electronic Times) has been printed on dead trees in South Korea since 1982 ko:전자신문 Cheolsoo ( talk) 20:45, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

VCU Rowdy Rams ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The page VCU Rowdy Rams was deleted due to A7 Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject I believe this page should not be created as it involves an official organization of Virginia Commonwealth University. The reason they are significant is because they were recently voted the number one student section in all of college basketball. Here is the link to one of the many articles stating that the VCU Rowdy Rams won the second annual Naismith Student Section of the Year award, which celebrates the most passionate college basketball fans. http://rvanews.com/news/rowdy-rams-named-student-section-of-the-year/85820

Also, the article was made with similar characteristics to other College Basketball Supporter groups. Some of these groups include, SDSU Show, Cameron Crazies and the Oakland Zoo (cheering section). Also, many soccer supporter groups have wikipedia articles including Timbers Army, Sam's Army, The American Outlaws and I have edited and created numerous articles and believe the VCU Rowdy Rams is a significant supporter group to have it's own wikipedia page. Please talk with me and let me know how I can improve this page so it can be available on wikipedia. Thank you. D203 ( talk) 21:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• temporarily restored for discussion at Deletion Review DGG ( talk ) 00:28, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD I don't think they are notable, but it deserves a AfD discussion, not the decision of a single admin. DGG ( talk ) 00:31, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Delete/AfD - I support the deletion; however, I have no issue listing it for AfD purposes. The article currently lacks notability. The awards are not significant and the available references are not significant enough to support notability. The articles listed as examples above are supported by more than adequate references - a far cry from what is available for this article. reddogsix ( talk) 01:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• I'm not seeing anything in the text that I'd call a credible claim of significance ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS sure doesn't, nor an award that itself doesn't seem at all significant); and most of the references are of such obvious irrelevancy (the espn links for game summaries that this group cheered at), nonindependence (vcuathletics.com, sites.google.com/site/vcurowdyrams), or inutility (youtube, the blog on wordpress) that I can't fault RHaworth for deleting it. The sixth ref (Baldwin, Brent (2013-02-09). "On a High Note | News and Features | Style Weekly - Richmond, VA local news, arts, and events". Style Weekly. Retrieved 2013-03-09.) looks like enough to get it over the a7 hump, though. So send to afd, but unless more relevant, reliable sources turn up, the best outcome I can see happening is a redirect to and maybe a one-line mention in VCU Rams men's basketball, similar to the sentence already in Stuart C. Siegel Center. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 02:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• List at AFD. Yes, on this occasion I do not feel too critical of the speedy deletion. However it is a substantial, well-presented article so a request for a deletion discussion seems reasonable to me. I do not accept the argument at User talk:RHaworth#Deletion of VCU Rowdy Rams that suporters' groups are inherently unnotable. Thincat ( talk) 08:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

I have changed my view from above. Before a speedy deleting an article the nominator and deleter are to "consider whether it could be ... merged". However, since speedy only applies in "most obvious cases" any merge would have to be rejected as obviously unsatisfactory. [70] In this case it seems a merge with VCU Rams might be entirely satisfactory. Hence, overturn the speedy. (BTW the article could be boldly merged, leaving a redirect). Thincat ( talk) 11:31, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Speedy deletion criteria are to be strictly construed--RHaworth's quote provides an appearance of non-impartiality, which is itself problematic. While most of the IP above's arguments are overly loose in how A7 is to be applied, he is correct that a single RS reference is almost always accepted as a barrier to A7. Send to AfD or start a merge discussion as any editor in good standing desires, but the speedy wasn't the right process step here. Jclemens ( talk) 16:07, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - At the time the article was A7 deleted, the lead read "They are known for their vocal and creative support during VCU Rams men's basketball games." That is an A7 claim of significance or importance. The article also read "In 2013, the Rowdy Rams won the second annual Naismith Student Section of the year award beating out 158 other schools." That is an A7 claim of significance or importance. These both are capable of being believed, making them A7 credible claims of significance or importance. A subsequent reason given for the A7 deletion, [71] "I don't think any supporter group deserves a separate article. At most they can have a mention in the article about the team they support." is not a consideration that supports the VCU Rowdy Rams deletion edit summary, [72] "A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject." There are no other speedy deletion criteria that apply. -- Jreferee ( talk) 14:09, 17 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Russell Hantz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

New activity since deletion. Competed in 3 seasons of Survivor and mentioned in most seasons after. Currently he has an unrelated reality show on A & E called 'Flipped Off'. http://www.aetv.com/flipped-off/meet-cast/russell-hantz/ UpendraSachith ( talk)

• Allow re-creation. The subject has remained in the public eye since the original AfD by competing in additional seasons of Survivor and then joining the cast of another reality television show. The re-created article can always be taken to AfD again if necessary. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:51, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• note: the text is present in the history behind the redirect. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation since it looks like things really have changed and he now has his own show. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation, & allow renomination at AfD. Over three years after the AfD closed as "merge", if someone feels the reasons for it have been overcome, they may feel free to reverse the redirect. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:27, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation - yeah, why the hell not? He seems to be mentioned again every time there's a favourites series (will he/won't he?) and his nephew has now caused a stir, assuring he'll be mentioned some more. He's got his own unrelated show (probably not enough by itself, though) and he seems to have done some other non-Survivor-related things away from that. C-grade celebrity and I'm not entirely certain a new article would survive AFD but if an editor wants to give it a crack, in good faith, then they should be allowed to do so. Stalwart 111 08:31, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply

The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

After 3 weeks of discussion, the supporting editor to include the article did not provide a wikipedia policy based reason for keeping the article. Curb Chain ( talk) 12:57, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• After one week of discussion and two weeks of being dead space. If you want to renominate the article for deletion without waiting, I already mentioned that would be fine. —  Crisco 1492 ( talk) 13:00, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Can't see the no consensus there, two deletes (including nom) and a keep which basically says keep because it's original research. On the other hand, listing it again for deletion would seem the simplest option in this case rather than arguing about it here. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 13:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Given that the two Delete commenters did cite policy-based reasons to delete the page, and the one Keep commenter cited a non-policy based reason that didn't address the objections, No Consensus was not an adequate description of the discussion. Overturn, or at worst relist. Hut 8.5 14:10, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Deletion policy on grounds of notability is decided by consensus and the notability guidelines are there to guide people's thoughts in contributing to a consensus. The article's references meet the verifiability policy but do not in themselves confirm notability. Even if the "keep" opinion was merely WP:ILIKEIT, this was not contrary to policy although it might not persuade other people. The "deletion" opinions were firmly guideline-based but the WP:TVSHOW essay suggests individual programs airing on a national network (was this program aired nationally?) are "likely to be notable" although it goes on to say reliable sources are more definitive. If this essay (linked to from the guidelines via WP:COMMONOUTCOMES) were contrary to policy it would have been changed by now. So, everyone was free to express their opinion without administrative vetting and the closer correctly saw no consensus. The article could reasonably be relisted. Thincat ( talk) 15:12, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Wikipedia:Notability (media) isn't a policy but it's a very influential essay, and the individual episodes of nationally-aired shows (yes, it's on CBS in the United States) are presumptively notable. This might be a merge candidate but that's an editorial question. Given the low participation and the frankly useless arguments on both sides I don't see how it could have been closed any other way. Mackensen (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply

  I'm not sure what you mean "influential" clearly it's not so much so that it's gained wide enough support to become a guideline or policy. Even so the "in a nutshell" definition it supplies is "There is significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.", which is precisely the argument the deletes side were making, so on the basis of this influential essay it fails to meet the standard. That essay also doesn't seem to contemplate individual episodes. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 10:35, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Comment Isn't there already a project-wide meta-consensus that indivual episodes go into a omnibus list of episodes by series unless there is something to make that specific episode standout above the herd? If that onmnibus list doesn't exist surely the solution is to create it, merge this episode into it and them start populating the list with the other ones. I can't see why we need an AFD/DRV to do that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:21, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply

(I !voted above) The plethora of links in List of The Simpsons episodes (do any lead to redirects?) made me think that, for some series at least, individual episodes have been accepted as inherently notable. Any merge there would not be viable. Thincat ( talk) 09:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and suggest a Relist: looks like a good place for a no prejudice against speedy renomination close--there just wasn't much for the closing admin to work with. Mark Arsten ( talk) 16:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Weak overturn to delete - The only keep positioned in the AfD discussion argued that Wikipedia should provide information which simply cannot be found in other places. The point of Wikipedia is to summarize information which can be found in other places that are independent of the topic. The delete positions mostly focused on the state of the article, which is not a basis to delete. Curb Chain also argued "No independent outside significant coverage" as a basis to delete, and there was no rebuttal to that. There is not a whole lot of substance to that delete argument, and there does not appear to have been an effort to address it, so I can see Crisco's close as being reasonable. Weak overturn. -- Jreferee ( talk) 21:41, 10 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There has never been the least consensus in general about whether individual articles on episodes should be kept--The essay on notability of such episodes is influential only the sense that that has been influential in producing much argument and confusion, not a solution. I think the obvious solution is a combination article with significant discussion of each, not a mere list--but even this compromise solution has not attained consensus. The guideline Spartaz proposes has never obtained consensus either, and I would argue that we should better go show by show in most cases, with the exception being when an undistinguished show has a particularly notable episode. It seems reasonable to me that within any given series there ought to be some degree of consistency, and the other episodes of this show have articles. DGG ( talk ) 00:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• That can easily change if all the other articles are found to be not notable. Curb Chain ( talk) 01:23, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• True, but that is not within the scope of DRV though.-- 64.229.164.74 ( talk) 02:32, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• The idea of a consistent approach at least within a given series is of course reasonable, however given the nature of Wikipedia's processes there becomes some practical constraints on that. No one would get away with doing a bulk listing of the episodes either as lots of single items or as a consolidated listing, so it's likely any deletions would be one by one, if then DRV decides that to be consistent they shouldn't be deleted, it just becomes a question of someone getting to critical mass and being in an unchangeable position. I of course don't have a sensible solution to this, and I suspect the status quo is what will be preserved as that's Wikipedia's solution to most things. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 08:59, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• The bottom line that Wikipedia summarizes information which can be found in other places that are independent of the topic. That consistency approach within the encyclopedia is how we tell whether our readers would be interested in seeing an individual article on a television episode, for example. I found and added one reference to the article. [73] I did not see any other references. That says Wikipedia readers would not be interested in seeing an individual article on The Naked Truth (How I Met Your Mother). However, when you have a poorly attended, weakly argued AfD that leads to no consensus, DRV is not the next step. As Crisco, noted above, a no consensus close allows you to renominate the article for deletion without waiting. -- Jreferee ( talk) 12:38, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - low commenting gives closers a lot of latitude - the claim that it lacks "independent outside significant coverage" is patently false - the avclub review is "independent outside significant coverage" - whether or not it's enough for WP:N I'm not sure - but three weeks, three incredible weak arguments - closing as no consensus is perfectly reasonable. There's no need to relist forever when nobody really seems to care. Wily D 09:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply

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

Rheem (along with its sister brand Ruud) is a highly notable and major manufacturer of HVAC, space heating, and water heating products in North America. The reason given for speedy deletion seems very flawed. ANDROS¹³³⁷ _TALK 03:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Undelete and list at AfD. Reasonable contest of a CSD#A7. The cached version doesn't look A7-able to me. Tad promotional? Maybe linking these reviews will balance it. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:27, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - From the article, "Rheem currently sponsors Kevin Harvick in the #33 NASCAR Sprint Cup Series car". That answers a "what" question, but not a "why" question to indicate A7 why its subject is important. The article also notes "Rheem (Water Heater Division-Montgomery) also employs young minds" under the heading "Student opportunities", so the subject is A7 important because it provides student opportunities by employing young minds. -- Jreferee ( talk) 07:34, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• ANDROS, what is the reason you did not first discuss the matter with Yunshui (who deleted the page) or notify Yunshui about this DRV request concerning Yunshui's speedy deletion of the article? -- Jreferee ( talk) 07:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, this is a multinational company (they sell water heaters in Australia too and they're pretty much a household name). A closer look through AFD might still conclude that it should be deleted, but it's not a valid A7 in my view. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:29, 8 March 2013 (UTC). reply
• Question How does the fact that the subject is a "multinational company" exempt the crappy article from being deleted? If the company really is such a big deal then surely the article should be far better than the miserable pile of smelly brown stuff I saw before it was deleted. Roger ( talk) 14:31, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• It exempts the article from being speedily deleted, which is what happened here, not from being deleted by the normal process of discussion at WP:AFD. Phil Bridger ( talk) 14:43, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and allow anyone to send to AfD immediately if desired. In fact, if I were on a computer where I could use my admin tools, I'd close this with that outcome, but since I'm not, I'm just restating the obvious: Bad A7. Jclemens-public ( talk) 17:01, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• I support this sentiment. A reasonable challenge to a non-copyright CSD should not have to wait the full DRV cycle, but should be sent straight to AfD. The only relevant DRV question is "was the speedy uncontestable". -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:30, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • Just a reminder that WT:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 43#Declined speedies (August–September 2011) was unable to form a consensus to allow unrestricted challenges without requiring a "plausible reason" to decline. Flatscan ( talk) 05:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• The challenge here is reasonable, which is stronger than plausible. I stand by my comment. These trivial CSD challenges don't need a full deletion review. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• overturn The article is a stub for one of the main HVAC manufacturers, has anyone who has ever shopped for replacement furnace knows. It is impossible to imagine that some degree of sourcing can't be found, but at any rate the current version should have been marked as a stub rather than being deleted. Mangoe ( talk) 15:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Misinterpretation of A7 -- the article is surely not keepable in its present unreferenced form, but unreferenced is not a reason for speedy. That something is a major international company is enough indication of importance that it should be at least discussed, where people will have the chance to add references. It would have been better to discuss this with the admin, but it's not required, and I can understand why an editor might not feel comfortable with doing that, as some people seem to be under the impression that we admins are most of us monsters. DGG ( talk ) 00:48, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Send to afd (if anyone still thinks it might not survive, or else just keep outright), obviously, since there's an assertion of significance given in this DRV. But there isn't one in the article, and so far as I can tell from a cursory browse of its history, there never has been. There was a speedy declined in 2007, but the basis for that was pretty poor - the simple fact of having multiple divisions with no other information given isn't an assertion of anything, and there was certainly no indication in the article that the divisions were themselves notable as claimed in the decline, only that they existed. (Maybe, possibly, there was some sort of indication in Rheem Water Heating or Ruud Air Conditioning Division, the redlinks in that revision; but they were both already deleted at that point.) Other than that technicality, I can't find any fault whatsoever in Yunshui's speedy. Particularly, the claim above that it should be kept because it employs university students is astounding - it doesn't read like extreme inclusionism, it reads like a parody of extreme inclusionism. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 01:57, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overtrurn and give it a day at AFD. But I agree with the above though that employing students is pretty damn goofy reasoning and Jreferee should probably strike or explain what in the seven hells they're talking about. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:00, 12 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and don't bother with AfD, just improve the article This A7 is a rather sad parody of extreme deletionism at its worst. I'm sure that I wasn't the only one who forgot about the article in the November 2005 issue of Appliance magazine ( Click here for the full details), but an article that talks about how "In the mid-1980s, Rheem held a 16-percent market share and a complete product line. Its market share declined to 11 percent, with numerous product line gaps, by 2000." is demonstrating that we are dealing with a major company. Then there's this report from some group that calls itself the " United States Department of Energy" (has anyone heard of these people?) listing Rheem as having 12% of the market share in both the residential furnace and the central air / heat pump markets as of 2008. It is utterly irresponsible to be using A7 as a rationalization to delete an article like this with a rather clear and undeniable claim of notability, now matter how crappy. AfD is a foregone conclusion as meeting notability and our goal should be to improve this article with the ample available sources. Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion is rather clear that "Before nominating a page for speedy deletion, consider whether it could be improved, reduced to a stub, merged or redirected elsewhere, reverted to a better previous revision, or handled in some other way." and this standard was NOT met in any way. If only the goal of each and every editor -- and especially each and every administrator -- was to build and improve an encyclopedia rather than delete anything they don't understand, we would be far better off. Alansohn ( talk) 16:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply
  • I apologize; could you link to the revision of the article that mentions, well, any of this, so that it could have been reverted to? Because I'm not seeing it. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 17:20, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Alansohn's point on this is pretty much the same as mine, plus a notch more work put into it: anyone with the slightest knowledge of the field knows that Rheem ought to have an article, even if it's only a stub. It shouldn't have been PRODded because someone should have bothered to find out enough about the company to realize this. A simple Google search returns in excess of 8 million results. I understand people have been getting touchy about promotional corporate articles but the plain fact here is that doing any work at all would have shown notability in this case. Mangoe ( talk) 17:43, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply
      • In the five and a half years this article was on Wikipedia, not one person could be bothered to say that the company was one of the world's largest HVAC manufacturers (though there was no corresponding hesitation to point out the founders' names or that they advertise on a race car). Somehow, though, the only person getting raked over the coals about it is Yunshui. This probably could've been closed after Lankiveil's, third from the top, yet not one administrator has been willing to do so. Apparently it's more fun to escalate from "reasonable contest of a CSD#A7" to "bad A7" to "misinterpretation of A7" to "this A7 is a rather sad parody of extreme deletionism at its worst". Where was the "rather clear and undeniable claim of notability"? THERE WAS NONE. I submit that if this had been speedied in 2007, we'd have a better article than this was when it was deleted, even if it were just "Rheem (along with its sister brand Ruud) is a major manufacturer of HVAC, space heating, and water heating products in North America." If somebody wants to go to WT:CSD and try to get language inserted that articles can't be speedied without an exhaustive reference search, then be my guest. 74.74.150.139 ( talk) 19:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC) reply
        • The lack of effort on the community to expand the article is a disappointment that belongs to no one editor, as one of many articles that desperately needs improvement. Which editor should be raked over the coals for the oversight? Who was responsible to take care of this? On the other hand, the failure by the deleting administrator to perform the most basic due diligence belongs to User:Yunshui alone. There is no change needed to demand "an exhaustive reference search" prior to a speedy delete, as the most trivial of searches (say using a technology called "Google") required by CSD policy would have made it blindingly obvious that there was no credible rationalization for deletion. Even if this article remained in its current crappy state following the inevitable overturn, it would still undoubtedly pass AfD. Yunshui can end this now by acknowledging the error, undoing the A7, learning from the mistake and being far more careful in the future. Or we could listen to further excuses for why it's a bad article, an argument that would have limited relevance at AfD and no relevance here. Alansohn ( talk) 04:41, 14 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn based on the above evidence, though I agree that the nomination statement should've at least been mentioned somewhere in the original article. A Google search doesn't guarantee that you'll find sources to prove significance, especially if it's not within your area of expertise. I probably would've thought the same from my localised Ghits and their makeshift European website [74]. Funny ^Pika! 02:13, 15 March 2013 (UTC) reply

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

The company has history of innovation. Print and video publications of the inventions and a patent. MDEngineer ( talk) 02:48, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

None of that has any relevance. What is required is significant published coverage in reliable third party sources. (also as someone who has a conflict of interest you should not be making this request.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily restored this for the purposes of DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my deletion. In the five years the article has been around nobody has found any evidence of notability. — RHaworth ( talk · contribs) 15:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AfD Deletion in blatant violation of deletion policy. "In the five years the article has been around nobody has found any evidence of notability" is not an acceptable reason for speedy deletion. The actual criterion is " an article about a company, corporation, organization, or group that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject." That was in fact the reason used at the speedy, but saying that the company has a potentially revolutionary product is an indication of possible importance. CSD is deliberately an easy bar to pass, even if the article is not likely to be notable. Importance is much less than notability . It might be considered for G11, but I don't think it's that unquestionably promotional. Of course, it's not likely to pass AfD, but that's not a speedy deletion reason, because each of us 700 active admins has a different idea of what is likely to pass AfD . I agree with RHaworth that we should remove material of this sort, but we need to do it in an orderly way that permits time for improvement after the deletion notice. I could very easily delete about 50,000 articles that I don't think worthy of being in the encyclopedia, and so could any of us--but it would be a different 50,000. I normally wouldn't want to overturn if deletion at AfD is inevitable, but this is a violation of process that could really damage the encyclopedia if we all did it, and admins trying to do deletions like this should be stopped. DGG ( talk ) 16:18, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

sounds like process for process sake. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 23:01, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

The process has a reason: so that things can be discussed and improved. Making even a bad article noticeable at a community forum like AfD sometimes give improvement--even unexpected improvement. DGG ( talk ) 00:51, 11 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Please Reinstate, Revise and Enable Edits The company is responsible for several inventions and publications as discussed with the editor in private discussion talk. The company is responsible for patents, publications and inventions:
  • Patent US20080068356[ [75]
  • Youtube presentation of the invention and prototype actively discussed by the youtube community [ [76]
  • Youtube presentation of the invention from consumer perspective [ [77]

These inventions never made it to market, so it is important for the world to know about it.

• • Youtube gives 112 results on some of the company product reviews most of which are by the journalists and press. Some of the products reviewed includes the android device integrated into the back mirror of the car, which never made it to market (maybe I am wrong here).
  • Google gives 300,000+ links when you search for Mediox and Tablet (the new focus of the company). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDEngineer ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
    • Notablity is not based on having patents, I can patent pretty much any invention I can come up with, it doesn't signify anything beyond I was willing to pay the relevant fees. Youtube video's also do not indicate notablity, I can create as many as I want. Google hits likewise are not a measure. "These inventions never made it to market, so it is important for the world to know about it. " - sorry but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place for them to discover stuff no one else wants to tell them about - see WP:NOR and WP:NOTPROMOTION. If there is an article on this topic, it will be constrained by being an encyclopedia article. -- 62.254.139.60 ( talk) 18:58, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• agree with DGG but It's not clear there is anything to write about. Coby has so thoroughly engulfed Mediox that I cannot really tell from their website whether the brand exists. My sense is that whatever happens here Mediox is just going to end up as a redirect to the current owner. Mangoe ( talk) 17:32, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Proof of Notability Per Wikipedia guidelines, notability depends on the presence in secondary sources (many of which were present in the original article). Here are a few links that should close the questions.

Before the company signed a contract with Coby, it was a restaurant media company and that is the most interesting part, because it was at the start of a new era in digital signage and even I would like to know the story. Here are the links that I found within 2 minutes on google (300K+ hits should probably have many more):

• Most important one – a whole article in QSR Magazine (printed and online), an industry publication. Featured on the cover of the magazine [ [78]
• Featured in Food Management magazine. "Tray of the future?" [ [79]
• Killer Startups Review (independent, but surveyed the company) [ [80]
• Fudzilla's breaking news on Mediox + Gigabyte partnership [ [81]
• Press release by the Methuselah Foundation: President of Mediox, Inc donates 1% of company shares to the Methuselah foundation [ [82]
• Digital Signage News newspiece: Mediox to introduce multimedia food trays [ [83]

I also found the full article from Wikipedia that was cashed probably when it was first entered into Wiki [ [84]]. Many third-party links were still there, so not sure what prompted speedy deletion. The partnership with Coby made the old business model obsolete and the website on restaurant media was taken down, so the only place where the there are facts about the invention is actually Wikipedia. Why wipe the good story out? Why not delete the pages of all other companies with history of innovation and third party coverage that had to bring down their websites? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDEngineer ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and send to AfD. The article as deleted had a credible claim of significance ("projected to deliver $10 billion in advertising revenue") backed up by a single reliable independent source; as such it was not a good candidate for A7 deletion. The sources presented so far in the DRV look a bit too much like notability for a single event for my taste, but I think it deserves at least a full discussion. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:18, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, though reluctantly as the article was quite spammy and seems to have been written as a promotional exercise. The notability of the subject is irrelevant, as the reason cited for deletion was A7, which pretty obviously didn't spply. Hut 8.5 20:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Bad WP:CSD#A7 call. Allow listing at AfD, but it may be better to allow some improvement first. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:22, 6 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send it to AFD. This was not a valid CSD A7 candidate. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC). reply
• Overturn - Regarding the 28 June 2012 Speedy deletion, [85] "The company has a patent pending in the United States for both a product and a method of content delivery that, together, are capable of revolutionizing the fast food industry" from the article shows A7 importance. There is no other speedy delete reason. It is not just text that is delete. Also deleted is the hard effort of human editors who contributed to that article and if their effort does no receive fair treatment, they will no longer give that effort to Wikipedia or will do so in an unfair way. -- Jreferee ( talk) 07:21, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send to AfD immediately if desired. Not a speedy candidate, let the process work the way it was supposed to. Jclemens-public ( talk) 17:03, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

Philip_H._Friedman ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was deleted with the notes mentioning there are no Google Scholar references. Please see the following list that will support that this page should in fact remain. Please consider restoring this page based on the following: From Google Scholar

1. Spirituality, Religiosity, and Subjective Quality of Life

RL Piedmont, PH Friedman - Handbook of Social Indicators and Quality of …, 2012 - Springer ... These are the questions that research on spiritual coping attempts to answer. ... transcendence represents a universal human capacity to stand outside of one's own immediate existence and to view life from a broader, more integrative whole. ... Forgiveness and Gratitude and QOL ... Spirituality, Religiosity, and Subjective Quality of Life

2. [BOOK] The Forgiveness Solution: The Whole-Body Rx for Finding True Happiness, Abundant Love, and Inner Peace

PH Friedman - 2010 - books.google.com Dr. Friedman believes that at the root of almost all emotional problems is unforgiveness (grievances, judgments and attack thoughts)--towards others, ourselves, our circumstances, God, anyone or everyone. The Forgiveness Solution is an easy to learn, practical and ...

3. [CITATION] Friedman Well-Being Scale and Professional Manual: Manual, Questionnaire, Scoring Sheets. Sampler Set

PH Friedman - 1994 - Mind Garden Cited by 12 Related articles Cite More

[4. CITATION] The relationship between forgiveness, gratitude, distress, and well-being: An integrative review of the literaturePH Friedman, LL Toussaint - International Journal of Healing and Caring, 2006

Cited by 4 Related articles Cite [PDF] from wholistichealingresearch.com

5. [PDF] Changes in forgiveness, gratitude, stress and well-being during psychotherapy: An integrative, evidence-based approach

PH Friedman, L Toussaint - … Journal of Healing …, 2006 - wholistichealingresearch.com ... Gallo, F. and Vincenzi, H. (2000) Energy tapping. ... Watkins, P., Woodward, K., Stone, T., & Kolts, R. (2003) Gratitude and happiness: development of a measure ... Philip Friedman, PhD is a licensed clinical psychologist/psychotherapist and Director of the Foundation for Well-Being ...

6. Forgiveness, gratitude, and well-being: The mediating role of affect and beliefs

L Toussaint, P Friedman - Journal of Happiness Studies, 2009 - Springer ... with these approaches to defining gratitude and have formerly defined gratitude (Friedman and Toussaint 2006b) in a way that focuses on the inner emotional experience and the cognitive-attitudinal belief set. 1.3 Definition of Well-Being The meaning of happiness has been ... Cited by 30 Related articles All 8 versions Cite

7. [CITATION] Creating Well-being: The Healing Path to Love, Peace, Self-esteem, and Happiness

PH Friedman - 1989 - getcited.org ... Author: Friedman, Philip H. PUBLISHER: R&E Publishers (Saratoga, Calif.). SERIES TITLE: YEAR: 1989. PUB TYPE: Book (ISBN 0882478419 ). VOLUME/EDITION: PAGES (INTRO/BODY): xvi, 212 p. SUBJECT(S): Mental health; Happiness. DISCIPLINE: No discipline assigned ...

8. The satisfaction with life scale and the emerging construct of life satisfaction

W Pavot, E Diener - The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2008 - Taylor & Francis ... Pavot, W and Diener, E. 1993. Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment , 5: 164–172. ... Pavot, W and Diener, E. 1993. Review of the Satisfaction With Life Scale. Psychological Assessment , 5: 164–172. ... Cited by 159 Related articles BL Direct All 2 versions Cite

9a [CITATION] The effects of modeling and roleplaying in assertive behavior

PH Friedman - 1968 - University of Wisconsin Cited by 86 Related articles All 2 versions Cite More

9b. [CITATION] The effects of modeling, roleplaying, and participation on behavior change.

PH Friedman - Progress in experimental personality research, 1972 - ncbi.nlm.nih.gov 1. Prog Exp Pers Res. 1972;6:41-81. The effects of modeling, roleplaying, and participation on behavior change. Friedman PH. PMID  4568635 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]. Publication Types: Review. MeSH Terms. Adolescent; ... Cited by 15 Related articles All 3 versions Cite

10. [CITATION] Personalistic family and marital therapy

PH Friedman - in Clinical Behavior Therapy, New York, Brunner/Mazel, 1972 Cited by 20 Related articles Cite

11. Integrative family therapy.

PH Friedman - Family Therapy; Family Therapy, 1981 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Presents a 3-dimensional model to aid in the integration of different approaches to family theory and therapy. Metaphors from different family therapy approaches are classified within the structure of the model. Various characteristics of integrative family ... Cited by 12 Related articles All 2 versions Cite

13. Family system and ecological approach to youthful drug-abuse.

PH Friedman - Family Therapy, 1974 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Contrasts the psychodynamic approach to understanding youthful drug abuse with an approach based on an ecological understanding of the family system.(35 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) Cited by 12 Related articles Cite

13. Outline (alphabet) of 26 techniques of family and marital therapy: A through Z.

PH Friedman - … & Practice; Psychotherapy: Theory, Research & …, 1974 - psycnet.apa.org Abstract 1. Reviews 26 techniques of family and marital therapy to serve as a guide for the beginning therapist. Such techniques as contracting, restructuring, modeling, and self-disclosure are briefly outlined, similar methods are noted, and references are cited for ... Cited by 7 Related articles Cite

13. The use of computers in marital and family therapy

PH Friedman - Journal of Psychotherapy & the Family, 1985 - Taylor & Francis This paper summarizes the author's experience using a computer in marital and family therapy in six major areas:(1) client intake and records,(2) assessment/evaluation/tracking client changes,(3) client feedback,(4) client information and instruction,(5) financial ... Cited by 6 Related articles All 3 versions Cite

14. Limitations in the conceptualizations of behavior therapists: Toward a cognitive-behavioral model of behavior therapy

HF PHILIP - Psychological reports, 1970 - amsciepub.com Summary.-This paper proposes a cognitive-behavioral approach to behavior therapy as an alternative to the counterconditioning model presently in vogue. The key terms in this model are cognitive appraisal, threat, counterharm resources, behavioral coping action ... Cited by 4 Related articles All 3 versions Cite

Also recently in Google News

1. Philip Friedman, PhD 24.0.187.139 ( talk) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• I have temporarily restored this for the purposes of DRV. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:37, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• endorse as original nominator for deletion. Virtually all of the sources are written by Friedman. Nobody is writing about him. Complete fail of WP:GNG. Regarding WP:SCHOLAR, everyone is published. There is no indication his publishes and later cites are exceptional or notable. Broadening the notability criteria to include this person would then include virtually every research or phd student in the world. Gaijin42 ( talk) 15:24, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist for an adequate discussion. The nom plus one other person is not enough. Of course the articles listed here were written by Friedman--that's the whole point of G Scholar. The relevant factor is whether they have been commented on by other people. To take one example, for "Personalistic family and marital therapy" of the 18 distinct citations to it shown by GScholar 1 is by Friedman, 1 is by a directory; the other 16 are good citations. Whether this passes WP:PROF needs a proper discussion and AfD is the place. The close was improper because it was based on a mistaken statement I do not know why the ed. commenting missed the refs, but such mistakes happen--we all sometimes make searches which because of a typo or similar error do not find anything--I've done it too a few times. The point of having greater participation in an AfD is so such errors have a chance to be corrected. , (I note that technically if any 2 or more of these actually contain substantial discussion of the persons work, then it would meet WP:GNG. We however do not use the GNG that way in articles on academics or researchers, because if we did, almost anyone who had published cited papers would be notable. This would be an absurd result, and Gaijin is correct on that score.) DGG ( talk ) 16:30, 4 March 2013 (UTC) reply
• Relist - The AfD nominator noted that the article was a WP:COATRACK for the author's works, and this DRV request for the page to remain is based the author's works. I think the author's works deletion lesson was lost on the DRV nominator, who might be "Philip Friedman, PhD" per the DRV nomination signature ("1. Philip Friedman, PhD 24.0.187.139 (talk) 20:53, 3 March 2013 (UTC)"), but the "1." may indicate the name being a reference rather than the name of the DRV nominator. (The author's works deletion lesson is that it only matters in Wikipedia whether others have commented on Friedman's book or his life in writing, not that Friedman himself produces written material.) The AfD nomination mostly focused on the present state of the Wikipedia article, so that does not help in the ultimate AfD determination. The only other AfD participant noted, "Nothing found at Google Scholar under his name or "Friedman assessment scale". Ditto for Google News." So, I think the close was fine. DGG found something at Google Scholar, which is new information about whether source material can be found. It also is substantial when compared to the "nothing" noted at the AfD. I think the article should be relisted to address the new information, including WP:PROF, and determine whether enough source material can be found for the article. -- Jreferee ( talk) 06:49, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• From this post, it looks like the DRV nomination was cut off. The rest of the DRV request probably should read

Also recently in Google News

1. Philip Friedman, PhD | Wellness Times

Forgive for Your Health .

www.wellnesstimes.com/users/philip-friedman-phd

Philip Friedman, PhD's picture. Philip Friedman, PhD. Dr. Friedman is a licensed clinical psychologist and psychotherapist in Plymouth ...

2. Forgiveness in the Family: When and How?

Hosted by Randy Rolfe, JD, MA, Bestselling author, family therapist, and wellness educator

Our guest for this show, Dr. Philip Friedman has spent much of his professional life exploring this issue and has published a wonderful book called The Forgiveness Solution. Please listen in to get some wonderful insights on how this powerful approach can make your family’s life happier, healthier, easier, and more fun. 13, 2011

http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/53754/forgiveness-in-the-family

http://www.amazon.com/Philip-H-Friedman/e/B0034PXQY0/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1362322656&sr=8-1

http://www.voiceamerica.com/episode/53754/forgiveness-in-the-family

-- Jreferee ( talk) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC) reply

• An additional resource is now available to add to the review. Dr. Friedman was recently discussed in the International Journal of Healing and Caring (IJHC) http://www.wholistichealingresearch.com/62friedtouss.html

24.0.187.139 ( talk) 18:10, 10 March 2013 (UTC) Rich Ferrucci reply