Terence M. Vinson ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Per a discussion with User:Jgstokes on my user talk page. The subject is a church official in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, whose article was deleted by me at AFD, citing a lack of independent sources. After this closure, an AFD discussion concerning Randy D. Funk took place, where User:Vojen made a lengthy argument that has since been extensively cited in discussions pertaining to officials of the same rank as Funk and Vinson, and which has largely resulted in consensuses to keep. At Jgstokes' request, and because I'm not completely infallible (shhh!), I would like the community to review the case, with a possible view to permitting recreation of the article if the consensus is now that we ought to retain these.

For what it is worth, my own personal view is that the decision should not be overturned, as BLP protections apply to the subjects of these articles, and in the case of Vinson at least, sources do not exist that are sufficiently independent of the church (and as Vinson is a general authority, a leader in the church, I don't see that LDS sources are sufficiently independent). Without sources that are substantial, reliable, and independent to base it upon, it is not possible to write a thorough biography that is also neutral and fair. I do not at all agree with the proposition that members of the Second Quorum should be treated as automatically notable regardless of what sources are available; the WP:GNG should drive our determination of who is notable and who isn't, and specific "bright line" guidelines like that proposed by Vojen should only be used to indicate cases where good sources probably exist, not the other way around.

While Vinson is the "headline", this also applies to articles identified on my talk page, including Gregory A. Schwitzer, Timothy J. Dyches, Jairo Mazzagardi, Randall L. Ridd, Larry Y. Wilson and Kevin S. Hamilton. I tried to make the DRV template dance and do a multiple nom but couldn't work out if that were possible. If the Vinson article is overturned, we may also want to look at these cases, which were closed by other admins. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - deletions. An obviously conflict-of-interest person unloaded several metric tons of blogs and church publications at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randy D. Funk, and people actually bought into that as proof of notability? I'm sorry, but hitting some random names at the listings at the LDS page... Koichi Aoyagi, Kent F. Richards, O. Vincent Haleck...NONE of these people should have standalone articles. They're just priests, not analogous to a Catholic cardinal. This problem doesn't appear to be limited to Mormons either, as prelates, e.g. Walter James Edyvean appear to have articles as well. Tarc ( talk) 12:15, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Tarc:: I've just nominated Aoyagi and Haleck for deletion, and I am toying with DRVing Funk. p b p 02:24, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: There doesn't seem to be any non-LDS related information about those people. Most of the articles created by Jgstokes and Johnpacklambert are cited exclusively from LDS publications. For these to have their own articles, we need more than that. p b p 15:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the Vinson close as the obviously correct outcome following a discussion in which no claim to meeting the GNG was made. I'm not keen on considering a batch nomination. If someone wants to argue for the restoration of a particular article, they will need to come here claiming that the AfD close was wrong or that there are significant reliable sources that weren't considered. And the sources that were mentioned in the Funk AfD are very unlikely to cut it. Nor is a claim to inherent notability based on someone's position within the LDS church. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:59, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I would be in favor of recreating this article. I believe Vojen's line of reasoning on the Randy D. Funk deletion nomination to be sound and I notice that no one has taken the trouble to actually address the points he brought up. I have always said (and still believe) that I think we do articles a great disservice when we delete them simply because of a lack of sources independent of the subject's religious affiliation. A better course of action (the "higher road", if you will) would be to discuss article issues on the article talk pages BEFORE they are nominated for deletion. In the meantime, I believe that independent sources can and should be found. I would also be in favor of recreating all the articles mentioned above, notwithstanding the arguments against doing so. There are other articles here on Wikipedia that cite exclusively LDS-related sources. There are even some that cite no sources at all. Are those subject to deletion as well? Where do we draw the line? I vote to recreate these articles and give them another chance at life. If there is something in them that certain editors don't like or disagree with, they are more than welcome to edit them in an effort to get them up to proper Wikipedia standards. -- Jgstokes ( talk) 21:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, Jgstokes, articles which don't have independent sources ARE subject to deletion. That's GNG, which is the relevant policy for these AfDs. And Vojen's argument about the notability of the articles ignores GNG, making it unsound. p b p 04:03, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Restore - So here is a rehash of my argument. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. Devn Cornish and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wilford W. Andersen (2nd nomination).) GNG is not the appropriate standard for people; it's a default standard that can provide for notability if none of the people standards apply. Looking just at notability for people, high-ranking clergy generally come in based on the honor afforded to the position, the quasi-political authority that they hold, and the status as an expert in their fields afforded by the office.

A clear rule for clergy would be preferable, but the general concensus has been that high-ranking clergy are nonetheless notable even without one. The common denominator appears to be the office itself, not sources. If notability is established under the people standards, then "independent" sources are not required to source an article, just "reliable" sources. It's easy to conflate this standard with the GNG rules (I originally opposed keeping these guys for that reason until I actually read the people notability rules...something I suggest PBP do). That said truly independent third-party sources are still best for a good article.

Even if we accept that high-ranking clergy are notable, there is a question of how high. I'm suggesting that members of the Second Quorum of the Seventy are analagous to Catholic Bishops (not Cardinals). Catholic Bishops are generally considered notable. The ratios appear similar with these guys and they are actually given global authority within their church.

As there always is a big push for sources though, below are primarily independent sources that demonstrate Vinson's status based on his office (these are not meant to be the converage that would meet GNG, but rather to demonstrate the office meets the people notability standards in terms of honor, status and influence). If the community insists on GNG, then I say leave the article deleted. If however, the people notability standards apply (which I think they do), then the below sources should be sufficient to demonstrate the notability based on the office. From there it is just a question of reliable sources which the church-affiliate sources appear to be despite questions of independence. The blogs might not be as "reliable" for sourcing the article, but they can still serve in establishing notability.

English:

http://blog.mrm.org/2013/10/general-conference-fly/ (independent review - conference address was more memorable for a fly than the substance)

http://willowwoodreliefsociety.blogspot.com/2014/01/drawing-closer-to-god-elder-terence-m.html (independent homeletic piece using Elder Vinson's address as source material)

http://familyshare.com/how-to-deal-with-obstacles-by-using-all-our-strength (independent homeletic piece using Elder Vinson's address as source material)

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865587837/Elder-Terence-M-Vinson-Drawing-closer-to-God.html (semi-independent source summarizing conference address)

http://mormonvoices.org/2957/28-december-2013 (independent rehash of news release about the progress of church in Togo - Elder Vinson played a pivotol role)

http://elderprestonrileyjenkins.blogspot.com/search/label/Elder%20Vinson (Independent missionary blog describing Elder Vinson's role in stake creation in Togo, as well as direction given to regular church members and missionaries alike in three seperate conference at which Elder Vinson spoke)

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org.au/article/church-announces-first-general-authority-from-australia (church-owned news release identifying Elder Vinson as first resident of Australia to be made a General Authority)

http://think-on-and-on.blogspot.com/2013_10_01_archive.html (independent blog identifying highlights from conference, including two thoughts from Elder Vinson)

http://alittleginger.blogspot.com/2014/02/drawing-closer-to-god.html (independednt reflective piece drawing inspiration from Elder Vinson's teachings)

http://nortonmissionaries.blogspot.com/2013/10/today-voice-of-good-shepherd-is-my.html (independent missionary blog drawing inspiration from Elder Vinson)

http://mormonism-unveiled.blogspot.com/2013/10/elder-quentin-l-cook-establishes.html (independent close analysis of the doctrinal points in Elder Vinson's conference address)

Portuguese:

http://noticias-sud.blogspot.com/2013/12/igreja-sud-cria-primeira-estaca-no-togo.html (unofficial translation of LDS news source referencing Elder Vinson's role in the church in Togo)

http://sisteroliveiramission.blogspot.com/2014/04/pensamentos-inspiradores-2-missao.html (independent compilation of inspirational quotes - includes Elder Vinson with other church leaders from different decades, suggesting the long-lasting impact his teachings are considered to have on the church)

Sorry for the length, but about half of it is the sources themselves. - Vojen ( talk) 04:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, as that was the outcome of the debate. There is perhaps a consensus has changed argument, but I don't buy that on the basis of a single very thinly attended afd. The arguments presented there are here are pretty weak. I'll summarise it as "We shouldn't follow the GNG, but should instead confer automatic notability on certain religious figures. This can be backed with an WP:WAX argument, and notability shown by a truck load of blogs which are acknowledged as unreliable sources". This goes against the general principles that (a) notability is not inherited (b) fails to recognise that existing substandard/undesirable content is not a good excuse to keep pilling similar stuff on the heap and (c) that the actual standard does require reliable sources for demonstrating notability, large numbers of blogs, forum posts etc. are real easy to stack, and if out of the billions of people in the world a handful have chosen to write about something is that really notability? (Look for the huge influx of crappy garage bands if we accept this one). There is a far lengthier to debate I'm sure on these points and I won't engage it here, since the real problem is that it isn't for DRV to impose a new inclusion standard, there are far better venues for that. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 07:44, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• No admin tools were used, the edit history is still available.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Entirely unconvinced by Vojen. If the url contains "blog", pretty much forget it. The GNG appropriate for all articles, as it calls for suitable sources to base an article - reliable, independent, providing direct coverage of the subject. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 10:02, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, no DRV jurisdiction  Admin tools were not used, and WP:Deletion policy is not applicable.  Unscintillating ( talk) 22:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Relist I don't think the debate was representative or considered standard WP practice. There are some religious leaders that we do include regardless of the weakness of sourcing. In particular, we have to the best of my knowledge always kept articles on any bishop in a church where they have a actual multi-congregational role, including all Roman Catholic, Episcopal/Anglican/ and Methodist bishops (all of least at least for the US and Western Europe. I find the RC church has on the order of 3 such per million membership, so including all the 100 or so members of the first two quorums would not be disproportionate.

But the biggest problem for me is the rejection of all LDS sources. This would basically be the same as excluding at RC sources, all Jewish sources, etc. from the consideration of the notability of relevant articles. We expect sources to be from the field where the subject is active. When I joined 8 years ago, there was an attempt to restrict notability to "general" sources, which was firmly rejected. It would have had the effect of removing all our coverage of people xcept the most famous in many lines of endeavor, such as businessmen or authors, while keeping very disproportionately -- even more so than at present-- sports figures in major sports, entertainers, and politicians. I would expect LDS sources to treat in a substantial way people who are important in their denomination, and it is precisely those figures who will be notable. Applying this here, when we do not apply it elsewhere, indicates to me a certain degree of discriminatory treatment. Any AFD affected by such an issue needs to be done over, where, after being discussed here, it will get more general discussions. If the deletion was appropriate, the re-listing will sustain it. DGG ( talk ) 01:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

@ DGG:, I take issue with a couple of your points. For starters, your point about restricting notability to "general" sources. We continue to hold that all sources must be independent. If a guy works for a TV station, we need more than his bio on the TV station's website for notability. Why is it OK then for a religious leader to pass GNG with only citations from his church's website? I also think you've misinterpreted what I and others said: we didn't eliminate ALL LDS sourcing, merely publications that are owned or controlled by the LDS Church. That seems perfectly reasonable, and it won't lead to the mass deletion of businessmen, authors and religious figures you allege. p b p 15:58, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I continue to think this is much too broad an exclusion. For example, essentially all Catholic bishops are referenced only from Catholic sources. What would count as non-independent is a publication by his own diocese. DGG ( talk ) 16:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC) reply

I think too much is made of the fact that it's religion. If the organization were any old business supporting its executives, this would be a no brainer. As for Catholic bishops, I think your comment about the sources (certainly for the modern ones) is not quite so narrow. I skimmed through the articles in Category:Roman Catholic Bishops of Pittsburgh, which is at CFD, and found such non-Catholic sources as Time Magazine, Huffington Post, Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, "History of Pittsburgh and Environs", "The National Cyclopaedia of American Biography", "Lamb's biographical dictionary of the United States". Indeed only the earliest lack secular references. It is reasonable that LDS folks should be held to the same std. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 01:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I think that someone's notability must be established outside the organization from which his notability supposedly derives: otherwise, every corporate spokesperson whose name appears in its press releases becomes notable. Notability is not inherited; especially with biographies we need to be very careful about sourcing and independent reliable sources are usually required. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 00:55, 5 September 2014 (UTC) reply

Radical Islam in Australia ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• 1. The article in question received a number of "delete" votes prior to article expansion including a large number of edits affecting the articles coverage, tone and structure. Had the vote taken place after this significant changes were made, the result would have been in favour of "keep."

• 2. Voters who requested deletion did not respond to arguments in favour of "keep."
  • 2.1. Arguments were made for keeping the page (e.g. why the article topic was valid, etc.). This arguments were not discussed prior to deletion.
  • 2.2. Arguments made for "delete" received comments and responses which pointed to logical flaws in citing particular WP policies as cause for deletion (e.g. WP:Fork). It was argued that these policies do not apply to the article under discussion. No response or further discussion was made.

• 3. The final cause for deletion was not specified. This is especially concerning as WP policies cited as reasons for deletion may have been irrelevant to the discussion or not sufficiently demonstrated how they applied in this case.

• 4. "Consensus" (cited subsequently by deleting admin as reason for article deletion) for the final deletion decision was never reached, considering that the deletion discussion was never completed and responses never addressed. I.am.a.qwerty ( talk) 15:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Note: temporarily restored history for discussion here DGG ( talk ) 22:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - while an extensive explanation as to which WP policies were applied might be nice, it certainly isn't required and a lack thereof certainly isn't a reason to overturn a close. The aim of AFD is to build consensus. Other editors are free to express their opinion and you are free to express yours. There is no requirement for each to respond to your questions or comments and responding to each opinion is often considered disruptive anyway. The fact that not all of your opinions or points of view received a response is also not a reason to keep a discussion open or overturn the result of a closed one. The article did receive delete !votes prior to expansion (which, if I'm reading it right, happened on 20 August) but continued to receive independent and policy-based !votes thereafter (suggesting those contributing did read the article rather than simply following previous contributors) two of which called for the title to be salted. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 01:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Closer's comment Apologies for the late comment but I wasn't notified that this had been brought to DRV. As I explained to the requesting editor on my talk page: "The reason for the deletion was that there was a strong consensus in favour of that outcome for the reasons stated in the deletion arguments, i.e. that the article was a WP:POVFORK of Islam in Australia. That is why I commented in the close that a section could be created in that article if there was consensus to do so."  Philg88 ^{♦ talk} 04:33, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - I did read some of the additions after the discussion for deletion started and none of them changed the way I voted. I'd like to give others enough credit to presume they likely did the same. As per the argument that votes for a keep where not addressed. Some of them were. However I don't think any time that there is not a comment against a keep vote that it somehow gives the keep vote any greater weight. Alternatively I don't think that a comment against a delete vote give is lesser weight. Weight must be apportioned to a vote on the grounds of the argument for the vote alone and nothing more or less. I feel it was pretty clear in the discussion that consensus was on the side of a delete. AlanS ( talk) 06:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The consensus was fairly clear, in my opinion. The arguments about fundamental, unresolvable synthesis were particularly strong. Their strength is obvious from the face of the article, which was a fairly random collection of events, thoughts and groups. Neither the changes to the article during the discussion, nor any of the keep arguments, surmounted this problem. In close discussions, it is helpful for the closer to provide reasons. But I don't think it was required here. As Philg88 explains above, it is self-evident from the face of the discussion what the reasons for deletion were. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 07:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Closure appears very appropriate based on arguments provided, as well as based on Wikipedia policies as a whole. The supposed "significant" changes do not change the WP:CFORK issues. Closing admins typically review current version compared to discussions, seeing as we already know that changes take place during AFD discussions the panda ₯’ 09:13, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closer enacted the only possible outcome here. There was a clear and well-reasoned consensus to delete. The expansion did not address any of the issues raised by those who had voted to delete, and the keep votes were backed up with weaker arguments that were well countered. The Drover's Wife ( talk) 14:41, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Although I have no particular opinion on the article itself, this close was a clear reading of an unambiguous consensus. No question as to it being the correct action. Frickeg ( talk) 13:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per The Drover's Wife. I note that I.am.a.qwerty is still trying to create anti-Muslim WP:COATRACK articles by starting a new Islamic organisations in Australia article mainly containing material deleted from this article (giving the impression that most Islamic organisations in Australia are extremist groups). I've removed this from the new article, but it's getting to be like whack a mole... Nick-D ( talk) 22:51, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the close as absolutely correct. I find the "muslims = extremists" coatracking occurring here and as pointed out by User:Nick-D to be quite tiresome. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC). reply
• Endorse the close: " Please start a discussion on the talk page of Islam in Australia as to whether this should be covered in its own section there. Philg88 ♦talk 06:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)". This article is (would be), obviously, a spinout of Islam in Australia if done properly, and could be an unacceptable POVFORK if not. Before considering a spinout article, there needs to be direct coverage in the parent article. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:53, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2011 Match World Cup ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

2012 Match World Cup ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

2013 Match World Cup ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Here is the discussion at User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/August#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup:

Hi Sandstein. You closed Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup. Would you move Match World Cup to the draft namespace at Draft:Match World Cup, so I can add the sources mentioned in the DRV to the article. I will list Matchworld Cup at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchworld Cup after the sources are added to have a community discussion about whether it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 18:35, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, done.  Sandstein  18:56, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I have started the AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchworld Cup.

Would you restore Talk:Match World Cup and move it to Talk:Matchworld Cup? Would you also restore 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, and 2013 Match World Cup and redirect them to Matchworld Cup?

Nickst ( talk · contribs) wrote at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup: "Also please restore season articles ( 2011, 2012, 2013) into my namespace for further working/merging into main article (as was made with ru:Match World Cup)." But since the main article has been restored to mainspace, I think redirecting them to it rather than moving them into Nickst's userspace is a better option. Cunard ( talk) 21:05, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree with proposition. Please, restore 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, and 2013 Match World Cup and redirect them to Matchworld Cup. NickSt ( talk) 15:22, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather wait and see how the deletion discussion concludes.  Sandstein  15:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Sandstein. At User talk:Sandstein/Archives/2014/August#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2014 July 27#Match World Cup, I asked you to restore 2011 Match World Cup, 2012 Match World Cup, and 2013 Match World Cup and redirect them to Matchworld Cup.

You said in response to me and Nickst ( talk · contribs) that you wanted to wait until Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matchworld Cup concluded. The AfD has now been closed as keep. Would you restore and redirect those articles? Thank you, Cunard ( talk) 22:30, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

After looking at this again, I don't think that any of the previous discussions resulted in consensus that the notability of the event in general implies the notability of the individual, annual events. These articles would therefore need to undergo deletion review also, or maybe you can discuss this with the original AfD closer.  Sandstein  06:04, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If, in the future, there are enough sources that establish independent notability for the events, then the redirects can be undone and individual articles written for the annual events.

But this is an editorial decision that can be made if new sources about the individual annual events surface. At this DRV, I am only asking for the articles to be restored and redirected.

Cunard ( talk) 06:58, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Additional request: Please restore Talk:Match World Cup (see deletion log) and move it to Talk:Matchworld Cup if there is nontrivial history at Talk:Match World Cup. Otherwise, I withdraw this additional request. Cunard ( talk) 07:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Support - a sensible option. I do not believe per WP:SPORTSEVENT there is sufficient significant coverage to enable individual season articles to be written with sufficient sourced prose to avoid contravening WP:NOTSTATS, but these are plausible search terms. Fenix down ( talk) 09:46, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Support - seems like a sensible, good-faith request after fairly extensive discussion and collaboration between editors in good standing. I'm also not convinced they would be individually notable but restoration and redirection seems to be in the best interests of the project. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 11:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• I don't see what could possibly be objectionable about this request. I suggest that it be acted on without holding this open for seven days. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:01, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Support per nominator. NickSt ( talk) 10:40, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Emma Rayne Lyle ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• THE RATIONALE REGARDING RESTORING -

The rationale is that the subject is a professional working actress and as such requires a credible page to reference her work in the industry. This is not for publicity, this is for reference purposes only. She has met notability guidelines per Wikipedia. There are substantial credible newspapers and film blogs that discuss her role in films---they do not mention non-notable actors in reviews of films---you must have a notable role to be mentioned in the article or review, there are substantial links to film websites substantiating her roles in film and television and she has been interviewed below.

1. Prestidge, Holly (2011-09-25). "Louisa actress making a name for herself in movies". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-08-27. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
2. Bruce, Billy (2011-09-25). "Eight-year-old shines on silver screen". Ironton Tribune. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
3. Harris, Chris (2014-07-24). "'A Haunting at the Carnegie' debuts Saturday". Commonwealth Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-08-27. Retrieved 2014-08-27.

I would also like to show that she is referenced nine times on Wikipedia -

• This deletion review is malformed as the person requesting the review, 24.100.172.172 ( talk · contribs), hasn't provided a reason for the review. I note that the IP has placed some text at Talk:Emma Rayne Lyle. I don't know if that text is meant to be the reason for the deletion review. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 19:24, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Copied text by 24.100.172.172 ( talk · contribs) from Talk:Emma Rayne Lyle

  Here are some interview regarding Emma personally. Emma does NOT do many interviews (by choice) and does not pay for PR, hence, the lack of articles solely about Emma, but below you will find some articles speaking in greater detail about Emma. http://www.timesdispatch.com/entertainment-life/louisa-actress-making-a-name-for-herself-in-movies/article_a86f825d-511c-5d43-bdb6-5762d30f02a8.html?mode=jqm http://www.irontontribune.com/2011/09/25/eight-year-old-shines-on-silver-screen/ http://hollywoodmomblog.com/child-stars-emma-rayne-lyle-in-why-stop-now-with-all-star-cast/ Live Interview - http://www.trailercodes.com/movie/i-dont-know-how-she-does-it/emma-lyle-premiere-interview MAGAZINE LINK - http://issuu.com/otmweb/docs/wc-may14_4?e=1365649/8095472 This article was written by Chris Harris for the Commonwealth Journal--There was an indication in your debate that her parent wrote the article---this is erroneous and false---please remove comment. Emma and her mother donated their time to help the local arts community by volunteering for this project and raising money for the YEARN Program. http://www.somerset-kentucky.com/news/local_news/article_d64b41e2-152e-5bb0-bef3-548184007bb9.html Emma has been in numerous notable films and television shows. I believe that is the qualifier of notable actress. Ok, these links are better. The proper way to overturn deletion is to go to deletion review and present the case there. I don't mind restoring the article if a consensus is reached there. Let me know if you need help with the process. -- Tone 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) 24.100.172.172 ( talk) 18:55, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply Links http://www.nytimes.com/movies/person/1745645/Emma-Rayne-Lyle http://www.rottentomatoes.com/celebrity/emma_rayne_lyle/ http://deadline.com/2012/02/ifc-films-takes-north-american-rights-to-sundances-predisposed-232688/ http://movieclips.com/P4Yi-emma-rayne-lyle-actor-videos/#p=1 http://www.easyreadernews.com/45972/return-movie/ http://www.rebeccawangentertainment.com/movie-reviews/Why.Stop.Now http://honeycuttshollywood.com/why-stop-now/ http://www.wireimage.com/celebrity-pictures/Actress-Emma-Rayne-Lyle-attends-Predisposed-Premiere-during-the-2012/137824692 http://www.wordandfilm.com/2011/05/i-dont-know-how-she-does-it-trailer-released/ http://www.twcpublicity.com/downloads/production/i_dont_know_how_she_does_it_publicitynotes.pdf http://www.theaquarian.com/2011/09/16/kam-on-film-i-dont-know-how-she-does-it-contagion-and-whats-new-to-theaters/ http://www.christiancinema.com/catalog/article_info.php?articles_id=9228 http://www.dove.org/review/10243-hamlet-and-hutch/ http://www.moviefone.com/movie/hamlet-hutch/20043696/main Variety http://variety.com/2012/film/reviews/predisposed-1117946952/ Entertainment Weekly http://insidemovies.ew.com/2012/07/23/why-stop-now-clip-tracy-morgan/ What about Netflix? http://dvd.netflix.com/Movie/Hamlet-and-Hutch/70302753 How About Echobridge Enterainment http://www.echobridgeentertainment.com/dvd/Hamlet_Hutch_55165 Or -- Anchor Bay Entertainment http://www.anchorbayentertainment.com/detail.aspx?projectID=ffc8d7b7-3ced-4f2a-6309-5247304ace08

  Cunard ( talk) 23:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close and restore article. I endorse the close as an accurate assessment of the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emma Rayne Lyle.

  Closing admin Tone ( talk · contribs) wrote in response to 24.100.172.172 ( talk · contribs)'s links to sources not discussed at the AfD:

  Ok, these links are better. The proper way to overturn deletion is to go to deletion review and present the case there. I don't mind restoring the article if a consensus is reached there. Let me know if you need help with the process. -- Tone 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

  The sources provided by 24.100.172.172 demonstrate that the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline:
  1. Prestidge, Holly (2011-09-25). "Louisa actress making a name for herself in movies". Richmond Times-Dispatch. Archived from the original on 2014-08-27. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
  2. Bruce, Billy (2011-09-25). "Eight-year-old shines on silver screen". Ironton Tribune. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
  3. Harris, Chris (2014-07-24). "'A Haunting at the Carnegie' debuts Saturday". Commonwealth Journal. Archived from the original on 2014-08-27. Retrieved 2014-08-27.
  Cunard ( talk) 23:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but restore. Cunard makes the case for this very well.— S Marshall T/ C 08:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• As above, Endorse the close, but undelete, restore to mainspace, no prejudice against an immediate renomination at AfD (aka Relist if someone wants to immediately renominate). The nomination and sources provided here don't contradict the sentiments of the delete !votes, but the sources referred to in the AfD seem to be very different to the three listed here, and what I find by googling. It would be nice to be able to see the deleted page. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:48, 31 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but restore - As the nominator I actually found nothing & seems the same can be said for the voters on the AFD, I personally wouldn't mind withdrawing the AFD (once restored) since quite alot of sources have been found, – Davey2010 • (talk) 15:30, 1 September 2014 (UTC) reply

User:SqueakBox/BLP ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This was a page in my user space that I was using for Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Porn and BLP and contained a series of diffs with who edited this diffs and a bit about our BLP and 3RR policies which was very objective, ie did not mention editors. WP:USER says "The compilation of factual evidence (diffs) in user subpages, for purposes such as preparing for a dispute resolution process, is permitted provided it will be used in a timely manner."and this is exactly how I was intending to use the page. The admin who deleted has not explianed how I can pursue dispute resolution without this page. IMO Mfd would have been an appropriate forum, a speedy deletion is not and so I ask for this to be overturned and if necessary others can then initiate Mfd, the proper process for this. ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The list in question mentioned my username a number of times. For the record I do not want my name sullied on this editor's user page, which this editor would continue doing if it were restored. Whether the deletion was technically correct as a CSD or behavioral matter, the WP:BATTLE approach has no place among civil colleagues trying to build an encyclopedia, and I want no part of it. - Wikidemon ( talk) 02:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Frankly, you're doing more a more than adequate job of sullying your fake name all by yourself. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 16:30, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Defending an attack page by joining in the attack? Charming. Note — I've left a caution for this editor on their talk page, and asked them to remove that insult and others they have been making in various places. [1] - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment Your argument would be appropriate for an Mfd. How do you suggest I pursue dispute resolution with you and others without such a page to record what has gone on? ♫ SqueakBox talk contribs 02:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If you were to add those links you're always griping about, you could fix the "BLP violations" and you wouldn't need to pursue dispute resolution. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment Kinda hard to comment without seeing what was deleted or a discussion of why it was deleted. Did you discuss the matter with the closing admin? Who was the closing admin? Was there prohibited content? Dcs002 ( talk) 02:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • It was a "hit list", with the names of several users and their alleged "BLP violations", along with some whining at the top about how everybody's against him. He should lose that verbiage and keep the list on his PC and out of sight, until or if he files an actual complaint. Until then, it's just an attack page, and attack pages are not allowed. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • It's still in the google cache for now. [2] If I may cut and paste from google, it begins: Noting BLP violations, which are when BLP material that has been labelled as BLP non compliant is re-added without reliable sources in defiance of our BLP policy. BLP states that reverting such edits are not subject to 3RR and that the users who do such edits may be blocked. [p] [1] Wikidemon [p] [2] Wikidemon [p] [3] Wikidemon [p] [4] Scalhotrod [paragraph break notes added]. There are a total of 12 lines about 5 editors. That seems to contradict the "did not mention other editors" claim, unless Squeakbox has a new definition of mentioning other editors. Meanwhile, Squeakbox's main user page [3] says that "Such people should not be made welcome on this project". There, and in a blog [4] they have the good sense not to accuse Wikipedia editors by user name, only here on this page. - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC) - Wikidemon ( talk) 03:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Very good. I may have exaggerated about the whining. But his assertion that these are BLP violations is false. I had thought Squeaky's obsession with this was done. Looks like not. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
        • You may have exaggerated? The link to the page I followed said nothing about anyone having anything against him. He did initiate mediation, though it seems no one wanted to participate. This looks to me like a use that's within W rules, as long as resolution is sought quickly, and it also sounds like that has happened. What is it about this page that seems like an attack? It looks like a list of examples that SqueakBox believes represents a violation of BLP policy, and it seems as though he/she is trying to make his/her case. I read the AN/I discussion, and it looked to me as if there were a lot of people there who were pre-judging his/her BLP case and skipping straight ahead into attack mode. This list is not at all a hit list IMO (and I'm not even sure what you mean by calling it that, as no one is asked to go after the names on the list). It looks like a list of users and the violations he/she believes they committed for purposes of pursuing some sort of remedy through proper channels. I think the parties who have refused mediation yet call this an attack page are not being fair. They have not seen how this list would be used. So far it seems to me this was deleted inappropriately. Dcs002 ( talk) 03:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
          • The whining about how everybody's against him is in the ANI thread. Baseball Bugs just confused. Cavarrone 03:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
            • You're right, it's in his ANI complaint: "I am storing them precisely because I feel this group of editors is out to harrass me when I have done nothing wrong but they have, ie the BLP violations I have simply linked to." Squeaky's claim of "BLP violation" is untrue, and his accusations to that effect constitute personal attacks. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
              • That's what dispute resolution is for. He would have to show his page contents and if it's ridiculous you can have a chuckle. In any case, the page would have to be removed once it was used for dispute resolution, which had already been initiated before the AN/I discussion was opened. That's a legal use of a list of diffs per WP:POLEMIC Dcs002 ( talk) 06:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn This was clearly not an attack page, but a list of evidence collected for pending action concerning certain users who so far have refused to participate. That is an appropriate use of personal pages. Dcs002 ( talk) 03:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment I questioned SqueakBox about the list and its scope in my talk page and he never mentioned it was a temporary page about preparing for a dispute resolution, on the contrary he replied:"(it is) just a record of BLP violations", " If you want we can go to mediation but given that BLP violators were trying to get ME topic banned I am well within my rights to log BLP violations.", "The list merely records BLP violaqtions, if you know of any I have missed pñlease let me know and I will add them. making records like this is not an attack page, that would be like using my personal space to launch attacks on editors where all i ahve done is record publicly available diffs that violate BLP, as the page states. So I wont be deleting it as that would be not being transparent, after all I could easily have constructed the list off wikiepdia but I felt for the sake of transparency to do so onwiki.". None of his replies suggests he intended the list as a temporary memo. SqueakBox came out with this new explaination just after the page was deleted and after an admin suggested that it could be considered valid if a preparation for a dispute resolution. If this was his original explaination I would had not asked for immediate deletion. Cavarrone 03:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

SqueakBox said "If you want we can go to mediation but given that BLP violators were trying to get ME topic banned I am well within my rights to log BLP violations" 11 minutes before notifying you on that same page that he had invited you to participate in mediation. (If you'd prefer mediation instead of AN/I perhaps?) All other comments came after his notice. You refused the mediation request 17 minutes after you had received the formal notice. So, most if what he(?) said on your page came AFTER requesting mediation. And he is within his rights to log BLP violations as long as he plans to do something about it soon. Just as WP is not a crystal ball, nor is it a place for mind reading. The fact that he didn't say up front that he intended to initiate dispute resolution does not mean his intention was not to do so. He might have thought that was obvious. We all deserve the benefit of a doubt before we are assumed to be trying to hurt someone. He deserves the presumption of good faith as well. BLP is the most rigidly applied rule we seem to have here, and if he believes (correctly or incorrectly) that it is routinely being violated, then he MUST take action, including making notes and diffs for evaluation by mediators or admins. If his notes show edits of yours that are not BLP violations, then how are you attacked? In that case he would look the fool, not you. Dcs002 ( talk) 04:19, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Dcs002, yes, he asked if I wanted to start a mediation about the list, and then mentioned that " BLP violators (me included) were trying to get ME topic banned I am well within my rights to log BLP violations" which sounds quite pointy and retaliatory to me. About the rest, you have to know a bit of background before judging our interactions here. All the links of the list come from the article List of pornographic actors who appeared in mainstream films, which he proposed for deletion and blanked more than three weeks ago, a blanking which I reverted twice at the time. This was my BLB violation, shared with a half dozen of other editors. The question was already dealt with a very extensive ANI discussion I started at the time ( [5]), an AfD discussion (closed as snow keep in a few hours) and an RfC. Frankly I considered the case closed, if not buried. It was discussed to the death, with a lot of unnecessary drama. Me, as the others, have no edited such article from that time. The article is actually fixed, and it has no realistic chance to be deleted. Today,as if nothing had happened, Squeakbox restarted from the scratch with the same outdated accusations, wishing to re-escalate all the drama about that page-blanking me and the others had already archivied. He is not raising any new argument, just the one which was discussed to the death. Call it as you want, I call it battleground behaviour. And it would better for everyone if he turn the page and drop the stick. Cavarrone 04:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I cannot see how this page meets the criteria for speedy deletion. I cannot reconcile this deletion with policy. If anything it should be settled at MfD. There is a policy basis for such material and nothing on the page was ad hominem in nature. Violations of the user page policy are not speedy deletable, MfD is the place. Chillum 03:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Since the content has been moved, I agree this debate has become moot. Chillum 11:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Per Chillum and Dcs002. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 03:53, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Request temporary undeletion I know nothing about Google cache so I don't know how long that version of the page will be available, and I think we should be able to do our business here without resorting to outside web resources. I'm concerned about whether SqueakBox will get a fair hearing unless the page is temporarily undeleted for purposes of this DRV discussion. As there is no copyright violation and no BLP violation alleged to be contained within the deleted page, I believe this is an appropriate step. No one has as yet claimed that anything said on the page is a lie, and all diffs on the page are verifiable. Dcs002 ( talk) 04:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The cached version will be stored until Google recrawls the page. I've heard that it can take months for it to recrawl (which is based on page views). Since no one can really view the page, it may stay cached for a while. MrScorch6200 ( talk | ctrb) 05:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• It sounds like a strong reading of WP:CSG#G10. Probably, this should go to MfD. The page can be blanked for the duration of the discussion, if the contents are offensive. User:TParis deleted it, but who nominated it? Endorse TParis' position as seen at User_talk:TParis#DR. My frequent !vote at MfD on these things is along the lines of "store it offline until you initiate formal dispute resolution". I trust that the nominator is free to receive the material by email? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:50, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• He already owns the material, he wrote at ANI "of course I can just store it in a text editor, and i have already backed it up there". Cavarrone 05:00, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Can we just treat this as the behavioral issue it is and ask this user to stop making ridiculous accusations against other members of the community? They are a problem that invites undue drama and a great waste of editor time whichever page they are on. - Wikidemon ( talk) 05:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Not in a DRV. An appropriate place to do that would be mediation or some other dispute resolution. I would also like to know who nominated for speedy deletion, and what the timing was. It looks as though SqueakBox requested mediation and got his evidence yanked at about the same time less than three hours later - yanked in a way that says he was doing something wrong by compiling it, thereby possibly prejudicing any mediation or other dispute resolution. Lists of diffs are explicitly permitted for dispute resolution, and it appears to me that SqueakBox's ongoing efforts at dispute resolution have been compromised. I think we all need to tread very carefully and consider everybody's right to be heard, and give dispute resolution a fair chance. Dcs002 ( talk) 06:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• What's the fixation on meaningless process? We have a vexatious editor who's antagonizing a part of the community. Nonsense gets spun out from AN/I to far-flung process pages including things one. SqueakBox has already been heard from, many times, to the point of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT among other things. His right to having others hear him badmouthing me does not trump my right to some WP:AGF and WP:CIVILITY. How about administrators, you know, administrating — not facilitating this? - Wikidemon ( talk) 06:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Correction: The request for mediation was made BEFORE the AN/I was initiated. That timing can be interpreted in a few different ways. The more I look at this the more it looks to me as if SqueakBox was doing what he thought was right (whether or not he actually was right, and regardless of whether others found his methods annoying), decided on dispute resolution of some sort, collected diffs and put them in a place that could be easily referenced during dispute resolution, requested mediation (step #1 in dispute resolution), and then became the subject of an AN/I (after initiating dispute resolution) and lost his easily referenced evidence, which he says is for the purpose of dispute resolution. If I assume good faith on his part, this is what it looks like to me. Wikidemon, he is not badmouthing you. He has asked for mediation, and he has a grievance, which he is allowed to support with this kind of evidence. I don't see how this page violates G10 when this use of diffs is made explicit in WP:POLEMIC. I think the place for all this rancor is in dispute resolution, not here in a DRV. Participate in dispute resolution with him and insist he use the contents of that page or delete it then. Dcs002 ( talk) 06:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• That's not helpful or accurate. Squeak has certainly badmouthed me and others quite a bit lately and lied about my edit history, including on the attack page. To pick just a couple examples, I'm not sure what part of calling people "persistent BLP violators", calling for their blocks, "deliberately disruptive",[ [6] saying people like me "should not be made welcome on this project" for whom he feels "disgust", [7] isn't badmouthing. A useful administrative response is to actually counsel editors like that to tone it down and stop creating an uncivil environment, not telling the targets of their rancor that they should go join them in a process war. - Wikidemon ( talk) 07:38, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Wikidemon, I was talking only about the subject at hand - the page that was deleted. I meant there was no badmouthing there. Sorry about the confusion. I am glad to see you have accepted mediation, because that is a place where you can get help with all these issues. It might be frustrating, especially at first, and in the end you might need to step it up, but there's a good chance it will work out. You're making a good faith attempt to stop the craziness. If he is everything you say he is, you might be the only person here doing something effective to stop him. (I make no judgement - I don't know either of you.)

My first experience with mediation was with an editor who "owned" a page with content I found deeply offensive. He was offered every opportunity to back off gracefully, but in the end he was restricted from that page for quite some time, with warnings of worse if he should return to his old ways. The second mediation I was involved with was about an AfD. Well, the mediator thought we could really work things out on our own once we had blown off our steam, and they were right. In the end we worked together and rewrote the article into something we could be proud of. Best of luck to you! Dcs002 ( talk) 08:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Support the move to the mediation page - where it should die a quick death. Keep it deleted - It's an attack page. Attack pages are not allowed. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:18, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion - if it was part of another page, it would have been swiftly removed without issue. As for who nominated it, I was the first one to suggest G10 at ANI, does that count? Ansh 666 05:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. It's not important, but sometimes I wonder whether we are discussing an admin's unilateral deletion, or a admin deletion in response to a well-explained tagging. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per WP:POLEMIC. I've collected diffs offline for evidence before; It is a much simpler and drama-free way to go about it. -- Mdann 52 talk to me! 06:14, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Content moved to the mediation talk page here. There is no need to restore this page.--v/r - T P 06:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Technical Overturn but practical Meh The policy is very clear that Squeak is entitled to maintain the content as part of gathering evidence for dispute resolution and TParis acknowledges that he missed the fact that this was ongoing when he deleted the page. That he then restored a page he deleted as a G10 attack page elsewhere is tacit acceptance that he made the wrong call. If its an attack page why is it fine there but not at the original home? That said, I do not encourage the gathering of shit lists in user areas unless there is a clear need for them and if the RFM is already listed that is the correct place to maintain the 'evidence'. In summary, TParis was probably too bold to delete this but its not worth the aggro of restoring it now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I think it's all a matter of whether the content is genuinely to be used for dispute resolution. The content is now in a place where that can be the only interpretation of its use. If the mediator decides the list is really a shitlist and malignant in purpose, the mediator (or arbitrator, if it goes to that) can deal with it then. It's off the userspace and in context now. Dcs002 ( talk) 07:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Note, of course, that TParis didn't restore the block-threatening preamble. Ansh 666 07:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It wasn't necessary. That's all covered in the request for mediation. I wouldn't read more into it. Dcs002 ( talk) 08:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and speedy close I think the savy move by TParis made this discussion moot. I am absolutely fine with a series of links put in a proper place, with an established timeline to be discussed (while I still think it was already discussed enough, and that restarting the discussion is just beating a dead horse) and without a partisan intro labelling them as BLP violations which require a block. I think everyone may be regarded as satisfied. Cavarrone 07:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Content moved I agree with Cavarrone. As dispute resolution has begun, moving the content there is an appropriate part of that process, and insurance that the content will be used appropriately. The issue of deletion review is now moot. I don't see a speedy close option for a DRV, but SqueakBox, as your good reason for keeping the list of diffs has now been satisfied, and the dispute resolution process has begun, I think it would be a really classy thing for you to withdraw your DRV request. (Thanks TParis for the decision!) Dcs002 ( talk) 08:13, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. No grounding in policy for this deletion. Users are free to prepare for dispute resolution in their userspace. Given that most of the parties involved have refused moderation, there's no reason not to allow SB to prepare a request for another appropriate forum. And the community should take appropriate note of the canvassing and bad faith faux-anger that involved the whiners who are trying to frustrate legitimate BLP enforcement in an area long marked by highly inappropriate editing, particularly when it involves paid editors. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 16:28, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The only whiner is Squeaky. This is not about BLP violations, it's about manual of style pedantry. The BLP claims are a smokescreen, and are false. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Oh, like hell. No honest user familiar with the history of such lists could say that. Porn star lists have been BLP nightmares for years. I've had to remove dozens upon dozens upon dozens of the most obvious BLP violations, where the wrong person is included on a list because of named similarities. The two bondage lists I cleaned out recently had accuracy rates -- in terms of reliable sourcing in the list or in any linked or related article -- of 20-30%, and none of the feigned outrage and self-righteous whining from you guys outweighs the gross failure to abide by basic policy. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:49, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Squeaky didn't bother to check for BLP violations on the list that started this, he just whacked it (pardon the ironic metaphor). If he really cared about BLP, he would do as you do, and take care to confirm that the entries on the lists are valid. ← Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:54, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Given the notorious, long-standing, piss-poor job of checking that marks so many porn/erotica lists in Wikipedia, I suspect SB's approach may show greater care with regard to BLP. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 22:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• speedy was incorrect, it was a legit set of diffs. That said, the move should be enough--I don't see why having this data in userspace is needed or useful for dispute resolution since it is elsewhere (If SB would like to make that case, I'd like to hear it, but I can't even dream up a reason it would be needed. And given dispute resolution has started and the data is there, it might even be speedy eligible now). I think the deleting admin made a mistake and should take their fishwack, but otherwise I see no action needed at this time. Hobit ( talk) 21:09, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. In the end, I think TParis did the right thing. The content was restored to the proper place. It's not worth dragging this out and causing more drama. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 21:21, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Per our BLP policy for non article space which states: "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Even in preparing for a DR one does not have to use their sub page to repeat what they claim are BLP violations. Such content is best prepared off line.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 21:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Can we please close this? It's moot now, and it's attracting flies. - Wikidemon ( talk) 21:59, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment if there is no further reason to keep this up, yes...please close it. It appears to becoming a platform for personal attacks.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 22:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Power Rangers Dino Charge ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Using a search engline, the next power ranger season is confirmed by sources. Checking the history however, it was protected and/or deleted so we need consensus before the article can be reposted. As an anonymous user, I will not attempt to create the article given it's history as it would likely be deleted if it's created by a new user. Yes, Wikipedia is not for fortunetellers but there are many cases where an article will be created for the next season of a TV show during the current season. 75.151.153.97 ( talk) 14:43, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, as nominator. There is a copy of the article in the page's history. 75.151.153.97 ( talk) 14:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Coverage of future events needs to be encyclopedic, which goes beyond newspaper-type announcements.  Will anyone care in ten years what was being said in 2014 about this topic?  There is no WP:DEADLINE.  For getting started on the article, WP:Drafts is available.  Unscintillating ( talk) 19:57, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

this is less than a year away, what do you expect? 69.60.207.229 ( talk) 19:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn seems reasonable if an established user wants to work on it. It was deleted as a creation of a banned user, which shouldn't prevent a good-faith article attempt. It does appear to be [ official]. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per legitimate source and above. 69.60.207.229 ( talk) 19:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I had no objections to a sourced article and asked for a redirect until then in the nom for the banned user version of this article. If good sources are available, so be it and create the article, but of course don't just use kidvid blogs and outright PR as the base of it. Nate • ( chatter) 00:42, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Don't care who writes the article, as long as it is a proven series. 79.136.250.38 ( talk) 02:07, 27 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse protection until it happens Yes, I realize this is somewhat of a futile protest, but Wikipedia is way too much concerned with what's happening now (and, by extension, what's probably going to happen soon). That's not what encyclopedias are for. If I want to learn about trending topics, I can go to Twitter. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse protection until it happens  The title of the source that has been mentioned here is Exclusive: 'Power Rangers Dino Charge' coming in 2015.  The most concrete fact in this source says that "Bandai America is slated to create a new dinosaur-themed toy line pegged to its launch."  This is an example of something that may or may not happen.  Since this source is dated to last February, I Googled ["Power Rangers Dino Charge" "Bandai"] and see that pre-production models of the toy line are being displayed at toy shows.  For example, this blog dated 26 August 2014 says that Bandai of America recently changed the color of the triceratops for the Pink Ranger from purple to pink.  While it is possible that reliable sources could be found, an article on Bandai's pre-production toy line for Power Rangers Dino Charge would run smack into WP:NOT's WP:PROMOTION.  And the current coverage at Power Rangers and in the example article here don't mention Bandai.  No one has answered my question posed above, "Will anyone care in ten years what was being said in 2014 about this topic?".  Unscintillating ( talk) 14:48, 30 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

A7,G11,G12 Doodleblueofficial ( talk) 01:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment - it's been deleted five times and salted twice. You're going to need to convince people here that you have a viable draft that meets Wikipedia criteria before that title is going to be unprotected. I would start with WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MOS and (given your username) WP:COI. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 04:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse by default since no reason has been given to explain why the deletion criteria didn't apply. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 12:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse literally no rationale given. Should probably be speedy-closed (as an AFD with no given rationale would be). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:58, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Windows 9 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

By now, it appears definite that Windows 9 isn't just a rumor; it's real. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:44, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse for now at least. One of the main items of the discussion was that there was no information about the product at the redirect destination. Look just now at Microsoft Windows that still appears to be the case. I don't think anyone was arguing that it was a rumour, in fact I suspect most people would believe that there would be a later version under some name or other. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 14:53, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  Do a Google search and see what the current status of Windows 9 is. Georgia guy ( talk) 14:56, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  I don't see that as relevant to the redirect. If there is enough verifiable material in 3rd party reliable sources, either add it to the Windows article (if you can get consensus to) in which case the reason for deleting the redirect would be moot, or get the Windows 9 article itself created in which case the redirect is irrelevant. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 15:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  FWIW the search I just did the latest news seems to be that there will be a technology preview in the next couple of months, however all of them like this one attribute it to sources who won't be named. i.e. it's still little more than rumour and conjecture. "I've asked Microsoft officials for comment. To date, Microsoft execs have declined to comment on what will be in Threshold, when it will be available, how much it will cost or what it will be named." -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 15:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Sorry, Georgia guy, could you explain what we're doing here? Do you want us to overturn the RfD and reinstate the redirect, or is it that you want to write an article in that space? I could perhaps be persuaded that Windows 9 is becoming a plausible search term now. It would be a bit harder to convince me that you have decent sources for a full article.— S Marshall T/ C 01:27, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• My views:

  Permit recreation of the redirect if and when the target article mentions Windows 9. The substance of the consensus at the RfD was that the redirect was inappropriate because it would inconvenience readers to be directed to a page that didn't even mention the search term. Given that redirects exist principally for convenience purposes, that's a very sound basis for the consensus. So the pragmatic course would be to try,at the appropriate point, to achieve consensus (either explicitly, at the article's talk page, or tacitly, through the absence of reversion or objection) for the target article to mention Windows 9. At that point there could be no objection to the redirect.

  Permit creation of an article once there are sufficient sources that are not based on rumour and unsourced reporting. I suspect this will be very soon after there are sufficient sources to justify mentioning Windows 9 in Microsoft Windows, so the redirect won't be around for very long. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:20, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per the argument that there is currently no target containing relevant information nor can there be one at this time per WP:SPECULATION. (However, the creation protection should be removed immediately to allow a redirect to be created at this title if Microsoft confirms the name as such and notice of such confirmation is added to a Wikipedia article.) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 22:46, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Just remove the create protection, and permit an article. A redirect is not needed, because what is appropriate as an article. Thee are enough articles discussing it--a further version of windoes is as certain as anything in the computer world can be, and if MS decides to call it something else, the title can be changed. (in fact, its been so widely reported under this name we'd need a redirect for it if the name turned out to be something different). A simple Gsearch on the term gives at least a dozen very reliable sources that we routinely use for articles in this field. Yhis is enough to avoid NOT CRySTAL.— Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)

• I think they should call it Windows: Curtains.— S Marshall T/ C 18:06, 22 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse  "Appears definite" is an oxymoron.  At Wikipedia, we don't need to speculate about the future, we can wait for it.  Given the report that there is encyclopedic sourcing here, the challenge is in finding the right name for an article that will survive the test of time, and still be meaningful in say ten or twenty years.  For example, 2014 product rumors for Windows 9.  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:20, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ User:Unscintillating: Think of the WP:BEANS before you post! (Seriously, though... that was a joke, right?) Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Perhaps you are thinking of argumentum ad absurdum.  But, no, there is no humor here.  An article about speculation is WP:V verifiable and is about things that have already happened, and is quite unlike WP:Speculation.  If you can improve on the article title, please do so.  Unscintillating ( talk) 20:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ User:Unscintillating: I thought you were being sarcastic regarding your suggestion, as it seems to me that this type of article would still likely not be considered compliant with WP:SPECULATION and would therefore likely be something we would want to discourage (or not encourage) per WP:BEANS. Do we have any articles of this type already? If not, I highly doubt such an article would be kept at WP:AFD... Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 21:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I think you are making an argumentum ad absurdum argument about the content, yet it is the title that provokes your comments.  If what you say is correct, the same problem but worse would be present in any current article entitled "Windows 9".  And yet two editors here think that such an article can be written.  Are you really arguing against the title, or are you still arguing against the sourcing that would be used for such an article?  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• As for whether or not we should discourage such an article, what would be wrong in 2024 with having an article entitled 2014 product rumors about Windows 9?  Unscintillating ( talk) 21:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Right now, there is precisely no information available about this topic except for rumors, as far as I am aware. Therefore, no such article is permitted to be written right now (per WP:SPECULATION), regardless of title. Including a rumors section in a full-fledged article is another matter entirely, and one that I actually think should be discussed if and when such a full-fledged article is written. (I don't think a separate article for the rumors would work later on either, primarily per WP:WEIGHT.) So yes, it is indeed about the sourcing first and foremost in my view. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 21:40, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I can see the appeal of an article about the rumours, what I'm struggling to see is how we could legitimately write that. Unless the topic of the rumours (rather than the rumours themselves) are documented elsewhere, we'd end up with a list of primary sources referenced in an article merely listing the rumours, it couldn't give any real context/signficance or perspective without being WP:OR. It can't see how we meet WP:V, the rumours aren't verifiable, all we can verify is that X wrote about rumour Y, which is a pretty tedious article, some of the articles I read did say according to another of the publications, others don't but it would seem likely that was their source, not sure how we could effectively deal with that either. I'd suspect it would just end up being a pit of WP:OR. In short I just can't see how we could write an ok encyclopaedia article. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 10:24, 24 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Good points, although I'd note that WP:OR is not the same as extracting meaning.  I haven't looked at them, but from the comments, and the lack of refutation, I wonder if these sources are WP:RS.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Permit creation, a search turns up tons of legit sources. Nuff said. 72.76.84.101 ( talk) 21:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • "Permit creation" of what exactly? You mentioned sources so it sounds like you're talking about an article, but the deletion discussion in question was for a redirect... Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 23:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment  There is additional community discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 March 10 and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Windows 9.  Disclosure: I !voted at the AfD to delete and salt as needed.  Follow-up, I amend my "endorse" to Endorse and salt.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Rajesh Shah ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Listed in Limca Book of Records The work done by Rajesh Shah in the field of homeopathy is really incredible, so he has found place in Limca book of records. Further the referral links on this page were pointing towards homeopathy research related websites. Such kind of pages need to re-included in the wikipedia, these pages are kind of educational resources for doctors and students. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksghadagemca ( talk • contribs)

• Comment - kind of a weird case; kept in 2006 for meeting WP:N Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rajesh Shah, then userfied by an admin in 2011 (something I'd caution against doing to articles that were kept at AfD. Deleted nor for failing WP:NACADEMIC (certainly true) and WP:N (the argument is just asserting there's no substantial sources, when there are a couple - again, weird). Given the discussion, I don't see how it can be closed any other way; but it's not at all obvious that the same article at AfD once again wouldn't get a clear keep verdict. Wily D 09:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. To have such a clear and recent consensus overturned at deletion review (even accounting for the earlier procedural discrepancies brought up by WilyD) we would need to see compelling evidence that the AfD participants ignored. Such as new or unconsidered sources. Most of the AfD participants appeared to look at the sources reasonably carefully before coming to the consensus they did. The consensus seems quite safe. (It seems that the strongest source presented, in terms of significant coverage, was this. I'd be very hesitant to rely on that as the principal basis for a Wikipedia article; it's written like a puff piece and therefore probably is.) -- Mkativerata ( talk) 11:01, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the userfy was indeed odd, other than that it doesn't seem too odd really. The original discussion I would read as perhaps a no consensus (Numerically perhaps not, but on the keep side 3 or 4 SPAs, one long term troll/vandal account, one asserting the nom was in bad faith, but no other argument, a blind assertions of notability etc.), and given that standards and expectations have changed in the intervening years a delete outcome this time shouldn't be too much of a stretch. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 11:20, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - we have to look at the guidance here. He fails WP:PROF, and the way WP:PROF is set up he is always going to fail WP:PROF, as being "the most prominent homeopathic researcher" is entirely equivalent to being "the prominent flat-earth geologist" - both are clearly nonsensical pseudosciences entirely unsupported by even the most basic evidence and therefore we get to WP:NFRINGE - and that essentially requires WP:MAINSTREAM coverage. I remain unconvinced that the Guinness Book of Records rip-off represents a reliable source for a BLP in a " WP:FRINGE" area. Barney the barney barney ( talk) 23:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Well, I certainly agree that he'll never reach WP:PROF but that doesn't mean we shouldn't have an article. Mr Shah isn't an academic. Bigfoot isn't an ape, but we have an article on that... Although Wikipedia isn't Snopes, we do have a basic role in educating the public and exposing hoaxers is a part of that. I think that in an ideal world we probably should have an article on Mr Shah, although I'm not sure whether Ksghadagemca would approve of the kind of article I have in mind. Unfortunately there aren't the sources for a proper article at the moment and the consensus at the discussion was clear, so the only practical outcome is endorse.— S Marshall T/ C 12:56, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment I would not have the least objection to including a homeopath under WP:PROF -- that the subject is considered fringe has nothing to do with the notability of those working on it. But there is no evidence in the article that he is in fact an authority; If he were a regular physician with the corresponding record, we would also delete the article. DGG ( talk ) 08:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Space_Station_13 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The article was removed because of lack of notability. The game was once a small community on a game engine called Byond. Now its the largest game on Byond and was featured in multiple magazines. It has a huge community and large servers. Smaller games on Byond have their own articles on Wikipedia, so I believe that the Space Station 13 article should be restored.

• Comment: Can you provide proof of the coverage? If you can show where the game has had coverage in reliable sources then it would help show that the game now passes notability guidelines. The size of a game's fan or userbase doesn't count towards notability- it makes it more likely that the game would have gained coverage, but it's not a guarantee. As far as other articles existing ( WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), that doesn't necessarily mean that this game should have an article. It may just mean that those articles haven't been deleted yet or pass notability guidelines. I don't mean to sound harsh, just that we need proof of coverage. I'll see what I can find, though. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 18:31, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Yes. I'll provide links.

• http://www.pcgamesn.com/indie/space-station-13-multiplayer-space-station-simulator-about-monkeys-insane-ai-cultists-and-paperwork
• http://www.ss13.eu/ss13%20pc%20gamer.png Here is a picture from a magazine called PC Gamer.
• http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2010/07/21/space-station-13-galactic-bartender-ep-1/
• http://www.thegameeffect.com/review/space-station-13-review
• http://www.gameinformer.com/blogs/members/b/pwnmaster109_blog/archive/2014/07/16/a-game-worth-sharing-space-station-13.aspx

There are probably more, but I have to search for them. DrChefACE ( talk) 18:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment the deletion discussion appears to be 9 years ago, I doubt we'd worry too much about that decision now, so I'm not sure why it'd be here at DRV. If a suitable article can be written meeting the relevant standards, then go ahead and do it (though I doubt blog posts are really what you want for source here). -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 19:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• No point restoring this: the article's been userfied to User:Bluefist/Space Station 13; the most recent nonblanked version is here; and it'll be of absolutely no help in building a proper article. There's nothing stopping you from writing a new article, though - nobody's going to speedy delete G4 something that was last discussed at VFD in 2005. No need to ask DRV. — Cryptic 00:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Permit Recreation, it's been long enough and the sources look good enough that the old AFD shouldn't be considered binding. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC). reply

• Permit recreation - if OP wants a formal consensus for recreation then I'm happy to contribute to that effort. Can't fault community spirit! Go for it, I say. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 11:38, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Ally mcbeal cast 1997 original season 1.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

I uploaded this image a while back. However, it was nominated for deletion just because it was deemed unfit for WP:NFCC standards to nominator's eyes. I contacted the deleting admin six months ago, but he did not responded (my bad: "but he stuck to his interpretation"). I was planning to contact him again, but he seems inactive at this time. The people who voted deletion were indecisive on which image of Ally McBeal cast photo must be kept. I voted "Keep", but I guess my comments were ineffective to the deleting administrator and those who wanted just one cast photo in the article. This DRV may be overdue, but late is better than never. Out of curiosity, this photo is the one I was referring to (although the one I uploaded was George Ho ( talk) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• George may have missed my comment on his talk page earlier this year regarding the deletions so I have included a diff here. I don't see how my closure is incorrect, which is what this process is all about. Apart from the uploader keeping the image attracted no support. as per the closure if editors of the article want a different image then it is a simple matter to change. What I can't see is a compelling argument for why this extra image meets the NFCC requirements or why I was incorrect in weighing the arguments - Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

File:Ally mcbeal 2001 season 5.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

Same reason as above for this image that I uploaded. Nevertheless, this is a photo of different cast of the same series; see here. George Ho ( talk) 06:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• George may have missed my comment on his talk page earlier this year regarding the deletions so I have included a diff here. I don't see how my closure is incorrect, which is what this process is all about. Apart from the uploader keeping the image attracted no support. as per the closure if editors of the article want a different image then it is a simple matter to change. What I can't see is a compelling argument for why this extra image meets the NFCC requirements or why I was incorrect in weighing the arguments - Peripitus (Talk) 09:57, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Chalmers Tschappat ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe the close of this ignores a number of pre-established methods on how notability and concepts like BURDEN are to work when it comes to sub-notability guidelines.

I will add that the process of this AFD had two possible mis-steps which should be considered if this was a problem: first, I personally was asked by Dirtlawyer1 ( talk · contribs) to participate in the AFD as I've been involved in discussing how the nature of notability and subject-specific notability guidelines should play out, and thus they involved me as an "expert" in this area (see [8]) which the closing admin Spinningspark ( talk · contribs) appears to think is a problem. Second, because some of the discussion was going at a tagnent, a user moved many of the non-!vote comments/threads to the talk page (I added a note that this was done), which also may have been considered an issue.

But that's process issues, there's still other factors with this AFD. Notability has long been established as a "presumption", particularly when it comes to the SNGs - we allow topics that meet certain criteria to have articles as to allow time for editors to locate existing sources or for new sources to come about to be able to try to improve the article (in this case, a proper application of WP:NGRIDIRON. But at the end of the day, if the sourcing cannot be improved and a reasonable source search has been done, then the burden goes to those that want to keep the article to prove that the article should be kept. Specifically, this means that one can no longer use the presumption of NGRIDIRON, and must show standard GNG-type coverage (or at least, demonstrate that there are sources even if they can't get their hands on them immediately). And here we are talking about a player that played for only a few games, back in the 1920s, has passed away, so any expectation of new sources coming about is just not there. Other editors at the AFD reported what they searched and lack of any significant results. The closer seemed to believe that this was a case to try to establish this concept and thus seemed to ignore these points (which were brought up in the AFD), but it really is something already present in guidelines on deletion policy and notability, and I know personally I have discussed this point with the NSPORTS/sports-related editors on the same manner with the same consensus.

There is some argument whether the material added to the article over the AFD meets the GNG, but as was pointed out, it merely showed the player existed and was on rosters - sufficient for the initial presumption of NGRIDIRON but not the coverage that is required for GNG-style notability.

At minimum, I am extremely uncomfortable with this being closed as a unreasoned "keep", with a 3-3 split. A "no consensus" would be much more appropriate if the issue was a question of the GNG-vs-SNG matter. MASEM ( t)

• The closure as "keep" was appropriate since the individual plainly passed NGRIDRON. To the extent that Masem believes that passing the SNG is insufficient, that is a discussion that is properly directed to the appropriate talk page, most likely at WP:NSPORT, but it is not a reason to overturn the ruling of the closing admin on this AfD. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Also, there were only two (not three) delete votes. Even the nominator ended up suggesting he may have erred in making the nomination by the time the discussion was ended. Cbl62 ( talk) 15:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

While I suggested that I may have erred in nominating, making such a statement doesn't (nor should it) change my !vote.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 19:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Again, like all SNGs, NGRIDIRON is a presumption that is given to allow time for sources to be located or to come about. When someone goes to more-than-a-passing effort to look for sources and finds none, and we can reasonably expect no sources have been found, BEFORE has been met and the SNG presumption is invalidated, placing the burden on those wanting to keep to find them. The argument that you can never challenge NGRIDRON is against the established nature of the SNGs and turns them into inherited notability, which we don't allow. -- MASEM ( t) 16:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

WP:WABBITSEASON There's no need to repeat the same argument over and over.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I participated in the AFD and agreed with the closure. I found the argument that the presumption of notability has a deadline to be... well... presumptuous. It has long been standing procedure that even if a person plays a single down of a regular season game in the NFL, then the notability is presumed. The argument that the presumption has a deadline is something I can find no reference to anywhere. Notability does not expire, why would the presumption of notability expire? It seemed to me that the arguments were more against WP:NGRIDIRON rather than the article in question, for the article in question certainly met that guideline. If any editor has a problem with WP:NGRIDIRON then that is where the discussion should take place. Editors should be able to see guidelines as reasonably reliable and not have to defend against them on the fly. As to the canvassing issue, all I know is that when I asked people to come to an AFD to participate, I got spanked for canvassing. I'm disappointed that others seem to think they deserve a free pass on that one.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:15, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Paul, you need to read WP:CANVASSING and understand when notice of discussions is appropriate and when it is not. Not all notices are inappropriate. There are two apparent exceptions that apply to Masem's invited participation in this discussion (expertise in the particular area under discussion, and prior participation in related discussions). You will note that not only was this done openly, but Masem appropriately disclosed how he came to the AfD in the AfD discussion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 18:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Dirtlawyer, you are aware that there is dissent in that opinion in this specific case with your involvement in the discussion at User talk:Spinningspark#AfD canvassing.

Uh, yes, Paul, I am aware that the closing admin has another opinion. As you can see, I initiated the discussion to which you linked and I was one of two active participants in that discussion. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• further comment Dirtlawyer, your comments at User talk:Masem#NGRIDIRON vs. GNG state "Masem, I invite your participation in this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chalmers Tschappat. This AfD presents a potential test of the limits of the presumption extended by NGRIDIRON, especially in the face of a demonstrable inability to satisfy GNG with significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources. Your expertise is solicited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC)" This, to me, is a clear example of campaigning, defined as "Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner."-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:59, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Paul, I believe that my notice to Masem, including a brief summary of the policy and guideline issues presented by the circumstance of this AfD, is a succinct and neutral statement of those issues and possible consequences. You apparently believe otherwise. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:04, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Paul, you are of course entitled to your opinion. However, if I were "campaigning" for a particular outcome in this AfD, as you suggest, don't you think that it's a little bit odd that I never registered an !vote in the AfD? What I want is consistently interpreted and enforced notability guidelines, and everyone involved here knows or should know that there is inconsistency in how we have enforced the actual language of NGRIDIRON and GNG. You need to AGF, and dial down your rhetoric. Like you, I am a regular editor of sports articles in general and American football in particular, and I only have the best interests of the encyclopedia and WP:CFB at heart. Hopefully, you can summon enough GF to accept that reality, instead of engaging in this discussion as if it were some sort of blood feud. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• • From WP:N: "Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject should be included. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And while notability doesn't expire, the presumption that a topic is notable can be challenged. And it has been established before at Talk:NSPORTS this is how it works. -- MASEM ( t) 16:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I don't see the word "deadline" in any of that. Further, the article in question was clearly not an indiscriminate collection of information. See WP:discriminate.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 16:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • There are no secondary sources, so as such, it fails WP:NOR (no secondary sources to explain importance), WP:V (to some degree, as some of the sources aren't independent) and WP:GNG. And no, we don't specify a deadline because that would be gamed (both ways), but instead use common sense - we aren't suddenly going to have new sources appear about a player like this from the 1920s today. -- MASEM ( t) 16:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
        • I remember the argument in AFD about how the New York Times shouldn't be used as a source. At least one other editor besides myself disagreed with that interpretation. As for verifiability, the information is indeed all verifiable (which is how it got in the article in the first place). The rest is just re-hashing of the same old argument.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
          • And I pointed out via WP:PRIMARYNEWS/ WP:PSTS that that thinking was wrong; newspaper articles simply reporting details are primary sources, long established policy on WP. That's the same process that has been in place for many years and was ignored here in favor of a few !votes trying to parrot "it passes NGRIDIRON, you can't challenge it!" which is a non-starter. -- MASEM ( t) 18:44, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
            • WP:WABBITSEASON we've done this already.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 19:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I did not nominate this AfD, but I believed that it presented an excellent test case of a sports notability issue that has bothered me for some time. Accordingly, I am the editor who tried to focus the AfD discussion on what I believe is the core issue presented:

Whether an American football player who played in two AFPA/NFL regular season games in 1921, a fact supported only by a sports statistics website (see pro-football-reference.com) and by no significant coverage in any other independent, reliable sources, could rely solely on the one-game presumption of notability per NGRIDIRON as an absolute, or whether in the absence of any other significant coverage regarding the subject's pro playing career such presumption of notability could be rebutted.

If not, then the word "presumption" does not have its usual and ordinary meaning in the English language, and NGRIDIRON does not extend a presumption of notability, but instead creates an absolute grant of notability regardless of what reliable sources are or are not available. This is an open issue generally, and it is at the heart of this particular AfD. By summarily dismissing the discussion of core guidelines and policies as beyond the scope of the AfD, the closing administrator prematurely ended a perfectly valid discussion of the applicable guidelines and policies, logged a "clear keep" outcome in the face of a closely divided policy discussion, disregarded a narrowly divided !vote, and effectively registered a so-called "super vote" consistent with the admin's own policy preferences (see discussion on admin's user talk page). Moreover, until another editor initiated this DRV, the closing admin was unwilling to provide any explanation of his "keep" closing rationale, and chose to focus instead on accusations of inappropriate "canvassing" even in the face of one or more good-faith exceptions built into the canvassing guidelines. I have no interest in besmirching any editor's intentions, and I strongly urge everyone to dial down their level of rhetoric, stop making extraneous accusations, and focus on the applicable policies and guidelines instead. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 20:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• EndorseOverturn to no consensus [changed per discussion below]. I'd have !voted delete on this one and I'm not quite comfortable with the close (for one, the allegation of canvassing might have been made a bit too readily). This AfD was a good case to illustrate the application of the subject-specific guideline as mere presumption, not a guarantee, of notability, and to deem the subject of the article not notable on account of a lack of significant coverage in secondary sources. But that didn't mean that the delete side had a king hit in this debate. First, that view is contentious. Second, there was an arguable case that there might be significant coverage out there. To overturn this to "delete" would involve DRV imposing one view of how our guidelines work on the community when it is clear that, at least in the area of sports, that application is still quite contentious. On that point, the fact that this discussion is already longer than the Russia/Ukraine one below is telling. I agree with the nominator that "no consensus" would have been the better close. But the difference between "keep" and "no consensus" is immaterial and we shouldn't be concerned with formalisms like that. The only difference I've ever seen suggested is that it is accepted that a "no consensus" AfD can be renominated earlier. But no-one could reasonably object to giving this one another go in a few months time, at which point the argument that there might be sources out there could start to look a whole lot weaker. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Mkativerata, no one has advocated overturning the closing admin's "keep" and converting it to a "delete." At the time of the close, there was obviously neither a clear consensus for "keep" or "delete". Accordingly, the remedy in this DRV should be either (a) to reopen the AfD, and let the discussion play out, or (b) re-close the AfD as "no consensus". Otherwise, we are left with a "clear keep" close in the face of a closely argued discussion and a narrowly divided !vote, and that makes the least sense of all. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, indeed, I agree it should have been "no consensus", it's just that I don't think DRV should be concerned with that distinction. Although I am starting to think that if there were ever a case for DRV to change a keep to no consensus, it would be this one...-- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It does need to be. I've seen 2nd (or beyond) AFDs coming off a keep, where the arguments (which are technically wrong per WP:ATA) go "Kept before, keep again, no change has been proposed", and while those are supposed to be ignored by the closer, they typically are extremely hard to counter and argue against. Yes, from what the non-reg user's POV, they see nothing but extra tags, but it does affect future discussions on the article. -- MASEM ( t) 21:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, in the trench warfare of AfD I can see that happening... I'm convinced. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:32, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to "no consensus" per my own comments above. Given the absence of a clear consensus among the AfD discussion participants, a "no consensus" outcome at this DRV seems to be the best outcome in lieu of the ill-considered original "keep" closing. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment. I respect Dirtlawyer and think this could have been reasonably closed as "keep" or "no consensus." I see no reason to change the closing admin's note, which clearly says there is "no consensus" on the broader issue. That said, the thing I do find somewhat troubling, as Paul noted above, is Dirtlawyer's invitation to Masem, whose anti-sports bias predilection has been demonstrated over and over, and not to any other participants in WP:NSPORTS to be troubling. While I absolutely do assume good faith, the invitation to one anti-sports editor creates an awful appearance. Cbl62 ( talk) 22:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I'm sorry, Cbl, but I don't see Masem's alleged anti-sports "bias" that Paul has railed against (or "predilection," if you prefer). What I see is an editor and an administrator who has fought for greater consistency in notability-related issues. I don't always agree with Masem (see our recent discussion in the Mark Dodge AfD), but I spend a lot of time reading and not commenting on the talk pages at WP:GNG and WP:NSPORTS because there is a lot of collective wisdom and insight regarding notability to be found in those talk page discussions -- and a good bit of it is to be found in Masem's comments. We would do far better as sports editors to understand and absorb the legitimate notability concerns being raised by non-sports editors, and the Chalmers Tschappat article is a good example of that. No one produced a single significant source for the guy's 2-game pro football career. Not one. As for the unexplained clear "keep" close in this particular AfD, I think the closing admin clearly overreached by closing it as such when there was obviously no consensus one way or the other after a week's worth of policy discussion. And just like I respect and always consider your arguments, even if I don't always agree with them, I extend that same courtesy to Masem -- and for the same reason: you both know and understand more about these notability issues than all but a handful of other regular AfD participants. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 23:09, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Reasonable close. The argument that a presumption of notability is somehow qualified is new to me and a single poorly-attended AfD is not the place to change a policy. The closer rightly discounted delete !votes which amounted to "I don't like it." Mackensen (talk) 01:15, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • The presumtion of notability has long been part of notability guidelines, and is not a novel concept. This is a rare case where the presumption makes sense to be challenged. -- MASEM ( t) 01:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to "no consensus". This was a contentious AFD for sure, and I did not think that it would be. That being said, I feel that it could have remained open for a few more days to try and elicit more !votes to try and get a clearer consensus than what there was. To me it was pretty much deadlocked in which both sides raised valid arguments. It seemed to me that the keep !votes were set on only using NSPORT as the sole criteria for keeping, and pretty much ignoring the GNG.   ArcAngel   (talk) ) 01:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I voted keep in the main deletion discussion, and agreed with the closure. For the record, there were only two "delete" votes (Dirtlawyer1 has deliberately stated that his comment was not a vote, one way or the other). And I do have a bit of a problem with the direct invitation to Masem to participate, as, plain and simple, Masem is not an expert on 1920's pro football. As a matter of fact, Masem is not a even a regular contributor to gridiron football articles at all. And, that's what asking an expert means. Inviting a person with meaningful expertise, knowledge, and experience on the subject matter at hand to participate in the discussion, not inviting an "expert" at inter-Wiki politicking. As far as moving part of the discussion to the talk page, I have no great opinions on that, one way or the other, though, in general, I wouldn't recommend doing it again in the future without first getting permission from the people whose comments are being moved. And, I feel it's worth pointing out that it was Cbl62, one of the "keep" voters who pointed out that part of the discussion had been moved. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 01:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

EJ, AfD nominators are counted as a "delete" vote, unless they specifically state another desired outcome. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 01:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Aside, I've open discussion of the core issue (whether we need to re-establish that consensus) at WT:N#The application of the "presumption" of notability, irregardless of this DRV result. -- MASEM ( t) 01:27, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The practice with respect to the specialized notability guidelines varies with guideline. In at least one case, WP:PROF, it is explicitly stated that it is an alternative to the general notability guide and that meeting either one is sufficient. In the case of sports, the accepted policy seems in practice to be similar--we have consistently given article status to every individual who meets the relevant NSPORTS guideline, regardless of how little information is present. Most of the disputes have been about the level to set the NSPORTS guideline for the particular sport, and here the accepted policy is that the relevant wikiproject or workgroup does not get to set it by itself as if it were autonomous, but whatever it proposes is subject to de facto acceptance by the general community. There have also been occasional disputes about individuals who technically meet the GNG, but not the sports guideline, with variable results. For the other guidelines, opinions about the inter-relationship vary. (Personally, I think the entire concepts of "notability" and "presumption of notability" are extremely fuzzy, and their only WP-specific meaning is "what we decide to keep as an article".) Had I closed this one, I would have closed as an unqualified keep, because I think that for American Football we have consistently kept every individual of his stature. Whether we should or not depends on whether we want to. Personally, I think it slightly absurd, but I would not tinker with the established general guidelines to establish my view. And I remind everyone that notability is not a policy. DGG ( talk ) 04:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • There is no tinkering. Again, "presumption" is a term that starts at WP:N and extends to all SNGs. That means it can be challenged. That's the problem with the "keep" here is that it outright ignores that. -- MASEM ( t) 05:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • MASEM}, I altogether disagree with you that all SNGs are to be treated equally. Each SNG can have its own manner of applicability, as the consensus for that particular guideline (consensus, that is, of the entire community , not a particular workgroup unless the community supports it) can determine. The notability guideline permits exceptions in any direction--of additional requirements in some area, or lesser in other, or totally different way of looking at it in yet others, or sometimes merely convention assumptions. Each case is separate. Personally, I see the NSPORTS guidelines as intended to be additional limitations, but this has been debated in various ways for many years now. We are free to chose what interpretation we want, and the question is whether we have in fact chosen. I think we do need to definitively choose, because there are a great many sportsperson articles potentially involved. And , as usual, I would prefer any definite choice to a continued lack of decision. DGG ( talk ) 21:19, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • They are though, at the end of the day. SNGs cannot override the general standards expected for notability and encyclopedia articles, though they can be more restrictive. Notability from any source is a presumption that can be challenged if the exhaustion of sources does not give an encyclopedic article. This is, in fact, a point that NSPORTS includes (That they are guidelines towards meeting the GNG at some point). And the number of articles "at risk" is not a factor - most of those from NSPORTS were created from mass creation years ago, and to do an effective challenge, one has to show clear evidence for absence of GNG-type sourcing which is much more detailed than just plugging the name into Google and coming up empty. -- MASEM ( t) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
        • • • I continue to disagree, about as directly as possible, that your view has ever been policy or chould be policy, or is a correct or even a possible interpretation. Surely you realise that we at WP make the rules. we can also define their scope, and say when we will use them, and what the permitted variation , and the exceptions. All of this is subject not to an external force, but to our own definitions, for this and every rule (except for the limitations of foundation policy of copyright a BLP). If we want to say, for example, that everyone in the Olympics is to be given an article, regardless of whatever may or may not have been written about them, we can do so. If we wish to say that every ruler of a country is to be given an article, regardless of whether their existence depends on a single line in a chronicle, we can do so. If we wish to say that every winner of certain major prize should have an article, regardless of whether we have any other verifiable information, we can do so -- -and in these cases we do in fact say exactly that, and the limitations of WP:N do not apply. We could of course, decide to not say that at all, and rely on the strict interpretation of the GNG in these cases--and I am not at the moment arguing which of the two is in each case would be in my opinion the better course, or what intermediate ought to be pursued as a compromise. We can include whatever we collectively think proper to include. How else can it possibly be? Who dictates such rules to us? You? Me? The Foundation? The proposition you are defending relies about our forced obedience to someone--and that is not WP. DGG ( talk ) 18:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
              • We have long discussed what function the SNGs do, and it is been tried before to treat them as "inclusion guidelines", which fails to work. With the concept of inherited notability already discounted out from WP:N, the idea of a class of topics immediately qualifying for an article has been rejected. That's why the SNG provide guidelines for when it is very likely that because of the caliber of the topic, it will likely be reasonable article and give time for sources to be found and/or created, but we're not saying that 100% of the topics that fit the criteria automatically get an article. There's a checks and balance here. The only area we outright say that an article should exist irregardless of sourcing is for named places, because we've come to agree that we are also part gazetteer and thus providing that functionality. And I do want to stress that the NSPORTS project has agreed that their guidelines are not absolutes, and that showing a lack of sourcing is a fair reason to delete even if a NSPORTS criteria is met. I'm not talking about some made up idea that I only have, it's clear consensus over numerous years and discussions. -- MASEM ( t) 18:12, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
                • But what you're describing doing here and what you are actually attempting to do are two different things. You state "showing a lack of sourcing is a fair reason to delete even if a NSPORTS criteria is met." But the sources are provided and WP:NSPORTS/WP:GRIDIRON/whatever guidelines have also been met. Both conditions are met. You are arguing essentially that neither have been met. I believe that the closer of the AFD understood that, which is why it was closed as Keep. That's a guess, but it's a reasonable one.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 18:50, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Paul, please look at the Tschappat article again: the subject's claim to notability is based solely on his having played in two APFA/NFL games in 1921. There is no significant coverage of his APFA/NFL in multiple, independent, reliable sources. The only sources for his two-game pro career are sports stats websites like Pro-Football-Reference.com and databaseFootball.com. We have never accepted sports stats sites as significant coverage. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 19:01, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Pro-Football-Reference.com is considered reliable and therefore the information should be considered verified. The significant coverage that you demand will likely be found in offline sources from the 1920s that have not made it to the internet yet. And I don't believe that even a small portion of offline sources have been checked. We've gone over this time and again. You say there is no significant coverage, but you really can only claim that there is no significant coverage on the internet. The internet isn't everything. WP:OFFLINE-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Again, Paul, you're either missing or intentionally ignoring the point: yes, Pro-Football-Reference.com is reliable, but it's not significant, in the same way we do not accept coverage from Rivals.com and Scout.com as significant for determining the notability of high school and college athletes. As for the offline sources, please see my extended comments at the WP:N discussion started by Masem, regarding the search for Ohio newspaper sources using Newspapers.com: Newspapers.com produced over 600 articles from Ohio newspapers about the Dayton Triangles (Tschappat's APFA/NFL team) during the 1920s. A Google News Archive search produced another 80 articles about the Dayton Triangles during the same time period. Not one of those almost 700 Ohio news articles about the Dayton Triangles produced a single mention of Tschappat. So, let's not kid ourselves that we don't have a representative sample of Ohio newspaper coverage that likely would have produced any significant coverage about Tschappat if any significant coverage ever existed. It was not an accident that I picked Tschappat as a test case regarding the NGRIDIRON presumption. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I'm not missing your point, I'm just not buying your argument. Apparently neither have others. You're welcome to argue against as much as you like, it's just that many disagree with your application.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 00:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Paul, this is DRV, not AfD. It's no longer about the merits of the "argument"; it's about whether the closing administrator's AfD close was "reasonable," and most folks aren't willing to overturn an AfD unless it's completely unreasonable. You basically got away with one at AfD by confusing the issue. Ask Cbl62 if he believes Pro-Football-Reference.com constitutes significant coverage as required by GNG (it's not, and we've never accepted it as such), and then we'll go back to arguing about the NGRIDIRON presumption and claiming that there's some great hidden reservoir of significant coverage hidden behind the paywalls of dozens of Ohio newspapers or in the hard-copy archives of the Dayton Daily Mulletwrapper. Sorry, but the Newspapers.com search for the Dayton Triangles shows that there was plenty of Ohio newspaper coverage for the team, and Tschappat got none of it. If this guy were a college player with the same amount of coverage, we'd all be laughing as we !voted to delete the article. Just admit that you believe NGRIDIRON is an absolute, irrebuttable ticket to notability for one-game wonders and that's your bottom line. Then there's nothing left to argue about if we're being honest. But please let's not pretend there was anything like significant coverage for this guy's pro career on which his claim of notability is based. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 00:27, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I agree, this is DRV not AF, which is why I keep posting the link to WP:WABBITSEASON. Why do you keep making AFD-style arguments here? And then blame me for making AFD-style arguments? Geez, "asked and answered" -- Paul McDonald ( talk) 10:46, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There is no dispute over whether the guy meets the relevant guideline, and said guideline exists specifically to avoid loss of energy in DRVs such as this. Discussion of whether the current rule is sufficiently strict is beyond the scope of this process, as is discussion of editorial solutions such as redirecting the title to the relevant team list. Masem is free to pursue either or both of those alternatives. -- erachima talk 04:39, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse DGG and erachima have both summed this up very well, and Masem should be ashamed for complaining that the result didn't match up with the numbers. Joefromrandb ( talk) 05:48, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment The real issue, IMHO, is that sport people seem to have, in many cases, a special passport to be considered notable as WP:NSPORT has, in some of its sub-sections, the looser inclusion criteria of the whole encyclopedia. No strong feelings about the current case, as I basically do not know the relevant sport, but how the hell a footballer who played ten minutes in the Albanian First Division or a footballer who played a season in the Italian fourth division should be presumed notable individuals is still a mystery. Cavarrone 06:30, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Because "X is presumed notable" is Wikipedese for "constant discussions of X have been deemed disruptive", which is turn is Wikipedese for "for the love of god shut up about X." -- erachima talk 06:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse It is a borderline case and I may have closed as no-consensus. However the close was a reasonable interpretation of the debate. Chillum 14:16, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The notability "presumption" applies to GNG and SNG equally. Paraphrasing for brevity: A topic is presumed to merit an article if ... It meets either the GNG or an SNG (officially) listed ... and ... It is not excluded under WP:NOT. [9] "Presumed" is not there solely as a temporary state in case new information can be found. It is also there because editors may think a topic should not have an article even if it meets the notability guidelines – even if the criteria have been met we are still allowed to !vote delete because the presumption for having an article is rebuttable. The notability guidelines are there to help us see whether or not WP:NOT means an article should exist. In themselves the guidelines are by way of advice and do not require us to !vote in any particular way. If information in an article is verifiable (and in this case verified) and people want to keep the article because they consider it encyclopedic, they are allowed to express such views and have their opinions fully taken into account. Thincat ( talk) 09:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - in practice, the bastard children of WP:N are usually treated as though meeting them is sufficient for inclusion. Of course, in compelling cases that sway much of the community, exceptions can be made. Meeting a notability guideline (up to and including WP:N) doesn't mean an article should be included, nor does failing to meet it mean it must be excluded (going back at least to RAMBOT's rampage), but that's the default presumption. And there's nothing particularly exceptional here. Wily D 14:39, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Problems of Onomastics ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This AfD was closed by Spinningspark as "keep". However, in the discussion there was one very strong "keep" !vote ( Dcs002), whose main arguments were discarded by Spinningspark. In addition, Dcs002 changed their !vote to "merge" later in the discussion. There was one "merge" !vote ( Mark viking). Finally, there were two "keep or merge" !votes. DGG gave his opinion, but did not provide sources for that. Forbidden User claimed this was a "borderline GNG pass", but did not explain how (the article has one reference to a website not connected with the journal, but that is a dead link). As the nom, I indicated that a merge was acceptable to me, too. My reading of the discussion is a very clear (unanimous) consensus to merge the article, but not a consensus to keep. I discussed this with the closing admin here to no avail, so here we are. Randykitty ( talk) 12:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• No need to overturn I'd have gone with merge but it is a great pity that the matter was brought to AFD when no reason was given for why the name of the journal should be a red link. I suggest sorting all this out on the talk page. We would do well to think more about how content would best be presented in an encyclopedia and less about whether an article should be deleted. Thincat ( talk) 13:24, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Huh? "no reason was given"? I thought my nom was quite detailed. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:43, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

You were succinct in your detail, and thank you for that. Thincat ( talk) 14:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Yes, if I can use 30 words instead of 300, I will do that. For my edification, could you perhaps tell me what I should have added to the nom that wasn't already said with "no independent sources"? -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:05, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

OK. We have main space redirects for all sorts of topics that are individually not "notable". AFD is not intended for proposing merges or redirections { WP:BEFORE, C4 "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article."). It would have been helpful to have said why a priori you considered these unsuitable and why a red link was preferable. Thincat ( talk) 16:16, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Perhaps you should read the AfD again. I did not start the AfD with an intention to merge or redirect, that is talk page stuff. I proposed deletion and gave clear arguments for that. For the sake of obtaining a consensus, I stated that I could live with a merge (,not that I thought this was the best solution). It seems like you have a fundamental problem with taking articles to AfD, because some redirect can almost always be found. Can we now concentrate on the question at hand, which is to determine whether the consensus in this discussion was to "keep" or to "merge"? -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

We are now talking past each other, which is a shame. I would have closed the AFD as merge Thincat ( talk) 20:49, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Relist. I've endorsed Spinningspark's other close below on the basis that it was within discretion. I'm not convinced that this was; at the relisted debate there should be an onus on those wanting to keep to back up their view with some sources.— S Marshall T/ C 15:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment There was some sourcing suggested at the time. Several sources actually. They were not the greatest quality, but they were something. Spinningspark said on his user talk page about his decision to keep that "there was credible evidence of notability presented, some of it by the "merge" camp themselves, even though they still thought it did not meet GNG." So it seems, in his opinion, that standard was actually met. I brought up two sources, and Mark viking, who was the first to !vote to merge, brought up a few more. None were ideal sources, but all were independent and verifiable. Spinningspark also said he's inclined to treat journal notability a bit differently because so little is written about them. He didn't say it directly, but I get the impression that he thinks that, with the addition of the sources mentioned, the journal appears notable enough to merit its own article. If he believes notability has been met, is it then within his discretion to keep? Dcs002 ( talk) 06:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Well, two answers to that. Firstly my personal position on notability as it applies to academic journals is summed up in my essay at WP:SJ. I'd obviously prefer it if we could keep the article. But secondly, I don't feel that DRV can or should make decisions about what the closer believes at the time of closing. We can only decide what we believe, and I personally don't believe the community's normal threshold of sourcing has been met.— S Marshall T/ C 08:48, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to merge. Everyone in the debate saw a merger as a sensible outcome. Everyone. That's the consensus. Wikipedia has worked well in this AfD but I think the closing admin missed it. Yes, merging is something that can be done outside an AfD. But AfD can also impose a merge outcome, as it did here, and when it does, DRV should uphold it. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 21:21, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment Spinningspark said on his talk page, in addition to the comments about notability I quoted above, "To my mind, those arguing for 'merge' failed to make a convincing policy based argument as to why the material would be acceptable in another article but not be acceptable in this article." To my understanding, he is saying we didn't give policy-based reasons why "merge" is preferable to "keep". It also sounds like he's saying consensus isn't enough without considering policy, and that we didn't consider policy (to Spinningspark's satisfaction) when !voting to merge.

@Randykitty, what is it you are asking of us in this review discussion? You summarized our votes accurately, but our consensus wasn't enough in Spinningspark's judgement, and he gave clear reasons for his decision. I think we need to say something new here that wasn't said in the AfD discussion, and I think we need to address the specific reasons he gave for his decision. Otherwise, why would anyone overturn an admin's decision? He schooled me on why my arguments to keep were not valid, but he said that the arguments to keep made by others were the reason he closed as a keep. Those arguments were all based on the unique nature of academic journals and the unique difficulties inherent in establishing notability among academic journals via the usual means, particularly non-English journals. Those who argued to keep (including myself) all agreed that, given the special nature of academic journals, notability had been satisfied ("borderline" in one person's opinion) by the sources provided.

So if this article actually is viable as a standalone, why would it be preferable to merge the content into a tiny stub of an article that might be next for the chopping block because it contains almost no meaningful content? Maybe it would be best to keep this article for now and see if the Russian Language Institute article can be built up enough to handle meaningful content about a specific journal it sponsors, or the next AfD talk we'll be having will be "This article is all about one journal, not the language institute, and an institute can't be made notable because it sponsors one journal." Maybe we should just let this go and focus our collective energy on bringing both articles up to standard. I don't mean waiting for someone else to do it, because that approach has been tried and failed. I mean we should do it. If nothing else we should get the Russian Language Institute article into a fit state to receive the content from the journal page. Then we will have a more affirmative case to make that the merged article will be a better home for the content rather than just doing it as a compromise. We didn't make that case in the AfD discussion. Spinningspark is correct in that assessment. Dcs002 ( talk) 08:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Given that the AfD discussion resulted in a unanimous consensus to merge and that none of the arguments in favor of notability was within policy, I'd like to see the "keep" closure overturned into either a "merge" or a relist (although I don't think the latter would result in any new viewpoints or sources). -- Randykitty ( talk) 21:03, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

My opinion was (and is again) that the arguments in favor of notability were based (some directly, most in spirit) on WP:NJournals, under the heading Notes and examples, item 6, which says of Humanities journals, "the existing citation indices and GoogleScholar often provide inadequate and incomplete information." That is where Worldcat came from. I brought that up, though I might have had inaccurate expectations of what it meant. However, at least one other editor agreed, and the tenor of the arguments was the same as with this item in WP:NJournals - that journals are treated different from other sources, and that finding RS that directly review them or reference them is uniquely difficult. There seems to be a tendency to err on the side of inclusion, and as Spinningspark said, policy follows practice, not the reverse, which was my mistake. I have not cast a !vote yet. I want to make sure I understand everything more clearly this time. I !voted to merge during the AfD because I didn't think the notability standards were going to be met, and a merge would preserve the content. But given Spinningspark's comments in his close and on his talk page, it seems his opinion that they had been met, given the sourcing brought up in the AfD discussion. I don't mean to be difficult, but I think we need to address his/her reasons for the keep in order to make a meaningful argument against the close. Dcs002 ( talk) 22:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to "keep or merge" Though my personal preference is to keep any established journal from a reputable scientific publisher, that has not so far been our practice. Our usual practice however has been to merge, and I !voted accordingly , saying "keep, but a merge would also be acceptable". Were I closing on the presumption that I had no personal views on the subject, I would have closed either "merge" or "keep or merge"; I do not think that an unqualified keep really represented the consensus. "notability"' is subjective, and what we decide to do with an article depends less on guidelines than on what we decide best fits the circumstances. I don't see that as avoidable. DGG ( talk ) 04:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Is "keep or merge" a valid option for the closing admin? So then our challenge would be to go through consensus-building to decide which, with "delete" off the table? If so, I like that option. But again, if we eventually do "merge", the Russian Language Institute article is going to need serious expansion to accommodate this content. Dcs002 ( talk) 22:36, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Wait a minute... if "Keep or Merge" is the way this closes, then how is that different from accepting the original "Keep" close and proposing "Merge" on the article's talk page? We'd still have to decide in either case through yet another discussion, and we already have that discretion with a "Keep" close, as I understand anyway. Why are we not just discussing "Merge" on the article's talk page? Is there a nuance I am missing? (I assume there is.) It seems that would be a less formidable task than overturning a closed AfD. Dcs002 ( talk) 15:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment Reputable publisher to support notability? I think we have that. The Ural Federal University (UrFU, as Ural University Press) publishes Problems of Onomastics. Their English webpage says:

UrFU publishes 8 scientific journals which are on the list of scientific publications recommended by the Supreme Attestation Commission of the Russian Federation and is working on the development of 6 journals that will be indexed by Scopus

What would it take to establish whether UrFU is a reputable publisher? They seem to be a reputable university, with doctoral programs in many fields, and an international ranking in the top quartile (2,205/~11,000) by 4 International Colleges and Universities. [10] A press release from Elsevier [11] (unrelated to this journal) says UrFU has >28,000 students and is "one of the top ranked scientific centres in Russia." A few books from the publisher (Ural University Press) are cited here [12] and here [13], and there are others. This law faculty member at the University of Cambridge [14] lists two of the seven books he has written as published by Ural University Press. So, would sources like these establish them as a reputable publisher, and would that, in addition to the other sources mentioned in the AfD discussion, establish notability of this journal? Dcs002 ( talk) 00:15, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

By a reputable publisher I mean any scientific publisher, or any major university or major scientificsociety. I mean to exclude the many parasitic e-publishers facilitated by the internet, There are several areas of fuzziness. First, there are a few e-publishers who initially published a large range of mostly contentless journals, but have been able to grow at least some of them into clear notability (where clear notability is inclusion in Journal Citation Reports), So far, we have been handling these journals on a one by one basis, and I am not sure we have always done justice to the ones that have been improving. Second, many European universities andf scientific societies have for manhy years--sometimes dating back to the early 19th century-- published a large number of small journals, publishing mainly the works of their own faculty, or local society. These were of considerable importance in the 19th century (see Experiments on Plant Hybridization, one of the best known scientific papers ever, published by Mendel's local Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brünn and in some fields such as taxonomy, and archeology, remain of key importance. In most cases, however, they are of national local interest, in the sense that the scientists there take good care to publish anything important in more visible international journals. (The present title is in this class). Normally, we have merged them to the university or society, partly for lack of ability to discriminate better (I am fairly certain than quite a number of Chinese and Japanese journals of this nature are worth more extend coverage, but I cannot be of much assistance)

Third, there are a few hundred journals , generally of a popular science nature, published by commercial publishers; there are also a few tens of thousands of trade publications that sometimes have important material. I know no way to judge here--we have normally been very conservative, including only the most important, but sometimes this inclusion has been based on personal knowledge. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Well, this journal shows none of the signs of being a predatory journal - a concept Randykitty brought up during the original AfD (related to a source I suggested, not to this journal specifically), and which seems closely related to one of your points. I don't know if this helps, but the editorial board of Problems of Onomastics includes mostly non-affiliates of UrFU (seven are UrFU affiliates, fifteen are not), and members are from seven countries other than Russia, including Poland, Germany, The US, Austria, Serbia, Finland, and the Czech Republic. (One Russian member holds a second appointment in the UK.) Add to that the fact that the journal accepts manuscripts in not only Russian, but English, German, French, Polish, Czech, Bulgarian, and Serbian, though they translate submissions and publish them in Russian and (as of 2013) English. (English is the international language of academics, so they seem clearly to be international in focus.) In addition, under Aims and Scope (from their website), "Preference is generally given to the Slavic, Finno-Ugric, Romance and Germanic languages," and not just Russian. (Betraying my ignorance, is Russian a Slavic language? If not, they seem to desire a focus on non-Russian languages, or at least a balance.) Of the four Russian onomastics journals listed in Worldcat, this one seems to be the one that breaks away from national interest into a more "visible international journal," as you said. Independent RS will probably not support anything in this paragraph, but independent RS might provide similar information about the editorial boards, submission languages, publication languages, and languages of focus in the articles of other Russian onomastics journals. If so, I think that will be a powerful argument for notability for this journal. Dcs002 ( talk) 06:13, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Perhaps the closing admin stretched his/her discretion when closing the AfD discussion, perhaps not. I'm still confused about the back and forth between policy and subjective interpretation requiring consensus. (I don't necessarily endorse the manner in which it was closed - I still don't know enough about closer's discretion - but at this point I endorse the decision to keep the article.) I think we had a consensus to "merge or keep", but it was closed as a keep, and I now think we should keep this article, not merge it. That's my bottom line. The more I look at this, the clearer it becomes that this is a notable and important academic journal in the field of onomastics, reaching outside Russian interests into Eastern and Central Europe and well beyond. The sources and content discussed here and in the original AfD need to be added to the article, and it really needs help as it stands, but I am satisfied as to its notability. No doubts left. No slam-dunk single sources, but so many sources and reasonable arguments why these sources should be adequate, and they all point in the same direction. If notability is subjective, then so be it. That is my !vote. Dcs002 ( talk) 06:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• off-track discussion I'm afraid this discussion has gotten off-track, re-hashing arguments that were already expressed at length during the AfD. As far as I can see, no new insights have come up and no new sources have been presented here that were not already discussed during the AfD. Please keep in mind that DRV is not AfD 2.0. I would like to ask all participants to keep Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review in mind and to comment on whether or not the close correctly represented the unanimous consensus in the AfD discussion or not. Perhaps some uninvolved editor should collapse the off-topic discussion. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:16, 19 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Randykitty, I need to try your patience once more. Long-winded, but not off-topic. This is not rehashing anything (see below), and, with respect, "whether or not the close correctly represented the unanimous consensus in the AfD discussion" is not quite our topic either. Rather, the first question is whether the closer interpreted our consensus correctly per WP:CLOSEAFD. I see no evidence that he misinterpreted our consensus. He said "those arguing for 'merge' failed to make a convincing policy based argument." (Part of WP:CLOSEAFD.) On top of that, we gave several !votes to merge followed by arguments to keep, and I for one did the opposite (argued to "Keep" but changed my !vote to "Merge"). We agreed upon what we would accept, not what we thought was best policy-wise. Our !votes were in agreement, but our arguments were not. We left the closer lots of wiggle room by not being decisive. WP:CLOSEAFD says consensus is "based on reasonable, logical, policy-based arguments." That's a reasonable interpretation of the closer's decision based on the discussion we had, especially as the closer explained this directly in his comments. I think Spinningspark interpreted our consensus correctly, that we were ready to compromise, but then failed to make the case that a "Merge" would serve policy better than "Keep". It wasn't relisted, deleted, or merged, as if notability were in question, but kept. If the arguments to keep were stronger in policy than those to merge, the closer has to weigh those arguments. I think we waffled when we needed to be decisive.

Now to the new content: The reputability of the publisher was not discussed in the original AfD, only the notability of the journal as directly expressed in RS, and there are now new sources for the publisher's reputability. I think reputable publishers practice quality control, like requiring blind peer review in their journals, etc. Therefore, I think the journal does inherit reputability (if not notability) from its publisher. Additionally, the composition of the journal's board and the diversity of languages (even Romance and Germanic) covered weren't part of the original AfD either. It demonstrates an international focus rather than local, or Russian only. I have only just discovered this info, and I think it bears on notability, our topic - the justification for nominating it for deletion and for the closing of Keep. I think we all agree that notability in journals requires different handling from other subjects, and DGG said above that "'notability' is subjective, and what we decide to do with an article depends less on guidelines than on what we decide best fits the circumstances." I think these new facts support "Keep", and I think "Keep" best fits these circumstances.

The closer seemed to think there was sufficient evidence of notability presented, and I concur that certainly now there is sufficient evidence. The closer said, "I am therefore inclined to give less weight to Dcs002's argument and the result would have been "delete" were it not for the "keep" arguments presented by others." Those other arguments all supported notability. Based on what I have learned since this DRV discussion began, I agree that the journal is notable, and think we should keep the article. The close did not follow our !votes, but it correctly kept a notable article. Dcs002 ( talk) 10:10, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I won't respond yet again to your interpretation of the consensus at the AfD, which of course I strongly disagree with. As for the publisher's reputability: notability is not inherited. Up to a point, notability is indeed subjective. However, in the absence of all sources even hinting at notability, the case seems pretty much clear. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:13, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Your statement of what we needed to determine about our consensus was incorrect. That would be leading us off-topic. You also suggested getting someone to "collapse the off-topic discussion," so I felt the need to demonstrate how the discussion was on-topic. And I said reputability, not notability (I made that point clear) was inherited from a reputable publisher, and reputability bears on notability. You have again mis-stated my arguments and responded to what I didn't say. (See straw man.) "In the absence of all sources even hinting at notability?" Do you need to see all the new sources (I think now seven of them have been suggested) in the article itself before you will consider them? I'll take some time and work on it. I had hoped to avoid doing that work until we decided the fate of the article. Dcs002 ( talk) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment Please look over the article again. I have added the content and sources that have come up in this discussion and in the AfD discussion, including the Russian Science Citation Index and the Higher Attestation Commission (both verified). I think I got all the new content. There are now 11 citations independent of the journal from 8 sources that are independent from each other, and 6 of those sources bear directly on the journal (Higher Attestation Commission, Mihály Hajdú's history (old journal only, but literally inherited by new journal), COPE Ethics, Worldcat, Index Copernicus, and the Russian Citation Index), while the other 2 bear on the publisher (Elsevier and QS University Rankings). Based on these new sources and the new content added as a result of this discussion, I ask that you all please reconsider whether this article is now demonstrated as notable. Thanks. Dcs002 ( talk) 08:50, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Sigh. You do insist on re-hashing things already dealt with inn the AfD. None of the indexes listed is even close to being selective, they just try to cover everything: Worldcat (tries to cover everything ever published), Index Copernicus (not even close to being selective and on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory indexes producing fake journal rankings), Russian Science Citation Index of the Scientific Electronic Library (tries to cover everything published in Russia), COPE (every journal can become a member as long as they don't behave unethically). The listing by the Higher Attestation Commission is not very meaningful either, given again that basically any Russian journal is included. You did the same thing to the article as here: adding great walls of text on subjects that are beside the topic: adding large sections on the institutions that publish this journal. Those institutions have their own articles and that stuff doesn't belong in this article. So, no, you did not add anything that was not already discussed in the AfD, your distinction between "reputable" and "notable" is just wikilawyering, and no new references showing notability have been added either. As for all this being off-topic, please read Wikipedia:Deletion review#Commenting in a deletion review as I recommended above: this discussion is not for re-hashing arguments given during the AfD. -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:18, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Randykitty, I am reverting what you have removed from the article. I have added all of the sourcesw that I and others have brought up. When you remove content because you alone decide it is not a good source when there have already been dissenting views expressed (such as Worldcat) you undermine the ability of anyone else to see for themselves what this article looks like in its new form. and you therefore undermine this process, which fairly includes addition of new information. If it is wall-of-texty, let6 that be fixed, but do not remove content that someone might think helps to establish notability. Let people make up their own minds instead of taking away content yourself that others might consider important (whether they've said so or not). The point is notability, and by unilaterally stripping content that might in some people's opinions strengthen notability, you unilaterally deny deny people the chance to decide for themselves. With everything on the table, is this article notable? If you still don't think so, that's your !vote. Let others decide for themselves. Please! Clean-up can come after we've had the notability discussion. Dcs002 ( talk) 14:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I thought that a/ it is by now clear that we're here to discuss the closure of the AfD, the notability of the journal was discussed during that AfD and is off topic here, unless you come up with new sources directly addressing that notability, which you don't to. b/ My edit summaries at the article clearly explain what is wrong with the walls of stuff that you added. There is absolutely no reason to include two extensive sections on the publishing institutions that do not even bear on their relationship with the journal, because those institutions already have their own articles. All it does is blow sand in the eyes of a casual observer, who might think that they are looking at a well-sourced article, whereas in reality this is not the case. As for all those indexed, that issue has already been addressed ad nauseam in the AfD and above. None of the sources and none of the indexes and none of the content added to the article contribute one iota to the journal's notability. Meanwhile, the real reason for this DRV, that a unanimous consensus to merge was closed as "keep", is being snowed under your walls of text. Please stop, this is becoming disruptive. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:59, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• WP:JWG says not to list board members. It does not say to avoid discussing them. The composition of the board speaks to the international scope of the journal. You cannot unilaterally decide whether these new sources and content satisfy notability. Notability is an open question for us to decide and as it is subjective I would ask you to stop assuming your interpretation of the sources and content is the correct interpretation. I am not the only one who thought Worldcat was a useful source in this case. Several mediocre sources and facts are presented, as well as some quality ones, and they sum, IMO to clear notability. You can attack each if you like (remembering Jeffrey Beall is one person with a list and opinions of his own, and the only source cited against IC), but I'd prefer if you just let others see the sum and decide for themselves. You do not have the authority to limit this discussion to the narrow yes or no question of consensus nor is it for you to decide unilaterally whether "one iota" od notability has been added. You keep denying my fair arguments and dismissing the evidence as off-topic or not up to your standard, but please let others form their own impressions on the totality of the evidence. It is not ok to cherry pick facts and sources and define our mission here into that one small question you raised at the beginning of this DRV while counseling everyone to ignore the main question that brought us to the AfD in the first place - notability. This is a suitable place for that discussion, based on the close (I am offering evidence for my Endorse !vote, which is based on established notability, which notability you dispute) and on new content raised here in this discussion. That's why I'm here, and it's perfectly in accord with WP:DRV, not off topic, no matter how many times you make that assertion. Dcs002 ( talk) 15:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

BTW the journal gets more than a "trivial listing" in IC, and I did not show the ICV score on the page, though in the Index Copernicus article, Jeffrey Beall is the only source listed challenging its usefulness as a listing, rating, and indexing service. Further, Beall does not say IC offers fake rankings. He says it's possible for individual journals to game the system to artificially inflate their rankings. There is a lot of daylight in between. One calls the honesty of IC into question, the other calls the honesty of the journal editors into question while criticizing IC's methods. I also see that JWG is something to which you have been a major contributor since November, 2012, and it is not policy, and not intended to replace the MOS or WP:NJournals. Dcs002 ( talk) 15:47, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• The article has been revised again. Please look it over and see if you agree whether it is now suitable to keep. Thank you. Dcs002 ( talk) 15:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• I give up arguing here, as this has become just a second AfD, re-hashing old arguments. -- Randykitty ( talk) 15:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was nominated for deletion, and a long and heated discussion was had on the subject. Spinningspark closed the discussion as "keep". His rationale is flimsy, at best. First of all, there was clearly no consensus to "keep" the article. Perhaps the result of the discussion was "no consensus", but "consensus to keep", certainly not. His analysis of the discussion totally misses the mark. He says that the "keep" side is rooted in policy, based on "sources", and that the article "covers more ground" now, but this is assuredly untrue. The question was never whether subject matter of the article in question was factual. It was whether that content should exist as a duplication of content elsewhere for the purpose of veering away from WP:NPOV. I shall write what I wrote on his talk page here, with minor editing and revision:

(Start quotation) The "keep" side had no policy-based arguments, zero. Forking content, i.e. copying existing content in WP:COATRACK fashion is not acceptable under policy. The sources cited by Sayerslle (whom you cite as heavily influencing your opinion) had nothing to do with whether content should be forked. They merely provided various facts and claims about supposed Russian interference. But these themselves do not make an article, because they refer to interference "in" a particular conflict, either 2014 Crimean crisis (the article that 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine was originally split off from), 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine, or War in Donbass. That content with regard to the Donbass war was already written ages ago, and has existed at War in Donbass since that article was created. Recent minor additions to 2014 Russian military intervention in Ukraine were made during the deletion discussion, but these only copied already-existing content from War in Donbass and its sub-articles in a way that is not at all acceptable. What little residual content that isn't duplication at the article in question could easily be merged, as many in the discussion said.

Copying content to a fork is unacceptable in every possible way. In fact, this particular article is essentially a WP:POV FORK, because, as the forking guideline says, it merely copies content from one article to another to address the matter in a less neutral way. The reason his sources were not "addressed" is because they had absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at all, because no one with intelligence was contesting facts about what Russia is or isn't doing. Throughout the discussion, though, Sayerslle went on and on about how Russians were doing this, and Russians were doing that. I don't care about what Russians are doing or not, and I don't think most opinions in favour of chance at this discussion cared about that either. Sayerslle was trying to right a great wrong, to try and "make known" that Russians were doing whatever they are or are not doing.

Regardless, this is not my ultimate concern. My concern is that you (Spinningspark) have closed this debate as "consensus to keep" when there clearly was no consensus either way, and also when closure as "keep" is in contravention of policy. I will politely ask you to relist the discussion, and allow it to attempt to reach some consensus of either kind. This is an important and controversial discussion, and deserves its due time to reach a proper consensus. If, after the relisting time, there is consensus to "keep" the article, fine. But to say that this discussion at this moment reached any kind of consensus is absolutely absurd. (End quotation)

I would ask that this discussion be relisted, so that consensus of some kind can be reached. Spinningspark has denied that request. Therefore, I have presented a request for a deletion review. His assessment of consensus was heavily flawed. If relisting is not acceptable, I do request that consensus be reassessed by some other third party. RGloucester — ☎ 01:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Absurd to have such an article standing alone. Could just as easily have one titled "2014 American Installation of an Unelected Government in Ukraine." [15] 174.89.100.51 ( talk) 02:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Please take your unhelpful comments elsewhere. This review is for discussion of the mechanics of the closure and assessment of consensus, not for rehashing debates or pushing points of view. RGloucester — ☎ 03:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I think this is incorrect understanding of policies by RGloucester. (a) It is fine to have sub-articles and umbrella articles, such as this page under discussion. We have a lot of them. This does not mean content forking (b) Some degree of content overlap is fine if this improves readability. (c) "and allow it to attempt to reach some consensus of either kind" No, it's fine not to have consensus. Speaking on the subject, there is already such thing as Russian intervention on Ukraine (including military occupation of Crimea, sending weapons, mercenaries and military personnel to Ukraine and direct cross-border artillery attacks by Russian army) per huge number of sources. Therefore, such page has every right to exist. My very best wishes ( talk) 04:42, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

We have sub-articles already. Tons of them. We have umbrella articles. 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine is the umbrella article for the unrest across Ukraine, and deals with both Crimea and Donbass. It has a section on Russian involvement. War in Donbass and 2014 Crimean crisis are sub-articles of 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine. Both deal with the Russian involvement angle. This article does not fit anywhere into the schematic of articles we have. Copying content to other articles is never acceptable, especially when it is done for the purpose of advancing a point of view. Readability is not improved. It is made worse, because there is a confusing mess of duplication across multiple articles that doesn't make any sense. We have sources, and they exist in War in Donbass, 2014 Crimean crisis, and whatever, but these sources do not establish that the article should exist independently of the conflicts themselves (in an attempt to skew NPOV), nor do they provide justification for POV forking. I agree that it is fine not to have consensus, as I said above, but that's not how the closer closed this discussion. He closed it as "consensus to keep". RGloucester — ☎ 04:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

There is a huge difference by all means between any unrest in a state and foreign military intervention. That's why there are not only Libyan Civil War article, but also a separate article for 2011 military intervention in Libya. -- A man without a country ( talk) 09:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, I mean 'pro-Russian unrest' is a pov 'frame' imo , even if the info ,or some of it , is in there - rgloucester says 'I don't care about what Russians are doing or not' - but it doesn't matter what he cares about - it matters what RS are caring about, and russian intervention does concern them, and, as with the guardian ref, they don't seem obsessed with hermetically sealing what happened in crimea off from what happens elsewhere in ukraine, - on the contrary - the large convoy moving with obvious top-level coordination and accompanied by numerous vehicles with official Russian military plates brought back memories of the "little green men" involved in the annexation of Crimea back in March. Wearing green uniforms without insignia, those men claimed to be local volunteers, although they were clearly highly trained Russian special operatives. Despite denying their presence all through the annexation, Putin later admitted that Russian military units had been involved. - [16] - [17] Sayerslle ( talk) 09:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Please don't start this again. If you want to read about the convoy, go to War in Donbass, where it is described in detail. It has absolutely nothing to do with POV, or what RS say. What RS say is already written at War in Donbass, and has been. RGloucester — ☎ 14:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

this is an article about foreign military intervention - (from twitter ) Michael Weiss @michaeldweiss 'Mount an "incursion" alongside your "aid" convoy, then watch Ukraine stop incursion. Then cry your convoy is under attack. Then take a bow.' Sayerslle ( talk) 16:31, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Once again, no one is contesting any facts about "foreign intervention", or "incursions". The problem is that these are already written about in War in Donbass, and that copying them to this new article is an example of forking. RGloucester — ☎ 16:34, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

so you keep agreeing yes there is plenty of material from various places and times for 'Russian intervention in Ukraine 2014', - fine, but if readers want to read about it they must go through the RGloucester gate and then they will be escorted to various articles, named the 'pro-Russian unrest', and the 'war in donbass', ' the chicanery in crimea ' or whatever, - but why must they? because you say so basically - this is only a 'problem' to those who are determined to make it one imo. Sayerslle ( talk) 17:17, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

No, because forking content is against policy, and also because forking content with the intent to veer away from NPOV is even more against policy. RGloucester — ☎ 17:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

well i'd say leave it to develop now , - it could be a good article on Russian intervention in Ukraine - and no other title is as good as that to express a key aspect of the events there this year,and its been discussed in RS as a linked series of putinist inspired phenomena - maybe events will supersede all this somehow anyhow, - I don't like the insinuation that this is a pov motivated thing either - I admire pussy riot, whats wrong with that, didn't like to see them locked up for miming in a church, - but that doesn't give you the right to impugn - RS are the guide to all articles and you shouldn't assume you alone have the integrity to want to pursue a key ideal of this project. just because I don't want to end up like these putins idiots, doesnt mean I don't have integrity Sayerslle ( talk) 17:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@RGloucester, No, we do not have other articles or sub-articles that covers specifically Russian military intervention in Crimea and in the entire Ukraine. Yes, many aspects of Russian military intervention are mentioned in other pages, but we need whole articles specifically on this subject. This is not POV fork. My very best wishes ( talk) 03:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I must concur that the person closing the nomination didn't seem to properly address the WP:COATRACK issue. Many of those arguing for keep provided few policy-related arguments at best, and the closing rationale was largely the closer's own personal interpretation of the situation, rather than an analysis of arguments provided by both sides. Quoting SpinningSpark, "Some argued that it is a fork of 2014 Crimean crisis. It may well have started off as a fork of this article" - this isn't the issue, they've completely missed the point. This page is a content fork of not one article, but multiple existing articles with significant overlap. All of the content within this page, one hundred percent, is already covered by topics of existing articles elsewhere, it is absolutely inappropriate to state that the reason to keep this page is because it "clearly it covers more ground" than 2014 Crimean crisis. And finally, "But again, such problems are a matter for normal editing to sort out. They do not amount to grounds for deletion" - did the closer completely ignore the calls for merger, and not deletion? -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 06:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  I wasn't intending to comment here and just let the debate play out, but I can't let that pass. It is a complete misrepresentation of my close with carefully cherry-picked quotations. The close does, in fact, expend a great deal of ink addressing the multiple-article fork issue and the final quote had nothing to do with the issue of forking. It was addressing the issue of the need to attribute opinions. Spinning Spark 07:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  Nope - you focused on a pure keep-delete binary scale, with no concern for the in-betweens. As someone who did not want the article content deleted, and instead seeked a merger, your closing statement irks me, because it seems that you're basing your judgment largely on deletion being inappropriate. In essence, no action will be taken to fix the problems not because the keep arguments were valid, but instead because you did not see deletion to be fit. I do not disagree with you when you say that deletion is not the solution for the problems raised, however this is essentially your argument for taking no action at all. Look at the way you have worded your close. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 09:54, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Based on that discussion, the only closes that would have been within Spinningspark's discretion were "keep" and "no consensus". I think that I personally would have preferred "no consensus" as a close, but "keep" was within discretion. our system will not work unless sysops can have confidence that when they put thought into making the difficult calls, DRV will back them up unless the close was mistaken or unreasonable, so I think we've got to endorse.— S Marshall T/ C 08:20, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I think this rapidly-growing discussion would benefit from a couple of image files.— S Marshall T/ C 15:37, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• (images removed) No we don't, I get that you'd like to prove a point, but it's messy and silly. If you want to be silly and entertain yourself, go to WP:Reference desk and ask people there if they can disprove creationism, guaranteed lengthy replies. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 15:50, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I didn't post those pictures to be silly, Benlisquare, I posted them for the benefit of you and RGloucester. It's up to you whether you take the point, but I assure you that the closer will.— S Marshall T/ C 16:08, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I understand what you are saying, S Marshall, and I respect your opinion. I merely want clarity. If, as said below by Thincat, this result of "keep" means that we can continue a merger discussion on the talk page, then I have no issue with it. I just do not think this was made explicit. I would like this to be made explicit, so that we can all get on with our lives. I merely respond in the manner that I have because I do not like being accused of supporting "sockpuppets", or of being rooted in "preconceived opinions". RGloucester — ☎ 16:13, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• That's a fair question. The view from 30,000 feet is that Thincat is correct: a discussion about a merge can continue on the talk page per WP:CCC. If it reaches a consensus to merge then the merge can be enacted and that's that. No need for administrative tools there. But long experience with Wikipedia makes me add a hedge: the merge discussion has to be genuine, well-advertised and fully-argued by good faith editors. We don't want people using a discussion between three people that lasts a few hours to do an end run around a good faith AfD close.— S Marshall T/ C 17:51, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

If that's the case, do you think that an RfC on a potential merger could be held on the talk page? RGloucester — ☎ 18:01, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• It certainly could, but I would recommend the proposed merger process over the RfC one in this instance. You may wish to wait for the DRV to close before starting that.— S Marshall T/ C 18:14, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - there appear to be a lot of problems with trying to us a headcount, involving sockpuppet(s), solicted votes, whatnot. Relisting would be likely to exacerbate the problem. Thus, headcount needs to be given little to no weight, as it's difficult, perhaps impossible, to discern accurately. It's perhaps troublesome that the first person (as far as I can see) to explicitly mention WP:SUMMARY is the closer, but that's pedantry. It's clear that POVFORK is wholly inapplicable, and correctly identified as such, given WP:SUMMARY. If headcounts were considered, one might lean towards no consensus (policy heavily favouring keep, headcount favouring deletion), but in a discussion where the delete camp was canvassing, recruiting sockpuppets, etc., it just feels too much like rewarding them for disruption. Wily D 09:02, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• So, just because the nominator was a sockpuppet, does that excuse all the problems brought up? I don't agree with the rationale that taking action would be "rewarding" sockpuppets; either the article has problems, or it doesn't. Arguing that action not be taken because of sockpuppet involvement is an association fallacy. Argue the points raised, and not the people who have taken part in the discussion. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Huh? I was pretty explicit that policy/practice strongly favours a keep outcome. No actual problems were brought up; some were postulated/proposed, but the discussion makes it pretty clear that the stated objections are invalid. However, in discussions where participation isn't fraudulently tilted to one side or another, the headcount can carry some weight; but since the headcount was manipulated, we should more or less ignore it, and go back to policies, and the question of writing an encyclopaedia, which is a pretty clear keep. Wily D 11:35, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I don't care about "headcounts", as I said above. Comments about "recruiting sockpuppets" and "canvassing" are even more absurd than the original closure. We had been having that discussion on the talk page for days, and I explained my actions in the discussion. The idea that WP:SUMMARY is applicable is also absurd, but that's not the point of deletion review. Have you actually looked at our articles that cover this situation? Have you read them from start to finish? RGloucester — ☎ 14:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

It's necessary to note the problems of sockpuppets and canvassing to consider why headcount should be downplayed ignored. Otherwise, it would be legitimate to consider a no consensus closure, in which the overwhelming policy advantage of the keep position is mitigated by the headcount. If you don't care about headcounts, the only possible position you can come to is that the closure was correct. Trying to insinuate personal attacks to cover the absolute lack of an argument for deletion isn't helpful (or nice!) Wily D 15:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

How do we know that the sockpuppets weren't "keep" advocates with a false-flag agenda who purposely broke the rules in an attempt to sabotage any chance of the article being merged? Before this AfD, there was already pre-existing discussion on the article talk page regarding a potential merger. Then, all of a sudden out of nowhere comes someone with few other edits who starts an AfD, and a few moments later comes along another SPA who votes for deletion. Don't you find it suspicious? It feels like this was an intentional attempt to poison the discussion from the very beginning. Either that, or the sockpuppeter was really stupid in making his tomfoolery obvious as hell so that anyone could easily point it out. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 15:29, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

There are no policy reasons that justify keeping the status quo, but once again, I'm not going to get into that. Regardless, as far as the "sockpuppet" concerns, if one reads the SPI in question, one will learn that he is most probably User:L'Aquotique, someone who has targeted me intensely in the past. I do not understand why you are so full of bile. RGloucester — ☎ 15:36, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Of course, you can't be certain, but here it's the difference between "keep" and "weak keep/no consensus", so it's not really worth being bothered about. There's no material difference. Wily D 15:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. In these kinds of discussions it is particularly incumbent on the closing admin to look behind numbers, assertions and policy invocations to carefully consider the strength of the arguments in light of policies and guidelines. The reason is that participation in the discussion is skewed by the fact that most participants are -- largely in good faith -- coming to the discussion with preconceived opinions based on their views on the wider conflict. And genuinely uninvolved editors tend to stay away, given the contentiousness of the discussion. I thought the closing admin here performed the task very well. A large part of the concerns raised by deletion advocates -- and I thought many were justifiable concerns -- are not necessarily reasons to delete the article. Also, DRV should principally concern itself with the big picture question "should the article be deleted?". Questions of whether this AfD should be relisted (and I really don't think that would achieve much), and whether the close should have been "no consensus" rather than "keep", involve undue micromanagement. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:41, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Again, you're only looking at it from a keep/delete perspective. I never !voted delete, I was after a merger, as were many others. When you say that the concerns raised weren't solved through deletion, you're missing out on a very important aspect of the discussion here. -- benlisquare _{T• C• E} 09:48, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I will echo Benlisquare's comments, but I will also say that I stalwartly opposed those who came to the discussion with "preconceived notions", on both sides. These include the closer's favourite barrister, Sayerslle. I have no preconceived notions. You can ask anyone that has been observing my work in this content area since the conflict began. I have been variously accused of being pro-Russian and pro-Ukrainian. I don't give a damn. All I want is good content, in line with the MoS and policy. RGloucester — ☎ 14:58, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The close seems appropriate to me, and certainly within discretion. I welcome a detailed and considered closing rationale, as here. So long as the closer properly assesses consensus, it is perfectly reasonable to also make remarks which may help future editing of the topic. A close of keep does not preclude merge or redirect, it simply means that such actions require prior consensus at the talk page. Thincat ( talk) 13:10, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

What? If that's the case, there is no problem. But I don't think that is the case. If we can continue and start a merger discussion on the talk page, then I have no problem with the closure. However, I don't think that that is what the closer meant. Once again, I too was seeking a merger, not deletion, though I originally favoured deletion. In fact, most of the participants that did not vote "keep" were in favour of a merger, not deletion. This was my problem with the closure. I thought that "consensus to keep" meant "consensus to keep". If it only meant "no consensus", then there is no problem. However, I think this should be made explicit. RGloucester — ☎

• Comment – Pursuant to the comments by Thincat and S Marshall, I am content to accept the decision of the closer in the matter of the deletion, if others here agree that this closure did not preclude a merger discussion on the talk page, and only ruled out deletion. If this is the case, this deletion review was made in error, as I had assumed that "consensus to keep" meant "consensus for the status quo", not "consensus not to delete". I have always believed that there was no consensus to delete the article. RGloucester — ☎ 18:22, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The consensus was keep. The consensus was not merge, and I think in this case that a merge would be quite improper. Merging is not a purely editorial decision, and afd does in fact have merge as one of the options. It also has keep and merge. The closing did not consider the option of merge, and I think it should have, but it did specify, in my opinion correctly that it was a distinct topic, and that there was sufficient material--and that does implicitly mean keep, not merge. I see that most of the people at the argument thought that it was a clear keep. So do I, and I would have so closed, tho I would specifically have rejected a merge. A redirect is more similar to a delete than a keep, not only does it fail to retain the indexing status of the material,in practice it almost always leads to removal of specific content. The only actual difference from delete is that it is easily reversible. A merge can mean quite a lot of things, depending on how much material is merged. It is often a good compromise solution, but it is not keep. We have traditionally said otherwise, but what we have said about it being purely editorial simply does not correspond to reality. DGG ( talk ) 04:58, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• I voted "keep" in the discussion, and for the time being I'm glad that the article was not deleted (it's a dynamic situation so I might change my mind in the near future). However, it's pretty clear that RGloucester is right - that was not a "keep" closure. It was probably a "no consensus" closure. I don't think that actually has any practical impact, just sayin'. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 09:44, 17 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I can not agree - based on the arguments. To put it simple, people argued that the entire page was a content fork, but it was not. It should exist per policy. Also keep in mind that voting "rename" means "keep" and voting "merge" does not mean "delete". My very best wishes ( talk) 13:38, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I know many editors like to close these things really, really quick before all responses are made. But I just found this and will not be able to read, respond, or find out what this is about until I get back from work and I ask that you please refrain from closing it until then. Thank you. Hilltrot ( talk) 10:24, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

as I understand it, the normal closing time here is 7 days, unless the result becomes really obvious or a quick solution is found that satisfies everyone. I do not think either of these apply, and the full time should be allowed. DGG ( talk ) 20:54, 18 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, largely per User:WilyD. The "keep" close should not preclude a merge or redirect if a consensus to do so develops on the article talk page or other appropriate venue. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:10, 19 August 2014 (UTC). reply

• no endorsement.

Ok, sorry for the delay.

I found his rational to be well thought out. He carefully read all sides.

The last deletion for this was started by a sock puppet. Afterwards, meat puppetry was used by someone to sway the argument towards delete. If the delete argument was judged by how it was started, it would receive a rather poor score. However, that is not how everything in Wikipedia is judged. Spinningspark did not use this in his discussion of why the article was a "keep" based on how "it was started." He didn't look at the article for how it was started, he looked at the article for what it is right now. In fact, a lot of what is in the article had not even occurred when the article was started.

Their policy-based argument was that you did not have a policy-based argument. Those who wanted to keep the article simply gave evidence that it was not a POV fork or a coat rack. A person on trial for murder doesn't have to find the murderer to clear his or her name. It sure helps if the accused can, but the accused only needs to show that they are innocent. Similarly, those who wanted to keep the article only needed to argue and give evidence that the article is not a POV fork.

The evidence of a POV fork was very weak to nonexistent. This is why the POV fork argument failed and the article was kept.

It is most definitely true that the article covers more ground than it did back in early March. If you had made this argument back at the beginning of March, you would have a point. But since then, there have been over 3,000 edits. "The article covers more ground now." is assuredly true. Large parts like the Crimean oil table doesn't exist in the "Crimean Crisis" article anywhere. The "Crimean Crisis Time Table" article looks completely different from the one in this article. I could go on and on, but in your reasoning you never provided any specific evidence. I have copied 4 sequential words from over a dozen places throughout the article and couldn't find it in the articles it supposedly forked. You completely misrepresent the article as mostly a copy and paste when it isn't.

Your argument basically rests on an unsubstantiated accusation that Sayerslle is a tendentious editor. This is not appropriate. Your argument should be about the article - not a personal attack against another person.

Consensus is not voting. Six people could come out of the woodwork to vote for something in Wikipedia and if their arguments were unsound, a third-party judge should be able to take the side of the one person against who made the sound argument. There is good reason for this as it does help stop blatant meat puppetry. Stephen Colbert and Scientology have shown how bad things could get if every consensus was a simple vote count. Hilltrot ( talk) 23:05, 20 August 2014 (UTC) reply

John Bambenek ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is a serious request. New sources have been found: [18]; [19]; [20]. He clearly meets WP:BIO and is notable. I am not affiliated with the subject, for the record. NigelHowells ( talk) 17:37, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• The consensus about John Bambenek at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 February 15 was: We will only consider this when an established user brings forward a fully sourced and BLP compliant draft for discussion. Is such a draft available?— S Marshall T/ C 17:59, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment: it is worth recalling that for some time this was listed on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests, with the comment:

Self promotion has been an ongoing issue, as well as use of sockpuppets to stack the raw opinion counts. Deleted by 3 of 4 AFD discussions (one of which was the result of new information presented at a deletion review). Has had more than 10 deletion reviews. By some of the later deletion reviews, nominators and/or opiners were using them as a platform to attack a living person. Will not be considered until an established editor presents a well-sourced draft.

See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JohnBambenek and lists of socks: 1, 2. None of that necessarily means that we should not have an article, but it provides the context for requiring a well-sourced draft from an established editor. JohnCD ( talk) 21:33, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Mitchell Mann ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Now a professional snooker player so meets WP:ATHLETE for what it was deleted for. [21] [22] [23] -- Snooker155 ( talk) 21:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I don't think we need to go over Cirt's deletion in 2010. The new information supersedes the previous discussion and we should allow recreation.— S Marshall T/ C 22:08, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Restore and add sources to establish his new status. The old AfD is clearly outdated and has been superseded by events. That said, I'm not sure what the exact best-practice is for Snooker players. I couldn't find much non-trivial coverage, though plenty of sources confirm that he is now a pro, and a comparison with the golf sub guideline suggests that an article might be premature. On the other hand, if the general practice is to include all pro snooker players then he should have an article. In any event, that's an issue for AfD and not here, I just wanted to flag it for Snooker155 or whoever wants to update the article to think about. Eluchil404 ( talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Yeah, pro players get articles, he has also played a few matches as a pro.-- Snooker155 ( talk) 22:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Restore the deletion was right at the time, but there's definitely been a change in circumstances. This is exactly how this is all supposed to work. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 04:41, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Restore or recreate (the latter might be better depending on the usefulness of the deleted article). I don't know anything about the world of snooker and so won't pretend to pass judgement on whether the coverage presented causes the subject to meet the general notability guideline. And DRV isn't the place for that judgement to be passed: as Eluchil404 suggests, there could well be a new AfD after the article is restored or recreated. But what is clear, and sufficient for present purposes, is that things have changed substantially enough that the 2010 AfD no longer applies. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 09:04, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Just recreate this The deleted content was Mitchell Mann is an amateur snooker player. He won the Junior Pot Black in 2007, beating Jack Lisowski 76-23 in the final. That's no use to you to restart this so just go do it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 11:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• OK, thanks will do that.-- Snooker155 ( talk) 17:45, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

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

• Speedy close No valid reasons.-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 09:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Madison McKinley ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

In my opinion, the closer of this deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. I've attempted to discuss the matter with the closing admin via his or her talk page, but no response from the closing admin. I don't see how there is a 'consensus' in the deletion discussion. The deletion discussion did not result in consensus for deletion. Mycat99 ( talk) 11:59, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Sure it did. Endorse.— S Marshall T/ C 00:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Please elaborate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mycat99 ( talk • contribs) 00:14, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedians use language strangely sometimes. In the non-Wikipedia world, a "consensus" is a state where everyone roughly agrees. On Wikipedia it means this. You see, it would be easy for someone to cheat at most Wikipedia discussions by creating throwaway accounts to agree with what they say. We stop that by saying that accounts need a certain amount of history before their views "count". Most of the people saying "keep" in that discussion are below the threshold to have a voice in our discussions, so the closing administrator just pretends they never spoke. It's an anti-cheating measure basically.— S Marshall T/ C 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Shouldn't the article be re-displayed during "Deletion Review"? Mycat99 ( talk) 12:26, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Normally it would, but that's not really necessary in this case.— S Marshall T/ C 00:32, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Userfy or incubate on request  [24] shows that the closer has had sufficient time to reply since July 18.  One way to interpret this absence of a response is that the analysis of "trace of notability" is valid.  If we accept the closer's view that none of the SPAs made valid arguments, and we also agree that one of the deletes can be dismissed as an ad hominem, there were only three participants in this AfD, and the closer should have relisted.  Given the confounding peripheral issues in this AfD, including the omission by the AfD nominator to mention an alternate name for the topic (Garton), the practical thing here is to clear the decks and start over.  Unscintillating ( talk) 01:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• If we really must relist this, then I suggest we do it with a semi-protected AfD.— S Marshall T/ C 02:34, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse [Caveat: I haven't seen the article but have looked around for sources; I assume that this is not the same Madison McKinley that is plastered all over the interweb for dating a tennis player, right? Not that it would necessarily matter.] The close was a perfectly good read of the 'discussion'. The consensus was clear enough not to require a relisting and in this case a re-list would be unnecessary DRV micromanagement. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:56, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, to be clear, we're talking about this person. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:09, 10 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • There's also a userfied copy at User:Cristine nickol/sandbox. — Cryptic 01:38, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• There is no AfD in that edit history.  That is not a userfied article.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • You're correct. It's a userfied copy. — Cryptic 01:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, nom claims "the closer of this deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly", but gives no evidence to support the accusation. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Consensus was clear that a bit-part actor (#30-40 or so in the cast list of The Wolf of Wall Street, for example) does not meet the project's notability threshold. No amount of incubation or re-write opportunity will make a non-notable actor notable. Wait til she gets more roles and subsequently more coverage in reliable sources, then try again. Tarc ( talk) 13:42, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Tarc (and I am pleased to have an opportunity to say that). The consensus and closing were correct--this does not meet our notability standard at the present point in her career. The attempted disruption in the afd did not hinder the correct conclusion). DGG ( talk ) 14:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Comment  Any claim that there is a deletion consensus requires that the two delete !votes refuted the one keep !vote, and there is little to work with here.  The nominator's and delete !vote's argument that the article was a WP:PROMOTION problem was not sustained by the closer, which leaves wp:notability.  And since wp:notability is not defined by the article, it is correct that it is not necessary to see the article here to judge the weight of arguments for notability of the topic.  The nom refutes the NY Times link, but in general gives no verifiable evidence to support the opinion that the topic is not WP:NOTABLE.  The lack of verifiable evidence weakens the !vote, for example, the nominator does not report an article in the Huffington Post (1/23/2011)...why?  The delete !vote says that the topic had traces of notability.  Both mention WP:TOOSOON, which I reviewed.  An example given of a WP:TOOSOON actor is one who is the lead in a film that will not be released for a year.  In contrast, this actress has been in the business for seven years and as shown in the imdb.com link above has a resume of credits.  The keep !vote cites a "lack of quality secondary sources", where the lack does not rise to the level of WP:Deletion policy, but only provides one link to the denverpost.com.  The closer states that the consensus is that of WP:GNG, but none of the !votes mentions GNG.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:28, 15 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

In my opinion, the closer of this deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The anonymous user who was the only other contributor to the discussion besides the nominator was clearly opposed to the deletion of the image, and provided a significant amount of argumentation, yet the image was deleted without further discussion. Furthermore, important arguments against deleting this image were not brought up in the discussion: contrary to the nominator's opinion, it satisfies WP:NFCC#3 because one item cannot "convey equivalent significant information" in this case (the screenshot of the newer version is very different - even the name of the software changed between the two versions!) and it satisfies WP:NFCC#8 because several things mentioned in the text of the article are specific to earlier versions, including this particular one, than that depicted by the screenshot currently in the article. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 00:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. First, the discussion was closed with consensus that the image fails WP:NFCC and should therefore be deleted. You claim that the consensus was interpreted incorrectly, but the delete argument had merit as it was policy backed. The information the IP editor gave is patiently wrong and badly worded. Their reasons for keeping the image is that the two criteria "do not go into effect" which is wrong. Their argument that showing both is a "good example for the improvement of software" and "wikipedia is supporting their produchts" has nothing to do with WP:NFCC#3. "A picture is worth a thousand words" is the most overused cliche in deletion discussions and has no meaning nor any bearing on WP:NFCC. The image fails both WP:NFCC#3 and #8 because it is not critically discussed. An average reader does not need to see two slightly different screenshots to understand that there are differences. WP:NFCC#8 refers to the need for image to understand the text. It does not work the other way around. There is nothing in the text that is not understood without the image. Cheers, TLSuda ( talk) 11:08, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Unfortunately, your only actual argument - your opinion that the screenshots are only slightly different - completely ignores what I wrote above. The screenshots are far more than just "slightly" different. There are important differences between the XP and 7 versions - and quite a few of these are mentioned in the text - that should be portrayed by including a screenshot of each version. Overall, your statements above are practically copied and pasted from what you previously wrote on this topic, so I'm actually not even sure whether you read what I wrote above at all. Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 13:24, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I read every bit of what you wrote and responded accordingly. Your claim about the interpretation of consensus is patently false. Your claims about the IP's argumentation are baseless as they do not hold up. I explained why they don't hold up. I also gave my opinion, like you did, about the interpretation of the points of WP:NFCC. And your claim that I've copied and pasted on my response is also false. Each situation is unique, and in this case it obviously fails WP:NFCC. Sorry for it, but it is true. TLSuda ( talk) 14:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• We have permission to use this content. [25], {{ non-free Microsoft screenshot}}. Could you explain to me again how it improves the encyclopaedia to delete it?— S Marshall T/ C 21:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  We have a limited license to use it, e.g. things like you aren't allowed to modify it (except simple cropping). As the template you link makes it clear, this is still non-free media and still needs to conform to the non-free content criteria. I won't repeat all the arguments which have been presented to you over the years about why non-free content is used minimally because of the overall goals of the project to be as far as possible a "free" content project. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 22:10, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  Yep, we've had this conversation before. It's probably not necessary for me to re-state my views about this practice of deleting material that we've got permission to use just because it's ideologically impure.— S Marshall T/ C 22:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Relist, I don't see how you can have a 'consensus' in a discussion where only two people participate and they both disagree. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 00:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC). reply
  • Note that both User:Peripitus (the deleting administrator) and User:TLSuda (who also commented above) are apparently of the opinion that discussion at WP:FFD is irrelevant for fair use image deletion: User talk:Peripitus/Archive10#Please restore these files Dogmaticeclectic ( talk) 05:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • I think that would be quite a stretch to attribute that to the comments User:Peripitus makes in that discussion. To a certain degree it is however correct e.g WP:CSD#F7 - not that I'm suggesting that criteria applies in this case.-- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 08:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Relist I can't see the images to see if there is an issue or not and can't necessarily get much from the discussion here or there, my inclination given both discussions is that it's unlikely to meet the NFCC. However whilst I might disagree with User:S Marshall regarding how much we should stick to our project goals, what I can agree is that whilst we have a valid permission having the material restored for an extended discussion is of little real consequence (Longer term restoration if it's invalid is a different issue). -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 08:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• My project goal is to help write an encyclopaedia.— S Marshall T/ C 08:47, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• and mine is to help write a free content encyclopaedia, where as far as possible people can reuse the content in whatever way they choose. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:42, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse FFD is somewhat different from other types of deletion discussions in that discussions often don't get much participation, and files are frequently deleted with no input from anyone except the nominator. Here the argument for deletion is perfectly sound: the difference between the images is tiny, the small number of differences can easily be described in text and including both images adds little or nothing to the reader's understanding of the topic. The IP's comments were largely irrelevant and it was entirely reasonable for the closer to discount them. The copyright status of the image plainly falls under our non-free content policies and attempts to change that belong elsewhere. Hut 8.5 15:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Relist . Accepting the above statement that attendance at FFD is variable and often low, that is alll the more reason why we should be ready to entertain appeals from it. If the arguments for deletion are sound, the relist will give the same result, and there will be a satisfactory consensus. DGG ( talk ) 16:00, 14 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Much as I think I closed this correctly - having to draw conclusions from limited participation is the norm for FFD - DGG has it right. If people want it should be relisted - Peripitus (Talk) 09:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Gang stalking ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

With sites like Ask.fm being in the news, and multiple new sources coming to light about alleged "Internet trolling" really being gang stalking, this article should be undeleted, and should not redirect to Stalking. It's protected, so I can't edit it, and we should put this back up at AfD. It is clearly notable. Homeontherange ( talk) 11:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Can you point to some of these new sources rather than just a vague wave to them being there? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Dating Reality and Things ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page should not have been speedily-deleted; sources were provided, and it should have been taken to AFD. It was very clearly not CSD A7 or G11, and notability criteria is met. Homeontherange ( talk) 11:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, textbook A7. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, I am usually pretty good at finding a justification for why A7 doesn't apply, but there is nothing I can grasp on to in this case. Claiming that the article meets the notability criteria is really pushing outside good faith territory. Monty ₈₄₅ 18:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

The majority opinion was not to delete. Two editors supported deletion; three editors opposed deletion; one editor called for a review of each article; one editor suggested a purge of articles not directly including LGBT material. Contaldo80 ( talk) 10:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Closer's comment: it was my view that those arguing for deletion made stronger arguments on policy grounds. The contents are biographies and for the living subjects WP:BLP issues are clearly important. It was accepted that the inclusion of various dead members was also debatable. Purging the category would only address these issues at one point in time, leaving exposure to future abuse of the category. A list is a far better place for this information as grounds for inclusion can be explicitly stated, cited and discussed. A list can also be much more informative, with sections or table columns for historical period, occupation etc. I left a link to the diffs, in order to facilitate creating such a list. – Fayenatic L ondon 13:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  I'm a bit confused by your closing statement where you say "Although there is no consensus, the arguments for deletion included strong policy...". If there was no consensus, why wasn't it closed as such? which would normally default to keeping whatever the current status quo is. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  To be honest I miscounted the !votes, being led by Mannanan51's first line "Delete: Agree with Solntsa90, John Pack Lambert, and Peterkingiron for reasons stated" to overstate the number advocating deletion. Although there was no consensus about the best outcome, there was a consensus that there were major problems with the category, as even its defenders agreed that it needed reviewing, and the last contributor Willthacheerleader18 referred to it as an "article" rather than a category. These points led me to conclude that the major problems were insuperable as a category, and would best be resolved by deleting it and replacing it with a list (article).

  The proposal to review would not deal with problems like Pope Benedict IX is not an "LGBT" Catholic, neither is Ludwig II of Bavaria; However, I do see the usage of it's inclusion. That seems to provide a good example of something that could be documented in a list. A list can state its inclusion criteria, and include sections for related criteria that do not meet the main ones. A review/purge would not provide any mechanism for future review of additions to the category, whereas a list article can be added to your watchlist. – Fayenatic L ondon 20:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I'm finding this close difficult to justify. The main argument in the CFD was that the category is being anachronistically applied to historical figures that don't fit into modern conceptions of sexuality, with a secondary concern raised that the category is being more broadly applied incorrectly where either the LGBT or Roman Catholic status of the individual is not verified (and the veracity of historical sources on this issue for long-dead figures is also drawn into this argument). Neither of these arguments seem germane to me on whether the category should be deleted, as it's all a question of cleanup, as even the nominator and one of the discussion participants seemed to recognize by asking for "review" of its contents and "purging". And no one disputed (and no one could dispute) that there are or have been plenty of notable individuals who were verifiably LGBT and verifiably Roman Catholic. Only the "keep" !voters addressed why this particular intersection should be categorized, which in my mind would be the central question for deletion. So I'm not seeing any real arguments for deletion here, let alone "stronger" ones, and numerically the keep and delete !voters were roughly the same, even excluding the "purge" recommendations that should be read as "keep but cleanup".

  I'm particularly concerned by the closer raising BLP as a relevant deletion concern when none of the participants did, and this is merely an intersection category of two characteristics (sexual identity and religion) of which we do permit categorization if properly sourced for each individual. Without discussion on the relevance and application of BLP policy to this CFD nomination (and no indication given as to how that policy might clearly dictate a deletion result here), it is at the very least inappropriate for the closer to invoke it as if for added weight. And though I'd personally agree that lists should be preferred for documenting such facts of demographic or personal identity, that's not a proper deletion rationale for this category (nor was it raised in the CFD) so long as the Category:LGBT people and Category:People by religion trees exist as this category does nothing but merge column A with column B.

  In light of all this, I'd support relisting to focus on the intersection question, or overturning to "keep". postdlf ( talk) 16:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, I was taking policies into account whether or not they were brought up by the participants. I always thought that was a fine thing for a closer to do.

I believe you will find no bias in my contributions either regarding LGBT or Roman Catholics.

It looks like I goofed here. I admitted above that I miscounted, and explained why. In my defence all I can say is that CFD currently has the worst backlog that I can remember, see WP:CFDAC, with some discussions still not closed after 3 months despite asking for help on the admin noticeboard. You can see from my RfA that I was dragged into adminship to help with CFD. So, as I currently have a bit of time, whereas most of the CFD regulars seem to be taking a break, I've been putting effort into clearing the backlog where I was not conflicted. The recent page history of CFDAC and WP:CFDW show this. I closed 6 in fairly quick succession on the July 6 page, tackling others before this one as it was problematic. I always look to see if I can extract something useful from a lack of consensus, but this seems to have been a bold step too far. I'm happy to co-operate in re-listing it, and if necessary with restoring the previous members. – Fayenatic L ondon 19:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Kudos to the closer for admitting error and offering to help clean up. Is there any need to wait out the full 168 hours before the inevitable restore and relist?— S Marshall T/ C 22:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This is something of a procedural request. I closed the AfD on this article five days ago, and today an editor asked me to reopen it (see User talk:Deor#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pontypridd Urban District Council election, 1898) because a particular WikiProject had not been notified. Unsure of the best way to handle the request, I'm asking here whether the AfD should be reopened or relisted or the closure be allowed to stand. Deor ( talk) 00:09, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I'll be the first to admit that I rely on AAlertBot but that's not grounds to throw out the result. Everyone, including the article creator, eventually favored moving the content elsewhere. Unless a relist provoked a rash of comments favoring outright deletion, the most that could happen is no consensus, and editors could still redirect the article anyway. Mackensen (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• note the following discussion which makes this trial balloon AFD a bit more important, as there are a great many articles in the same boat which I plan to nominate for deletion (and will of course notify the project in question now that I am aware it exists) Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics#Local_Election_Results_.28Particularly_in_Wales.29 Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:11, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- Seems a fair reading of the AfD discussion. Overturning it because a wikiproject was not notified would not be right. It would imply that certain wikiprojects own certain articles, and that their permission is required before the rest of the community can reach consensus regarding those articles. Reyk _YO! 06:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The close was an accurate reading of the discussion. A failure in the ArticleAlert Bot is not a procedural failure in the AfD process that warrants an AfD being re-opened. But if Gaijin42's foreshadowed next lot of AfDs result in a different outcome, we should come back and re-visit this one. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Relist The relevant WikiProject was not notified of the AfD and knowledgeable editors did not have a chance to comment. It's not an issue of ownership (disappointing this was brought up, but sadly increasingly typical of the attitude towards people who may know what they're talking about), it's about getting informed comment in the debate. Number 5 7 10:49, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Wikiprojects don't own articles any more than individual editors do. See WP:OWN. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 11:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ Starblind: Who said that WikiProjects own articles? Number 5 7 12:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse 1. given that their is no process requirement to explicitly notify any users of a debate, that isn't really any reason to reopen it. 2. As the merged article currently stands it doesn't look like there would be anything that could be added to the debate (as opposed to adding content) which would make the close look problematic and (3) if there is more content etc. which can be added by wikiprojects or others as some point in the future, and unmerging is always an option. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Further comment A WikiProject member has helpfully pointed out that several AfDs have previously been held on local election articles and all resulted in the articles being kept (e.g. here, here, here, here, here, here). This perfectly illustrates my point that if someone familiar with the topic area had been able to contribute to the AfD, then the result would likely have been different due to the numerous examples of past consensus regarding local election notability. Number 5 7 19:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • Wikipedia doesn't do precedent so merely presenting those should have effectively been ignored. More so the ones you list are from 6 years or more ago (except one, about 3 years). -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 19:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Wikipedia does do precedent – it's taken into account in numerous AfDs, including several of those listed above. See WP:OUTCOMES. Number 5 7 19:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Actually, my impression is that WP is erratic in following precedent. A long line of consistent decisions, without any (or hardly any) contradictory ones , is in practice a guideline. A few decisions on an issue is another matter. Decisions which have been consistently followed in the past, but where the same matter is not consistent now, indicates a probably abandoned guideline. (Which of these three is relevant here will take further examination) A guideline is what we do consistently. What we label it is irrelevant. DGG ( talk ) 20:10, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the judgement of the closing admin. Also note that there has been no deletion, and the redirect may be reversed on establishing a consensus at the target's talk page. WikiProjects should see up systems to track pages they are interested in, and there is no requirement to notify them. If no one in the WikiProject is watching the page, then either it is a dormant WikiProject, or the page is barely of interest. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • @ SmokeyJoe: There is a system to track them - the Alerts page - but it failed to pick this AfD up (which I have been complaining about elsewhere, and also tried to get to the bottom of why). The WikiProject is not dormant. Number 5 7 08:25, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • Yes, I know. Something was broken, and people who relied on it were left out. However, the onus should be on the WikiProject members to ensure that the alert system is working, not the AfD process required to ensure that the WikiProject's alert system is working. "Overturn because the auto alert system was down" is unpersuasive, in the absence of a case that the decision made was wrong. The closing admin closed it correctly. There was nothing wrong with the AfD process. There is no harm done requiring a DRV "overturn". The nominator should have taken the substance of any object to the redirect target's talk page. I agree with the closer, on his talk page, that there is not a good reason to unclose the AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:33, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • @ SmokeyJoe: But I'm not asking for it to be overturned ,as you can see from my comment above - I'd like it relisted so that WikiProject members have a chance to add to the debate. And I think your argument about the onus to ensure the system is working is rather unfair - it's only possible to spot when it's not working when it doesn't pick up something - it's impossible to see when something is failing to pick up nothing! Number 5 7 08:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
        • Are you maintaining that the WikiProject members would like to revisit the discussion to argue "Delete don't redirect"? Otherwise, there is no role for DRV here. DRV is not needed to reverse a redirect decision. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
          • @ SmokeyJoe: Where does an editor gain consensus to restore an article that was redirected as the result of an AfD? Number 5 7 08:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
            • On the talk page of the target, at Talk:Pontypridd Urban District Council. This is especially appropriate if it is true that "as the merger of significant content appears to be a fait accompli". (Deor (talk) 20:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC)) Or am I missing something? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:02, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No person or group has a right to be notified of a deletion discussion; if something goes technically awry that usually would send an alert, that shouldn't invalidate the discussion just because someone didn't show up. Tarc ( talk) 12:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
  • *sigh* No-one has said that anyone has a "right" to be notified. All I'm trying to say is that the discussion would have been better informed if knowledgeable editors were involved in the debate. I wasn't even asking for it to be overturned - just relisted so that more people could have a chance to comment. I really don't understand the aversion to this. I've given up hope now, but it's very depressing to see such a negative attitude towards having an informed debate. Number 5 7 12:58, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
    • What's there to be "better informed" about"? It's an article about a 116yr-old election, not a topic that requires a degree in nuclear physics or medicine. IMO, it is better to attract discussion from outside a topic area anyways. Fresh eyes, less biased, etc... Tarc ( talk) 13:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
      • Past deletion discussions on similar topics, for a start. And I agree it is good to have comment from outside the topic area as well, but there should be both. Number 5 7 13:55, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the situation is not ideal, but I don't think that failure to notify a Wikiproject is a procedural error serious enough to warrant overturning a discussion, especially given that the discussion was open for more than the minimum amount of time. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 23:52, 8 August 2014 (UTC). reply
• Be allowed to stand  Edit history was kept, and there is neither a deletion nor a failure to delete to review here.  Any editor making a good edit (i.e., improving the encyclopedia) can WP:BOLDly reverse the close.  Unscintillating ( talk) 02:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Relist There is no absolute requirement to notify a contributor that the article is listed for deletion, but not doing so is no prejudicial to the purposes of WP, and to WP:Deletion Policy which to is retain content if at all, that I think failure to do so in the case of a good faith contributor can be a sufficient reason to relist a discussion. This is especially true of a deletion that is intended specifically to set a precedent for wider action, as is admittedly the case here. I casn think of no valid reason for not doing it, and I think an explanation is necessary. (The reasons it has never been formally approved as a requirement is first , the difficulty of sometimes identifying all sufficiently substantial contributors, and second the difficulty of defining the circumstances where it need not or should not be done). Even though this paticular decision can just be reverted as a merge, the principle of notifying is important. DGG ( talk ) 18:55, 11 August 2014 (UTC) reply

DGG What explanation do you think is necessary? Why I didn't notify that particular wikiproject? The answer is simple, I didn't even know it existed, but I did notify 3 wikiprojects Politics, England and Wales. Note that neither article discussed in the AFD had any template about the wikiproject under question on them so unless one knows every wikiproject in existence, it would be unwise to say that projects which are not even on the talk page must be notified imo. To slightly complicate the particular articles in this AFD/DRV, the creator of the articles was blocked due to prolific socking during the discussion (though their master has now been unblocked as they have provided an explanation of why they were socking, and were not aware of the socking policy) . However, as this was intended to be a test balloon, I have no objection to wider notification - but on the other hand a swarm of people from a single wikiproject also isn't super valuable in determining a real neutral consensus either... It would be helpful if this wikiproject and the wider community could propose some notability criteria for elections as the core issue here is are these particular elections notable (and by extension, are all elections notable, since these are pretty close to the end of the line of size/impact) - As we learned from the MMA fiasco though, proponents of a particular topic area are likely to say that much more is notable than what the average editor thinks. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:51, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I recognize that this type of situation is exactly the sort that make automatic notification difficult.Sometimes the only effective notification is deletion review, and that has been one of the purposes here. I too have several times used afd for establishing consensus on an issue; the way of establishing it is not a single afd, precisely because of the problem of variable attendance and notification, but consistent decisions. (Incidentally, if we do have another discussion at afd, I expect to support your proposal for merging.) DGG ( talk ) 05:46, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

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

There are plenty of reliable sources for this article from Polish news media, German publishers of computer related topics ( O'Reilly Media), America and Chinese media, as well as a Polish government-funded organisation which promotes Polish culture. The article has been rewritten and expanded at Draft:Polandball. If it helps, I release my contributions at Draft:Polandball under CC-Zero to allow for easy undeletion and addition of content. 185.49.15.25 ( talk) 06:57, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment by original AfD closer: "Polandball" is a meme used in Internet fora to disparage Poland, primarily in a context of historical and nationalist conflicts between Russians and Poles. It was deleted because of poor sourcing and because it was a hotspot of nationalist conflict on Wikipedia (see WP:EEML, WP:ARBEE).

  It appears to me that 185.49.15.25 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is Russavia ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) evading their indefinite block and de facto ban from Wikipedia, or somebody editing on their behalf. Russavia is a prolific sockpuppeteer, see the list of suspected and confirmed socks. They were the original creator of the Polandball article and have edited about this topic on many other Wikipedias, see the massive list of interwikis at simple:Polandball. This "simple English" article, written by Russavia, is also cited in the edit history as the basis of the text that is now at Draft:Polandball. 185.49.15.25, who has made this request and created the draft article, is a dynamic IP whose recent contributions all relate to Polandball and indicate an excellent familiarity with Wikipedia processes.

  In its totality, this is, to me, conclusive behavioral evidence that 185.49.15.25 is a sock- or meatpuppet of Russavia. On these grounds, I am speedily deleting the draft and blocking 185.49.15.25. It seems to me that this makes this review request moot, unless this block and deletion are successfully appealed. I recommend against considering to recreate this article unless it is rewritten by an established editor without any relationship to prior Eastern Europe-related disputes.  Sandstein  12:01, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• endorse I might have possibly !voted keep (although real WP:RS is admittedly weak, but DRV is not a second bite at the apple - Sandstein's analysis of the consensus that developed in the AFD is obviously correct. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Relist I've reviewed the original AfD, and I'll keep my comment brief. It's been two years and I believe less transient reliable sources to establish notability could be found. I have zero experience in Eastern European related articles, but intense POV pushing - to the best of my knowledge - isn't grounds for deletion of a notable topic. There are remedies for that such as different levels of protection. As for uninvolved editors, I've been on Wikipedia for seven years and have no relationship with anyone involved at that article. The IP address above contacted my on my talk page, stating they did so because they saw my comments elsewhere. Other than that, I'm 100% uninvolved in the entire subject area. If an uninvolved, uncompromised editor is required, I am willing to funnel some of my editing time from other things to a Polandball article if the community will agree to relist the article. MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:55, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- I think consensus to delete was very clearly established at the AfD. Reyk _YO! 06:21, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Two caveats to my view: first, I can't see the article to assess the sources myself (I have no objection to no temporary restore here; second, if anyone can produce convincing evidence to show that the reliable sourcing situation has changed in 2 years, I might change my mind. But to the point: Sandstein's close was, save perhaps for the final sentence, simply incontrovertible based on the discussion. As an aside, I'd have absolutely no objection to the speedy closure of this debate if uninvolved editors who know the history better than me consider, as Sandstein does, that this debate has been opened by a sock of Russavia (who, for better or worse, is banned per [26]). -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• (Contribution by another block-evading IP suppressed,  Sandstein  11:47, 7 August 2014 (UTC)) 80.109.48.204 ( talk) 08:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• comment The original AfD was two years ago, and the 'admissible' discussion cited in the close was mainly about notability. In the two years since the subject has not become less notable. Having seen the draft before it was deleted, I can say that the sourcing was considerably improved, however, with that draft deleted other non-admin editors are effectively prevented from assessing the evidence for notability. While edits by blocked or banned users can be deleted, doing so when the community has been asked to assess the notability of the subject for undeletion is IMO highly questionable, as it effectively hides the evidence to be assessed from the view of non-admins. Doing

I also feel obligated to point out that the initial deletion of the draft was done by user:RHaworth as a completely out-of-process G4, which does not apply to deleted content placed into draftspace for the explicit purpose of improvement. Unfortunately, there is no inline trout.

I'm making this a comment instead of a !vote, as under the current state of things, it is pointless to try to have a meaningfull discussion about the subject.

( edit conflict) While I was typing the above, the content of the draft was posted here by an IP. I've not doubt it will be deleted again, though. Revent ^talk 09:07, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

@ Revent: well you were right, User:Sandstein removed the content again. But not only did he remove the evidence of the subject clearly being notable, he has also salted Draft:Polandball against recreation. So now, NO-ONE can write an article in either mainspace or in draft space. Well done Sandstein, well done. :> 46.11.11.233 ( talk) 12:35, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Yes, well-done to both Sandstein and RHaworth, and it was I who requested the G4 in the first place. There's no way such a contentious article will re-appear in this project via a simple Draft-space attempt, it will have to come through Deletion Review, which itself is a snowball's chance in hell. It is a very dumb, very trivial/obscure, and very racist meme floating out in the reddits and funnyjunk.com spheres. Sanity prevailed at the original AfD, and nothing has changed since, except people can't get go of the WP:ARBEE wars. Tarc ( talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

So, you support something that you asked for. Unsurprising. I'm not saying that the draft could not have been deleted as G5, but advocating that deleted articles cannot be recreated in draft or userspace when the intent is to improve them is ridiculous, as it effectively prevents any attempt to ever improve or recreate the article. This isn't just regarding Polandball... if the logic being used here is applied consistently, it would nullify the entire purpose of WP:REFUND, and be harmful to the encyclopedia. The criteria for G4 specifically prohibits it being used in this way.

You are completely correct that there are people who won't let go of the EEML wars, on both sides. As it stands now the 'winners' of that battle, in the sense of those who finally, after years of effort, succeeded in getting Russavia indefinitely blocked are now blatantly attempting to not only enforce the ban, but to even deny him the legally required copyright attribution for his contributions. (I'm not going to provide links, so as to not 'pinpoint' certain people, but this has itself been stated by a person who did so.) This is all irrelevant to the topic here, other than in the sense that people who are entering this discussion need to be aware that actions being taken here are not being taken by uninvolved or impartial parties. The evidence for the current notability of the topic needs to be discussed (there is new evidence), and the issue should be treated as a matter of what is best for the encyclopedia, not as a matter of 'winning' a battle that should have died out years ago. Revent ^talk 18:57, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - for the reasons given above. Tarc ( talk) 16:54, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• First, there was nothing wrong with the close from 2 years ago, so the extent that we are reviewing that, Endorse. Likewise, it was necessary to delete the recent draft under longstanding precedent so as to not reward block evasion or sock puppetry. That said, if an editor in good standing was so inclined, I think it may be possible to draft an article that passes the notability guidelines. This discussion should not be read as foreclosing the option for someone to try and draft a policy compliant version of the article, being careful to avoid the taint of contributions from ban evading editors. Monty ₈₄₅ 17:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  Perhaps I'm being overly cynical here, but it seems fairly clear at this point that anyone who did so would be opening themselves up to accusations of being a sock or meatpuppet of Russavia, as well as the same accusations of racism that were leveled at Russavia in the first place (which was in itself an extension of the EEML wars). As it stands, it is a moot point, as the topic is salted in both article space and draft space, and any recreation of it would require a discussion of notability here. It seems quite obvious to me that any attempt to recreate the article doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell for reasons having nothing to do with the notability of the topic, mainly because it seems clear that any attempt to introduce new evidence will be deleted on spurious grounds (such as G4). The recent edit wars between administrators and editors IMO make it fairly clear that there are people who are more interested in enforcing the 'win' of the anti-Russavia crowd than in improving the encyclopedia. As it currently stands, if the salt did not exist the entire text of the version rewritten by Russavia could be acceptably (by policy) posted to draftspace with attribution to Russavia by another editor... it's also obvious that any editor who did so would be risking a meatpuppet block, regardless of their reason for doing so. Revent ^talk 19:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2016 Formula One season ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Closed way to prematurely through speedy keep, which a non-admin is not authorized to do. Suggest relist. Tvx1 ( talk) 02:47, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Closure was perfectly acceptable, consensus was overwhelmingly in favour of keeping the article, comments made during the 2nd nomination also support the creation and retention of the article in August 2014. There's nothing here which needs review, it's not as if an administrator could actually have deleted the article given the consensus at the 3rd nomination anyway, but if you so desire, I'm happy to re-close the AfD in my capacity as an administrator. I'd also add that relisting is pointless as there's absolutely no evidence the decision would change, especially when comments in the 2nd nomination are taken into consideration. I'm not entirely happy that you even nominated it, given the comments made in the 2nd nomination that suggested the community would be happy for recreation in and around August 2014. Nick ( talk) 10:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Nick's absolutely right consensus was in favour of keeping the article, Looking back at the 2015/2014/2013 Formula One season's they are all created early but what with contracts etc etc it makes sense, Anyway I personally see no problem with my closure but if Nick would rather re-close to keep the nom happy I don't mind, Cheers, – Davey2010 • (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Do nothing. As I see it, the debate was closed 6 hours after it was nominated. The grounds for a speedy keep were not there. It was not (at 4-1) at the point of a snow keep. It shouldn't have been closed so early. There was no good reason to. It was a good faith, and reasonable, nomination that deserved due process and potentially a wider range of input from other editors. But I think the chances of a re-opening of the AfD leading to any other outcome are so negligible -- and even if deleted the article would surely just be back in another few months -- that I'm not suggesting the close be overturned as that would be undue process wonkery -- Mkativerata ( talk) 08:23, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

::I never said It wasn't a good faith nomination - I know for a fact the nom nominated in good faith, All editors would've put keep, Sure you might've got an odd delete but it was obvious as to where it was heading, Plus I didn't see much point leaving it open longer for the nom to get a bashing over it. – Davey2010 • (talk) 12:03, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Do Nothing per Mkativerata. None of the Speedy Keep so this was a close under WP:SNOW and probably should have been marked as such. As a personal guideline, I recommend that discussions not be closed under the Snowball Clause for a minimum of 24 hours to ensure that a more representative sample of users has a chance to comment, but that advice isn't codified anywhere that I can see. Nothing in the AfD or this DRV suggests that a relist would reach a different consensus or bring out points of view not fully considered, therefore I can't recommend a relist or more than a minor adjustment of closing procedure to Davey2010. Eluchil404 ( talk) 23:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Do nothing. Lets be honest, the outcome was a foregone conclusion, and relisting would be pure process wonkery. But I can't endorse a snow close after six hours. In fact, I don't think I can endorse a snow close under anything but the most unusual of circumstances. There was no compelling reason that this should not have gone for the full length of time, and therefore insulated it against challenges like this. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC). reply
• Endorse-ish. A slap on the wrist for closing after just 6 hours, but we're here to write an encyclopedia, not get off quoting rules and policies at each other. The process was flawed, but the outcome was obvious, so let's move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I will admit I could've and perhaps should've left this open alot longer, Lesson learnt. – Davey2010 • (talk) 01:19, 13 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Gold Mercury International ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Page was speedied as G11 - Unambiguous advertising.

1. The article was written for the purpose of giving background information about the "Gold Mercury Awards", mentioned in many articles, see WP search.
2. The subject is clearly notable, as shown by a Google Book search.
3. The admin who deleted the article seems to consider that phrases like "ethical global governance" and "leadership consultancy" are promotional. They are just standard jargon. The awards are given to leaders who promote ethical global governance, whatever that means. Leadership consultants advise leaders. Nice work if you can get it.
4. There is no intention of advertising. The article does not praise or promote the NGO, or at least the original version did not. It simply describes what it does. Aymatth2 ( talk) 12:43, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I note that the admin, Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs), has refused to restore the article so it can be reviewed by the community at AfD, so I am defending it and my reputation as a neutral editor based on my hazy memory and the snippets that Seraphimblade ( talk · contribs) has revealed on his talk page. Aymatth2 ( talk) 15:11, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (my) deletion. I can't judge anyone's intents, but there was not a non-promotional version of this article to revert to. In this particular case, that may have been from overreliance on primary reference material rather than any active intent to promote, but often that will have the same effect. An organization will, of course, toot its own horn in materials it publishes, so we rely primarily on material from disinterested third parties. While notability was not at issue here, I'd also note that the list of references provided is often a mention or name drop rather than coverage, which would make it very difficult to solve that problem. G11 only looks, however, if the article is promotional, not if the subject might pass notability with a later appropriate article. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• There's clearly dispute about the matter from those uninvolved. Given that, I'd withdraw objections to restoration. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:20, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Temp restored for discussion. For my part, this version from 2012 at least looks reasonably neutral, much more so than the most recent. (I don't think the 2008 afd is relevant, either; this is the version deleted then.) — Cryptic 16:14, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• I can see a lot of promotional junk got added after I left the article. Version 481612460 is the one I would propose to restore - the way it was when I moved on to other topics. It could use improvement, obviously. Nowadays I would rely more on books as sources. Assuming it gets restored, along with the redirects, perhaps submitted for validation at AfD, I may tweak it. Aymatth2 ( talk) 16:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• The version Cryptic links is not "unambiguously promotional" within the meaning of G11. That version should have been restored on request, and indeed I observe that Seraphimblade did offer to restore it. The offer was to restore to userspace rather than to mainspace. DRV is not being asked to rule about whether or not to restore the article because that's already been decided before we got here. We're being asked to decide whether it should be restored to userspace or mainspace. I think it's surprising that DRV should have to make a decision at that level of detail, and surprising that grown ups couldn't work that out on their talk pages, but okay, let's decide.

  Policies or guidelines don't help us with this decision. It's a simple matter of whether the text is promotional but fixable or irretrievably promotional, and since it's a matter of opinion, reasonable people might disagree.

  Personally I think it's no worse than many other things in mainspace, so I'd go with "restore to mainspace". If Seraphimblade thinks it's too promotional then Seraphimblade is welcome to fix it! We can't let administrators start to say "you have to go away and make it better before you can put it in mainspace". They're janitors, not managers.— S Marshall T/ C 17:04, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, quite reluctantly, to be honest. The 2012 version doesn't pass the G11 bar. That much is clear and means that the deletion should be overturned. But, and sorry to be blunt, the 2012 version of the article needs work. It relies heavily on self-published sources, and that, while not done in a deliberately promotional way, still presents the subject of the article in the manner that the subject would want the article to be presented. That's problematic in and of itself. And it's why I can fully understand Seraphimblade's general view even if I disagree that the G11 bar was crossed (for the 2012 version). I'm ok with restoring it to the mainspace given that Aymatth2 has undertaken to have a crack at the article. If he doesn't, I will. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:45, 5 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Userspace only, or List at AfD. The article is promotional, without obvious independent secondary source coverage. It has a history of promotion on Wikipedia, and needs to be held to pass WP:ORG. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gold Mercury International was a while ago, late 2008, so it should be re-tested at AfD before CSD#G4 is used again. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:22, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• It does not matter where it is restored. I plan to improve it, and will do that in mainspace because I find "what links here" is useful. (When it is restored, the #redirect pages that were also deleted should also be restored, for that reason.) I am considering renaming the article to focus on the awards. The list of recipients is quite bizarre. Anyone can propose the article for AfD any time, but should do only if they are convinced that the subject is not notable. Best to wait a few days after the restore to first see the result of the expansion. Aymatth2 ( talk) 13:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Even the version referred to as "reasonable" looks dubious as to meeting WP:ORG. In these situations, I believe a contested speedy should go straight to AfD. However, given that it was speedied largely due to recent uncontrolled versions, and you are intended to work on it, and you are a very experienced editor, OK. I support restoration to mainspace. Give it a little time before allowing anyone to test it at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:26, 7 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Restore to last version by Aymatth2. This is the last version before it got promotional. Bgwhite ( talk) 06:06, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Restore per Bgwhite. Unfortunately clumsy COI editing can often make something seem not worthy of an article but this clearly meets GNG. Restore and protect.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:07, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Aymatth2's 2012 version was a reasonable article. I think it an excellent idea to let him update it. In general, I would normally take any rationally challenged G11 or A7 to AfD: it's better to let the group decide than to argue with the contributor. DGG ( talk ) 16:36, 6 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Close  The community wants the article restored without prejudice to a new AfD, and Seraphimblade has agreed.  If either prefer that it first be userfied, then fine, but otherwise, the article is already in mainspace.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:04, 10 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Uphold nobody is contesting the subject's notability, I object to the heavily promotional version that was eventually deleted, and it's almost always better to start from scratch when it's a hopeless promotion piece. I have no problems with the 2012 version. --  Ohc  ^¡digame! 12:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2014 Norway terror threat ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Premature close of a devoloping story. Since I initially believed the notability of this event was unclear I deliberately held off voting to consider, only to find the debate then closed. The first 4 "votes" were delete, then came 3 keep (for one alternatively merge) and one comment that didn't have an opinion on notability but underlined the media attention and uniqueness of this in Norway. The debate was relisted 29 August which I thought was a correct decision, especially since it was a developing story where it can take time to assess impact. The terror alarm was adjusted down to normal 30 August. I believe the keep votes have a US-centric focus, with the two first alleging that these kind of terror alarm happens all the time. They don't in Norway, or in Scandinavia, the last time Norwegian authorities warned in a similar way was in 1973 (it's believed that the public warning at that time actually prevented an attack. The group later attacked in Singapore). Therefore the societal impact of the warning was much bigger than a similar warning would have in the US; there are also other reasons, some of them indicated in the keep votes. I don't think the two initial delete votes were based on good insight in the reactions and impact of this in Norway. The debate was closed 31 August. I believe it should be opened again; it is easier now to assess the notability and lasting effect of the indicent that it was in the beginning (for instance there will be an investigation of how PST handled the case; this was reported relatively recently; also various commentary that has continued also after the threat was toned down). Iselilja ( talk) 19:09, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment Article temporarily restored for review. As to the arguments for the review, I would say simply this: From the encyclopedia's standpoint the event has no provable WP:LASTING impact, what little relevance it had has already fallen off the media radar (it seems even in Norway as far as I can tell) and nothing that happens tomorrow or a week from now (short of an actual attack on Norway, in which case this would be a footnote there) will change that. Keeping the AFD around for another week or two would have resulted in more keep !votes like "books will be written about it" and more delete ones citing actual guidelines, if at all. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The guideline for events says: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards (as described below)." In this case the event had widespread national impact while it was ongoing (widespread fear for terror, Muslims being afraid of stigmatization and harassment, much more police than usual (leading to less crime in this period), police arming themselves which they don't use too, people having to show passport in Scandinavia which they don't use too leading to some travel complications etc.) and the media coverage was extensive (many media having 6-7 stories on the top of their online newssites; not just tabloids, in one editon of the serious NRK debate program Dagsnytt atten all 7-8 debates were related to this story). Clearly, the story has now fallen off the media radar meaning the news radar, but it's still an event that will be referred to when discussion PST, Islamic threats to Norway and possible stigmatization of Muslims, surveillance and so on. While less prominent than the straighforward news reporting, there is much discussion, commentary and analysis related to this. The latter wasn't so clear from the AdF discussion that you closed, but there was enough statements about really extensive media coverage and interest to warrant a consideration instead of just assuming that the event doesn't have lasting effect and will not be subject to analyses in the aftermath. That's why I think you closed the discussion prematurely and should have let the relisting stand to see if there would be more discussion on the lasting effect/re-analyzing of the event. In one commentary for instance former Supreme Court judge and former leader of a surveillance report in Norway Ketil Lund says that he believes the reported terror threat will lead to enhanced surveillance in Norway. He may be right or wrong, but the fact that a leading person in Norway believes and states this, means the event has a real effect on public/political discussion related to terrorism, surveillance etc. Likewise, the leader of the Norwegian Centre Against Racism calls the event " a national exercise in suspicion", worries about the impact on the Norwegian Muslim community and says the society needs to reflect upon what happened. I also believe the discussion at the time you closed it should have been closed as "no consensus" as some of the keeps were assuming that this was a run-of-the-mill warning, when it is instead a vey rare event in Norway, only the second ever, as far as I can tell.

• Endorse  DRV nom states that "notability of this event was unclear", yet the AfD nom stipulated that the event satisfied WP:GNG.  This was never a discussion about notability.

  DRV nom states, "there will be an investigation".  How many ways are there to say that there may or may not be an investigation, and Wikipedia has a guaranteed way to find out if there will be an investigation.  Wait for it.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:17, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

  P.S.  I was a participant at the AfD.  Unscintillating ( talk) 00:18, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The Norwegian Parliamentary Intelligence Oversight Committee can start investigation on their own and said 29 July that they will investigate this case. Due to the confidentiality issue it's unsure whether the public will get much more information about what happened, but there is definitely lasting interest for this event. Iselilja ( talk) 09:03, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per FreeRangeFrog. I don't see the residual effects from this one event. Closing admin was correct here, keep votes did not once name a policy or additional sources to answer claims of WP:NOTNEWS ♥ Solarra ♥ • _{T ♀ C} 02:56, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

The lasting effect is notoriously difficult to prove while an event is still ongoing. The keep comments underlined the really extensive media coverage of the warning. Also the delete comments which stipulated that such public warnings are common were factually wrong and didn't show any indication of understanding this particular event in Norway. The policy guideline says: "Events are also very likely to be notable if they have widespread (national or international) impact and were very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards." The two first points were covered in the keep comments; the third "especially if also re-analyzed afterwards" was not covered, partly because it's not easy to prove that an event will be "re-analyzed afterwards" when the event is still ongoing. But the rarity of a public terror threath in Norway combined with a really extensive national coverage should have made the closer more interested in getting comments of possible lasting effects/aftermath analysis and comments. Therefore the first re-lising 29 July was very wise. Iselilja ( talk) 10:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. This was well within the closing admin's discretion. A late break towards keep !votes, which happened here, can often be telling in these kinds of AfDs. But in this case the votes offered barely more than speculation. No prejudice, of course, to recreation or restoration if third party sources demonstrate over time the lasting impact of the event. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 03:36, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, purely on the numbers, you'd say that this was no consensus, but some of the Keep votes are particularly weak here. Well within the closer's discretion. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:04, 2 August 2014 (UTC). reply

What about the quality of the delete comments which argued that public terror warnings are common? This is blatantly false in a Norwegian/Scandinavian context and those delete comments should have been disregarded as misinformed. Rather, the public warning is very uncommon and something new in the contemporary context and has led to a discussion on whether it was right of PST to warn the public. An article published 1 Augst for instance has the headline "Ber PST tenke seg mer om før neste terroralarm" (Requests PST to think things better trough before a new terror alarm". The article has comments from a Swedish terrorism expert, a former leader of the Danish intelligence service, two crisis psychologists, the Norwegian Minister of Justice and a representative for PST. And this is just one of many articles discussing various aspects of the terror warning. The delete comments didn't say much about lasting impact/aftermath analysis (partly because this is difficult to document while the event is ongoing), but they said enough about massive media coverage that a closer shouldn't so easily rule out that there would be lasting effect, for instance on policy, public debate and the public's attitude on matters related to this event. Letting the debate stay relisted for some time would have allowed more discussion about this particular point. Iselilja ( talk) 10:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Your preferred option of relisting is not supported by the relevant policy, and I don't see any indication that this case is important enough to IAR. We don't just relist discussions over and over again until they arrive at the "correct" result. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 04:17, 3 August 2014 (UTC). reply

• Endorse A close is supposed to be made on the basis of what arguments were put forward (with some constraints on account of policies and guidelines), and not what arguments ought to have been put forward on grounds of general knowledge, expert opinion, breadth of perspective, etc. Inevitably some discussions can become influenced by US preconceptions, for example lawlessness being regarded as commonplace. This seems to me inevitable and not really anyone's fault. We also benefit from US attitudes, for example, people feeling able to say what they individually think without worrying about any higher authority. There is perhaps a general case for disallowing a close rather shortly after a relist but we quite certainly do not have this convention. So, I accept the close was appropriate and not objectionably premature. If and when there are further developments in the situation the matter can be considered afresh. Thincat ( talk) 13:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply
• Question I don't know what title they might use, but does the noWP cover this? DGG ( talk ) 16:15, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment @ DGG: I'm not sure, but I don't think so. Searching google.no for terrortrussel norge 2014 does not return any WP links, nor searching the Norwegian Wikipedia for various combinations of terms. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 22:09, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

Comment regarding the deletion process

Background: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2014 Norway terror threat

First of all, I would like to state that I have neither created nor contributed much to the article concerned. I have no particular interest in it.

I question how it was possible to conclude that consensus for deletion had been reached, as there were fifty-fifty votes pro et contra (measure per quantity) and as claims pro deletion were not backed by remarkably substantial arguments or explanation (measure per quality). For example, an unexplained claim like 'It happens all the time' is worthless without arguments or explanation to test its tenability, be it relevance.

Furthermore, I question the act of closing the relisted debate before the end of seven days. Whilst the relisted debate was obviously not going to change the lack of consensus, I find it strange that the user concerned was in such a hurry. Apparently, the user could not wait to have the article deleted. Their act screams 'I am predisposed'.

The nays were of saddeningly poor quality. Most prominent, they did not manage to see or understand that the emergency situation was the event. They kept talking about 'future events' and 'warnings' (see below), and this indicates that they had made no serious attempts to get up the details of this case. Did they even read the article that they voted against? How can one rely on that they did not believe Norway is a township in Minnesota? How can one be sure that they are not trolling? They have not managed to convince that they actually knew the topic they entered so frivolously.

Citations (bolded by me):

• 'These type of warnings are announced all the time.'
• 'Unless there is other evidence to prove that something actually happened that prompted this warning [...].'
• 'Most of the attention is in regards to an unnamed future event [...].'

Other things could be mentioned, for example how they deliberately picked and misinterpreted opportune fragments of others' post while ignoring the rest of it. This happened, for example, when a yes-voting user used 'Books will be written about it' not as an argument, but in order to illustrate his aforegoing argument, 'This event is going to play a rather big part in Norwegian history'.

The closed debate is a feast for philosophers and experts of rhetorics. It is a pigsty of argumentative fallacies.

Whilst I do not wish to criticise the intellectual laziness and the self-satisfaction of those who voted no, I shall criticise the deletion process, which was a series of incorrect acts. It is among the oddest and most infantile deletion debates I have observed on Wikipedia. Being too indignant by the process, I am not inclined to participate in the review above. My opinion is, for that sake, available in the closed deletion debate.

Why did they participate in the debate, anyway? Nordic Wikipedia users and non-Nordic Wikipedia users who know Scandinavia are fully capable of solving this case. Debates are open to everyone, but it is not compulsory to participate, and one should possess a minimum of knowledge before throwing oneself into debates concerning, be it, astrophysics, linguistics, or Scandinavian studies. I have asked myself whether some of the participators actually know where Norway is. How can one know that they did not genuinely believe they were discussing some remote place in the US? This uncertainty, created by the users concerned, represents a threat to people's trust in that a decision is fair and correct.

My conclusion is: There was no valid consensus. The decision was illegal, as no consensus existed. Therefore, this review is illegal too. One has to end the review immediately, declare the decision of the first deletion debate null and void, and keep the article until a new deletion debate has resulted in an obvious consensus pro deletion. No More 18 ( talk) 19:35, 2 August 2014 (UTC) reply

I agree with the observations of No More 18 above. The arguments given for deletion are lazy and easy to refute. The respective editors confuse their lack of interest for the subject with lack of notability. What results is a hollow bureaucratic dispute about guidelines and "discretionary" authority. Claims of terror treats are used by governments to restrict civil liberties. The claims are often based on confidential sources from intelligence services from the same government. These sources are hard to scrutinize by public media or public investigation. A large scale respons as done by the Norwegian government is a rare event. (Again: the claim that this happens all the time is a lazy and easy to refute comment). Otto ( talk) 09:56, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Comment  Critics have drawn attention to the weakness of the delete rationales.  I agree that the closer should have taken down at least one of the deletes.  And two of the deletes appear to be based on facts that don't exist, leaving only WP:ATA.  But on the other side of the equation, two of the keep's were arguing that the topic was wp:notable, and so contributed nothing to the discussion.  The third and sole remaining keep argues that the topic won't be "just news" when the history of Norway is written, and makes no attempt to identify this as a WP:IAR position.  So IMO, this !vote too should have been taken down by the closer.  So at this point the arguments are potentially somewhere in the WP:NOQUORUM zone that would indeed have justified allowing the debate to continue, although the weight of argument remains solely on the side of delete.  But there is more to this analysis.  Even at this DRV critics continue to argue that this topic is wp:notable.  In both the AfD and the DRV, I'm not aware of any policy-based argument for the encyclopedic value of keeping this article or any of this material.  Consensus here seems entirely clear.  Unscintillating ( talk) 13:05, 3 August 2014 (UTC) reply

2Tm2,3 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

They seem notable to me because of their status as a supergroup — Robert Friedrich played in Acid Drinkers, Kazik na Żywo and Luxtorpeda, all notable; Dariusz Malejonek played in Izrael, Armia, Moskwa, again all notable, and for Tomasz Budzyński we even have an own article… Did not deserve deletion in my opinion, at least under this rationale. Deleting admin notified on 11 July, no response so far. � ( talk) 15:21, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply

• Speedy restore. Contested prod.— S Marshall T/ C 16:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC) reply