List of state and local political scandals in the United States ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I am requesting the deletion of List of state and local political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States be overturned.

The reasons given for the original deletion by the nominating editor were;

*Per WP:BLP, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Many of these entries are supported by only one reliable source. The actual WP:BLP policy quote is, “If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs IN THE ARTICLE – even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” ALSO “All BLPs created after March 18, 2010 must have at least one source that supports at least one statement made about the person IN THE ARTICLE.” – Clearly these WP:BLP policies refer to using ‘multiple sources in the entire ARTICLE. A list however, has only one or two sentences per citation. I can find very other few articles that have multiple references per sentence and no other articles which consistently adhere to multiple sources per line. One sentence, one source, is de facto wiki policy, to which this article adheres. *Per WP:BLP, “If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." This list not only omits denials, but also omits acquittals, which is really unacceptable. - The nominating editor has not listed the offending allegation. I believe the single offending citation he refers to is a case in which the politician was accused, arrested, indicted and then resigned. He was then convicted. Years later, his case went to the Supreme Court where it was overturned. He is therefore innocent and yes, this one item should be removed from the list or kept with explanation. This is a case of a dated entry, not a cause for systemic deletion of the entire article. The presumption of innocence is so prevalent in the US that to re-iterate it time and time again for every citation in a list would unnecessarily expand length of the article. If necessary, a single sentence added to the lead paragraph would suffice. *Per WP:BLP, "A person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until proven guilty and convicted by a court of law….Beware of claims that rely on guilt by association…. "Here, accused and acquitted people are mixed in with convicted criminals, which is guilt by association. -I couldn’t find this policy and don’t see how it applies as stated. This is a list of SCANDALS, not convictions. Further, every person listed has his own citation and his own reliably sourced reference. Guilt is never implied. *Per WP:LISTN, I don’t see that “state and local political scandals in the United States” are notable as a group. - This is an opinion by the nominating editor, not a statement of Wikipedia policy. WP:LISTN redirects to Wikipedia:Notability/Stand-alone lists, which states, “The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles.” I would say that “lists”, “states”, “politicians” and “scandals” are all notable groups and have been treated in Wikipedia extensively. *The list is prone to being outdated, and thus an unintentional BLP violation simply by the passage of time. - This is another opinion by the nominating editor. No Wiki policy is mentioned and I could find none at WP:BLP. An unintentional BLP violation deserves correction of the offending item, not deletion of the entire article. Further, I would ask what Wiki article is NOT affected by time? Are old articles worse than new ones? Are old subjects less important than current ones? This editor is grabbing for it. *The main aim here is apparently to connect persons with crimes, or imply that they are guilty of crimes, for which they were not convicted. - Another opinion. Again no Wiki policy is mentioned. This article only reports that the politician was charged, indicted and arrested, ousted or resigned. The definition of a scandal is “an action or event regarded as morally or legally wrong and causing general public outrage.” Given the number of Wiki articles about Benghazi, Whitewater, Lewinsky etc, this list is certainly within Wikipedia guidelines.

• WP:NPF applies to some of these named people who are not public figures.

I quote WP:BLP/People who are relatively unknown, “Many Wikipedia articles contain material on people who are not well known, even if they are notable enough for their own article. In such cases, exercise restraint and include only material relevant to the person's notability, focusing on high-quality secondary sources. “ – And that is exactly what has been done. According to the eligibility criterion in the lead paragraph, only politicians, their appointees and staff may be included and only referenced information about each such person maybe been used. *WP:Recentism is violated (scandals from this millennium are given undue weight) - Huh? Scandals from this millennium are given more weight only because there are more of them. Does he really expect that scandals in the 13 colonies would equal those of the 21st century? Again I quote WP:Recentism, “Recentism is a symptom of Wikipedia's dynamic and immediate editorial process, and has positive aspects as well—up-to-date information on breaking news events, vetted and counter-vetted by enthusiastic volunteer editors, is something that no other encyclopedia can offer.” This is not even close to a problem.

• Unencylopedic.

- Once again I quote from WP:Unencyclopedic/Just unencyclopedic, “Saying something is "encyclopedic" or "unencyclopedic" are empty arguments. Unencyclopedic means "not worthy of being included in an encyclopedia", which is synonymous with "should not be included" or "I want it deleted". So when you use it as a justification for deleting something, it's a circular argument: "Delete, because it should be deleted". This is just repeating yourself.” So the nominating editor is again referring to a policy of which there is no violation, as stated by the very policy to which he is referring.

I believe the original deleting editors were not concise enough in tracking Wiki policy and were swayed by the large number of deleting votes. Puppetry is not new to these articles. I should also note that the parent article List of federal political scandals in the United States originated in 28 January 2004‎ and was nominated for deletion on 26 November 2010. The result was delete, overturned at DRV to KEEP. That list and this, List of state and local political scandals in the United States are nearly identical in scope and execution. Both should be kept. For these reasons I would ask the deletion of List of state and local political scandals in the United States and List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States (which was deleted for the same reasons) to be overturned. Polarpark ( talk) 21:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Permit reconsideration with a change of title There would I think be no objection to a list of "List of local and state officials in the US convicted of ...." The more important question is whether we would include a list including those never tried or even acquitted if there were a suitable title , like "List of .... accused .... " Normally ,some BLP consideration apply with considerably less force to elected officials, because matters that would not be relevant for private individuals or even individuals in other types of activities are relevant here, because the necessity for voter trust is relevant to their careers. Even the totally false accusation of a politician could be notable enough for a separate article, though we would need to be very careful with the title. It would certainly be notable enough to be included in their bio. But would it be of sufficient importance to e given the added prominence of a list? This is a very difficult question, and I'm not sure about it. DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • We already have List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes and List of American federal politicans convicted of crimes. Beyond that, even if we were fine with lists of mere accusations, these "scandal" lists were never limited to crimes and so at best you're proposing something very different. postdlf ( talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse my close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of state and local political sex scandals in the United States (no comment on the other AFD listed here).

  It's always a pretty tall order to ask that a unanimous WP:CONSENSUS in such a well-participated AFD should be disregarded, and here Polarpark has basically just disagreed with the outcome and the commenters' reasonable interpretations of policy. Even if you are not inclined to take the AFD commenters at their word, the content of the list itself was a hodgepodge of some mere allegations and some convictions, some actual crimes and a lot of mere infidelity, and little substance offered to establish that there was actually a "scandal" as opposed to merely "this happened" or "this was alleged". Perhaps most importantly, none of the purported scandals themselves have articles (contra the federal scandal list offered for comparison above). And the sourcing was mostly, if not entirely, from mere news stories. All of this together supports that the unanimous deletion consensus reached in the AFD was completely reasonable and addressed to unfixable problems in the very conception of the list. I could not have closed it as anything other than delete, nor is there a basis presented here for overturning that now.

  (note at the time of this posting that notices of this DRV have not been placed on either AFD.) postdlf ( talk) 00:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The problem with these lists is that we are left with nothing more than a bunch of wholly negative mini-bios, often for subjects about whom we would never even consider having a full article because they fail one guideline or another. If there was a way to enforce the addition of only bluelinks to them then I'd be OK with them, but there isn't a way to do that - the editors who insist on us hosting these don't want that, and certainly the people who add the latest municipal scandal du jour (often in bad faith) to them don't either. And of course we're all about adding stuff to them but in the long run we're provably incapable of curating them correctly and following up when the facts for a given entry have changed (unless of course they write screaming to OTRS or show up trying to fix them and are often blocked for vandalism because they have no idea how to do it correctly). These are collections of little BLP nightmares in the making and they should be kept off the encyclopedia. If a person is notable then they should have a bio; if the scandal is notable then it should have an article. We should not have lists that get around those two restrictions. In any case the consensus in the AFD was clear and the admin's close appropriate. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 01:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as a fair assessment of the consensus. I agree there are many problems with the nominating statement but the purpose of DRV is to examine the closing, not the opening. Thincat ( talk) 07:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Oh, I see a second AFD was nominated but I shall endorse that one as well. I can't see anything remotely wrong with that close. Thincat ( talk) 07:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse both; closer has followed deletion process correctly. DRV is not AFD round 2. Stifle ( talk) 08:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- no reasonable administrator could have closed that any other way. DRV is not a second go at AfD. Reyk _YO! 09:04, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I think it's trivial to endorse those two closes on the basis that they're in accordance with the consensus, and we should probably just take that as read. But there's a more interesting discussion to be had about their relationship to the List of federal political scandals in the United States and List of federal political sex scandals in the United States, and indeed to List of Australian political controversies, List of political scandals in the United Kingdom, and their equivalents in other countries. On the basis of the views we're hearing here, it may be that Wikipedia no longer wants these lists at all. Perhaps a RfC?— S Marshall T/ C 11:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • When you get to the federal level, many of the scandals themselves have articles (e.g., contents of Category:Political scandals in the United States), and the politicians' degree of notability is much greater as well. There is also much less question in that context as to whether something is properly termed a "scandal" with such things as Teapot Dome Scandal; that's how every history book refers to it. So I think there's much to separate the deleted lists from the ones we still have, though there may be a call for discussion on appropriate theshold for including something in a list (must have its own article, must rely on more than contemporary news, etc.) or on whether "political sex scandal" is ever a meaningful label. postdlf ( talk) 13:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Filer has wasted everyone's time by re-arguing the debate rather than any attempt to point out administrator mistakes or misconduct. ("I disagree with the reasons he/she cited to close the discussion isn't valid). Tarc ( talk) 12:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, there was no other possible way to close this discussion. The nominator seems to want a second round of AFD, but that's not what this process is about. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC). reply
• Endorse I like the concept and spirit behind this article, as calling out politicians on their "Do as I say, not as I do" ways is important in a democracy. But the close of the AFD looks to have been reasonable, and DRV is not a 2nd round of AFD. And the scope of the article is ridiculously broad, by including local offices and including accusations that don't lead to a conviction. So, as I read it, if someone on the East Podunk town council gets pulled over for speeding, it would be within the scope of the article. To use an example, a list of major sports injuries which ended the careers of prominent pro athletes might make a good article subject, but extending the list to include every time a little-leaguer needed a Band-Aid is just silly. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The afd had clear consensus to delete. Deletion review is for when the closer's assessment is improper or inaccurate, not for when one party dislikes that consensus did not go his way. I would also note that the DELREV requester failed to notify interested parties by placing the deletion review notice at the top of the AfD, though this DELREV clearly doesn't need their help. Participants in the AfD have now been alerted (on May 3rd) to this deletion review. ―  Padenton| ✉   16:16, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Something else the nominator did not do is make clearly that he was listing two AFDs for review. I've fixed the formatting above, and have also now added a notice to the second discussion, something I pointed out was lacking several days ago; apparently the nominator didn't care enough about this discussion to actually follow it. It's especially disappointing given that I reminded him in response to his comment on my talk page about this to make sure he had proper links to the discussion, and someone even had to fix the wikilinks he didn't post correctly here in the first place. [1] postdlf ( talk) 16:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Water to the Soul ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

After people recommended that Water to the Soul be deleted, I added a great deal of information to the article indicating that "Innocent Child" received substantial airplay, which I vaguely remember hearing back in the day. Only one comment, indicating that the album article DID INDEED go beyond a track listing, was instated AFTER the relisting. Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse My own close. The redirection was a kindness in my opinion, perhaps in the spirit of WP:PRESERVE by the participants, and there was obvious consensus for it in the discussion. Because it's important to point out that we have no article for the group that performed this, or even for the album. For all practical purposes this should have been an A9. As far as re-creation, as far as I can see nothing added by the requester between the start and end of the AFD rises to the level of notability required by WP:NSONGS WP:NALBUMS. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 01:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Striking one bit in my comment, I'm not sure why I decided that this was an article about a song. WP:NALBUMS still applies regardless, and we have no article about the band. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:28, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure as reasonable. Stifle ( talk) 08:06, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist or Allow recreation - The statements are not quite accurate. We did have an article for the album until it got redirected. We do not need to satisfy WP:NSONG for an article about an album. Writing about a song in an article about an album is what is referred to as a "top down approach". Artists articles write about original albums and songs by the artist all of the time, therefore, an album article may write about a song if it so chooses. An album article simply needs to be more than a track listing, which it was, and a song article needs to be more than a stub, and more than a description about the music video. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 08:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • We already know by virtue of your listing that you want the decision changed. You don't get a second bolded !vote on top. Stifle ( talk) 07:01, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist - allow an admin who isn't imposing their preferred outcome (as FreeRangeFrog's endorsing of their own close is an admission of) is necessary. Wily D 09:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I have to call this out. An admin endorsing their own closure is not "imposing their preferred outcome", they're expressing their opinion, which they and every other Wikipedian is entitled to do, that the decision was fair and appropriate. If the admin did not endorse their own closure, it would imply that they had changed their mind since closing the discussion. Endorsing one's own closure is merely confirming that one's opinion has not changed. Stifle ( talk) 07:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - The consensus of the discussion was to redirect, that is not in doubt. The single charted, not the album, so no, the album does not and cannot inherit notability from the song. That's not the way it works. It is unusual to have a (possibly) notable song with no article for the album or the name of the Colorhaus duo who performed it though. Why not spend time expanding Sherrié Austin#Early career, which is only 5 sentences atm, with this material rather than struggling over marginally-notable standalone content? Tarc ( talk) 12:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply - AFD is not a vote. With the information regarding the airplay of "Innocent Child" combined with the reviews portrayed, the album article does indeed go beyond a track listing, and has significant length. If a song on an album is discussed, or multiple songs on an article are discussed, then the album is in effect being discussed via its parts. The question I ask is, Why was the AFD relisted?, and How do the comments of one user after the relisting constitute a reaching of consensus? There are articles about musicians with notable songs, that may not have song or even album articles, but may talk about the compositions in the articles, for the sake of a top down approach. The charting of albums or songs can determine the very notability of a musician or ensemble. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• The album didn't chart. WP:NALBUM is out the window for consideration, so you have to go for the plain ol' WP:GNG to get by. If you could find one more source on-par with the Spin review, IMO you'd be all set. And no, allmusic.com doesn't cut it. Tarc ( talk) 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply -Actually, per WP:NALBUMS, "The single or album has appeared on any country's national music chart" and "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". Per Wikipedia:Notability_(music)#Resources, "Good online sources for recordings are the Freedb search engine or the Allmusic search engine". -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Yes, note the use of "or" there; the notability criteria applies to singles as well as albums. You're suggesting that a notable single confers notability on the album on which it appears, which is not true. As for allmusic.com, that mention is to note allmusic's usability as a resource/reference for factual material...track info, dates, etc... A review at allmusic.com does not count towards notability, any more than a listing in imbd.com counts for notability for a film or tv show. Tarc ( talk) 19:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply - Your comment still does not address "The recording was in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network". If the word "or" applies, then the single from the album could potentially be used to determine the notability of the album. Also, there is nothing that says that the AllMusic review does not contribute to notability. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Even with expansion, the article fails to share any details about the album which establishes its independent notability. A redirect outcome seems reasonable. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars ^{Talk to me} 00:42, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply - An album is a collection of songs, one of which was notable and played on radio frequently. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- there was a rough consensus to redirect the article, and that's how the discussion was closed. No problems here. Reyk _YO! 07:39, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply - "Rough consensus" is equivalent to "No Consensus". -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 18:20, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• No, it isn't. It's between "slight leaning" and "unanimity" on the consensus scale, and well and truly enough for a closer to make a decision. Reyk _YO! 18:38, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The artist does not have an article and never will. WP:NALBUM is not set in stone. I have had several experiences with Jax 0677 in the past, and they are a very tenatious editor who refuses to let anything of their creation be deleted, no matter how many other people tell them that it's not worth keeping. I see them doing this mostly in TFD, where they will argue that a template with only one link in it should be kept because it will be more useful for navigation in the future. Jax really needs to drop the stick and quit being overly defensive of their creations. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{( What did I screw up now?)} 02:04, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Reply - If " WP:NALBUM is not set in stone", then a ground to delete must still be made. I allowed Template:Sammi Cheng (which at one time had dozens of articles) to go through unabated (after the articles were all redirected). Other templates that I have argued to keep have had at least five total links, never that I can remember have they had one link. Template:Kip Moore was deleted, but was created again months later. The article is lengthy with two reviews and a composition section. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 13:20, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: Jax 0677 is reminded that replying to/arguing with most comments is to be avoided. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse no valid reason to overturn the close. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Elizabeth Chambers (television personality) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This was an article about journalist Elizabeth Chambers that has been re-directed to her spouse. The AfD was based on the reason that the nom couldn't find coverage strictly about this topic. Not only was there no consensus to redirect to the topic’s spouse, but ‘’all’’ the abundance of coverage strictly about the topic, not the topic’s spouse, was found six days after the AfD began and one of the two "redirect" !votes occurred. [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] There was a strange straw man “WP:NOTINHERITED” argument when almost the entire article and the coverage of this person was strictly about her, not her husband. In the pre-redicted article here, as is typical in biographies, there is only a mention of the topic’s spouse buried down in the “personal life” section.

AfD closer Black Kite ‎stands by the closing. -- Oakshade ( talk) 18:22, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• She meets the GNG and has coverage that is largely about her. I'd have !voted to keep here. But I think both redirect and NC were within discretion given the discussion. When more sources pop up (ideally ones largely about her) I'd say you'd be okay with restoring the article. redirect results at AfD aren't overly binding if new sources pop up. Hobit ( talk) 03:36, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to No Consensus - there's enough sources here that the keep position is tenable, and the redirect/merge arguments are based on gut feelings about what "ought" to be notable, rather than what is. Keep has policy, redirect has headcount. There's also a real problem with enforcing systematic bias here that the closing admin has a duty to be careful of. Wily D 09:28, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure; those wishing to change from a redirect to a full article when the time is right can gather consensus on the talk page to do so. Stifle ( talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Support the closure, the 6 articles that Oakshade mentioned above, 1 of which isn't reliable (Hollywood Life), the E! article is about them having a baby and would have been written regardless of her because of who her husband is. The People article is hardly an article, it's a mention about why he wanted to get married. LADY LOTUS • TALK 11:20, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

This was part of the problem of the AfD. Your rationale was there were no sources "strictly about her" when there was an abundance of sources strictly about her presented six days after the AfD began, and you're having issue with only a couple of those 6 sources (indicating the desire of the unusually high standard of "like 5 or 6" sources).-- Oakshade ( talk) 15:04, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as a reasonable measure of the consensus of the discussion, though IMO deletion would have been preferable as there is only the barest of mention of her at the target article. Tarc ( talk) 12:19, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Just trying to understand this rationale; Deletion of this topic would have been preferable because the article of another person barely mentions this one? -- Oakshade ( talk) 03:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• AfD Closer As I said to Oakshade, I didn't see consensus to delete or to keep (one of the two Keep !votes was particularly weak), and so opted for redirect (without deletion) as a way of keeping the history intact should better sourcing be found in the future. Black Kite (talk) 21:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

That's actually the point of this AfD. The better sourcing was found after the AfD started and the only person who favored delete (the nom) and a "redirect" !voter expressed their opinions.-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:08, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I would remind User:Oakshade that replying and arguing with most/all !votes is not considered good practice. Stifle ( talk) 07:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist I believe this could actually be overturned to no consensus. The admin's close as redirect is understandable 3 to 2 in favor of redirects and no deletes. However, sources provided by Oakshade passes WP:GNG and appear to be reliable. His DRV highlights a lack of consensus both sides having policy based rationale. A relist should be the least controversial way to handle this. I would probably vote in favor of keep here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:30, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Lady Lotus' assessment of the sources. Doesn't look like there's anything here to overturn an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 13:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I do not believe that is correct People, E!, and Hollywood Life are reliable. We cannot discount the E! because it "would have been written anyway" that is not policy based, Hollywood Life is subject to some form of editorial oversight. The other three sources are interviews so technically are not RS GNG, but its doesn't hurt when RS exists in some other form. The People and this source passes the muster so no reason not to relist. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:08, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

We generally give tabloid/celeb-gossip type sources very very little weight here, and an entire BLP article hinging entirely upon such sources would be a dreadful idea. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:22, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

You may be misinterpreting Wikipedia:TABLOID if we cannot use those source we could delete half the encyclopedia as per Wikipedia:TABLOID these are focused on events. When a person receives significant coverage (as in coverage about her life) it overrides this, also this source is not tabloid. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:43, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

78209magazine.com is on-par with a blog. People and Hollywood life are tabloids that give brief mention to the subject, and only in context of her notable spouse

As for that one source, as long as it has editorial control over its content and is independent of the topic, it's acceptable per WP:RS and is even beyond the scope of WP:NEWSBLOG which would also be an acceptable source anyway. Serves a major metropolitan area too (78209 is a zip code for San Antonio). The other two go extremely beyond the "brief mention" claim and are completely about her and even entitled with her name. -- Oakshade ( talk) 20:16, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure I see no impropriety on the side of the closer. Consensus was fairly determined. Policy, not votes, matter, and policy favors redirect. Tabloids do not grant notability, or let me create an article about my alien abduction last night. Also, I do not often mention WP:BLUDGEON because its overused but this is a clear case of repeated and unneeded responses to every little thing someone else says where they disagree with him/her. ―  Padenton| ✉   16:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - So many people here are completely ignoring and not addressing the passing of WP:GNG which was established six days after the AfD began. Not one editor here had addressed this. Sorry but WP:BLUDGEON is not meant to be a tool to silence those who have been active in improving an article and calling editors on faulty reasoning that completely ignores guidelines.-- Oakshade ( talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Nim (programming language) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I was the nom for this AfD. In closing it as no consensus, Ymblanter stated, Everybody agrees that there are some sources which count towards notability (I think four sources have been identified). This is simply not true.

To establish notability under WP:GNG requires multiple reliable independent secondary sources discussing the topic in detail. Each of those words has meaning. I don't believe there are any such sources for this subject, I said that clearly, I said that based on carefully reviewing every source offered, I still say that, and it looks to me like there are 7 others who agree with me and said the same thing based on the same careful review. Most of those arguing for keep have been canvassed off-wiki and not one argument for keep was policy-based. To the extent they even addressed policy, most argued either that we should bend the rules (e.g., to accept a primary source as evidence of notability because Dr. Dobbs printed it) or that we just shouldn't have these silly rules because this is really important stuff. I appreciate that this has been a contentious debate, but an AfD is not a vote and it does not help to close the debate with a blatant misrepresention of the participants' positions.

When I approached Ymblanter on his talk page to suggest he should at least acknowledge that not everyone agrees there are sources lest it go to DRV, he accused me of blackmailing him. Msnicki ( talk) 14:21, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Added: Requesting that if the outcome is to endorse the no consensus, that the claim cited above stating that there is an agreement regarding the sources be struck from the closing remarks as clearly shown to be not true. If all of us !voting delete had agreed there were four sources supporting notability, I submit that every one of us would have !voted keep. Msnicki ( talk) 16:53, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete. And here we are again. Again, there does not appear to have been consideration for the numerous SPA issues and canvassing in this case. After discounting the meatpuppets that were canvassed at the links provided, the only keeps that remain are arguments using github, reddit, ycombinator, and the like as if they were WP:RS. The one Dr. Dobbs article not by the creator of the language, is a brief mention, not significant coverage, and therefore does not meet WP:GNG's requirement of 'significant coverage'. ―  Padenton| ✉   14:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Like I said, you're a hypocrite that cries "canvassed" when it suits him for a Keep vote, but doesn't care about canvassing when it comes with a Delete vote. The fact remains that any canvassing on IRC was unbiased. -- IO Device ( talk) 16:02, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The AfD was inappropriately canvassed at nim forums and nim IRC, which I found and reported to the AfD. Later, towards the end of the AfD, it was canvassed in Wikipedia's IRC channel. IO Device claimed that another user in the AfD (who voted delete) was canvassed to the AfD. I looked at his claim, and even went to the IRC myself to ask one of their opers about it. In my comments below, I told IO Device he/she is welcome to claim that the message was inappropriate canvassing through a biased message, but that more information is needed. As you can see below, my comments in responding to IO Device are completely appropriate, and I even invited IO Device to present more information on the IRC canvassing so that we could discuss it, but he/she has not done so yet. If any uninvolved admin finds fault in my actions here, I am happy to accept a block or a warning. ―  Padenton| ✉   18:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The nominator says that "A fair appraisal of the discussion might conclude there was no consensus" [8] and that was indeed the conclusion reached by the closer. I did not see a consensus either. I think maybe the closing statement wasn't ideal but it doesn't indicate to me anything improper or incorrect in the way the discussion was closed. There can be legitimate differences of view when considering a non-independent author writing in an independently published journal but generally it is the independence of the journal that is considered relevant. Thincat ( talk) 15:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

What I meant by that is that I'm sufficiently open-minded to consider a cogent argument or a restatement if there is one. Lots of times I may disagree with an outcome but agree that it falls within the range I'd consider fair, based on the analysis offered. Perhaps I've missed something. Perhaps I'm too close to the issue. Perhaps we're talking past each other. I am always willing to listen to the possibility I'm wrong and I frequently change my !votes based on what other people say. This was not one of those cases. I stated my concern, I think I was pretty clear about it and I invited discussion. Let's not mistake my respectful approach for a concession that's not there. Msnicki ( talk) 15:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, although I would still have endorsed no consensus even if you had said you rejected this outcome with no possibility of changing your mind. Thincat ( talk) 15:36, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Here's my other concern, Thincat. You claim it's the independence of the journal that's considered relevant. I don't believe that's true and I don't believe you can cite anything in our guidelines to support that claim. We routinely accept primary sources as WP:RELIABLE for routine facts. But to establish notability requires more than just reliable. WP:GNG requires that the source must also be WP:SECONDARY and WP:INDEPENDENT. The only significant source was an article written by the author about his own work, published in Dr. Dobbs, making it clearly WP:PRIMARY. It wouldn't matter if it had been printed in the NY Times. If he writes his own article about his own work, it is neither secondary nor independent and I just don't see how you get around that. Msnicki ( talk) 15:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. No consensus. The users Msnicki and Padenton have repeatedly attempted to hijack rather than respect the review process, and have harassed numerous users. - IO Device ( talk) 16:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

If what you said is true, you should have no difficulty proving it with diffs. Let's see them. Alerting AfD participants to inappropriate canvassing WP:CANVASSING and tagging canvassed editors is completely within policy. ―  Padenton| ✉   17:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Pot. Kettle. Black. [9] Msnicki ( talk) 16:42, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak overturn- I can see the arguments for no consensus. But some weight should have been given to the fact that, after the relist, the discussion was clearly leaning delete. There should also have been some weight given to the fact that the delete side inspected the sources and found them unsuitable, while the keep side was uniformly "Keepkeepkeep- ILIKEIT". Reyk _YO! 06:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes. We got hit right away with a flood of WP:SPAs that had been canvassed off-wiki. By the last relisting, that had died down and more of the new !votes started to come from our own community. Except for a couple keeps arguing that we ignore/bend the guidelines, all those new !votes were delete and all stated the same guidelines-based reason, that the sources simply aren't there to support notability. Msnicki ( talk) 15:46, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Weak endorse - headcount favours keep, though WP:N is very stretched here to make a policy argument, it's not quite to the point where headcount can be ignored. Temporal ordering of the !votes can only really be a factor when facts change during the discussion (which I don't see happening here). It's also simply not true to claim "authored by the person means its not independent" - the publisher is the main consideration, not the author. But it is a factor which weakens the source (again, putting us at "very weak sources, but not non-existent where you can just ignore two-thirds of the editors' appraisals). Wily D 09:22, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you are confusing reliable with independent. From WP:GNG, "Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. And from WP:SPIP, The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the topic itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, author, inventor, or vendor) have actually considered the topic notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works of their own that focus upon it—without incentive, promotion, or other influence by people connected to the topic matter. These authorities appear to say you're flat wrong. Can you you cite anything in the guidelines to support your clam that only the publisher needs to be independent?

If we accept your argument, that all it takes to make someone's product notable is for them to write their own article and get it published in a techie magazine, I think we'll have completely gutted our basic principle that notability requires that other people people must take note, that they must actually write or say something. We'll also have gutted the requirement that it be secondary, that it must contain their own thoughts, because obviously it wouldn't.

It is simply not enough to argue that the editors at Dr. Dobbs must have thought this was notable because why else would they have published it and from there, make the additional leap that if they (maybe) thought it was notable, that's good enough for us, we don't need no silly rulz. That is, I think, what you're asking here. Msnicki ( talk)

No, I'm not. An invited article (or whatever) is more like an interview - which involves the person, but where the decision to publish (which is the metric of notability) is independent. Neither of those are great sources, but they do go towards notability. If I write about my painting (or whatever), nobody will publish it, because nobody else gives a shit. If somebody else gives a shit - and so much of a shit that they're willing to spend their money to publish it in the expectation that people are so interested in it they can make their money back, that's notability. A literal and thoughtless reading of a couple guidelines that begin by warning you not to do that aside. Wily D 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. The closer appears to have given more weight to the limited-quality sources than appropriate to do. Stifle ( talk) 09:37, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'd have preferred "delete", but sysops are rightly given additional leeway to use their discretion in cases where there has been canvassing. I can't say Ymblanter's close was beyond the pale. A "no consensus" outcome allows early renomination, and I'd suggest having another discussion in a couple of months.— S Marshall T/ C 11:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete User:S Marshall's view is pretty close to where I am, what perhaps pushes me over the edge to an overturn is the closer's statement which in places seems at direct odds to the opinions expressed. Somewhat disappointed with their response to the enquiry, although I can understand how the request could have been read, I would have thought that an admin should rise above such and give due comment/consideration. Might change my mind to an endorse if there is a decent explanation from the closing admin. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  Well, at least someone got interested in my opinion. Concerning the closure, I believe that I did take into account all arguments. There have been sources presented, and the sources DO create some notability. The discussion was whether this notability is enough to keep the article, and my reading is that there was no consensus for this point. I obviously noticed that there were keep voted canvassed, and this is in my closing statement. It is incorrect to say that the delete voters looked at the sources, and the keep voters did not; take for instance DGG who voted keep (not even weak keep) referring to the sources. I would personally vote delete myself, but I am not a voter, I was a closer, my business was to evaluate consensus and not to present my personal opinion. Concerning the request, I read it in the way "Either you change your closing statement to be it how I like, or I go to DRV" (even though it was ploitely formulated) . My response was go to DRV, well, this is not the way we should treat closers. This is great to see that delete voters are more persistent, but at this point I stand by my decision.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 18:53, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  Well here's my problem, looking from the bottom up Reyk and Stifle at least (I didn't read any further up) don't give any indication that they believe the sources "DO create some notability", the nominator here clearly doesn't believe that. There are many comments which don't even try to evaluate sources instead fall back on non-arguments (So maybe they do think the sources are helpful for notability or maybe they don't and that's why they avoid arguing on that front). So your view that it does create some notability and your closing statement that "Everybody agrees" doesn't align with my reading of the discussion. On the other matter I don't think that has a great bearing on the correct outcome here, but the whole point in anyone discussing with the closing admin is to avoid needing to come to DRV, I can see that it can be read as a threat (though since any admin can expect their decisions to be challenged from time to time, should be happy to have the checks and balances, and DRV isn't a punishment, then it would be rather misplaced as a threat), but I can also see it the other way. My point there was I'd expect an admin to rise above the bait and simply discuss rather than being apparently dismissive of it. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 19:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  My reading of the original discussion is that they do create some notability. I do not believe any sane Wikipedia user can think that a subject with an article published about it is EXACTLY as notable as a subject with no articles published. My reading of the argument why the Dr.Dobbs article is not sufficient is that the source should be independent and this source is not independent. I am fine with the argument, and not everybody agrees with that. But nobody, as far as I see, is arguing that Dr. Dobbs's article creates as much notability as a facebook post. Concerning DRV, this is not my first closure by far, and not my first DRV (for the record, I have never been overturned), but this is the first time anybody approaches me like this. Well, DRV is within the policy, fine with me. If someone wants to waste community time, let them do it. I am not a mind-reader.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 19:58, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

There was nothing disrespectful or threatening about my remark. I clearly stated my complaint, that you had claimed an agreement that did not exist, it's a substantive complaint and I merely suggested that I think you need to at least acknowledge the opposition rather than claim it doesn't exist if you hope to avoid having your close taken to DRV. What was truly unhelpful was your refusal to discuss your close or my complaint, contrary to WP:ADMINACCT which asks, Subject only to the bounds of civility, avoiding personal attacks, and reasonable good faith, editors are free to question or to criticize administrator actions. Administrators are expected to respond promptly and civilly to queries about their Wikipedia-related conduct and administrator actions and to justify them when needed. Msnicki ( talk) 20:56, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I maintain the agreement did exist. You are continuing to misread my statement, even after I have given very clear explanations. This is WP:IDONTHEAR.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:02, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I was in that AfD and I assure you I did not agree and I still don't. I don't count? And what about the other 7 people who agreed with me and don't agree with your claim. You don't hear any of us? It's all well and fine to say you're satisfied by the sources but quite another to claim other people are satisfied as well when they are practically shouting that they don't. Msnicki ( talk) 21:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I wrote in my statement that everybody agreed smth is blue and you are shouting (first blackmailing me and then wasting the community time at DRV) that you disagree smth is green. Fine, I disagree as well. You have wasted 30 minutes of my time today, and it is quite a lot. Now I will have some sleep. I feel I provided enough explanations for the closing admin.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

So much for admin accountability. And who knew that accountability was such a waste of time. Msnicki ( talk) 21:27, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I thought and continued to think that the sources are sufficient, considering the nature of the subject. The rules at GNG are guidelines, subject to interpretation, and the place where we interpret them with respect to specific articles is at AfD. But that is a question for afd2, not here. If others disagree, the appropriate way for them to go about things is a second AfD., No consensus does not exclude that, so I would normally say there is no reason to bring a non-consensus close here, unless the reason is that the closer has made such a gross error that it must be corrected for the benefit of closers in general, and for their own benefit in subsequent closes. If you disagree with the close, there is in this case nonetheless no such gross error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs)
• Endorse, but renominate in a few months: The consensus for notability seems to be that it's not yet enough or it's just borderline, without the canvassed votes (one-third of the votes). If editors disagree over the notability of the article itself, a second AfD would be more appropriate. This is a no consensus result, so it should be nominated a few months later if the notability is challenged. Esquivalience ^t 02:32, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, with a sense of weariness that we're here again. The original nomination relied on some rather subjective interpretations of what was notable and what wasn't, and even after removing the meatpuppets there is still clearly no consensus on those questions. I also believe that the "Delete" side used some rather creative interpretations of WP:RS that were not universally agreed with, and not refuted by anything stronger than an "is not!". Finally, I can't really fault the closing admin for not getting into an extended discussion here, since it was patently obvious that nothing short of complete capitulation to the nominating editor would stop the discussion from ending up here anyway. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:08, 28 April 2015 (UTC). reply

Please, there's no reason to make this personal. This is not my first AfD, nor the first one that's gone against me. I lose all the time and walk away. But Ymblanter claimed in his close that there was an agreement that four sources contributed to notability. That is simply not true. Several of us believe there are NO such sources and I think we were very clear about it. Pressed, Ymblanter explains above, I do not believe any sane Wikipedia user can think that a subject with an article published about it is EXACTLY as notable as a subject with no articles published.

Here's my problem with that: It's an opinion and it's not supported by the guidelines, which state a more technical definition for notability than we use in common language. Here, it's not enough that a subject seem notable, but that others not connected with the subject actually took note and that they did it in reliable sources. An article in Dr. Dobbs by the author of the product might make it seem like the subject is more notable. But under our guidelines, it does not count. A primary source can't be almost independent and secondary any more than a woman could be almost pregnant.

What a good primary article does do is make it more likely that others will take note. This is why, if I find a good primary article (and I concede, this one was good), I'm more inclined to keep looking harder for some secondaries because I think it's more likely I'll find them. But I can't find what's not there. This time, there was no there there.

Ymblanter is welcome to his opinion and would have been welcome also to contribute it to the debate. But he is not welcome to introduce it in his close, especially when he does it with the false claim that everyone in the AfD agrees, apparently based on the view that anyone who disagrees must be insane.

I approached Ymblanter respectfully, I stated a valid complaint and asked that he revise his closing remarks to acknowledge the deep disagreement. I can't say for sure (because I have no way of knowing what he'd have written instead), but if he had done that, I think I'd have had to let it go. Think about it: He'd have answered the one complaint I stated. Anything else would be a judgment call, which is a lot harder to complain about at DRV. Yes, AfDs do get overrun by SPAs from time to time. I know this happens. It's not the end of the world if we keep an article we shouldn't.

But Ymblanter wasn't willing to revise his remarks. Instead, he refused (and continues to refuse) to acknowledge that his claim that everyone agreed there were four sources contributing to notability is simply wrong. And he told me to take it here. Msnicki ( talk) 14:18, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, solid closure and excellent judgement from Ymblanter to not make supervote to delete. I actually closed the AfD earlier under the same rationale I am glad to see I have some agreement. While no one believes there was universal agreement everyone should at least agree that based on the debate there was no consensus, reviewing those sources such as GitHub and Dobb some believe including myself that a few sources pass the muster, others disagree thankfully we have no consensus as a option in these situations. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. The closer exercised reasonable, good faith judgment, so there is no basis for overturning. -- Jibal ( talk) 03:40, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: I cannot comment on the validity of the closing conclusion, but there was no longer a debate going on at the AfD page when this was closed, so a closing was indeed appropriate. I am also disappointed that Wikipedia's processes allow a page to be in limbo for this long. The following is the timeline for this deletion attempt:

• 26 March 2015: AfD started after speedy deletion declined.
• 21 April 2015: AfD closed as no consensus.
• 21 April 2015: "Deletion review for improper non-admin closer."
• 21 April 2015: AfD reopened.
• 26 April 2015: Afd closed as no consensus.
• 26 April 2015: Deletion review requested and started.

This deletion attempt has now been ongoing for 35 days, with no signs of stopping any time soon. If Wikipedia cannot decide what to do with the article at this point, then the processes have failed. Philip.wernersbach ( talk) 20:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The campaign by certain parties to delete this page has actually been going on for years. -- Jibal ( talk) 07:26, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: Ymblanter is entirely correct in the statement that no consensus was reached. The quality of the argument for delete, meatpuppet name calling asside, was very much a futile exercise much like this discussion. There appear to be no valid arguments that Ymblanter lacked understanding, used bad judgement, or missread the consensus. Very reasonable people agreed that the sources cited were notable. While I am not a seasoned editor of wikipedia my arguments citing wikipedia editorial policy were ignored and unanswered. The argument for delete felt more like a vendeta then an editorial review.
• I would also ask that if Nim is going to be recommended for deletion in the future that Msnicki and Padenton refrain from submitting the article for deletion or participating in the discussions going forward Itsmeront ( talk) 05:36, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment on Notability: "An article is "important" enough to be included in Wikipedia if any one of the following is true:

• There is evidence that a reasonable number of people are, were or might be simultaneously interested in the subject (e.g. it is at least well known in a community)."

WP:IMPORTANT. It appears that this criteria was lost when IMPORTANT was replaced by Notability. During our discussions on NIM the verifiability and reliability of the content in the article was conceded, but the focus of the people arguing for delete have stressed the lack of notability. I have presented evidence of notability by citing coverage in NEWSBLOGS and BLOGS by experts. Those sources I have cited previously clearly meet this criteria for Importance. Given that the content of the NIM Programming article is reliable, the hurdle that remains is Notability. The article meets that criteria based on the original definition of WP:IMPORTANCE and should not be deleted. The low importance tag should also be removed from the nim talk page. Itsmeront ( talk) 17:38, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• [ WP:NSM this subject seems important enought to bring up to a larger audience. Itsmeront ( talk) 18:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• I just added a reference to a presentation on the language at the Strange Loop conference, which is one of the best conferences on programming languages, and would help address the perceived problem of notability. I am not an editor, or well-versed in Wikipedia policy, but I find it bizarre that any editor would try to delete this article. Nim is an exciting new programming language, and new programming languages that have captured the interest of the community of programming language enthusiasts should be notable by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.118.54.218 ( talk) 18:25, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. I rarely call for overturning any result at DRV, as closing admins IMO have a wide latitude in determining consensus, but this just wasn't right all. There are a pile of single-purpose accounts andand even a few established editors piling on and making personal, yammering about slashdot, reddit, and such. There are "keep it's useful", "keep because I found other articles on programming languages" and such. AfDs are not straw polls, the closing admin has to evaluate the arguments made. The calls to delete argued that the drdobbs.com article was invalid because it was written by the Nim creator and that the Infoworld blurb was just that, a brief paragraph in a Best-Of list. These arguments were never sufficiently refuted by those wishing to keep. The IP editor above who added a link to strangeloop.com is just linking to essentially a presss release of a confernece, nothing more. Tarc ( talk) 17:10, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not sure how you can call the frontpage inclusion of Nim on Slashdot, and Reddit yammering. Please feel free to submit articles to either and get them on the front page without providing content that is notable. We have been making valid arguments about the importance of Slashdot and Reddit as newsblogs, with editorial control, which is mentioned as acceptable for consideration in Wikipedia policies, but all we get back from you is we are yammering. No Wikipedia editor has stated why front page coverage is not notable. In the field of new software language design, coverage is scarce. A number of experts in the field have also included Nim in their blogs, and a number of sites that cover programming languages have included Nim. We have shown that the adoption of the new language by users in GitHub also indicate notability. Dr. Dobbs publishing an article is, and should be considered, proof (in this environment of scarce coverage) that Nim is notable. Conferences that cover Nim, including both O'Reilly's OSCON and strangeloop IS an indication of notability. How many people do you think would come to a conference with sessions on just another programming language by some guy? People that are experts in this field are telling you that the Wikipedia editors are wrong, but instead of providing valid arguments against notability they say things like we are yammering. Again your arguments against notability ring hollow to people that work in this field and it makes the editors look extremely unqualified to judge notability in this field. But again we have had this argument already and here the question is was the discussion closed inappropriately or did the admin misread the arguments and again I say that the reading was valid the closure should be endorsed. I also agree that we can continue this argument again the next time if Nim is again submitted for deletion, but I would hope that next time someone take our arguments seriously. While I fully agree that Slashdot and Reddit articles can be submitted by anyone, and being included in those sites should not be considered notable, getting to the front page is not the same as just being included. Itsmeront ( talk) 21:39, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

You're not sure? Here, read through WP:RS and related policy & guideline pages that link from there. Then you'll be sure what is and what is not a reliable source, and understand why slashdot and reddit do not qualify, why the Nim creator penning his own artcle do not qualify, and why a short paragraph-length blurb does not qualify. Tarc ( talk) 22:14, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I have already made the claim that a Slashdot article that makes it to the front page should qualify as a reliable source under WP:NEWSBLOG. I have read your WP:RS link carefully. How do you think I found that both NEWSBLOGS and BLOGS CAN BE used as reliable resources for notability if there is editorial control, which I claim the firehose process and promotion to the front page qualify, and that blogs posted by experts in the field can also be considered. I've made this argument already MORE THAN ONCE in my YAMMERING. Coming back and saying "just because" and giving me a general link to WP:RS DOES NOT answer my question. Please make a cogent argument that the front page of slashdot does not qualfiy as a NEWSBLOG with editorial control and even more important why the front page of Slashdot DOES NOT qualify for notibility. Itsmeront ( talk) 00:51, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Again, wasting our time with ignorant arguments. WP:NEWSBLOG was written to address reputable reliable sources that host their own blog or blog-like sections, e.g. the NY Times Blog Directory, WaPo's Blogs & Columns and so on. Slashdot ain't that, it does not and will not count as a reliable source for this or any other article. Period. Tarc ( talk) 01:55, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

I think you are absolutely wrong in your judgment of Slashdot. In this field of new programming language development, Slashdot is our newspaper. The articles that make it to the front page are written by experts, reviewed by experts, commented on by experts. Your own policy does not say NY Times only, nor does it claim anywhere that Slashdot does not qualify. It does say: "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process." and "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". I have already pointed out blogs by experts that should also qualify. Articles written in slashdot that make it to the front page, are considered notable by experts in the field of new language development. You might claim that you own the complete understanding of editorial policy in Wikipedia but I'm saying you are absolutely wrong. Again you go and publish something that makes it to the front page. You show me something about new programming language development that makes it to the front page of slashdot that is not notable in this field. Your inability to grasp my argument is astounding. Your only argument is name calling and waving your hands. For this field where coverage is rare Slashdot should be considered a NEWSBLOG and can be considered based on your policies. One thing we agree on. Arguing with you is a waste of time. Itsmeront ( talk) 02:31, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

If you are unable to grasp the very straightforward WP:RS guideline, then I'm afraid that the Wikipedia just isn't the project for you to become involved in. The amount of people on social media who like a product is irrelevant. The number of upvotes a buddy of yours got on Slashdot is irrelevant. The Wikipedia does not accept either when discussing the notability of a topic. Tarc ( talk) 23:47, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Tarc please feel free to move this discussion to here: [ WP:NSM Itsmeront ( talk) 00:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Pass. Tarc ( talk) 01:27, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply

There are people who retardedly enough continue to see Wikipedia as an exclusive elite encyclopedia, even if this means artificially making it less useful than it can be for the public good. I wonder if they stop to think whether encyclopedic limitations even make sense. Alas, the two groups shall never reconcile, and it makes me wonder if Wikipedia is even an appropriate platform for the presentation of useful information. -- IO Device ( talk) 13:22, 2 May 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and delete. I don't often call for overturn but I don't think this one was quite within admin discretion territory given how poor some of the arguments were. If for some reason this ends up being endorsed, I do recommend a renomination in a month or two when passions have cooled down and discussion can start fresh (with the opportunity in he interim to improve the article & sourcing, of course). Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:19, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. I was pretty surprised to see it nominated for deletion! Ask any programmer who keeps current about the new systems programming languages, and they will name Go, Rust, and Nim (probably in that order). Thomasmallen ( talk) 21:51, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Grace Sai ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I disagree with the deletion process, the original G7 request was false, and I also believe the person in question from a neutral standpoint exceeds the requirements for Wikipedia notability

I find the discussion on Grace Sai's page most uncomfortable. A G7 request was issued by User:JohnCD but he is not the main author (I do not know what he added at all, to be honest) which started a process of deletion just days after the article was reviewed and accepted. Grace Sai is a very notable person in Southeast Asia and has numerous articles written about the two companies she has founded in Indonesia and Singapore. She has been mentioned as one of the top 50 voices in social entrepreneurship globally in a referenced Guardian article and has been profiled in Singapore newspapers and appeared on radio, TV, TedX and spoken at universities across the world.

The ensuing discussion had many people stating false accusations, e.g. that most references were written by herself (one was wrongly categorized as such, but fixed later) and one claimed that the company she founded was a part of a university, which is false, and therefore questioned how real her entrepreneurial success was.

I like the crowdsourcing aspects, but the deletion process is not working properly. Furthermore, as the author, I was not given the option to keep a copy of the article, and it is now completely gone.

I would like the Admins to review the original article and the ensuing discussions. Tobiastan ( talk) 08:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Two quick remarks related to the issues raised above:

• The G7 deletion criteria is used as a deletion rationale if the original creator of the page explicitly requests its removal or blanks the page. In this case both applies: On "21:02, 28 March 2015" you blanked the page with the summary "Created by mistake, apologies". Amortias subsequently tagged the page as G7 (Deletion requested) and the page itself was subsequently deleted by JohnCD.
• Deleted article's are not completely removed from Wikipedia, but are instead made inaccessible. It is possible to ask for a page to be restored to your user space to allow further development on it. Note that pages removed for issues such as copyright infringement or libel will not be restored.

Aside from this: Are you and Klippgen ( talk · contribs) related somehow? Both accounts edit the same pages and seem to be active and dormant in exactly the same periods of time. Excirial ^{( Contact me, Contribs)} 08:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: article temporarily undeleted for review. JohnCD ( talk) 09:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the G7 deletion is a complete red herring. As noted the nominator themselves blanked the page and regardless the article at that point in time was pretty much the Steve Jobs article the G7 will have had no impact on the deletion which just occurred through AFD, for which no reasonable argument has been put forward that the process wasn't followed or that the closing admin misread the consensus of the discussion -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:21, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Apologies, I did indeed create the article initially in the Sandbox and thought that was a private, which is why the Steve Jobs article ended up there - and I now understand that the G7 by JohnCD was fully in order. Regardless, I remain critical to the review process for the ensuing, correct article which has more than 20 references, as the contributors to the discussion did not seem to have read the full article; did come with inaccurate descriptions of the references and put other information in doubt that was in fact confirmed in the references. Would a possibility be to re-write a shorter article and resubmit it? Tobiastan ( talk) 21:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Yes, it would be a possibility. I would suggest that you prepare a draft of the article in a sandbox in your own userspace, such as at User:Tobiastan/Sandbox. When you've finished the draft, bring it back here to Deletion Review. Part of our function is to examine fresh drafts of previously-deleted articles.— S Marshall T/ C 10:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks, S Marshall - Great if you can have a look - I have modified the original article to a very scaled-down, low-key version of the page at /info/en/?search=User:Tobiastan/Sandbox Tobias Tan ( talk) 13:59, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• That's a promising start. Not all the sources in the article are about Grace Sai. I checked a couple of them at random ---- source #4 and source #6. Source #4 doesn't seem to mention Ms Sai at all, and as far as I can see its only connection with her is to describe the venue she co-founded as "another co-working space". Am I missing something? If not, that source should be removed on the basis that it's largely irrelevant. Source #6 is better. It identifies and quotes Ms Sai, and describes her as the co-founder and CEO of the venue. That's helpful: the Guardian is an impeccable source. Unfortunately, the sentence it's actually placed after reads: "Sai is also a thought leader on social entrepreneurship in Asia." There's no sense in which The Guardian says or implies this, so the source should not appear after this sentence.

  I advise re-drafting the article a bit, ensuring that all the sources are as relevant as possible and that each source specifically and precisely supports the claim in the preceding sentence. It's okay to remove some sources ---- you only need the two or three very best ones. Only describe her as "a thought leader" if you have an impeccable source that uses those exact words, because the phrase "thought leader" is a subjective judgment. Also, that phrase has been spoiled a bit in the minds of experienced editors because marketers use it a lot, often when describing people who have no real or substantive leadership role, so it becomes a red flag for what we call "puffery"... in other words, it might attract negative attention from editors and accidentally obscure Ms Sai's real accomplishments.— S Marshall T/ C 19:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• PS: I should have included an apology with that post. These are things that should have been said to you at AfC. You should not have had to go through the article creation process, the article deletion process, and the deletion review process to reach this point. I'm sorry: Wikipedia is normally better than this.— S Marshall T/ C 19:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hi S Marshall, no apologies necessary, I am learning a lot from this, and in particular from your last and very kind post. I will revise the article tonight and make sure all references support all claims 100%. Thanks again, Tobias Tan ( talk) 01:39, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for now, though the situation could change if more sources are found, though I'm broadly concerned that Tobias Tan may be too connected with the subject to edit effectively. The lack of an answer to Excirial's very reasonable question above is rather deafening. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:32, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• To the question above, I am working as the assistant to Mr. Klippgen here in Singapore for quite some time, apologies for the late revert on this. Tobias Tan ( talk) 08:48, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have updated the article in my Sandbox, please let me know if this could be acceptable: /info/en/?search=User:Tobiastan/Sandbox Tobias Tan ( talk) 08:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and userfy allow editor to work on it and submit through AfC due to COI issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 07:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Allied Wallet ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Overwhelming consensus to delete. Not a single person, over two AfDs arguing to keep the page in mainspace. Even if you discount the editors who were allegedly canvased there is still a consensus to delete. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:58, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to Delete, if there was an issue with consensus, the closing administrator should have relisted the discussion and/or tagged it for further review. This was a clear delete. Nakon 04:02, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep article. I've removed the puffery. BeenAroundAWhile ( talk) 05:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is a review of the deletion decision and as such we are discussing whether to overturn or endorse it. We are not discussing the article (not directly at least). Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, delete, and trout. Decision was not one to which any reasonable administrator could have come. Even taking account of the canvassing — only one person who was "pinged" actually turned up and contributed. Stifle ( talk) 08:15, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The rewritten article now clearly meets standards. It would be a little silly to now delete it. Had the discussion been properly closed in the first place, the article would have been deleted, and then recreated as the new good version. That should be the status quo now — how we implement it is broadly irrelevant as long as it's sensible. I would suggest annotating the AFD to show that (a) the community disapproved of the closure, but (b) a better article now being in place, it would be inappropriate to take further action. Stifle ( talk) 07:50, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete - everyone argued delete, a non-delete can only be construed as a super!vote. Though actually userfy to the person who requested it, since that doesn't require a discussion. Wily D 11:40, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I would, of course, have no objection to userfying to Cunard, and letting them move it to the mainspace when they feel it's ready. Wily D 16:09, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete notifying everyone who commented in a previous AfD that there was a renomination ongoing isn't necessarily inappropriate, and certainly isn't justification for closing an AfD with the opposite outcome to the one everybody wanted. Hut 8.5 18:52, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist to discuss the sources I have found:
  1. Adams, John (2013-11-21). "Allied Is Building Biometrics for Mobile Wallets". PaymentsSource. SourceMedia. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     The abstract at http://www.paymentssource.com/eletter/profile/3/18218.html ^WebCite says:

     Allied Wallet is developing new payment technology that allows users to identify themselves by using an add-on fingerprint sensor, and also plans to build biometric acceptance for merchants.

     When the technology is deployed early next year, consumers will have the option to register their fingerprint as a way to verify transactions made via the Allied mobile app.

     "You verify the payment with your fingerprint and then choose the card you would like to use to pay the amount on the bill," says Andy Khawaja, CEO of Allied Wallet, which has 88 million users globally and is available in more than 250 countries and more than 50 currencies.

  2. Sikimic, Simona (2013-04-19). "Meet the eccentric behind multi-billion-dollar e-commerce giant Allied Wallet". LondonlovesBusiness. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     The article notes:

     Bearing in mind his e-commerce company Allied Wallet is expecting to transact $55bn (£36bn) in 2013, you soon realise why the American takes his work so seriously – for Khawaja, every day is at least another million.

     Allied Wallet provides a secure online payment system (similar to PayPal), as well as peer-to-peer transfers and smartphone card payments.

     Thanks to the unstoppable onslaught of e-commerce, Khawaja says his company grew by a jaw-dropping 6,000% in 2012 (though he won’t be drawn on profit). The numbers are hard to verify, but aren’t outright impossible.

     http://www.londonlovesbusiness.com/about-us/ ^WebCite notes:

     LondonlovesBusiness.com launched on 5 September 2011. It is the second title from Casis Media, co-founded by Graham Sherren (the mastermind behind Centaur Media and all of its great titles) and Mike Bokaie (founder of Caspian Media and creator of Real Business and Real Deals Magazines).

  3. "Who Really Benefits From Job Perks?". CBS. 2015-01-05. Archived from the original on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     The article notes:

     The Valley Village resident recently started working at Allied Wallet, an e-commerce services company ranked among Fortune Magazine’s “10 Great Workplaces For Millenials.”

     “A lot of the perks just surpass everything I could imagine: Friday lunches, weekly massages, a $50 stipend in the cafe downstairs. It’s really incredible,” Cosper said.

     ...

     But Allied Wallet’s management disagrees. They say the perks are just that – perks.

     Last year, Allied Wallet’s owner recognized Diab as Employee of the Year and surprised him with a brand-new Mercedes-Benz convertible.

     ...

     Allied Wallet plans to nearly double its Los Angeles staff in the development, marketing and tech areas within the next six months. The starting salary is around six figures.

  4. Martindale, Nick (Summer 2014). "No pay, no gain: How Allied Wallet founder Andy Khawaja fought to build up his online payments empire". New Business. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2015-04-23. Retrieved 2015-04-23.

     From http://www.newbusiness.co.uk/profile ^WebCite:

     New Business provides independent advice and guidance to directors and owners of small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs) in the UK through this website, the quarterly publication New Business Magazine, and the free weekly e-newsletter.

     ...

     New Business magazine is a 68-page full colour magazine of the highest quality and provides in-depth reports and reviews on all key areas of business including finance, accounting, business planning, marketing and technology. It also features exclusive interviews with leading officials and entrepreneurs such as Sir Alan Sugar, Sir Rocco Forte, Duncan Bannatyne, Ivan Massow, Jacqueline Gold, Terence Conran, James Dyson, Mark Dixon, Charles Dunstone and others. We work with Government bodies, Regional Authorities and leading experts and associations including the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development, Chartered Institute Of Marketing,the British Chamber of Commerce, and the UKTI. The magazine is also distributed to the British and City Libraries in London and also City libraries throughout the UK. A selection of articles from each issue is included in the magazine archive on the website.

  5. "Payment processors forfeit $13.3 million to settle U.S. case". Casino Journal. 2010-09-01. Retrieved 2015-04-23 – via HighBeam Research. {{ cite news}}: |archive-date= requires |archive-url= ( help)

     The article notes:

     Online payment processors Allied Wallet and Allied Systems and their owner, Ahmad Khawaja, have agreed to forfeit US$13.3 million to the U.S. Justice Department to resolve claims that the funds were involved in illegal gambling.

     The agreement was reached in federal court in Manhattan, according to news reports.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Allied Wallet to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 00:43, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete- I get the argument about wanting to discourage canvassing, but it does not seem to me that canvassing really affected the discussion. There was a proper consensus established. Allow recreation if Cunard thinks there are sufficient sources, but I am skeptical that a bunch of run-ofthe-mill advertising churn will be sufficient. And really, stop taking up so much room with your replies. There is no need to hog so much screen real estate that it pushes everyone else's comments off the top of the screen. Reyk _YO! 07:50, 24 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I can see why Spartaz didn't delete it, and it's right that we give our sysops wide latitude to deal with canvassing, so let's not trout him! The gentle fishy caress should go to User:Boleyn whose apparently well-intentioned, but not well-advised, actions caused the problem in the first place. But, I'll join the chorus of overturn to delete. Unanimous !vote was unanimous. I can't see whether the article was userfied to User:ThaddeusB in accordance with his request. If not, allow userfication to him or to User:Cunard, both of whom can be trusted to improve it and restore it to mainspace when they feel it's ready.— S Marshall T/ C 11:17, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  The article was kept, so yah it was not userified. I will reiterate my perfectly reasonable request to userify/draft, although I am perfectly fine with it going to Cunard's space if that is preferred. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn, Draftify, and Trout closing admin. The correct course of action when you feel all the !votes are without merit is to add your own explaining why. Not to super-vote. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 01:45, 26 April 2015 (UTC). reply
• Relist. w/ no trouts for anyone. Only 2 of the participants notified, voted delete. The rest didn't respond. WP:CANVASSING allows for notifying editors that expressed interest in the AfD. ("Editors who have participated in previous discussions on the same topic (or closely related topics)") It could not have been done more transparently, Boleyn's notifications to them were neutral, and there don't seem to be any users known that were in favor of 'keep' at the first afd. Boleyn was also uninvolved in both discussions his sole edit was to the second discussion to notify previously-involved users. At the time of this edit, he also added the CoI tag to the article. [10] The creator of the page, Online credit card processor, did not participate in either AfD and has not made a single edit since the few hours he spent creating the article last September. The article may have its issues, but the AfD had not been relisted once yet. No issue with Spartaz's other closes that I've come across, but I think it was a mistake to close this as no consensus without a re-listing. ―  Padenton| ✉   05:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse or relist, perfectly reasonable closure assuming research was done. Cunard's sources suggest the subject is notable and passes our GNG and RS guidelines. As per WP:PRESERVE the tone is sufficiently neutral, no OR exists, so I would be in favor or retaining. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 12:09, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete (I never thought I would be !voting to delete something where Spartaz had said keep or no-consensus--it has always been the other way round!! But the entire rationale and objection is fundamentally incorrect. The people involved in an article previously should always be notified, no matter what they have said previously, just as the creator should always be notified, though the creator will almost always want their work kept. In any case the people saying Delete and the afd are regular editors here, and 2 of them had not been pinged. The above sources are inadequate for notability-- nos. 1, 2, 4 are press releases, no.3 is irrelevant to notability, no.6 is a minor negative matter. If there are good sources, and from the size of the company it is possible, some uninvolved editor should start over. COI editing like this should not remain in the history. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to delete, and trout - See WP:CANVASSING: it allows pinging of previous !voters in discussions. Boleyn's notification was neutral, disinterested, done with no involvement, pinged all editors involved in the last discussion and acceptable. The no consensus close was a supervote, at least relist it if the current consensus may be compromised. Also see User:Boleyn#Pinging during AFDs.....: the closer should have been more careful in claiming that he/she was only pinging the delete voters. Esquivalience ^t 02:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment' I think you have to look at the context of the close where I had closed a lot of AFDs over a couple of days and encountered a number of AFDs where a couple of editors misused the ping system to canvass likely delete voters. If I ignore that I'm condoning canvass and will get ripped a new one when the deletion gets brought to DRV. If I try to be consistent to send a clear message to stop the misuse I'm apparently unreasonable and supervoting and in need of a trout. If I try to exercise some commonsense I'm then not being consistent and just look like some capricious jerk rather then trying to preserve the integrity of our consensus system. So basically whatever I did here I'm wrong by someone. Well I'm sorry but AFD is tettering on the edge because of limited participation and the last thing we want is to undermine what limited credibility the system has by condoning even the appearance of canvassing, so go ahead and blame me for trying to consistent and using my best judgement. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Spartaz you've written above that it was a situation where a couple of editors misused the ping system to canvass likely delete voters. I thought from your messages to my Talk pagethat you understand that I had not tried to canvass likely delete voters? I can't think that your comment doesn't respond to me. As per others pointing out that canvass accepts pinging, in a disinterested way, those who have participated in previous discussions I will continue to do so. In my opinion, it can help solve the lack of participation in AfDs to let those who have been involved in the article know what's going on. However, that's essentially a discussion for elsewhere; if you think the policy at CANVASS should be changed, you can start a discussion elsewhere about that. Boleyn ( talk) 06:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Wily, S Marshall, ThaddeusB, DGG, I generally disagree with Spartaz, and agree with the other four, however I feel that in this case Cunard has brought sources which show the subject has been significantly covered in RS and passes GNG. It seems inefficient to delete the article based on policy only for it to be restored immediately. I do not know if Spartaz was lucky in this close or if he was able to find sources and make a determination the discussion was slightly skewed, if anything should be a sign that more discussion is required. It seems apparent to me at this time that if this subject went through another AfD it would be NC at worst. In terms of closing rules I do agree it should be deleted, but it doesn't have to be that way. Rarely does any admin make a supervote in favor of retaining information, let alone coming frm Spartaz, but it is a breathe of fresh air and new sources provided would suggest a relist is more senseable, am I correct? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:29, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The discussion obviously needed to be closed as delete. That subsequently we discovered a new article could be created (using the old one as a basis, or not) is a separate question. I suggested userfication because it's generally easier - no (real) timeline, only hardcore nutters complaining the copy is still around until it's fixed up, and so on. That Cunard has chosen to do the rewrite in the mainspace ain't the choice I'd have made, but obviously I don't give a shit. That said, the tendency at DRV to say "This outcome is obviously wrong, but since it's not necessary to correct it, let's not" is not one I can endorse. So long as we're discussing the close, let's get it right. Wily D 08:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I have rewritten the article. According to the sources, the company has 88 million customers in over 250 countries, processes over 50 currencies, and was projected to have transacted $55 billion (£36 billion) in 2013. Based on the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, it is clear the company is notable.

  Cunard ( talk) 23:49, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to delete and trout for a bad close from a user who really should have known better. On the other hand, canvassing whether for deletes or keeps rarely if ever does the discussion any favours, and tends to devolve into accusations and general shittiness. I've seen entire AFD debates go completely off the rails when someone decides to canvass someone or other. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:36, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist Per Valoem. The article has been significantly changed from the original form, and new sources added that may need reviewing. An alternative path that reaches the same outcome is also ok (delete and then restore, if I understood what Wily said), if it is cleaner. Caroliano ( talk) 17:02, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The was no consensus to keep. Afd is not a vote. It's meant to be decided on the strength of policy based arguments, not on a head count or a willingness to lie about sources. All the keep opinions were very weak or straight out lies. Davey2010 - "meh keep". VMS Mosaic - WP:JUSTAPOLICY. Sunil - WP:OTHERSTUFF and a lie about independent reliable sources. Jonathan - a meaningless comment about good reference/content ratio. Sunil then goes on to lie again about sources. No one who said there was coverage in independent reliable sources was able to identify any truthfully. duffbeerforme ( talk) 03:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment, endorse as AFD closer. At best, this would be a no-consensus close. There is clearly no consensus to delete. Nakon 04:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment 'I don't think they are notable, but the simplest thing would be to renominate for AfD. DGG ( talk ) 05:36, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - In all honestly I'd of preferred a second relisting as the keeps (inc mine!) weren't all that but I think it would've gained more weak keeps than anything, IMHO the easiest thing to do would've been to renominate in a months time which you can still do if nothing happens with this. – Davey2010 ^Talk 07:32, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. No reasonable administrator could have come to a delete conclusion, and as I have repeatedly opined DRV isn't concerned with flipping between the various versions of not-delete. Stifle ( talk) 08:16, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus - or relist - there's exactly one source that can be invoked here to maybe justify claims this meets WP:N; the Gizmag one [11]. Even there, I'm not convinced (and I might be the biggest softy around on such things) - absent that source, I'd have honoured an A7 request. The case for or against that source isn't made convincingly enough in the discussion, though, to quite close based on a conclusion about it. There is a material difference in NC and Keep on the appropriateness of an immediately 3rd AfD - and so long as we're here, being lazy is a bad reason to endorse an obviously wrong outcome. Wily D 11:38, 23 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse: based on that discussion a "delete" outcome would not have been within discretion. If the sources are bad, renominate it after a reasonable period.— S Marshall T/ C 11:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - reasonable close based on discussion. -- ThaddeusB ( talk) 19:15, 25 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse couldn't possibly have been closed as delete given the discussion. Can't hurt to give it a few months, see if it gets better (or worse) and renominate if appropriate. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nim (programming language) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Improper non-admin closure per WP:NACD "Close calls and controversial decisions are better left to an administrator." This AfD is full of non-policy based keep rationales as a result of improper canvassing, a fact which Valoem gave no indication that he considered. Given the timeline of his edits (including closing another AfD just 11 minutes before), and given that the length of the AfD, it is hard to believe that Valoem had enough time to examine the votes and conclude about which made actual arguments based on policy as well as take into account the proven WP:MEATPUPPET issue in that AfD (stealth canvassing and vote stacking). ―  Padenton| ✉   01:15, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Padenton I believe you are violating assume good faith here, possibly from a previous disagreement. I am not an administrator so a DRV is not necessary you can simply revert it if you'd like I told you so on my talk page. There was a clear lack of consensus, if any admin see any glaring issues with the close a revert is more than welcome. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:24, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I participated in the discussion so I won't revert this myself, but I think a revert is probably best here. This was a contentious discussion and looks like a close call, and as such I think an admin should close it, preferably with a well-explained rationale. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 01:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• @ Valoem: WP:NACD "Participants, including participating administrators, should not reopen non-admin closures. If this happens, any editor other than the closer may restore the closure with an appropriate notice as per WP:TPO. Notice of the restoration should be posted at WP:RFPP." and thus we are here. ―  Padenton| ✉   01:38, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I added a note in the close, I am curios to see my knowledge of AfD closings. Most of the my closes here seem standard, little discussion opened over three weeks. These are the general outcomes I see in these situations. Nim (programming language) is particular maybe a bit more bold, but it does not appear to fall under WP:BADNAC. There was little discussion since the 12th of April with the last comment on the 14th of April I could not see a consensus to delete, thus falling under no consensus. If I am wrong here I will be more careful moving forward. My hope is that these closes are seen is standard Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Padenton:, I have reverted the contested close, I would be surprised the see a different outcome. Hopefully, my judgment was correct. No need for the DRV you can withdraw it if you'd like. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:19, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict) About your note - I'm not sure where you got the Australian source from, as I didn't see it linked in the AfD. But it's talking about the wrong Nimrod - the "Nimrod" mentioned in the Australian article (whatever it is) was started in 1970, but the programming language that is the subject of the AfD was invented in 2008. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 02:22, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for noticing that, issues have been corrected based on a news google search. The AfD has gone stall, I am not see any consensus, and it would appear to be the right close, I am interested to see how an admin would close this. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 02:37, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• User:Valoem has reverted his WP:NAC. This is an ideal outcome for a contested NAC. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:36, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

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

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

The pages for Clonazolam, Flubromazolam and Deschloroetizolam have recently been deleted for the lack of credible sources. Today a new study, " Characterization of the four designer benzodiazepines clonazolam, deschloroetizolam, flubromazolam, and meclonazepam, and identification of their in vitro metabolites" was published, I hope that counts and the wiki pages for these novel substances can be restored.

I'm somewhat new to Wikipedia so I hope I didn't completely mess up the format of this undeletion request :)

Aethyta ( talk) 00:30, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• The usual criterion is for multiple sources in independent reliable sources. Stifle ( talk) 09:08, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Were there any other sources in the article prior to its deletion? The first two are quite widely sold in the UK and I'd be surprised if there weren't some other mentions of them in official documents or even just the media. Testem ( talk) 17:09, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• That's certainly correct, but now that we have one source, those should all be redirects to Benzodiazepine. There may be scope for an article on designer benzodiazepines.— S Marshall T/ C 12:41, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• If I remember correctly, the deleted articles were full of unreferenced content, speculation, original research, etc. and that's why they were deleted. I don't think having a single scientific publication (which may be unrelated to the specific content that was deleted) addresses the problems with the deleted content. These chemical compounds can be listed at designer drug and/or List of benzodiazepines (some already are), but it doesn't look like there is much to say about them at this point with a single mention in the scientific literature, so standalone articles don't appear to be appropriate. If someone thinks there is sufficient reliable sources to support an article about these compounds, using the Wikipedia:Articles for creation process is probably the way to go. ChemNerd ( talk) 20:51, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• They shouldn't have been deleted for those reasons. Failing WP:NOR is grounds to fix the article, not to delete it. The reason they should have been deleted because there were insufficient sources at the time to write a policy-compliant article. (Does this seem like splitting hairs? I think it's worth saying. It's important, at Deletion Review, that we're clear on the circumstances in which articles should and should not be deleted.)

  Now we have one source, which is insufficient for standalone articles as you and Stifle both rightly say, but it would justify a redirect.— S Marshall T/ C 09:46, 22 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion and permit redirects for the reasons given above. Stifle ( talk) 09:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/God (3rd nomination) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Was deleted as G10, but no versions on the page actually meet G10. I discussed with the deleting admin, then he admitted to have failed to read the nomination as carefully as he should have and said that I could take this to DRV if I felt strongly that it should be undeleted, which is what I thought, so I decided to take this here. The deleted page is a non-disruptive April Fools' joke by the way. TL22 ( talk) 23:45, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. Clearly invalid and the deleting admin should have undeleted rather than punting over here. Stifle ( talk) 10:19, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. As the deleting administrator, I didn't see a minor April Fool's joke as a priority and I'm surprised it was even brought here. If we're actually going to take this seriously, then I'll undelete it now just to save everyone the effort. Mackensen (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Andreas Lubitz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore) The closing admin stated that consensus was to merge Andreas Lubitz into Germanwings Flight 9525, but that could not be farther from the truth. There was absolutely NO consensus to MERGE, and passionate and well reasoned arguments were given by both sides. This was a major incident, and Lubitz was the known perpetrator of it. According to Wikipedia's Biographies of Living Persons guidelines, when a major event occurs, and someone is a major part of it, a separate article is generally appropriate. (Not quoting verbatim) I assume good faith, but this does not represent the consensus of the Wikipedia community. Juneau Mike ( talk) 03:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note the merge discussion linked in the header above is one of two apparently parallel discussions, an afd was also running -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 08:57, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn The close was based on BLP. BLP in some instances can apply to the recently dead, in order to avoid morbid over emphasis on victims and similar sensationalism, but it does not apply here, when there was already world-wide coverage. We've been using BLP as a magic word, meaning we need not think but can do what owe like regardless of common sense. DGG ( talk ) 04:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Changes were locked out of the Andreas Lubitz page because another editor attempted to go against the merge decision and return the article several times. Vote counts are not used to determine consensus, per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY. ―  Padenton| ✉   04:50, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Reply Nobody has ever said they are. I notice you always ignore the very strong and compelling, "major incident and major contributor" part of the guideline. Juneau Mike ( talk) 04:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You said, and I quote from your nom here: "!votes were almost 1/1 on both sides." and " Changes have been locked out of the Andreas Lubitz page, which seems over-bearing and elitist." As for the topic, this is deletion review, it is not the place to reiterate arguments that have already been said 20 different ways on the discussion pages. Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate." ―  Padenton| ✉   05:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

And the decision was flawed, as I explained. Juneau Mike ( talk) 05:13, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Two of the rationales you provided to claim the decision being flawed were themselves flawed, as indicated above in my original comment. ―  Padenton| ✉   05:20, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Fine. Amended. Juneau Mike ( talk) 05:34, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• overturn to no consensus - BLP1E does not say "who ain't famous to teenage and twenty-something anglo-boys", nor does it say "where you'd want to protect them if you were Big Brother and their big brother". It's a very simple idea - if the sources cover the event, rather than the perrson, we should cover the event, rather than the person. Here, I count at least four sources which cover the man rather the event [12] [13] [14] [15] (though certainly mention the crash, just as even a book about John Wilkes Booth's acting career will mention that he shot some guy). Given this, invocation of BLP1E can't be taken seriously without an explanation of why something that seems not to apply should (and that was not forthcoming). (so, sort of per DGG) Wily D 07:12, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment fomr RfC closer. There is no consensus to delete at AfD, but merge is not delete. I discerned a narrow result in favour of merge at this time at the separate RfC, not as a vote but as a weighted assessment of the policy-based arguments as they seemed to me.

This is a case where, no matter the outcome, a substantial proportion of people will feel passionately that it is wrong: if we overturn to Keep, they will probably be along next.

My reading of the RfC was in favour of merge because (unlike other cited cases, e.g. Lee Harvey Oswald) there is, as yet, no way of telling us whether history will judge Lubitz to be significant independent of the event, and the specifics of the case, including mental illness, mandate sensitive handling. I am profoundly disturbed by the fact that some people state they have "never felt more strongly" about anything than keeping this article on Wikipedia. That speaks to a rather sinister undercurrent, fed, I think, from the undoubtedly prurient and at times vicious media coverage. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, if you want to add some of our fine collection of alphabet soup.

So my suggestion is that we abide by the RfC close and do not revisit the issue for six months. That should give a better idea of the actual significance of the subject and (hopefully) will give us substantial analytical sources, in dispassionate terms, from which to draw an article. Guy ( Help!) 09:49, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

In cases in which you have had one relatively unknown actor kill a national figure (Booth killing Lincoln), or you have had one unknown guy suddenly kill 149 unknown people as we have here, it all rises to the level of notability for purposes on this Wiki. Lubitz' motivations and what caused him to commit mass murder and suicide deserves to be studied at length. For purposes of criminology, this is why we have related sections in encyclopedias. This is where JzG failed here. Failed in good faith, mind you. (Redacted) Andreas Lubitz is a very notable figure, who caused a very notable event through an act of suicide and murder. His life and motivations deserve to be studied on an encyclopedic level in a way that cannot be done by the press. This is what Wikipedia is all about. Ok, I'm up to my 5 cents at this point. Thank you for taking my views as a long-time editor to heart. Juneau Mike ( talk) 10:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

"His life and motivations deserve to be studied on an encyclopedic level in a way that cannot be done by the press. This is what Wikipedia is all about", that actually sounds pretty close to you saying we should be conducting original research can you clarify. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 13:15, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I suggest you watch the excellent British satire Yes, Minister and its sequels. There is a difference between what is in the public interest, and what interests the public. There are books on Lee Harvey Oswald. Maybe one day there will be books on Lubitz, it is far too early to tell. Guy ( Help!) 09:29, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Out of scope DRV doesn't review merge discussions, only deletions and XfD closures. There was an AfD running in parallel to the merge discussion, but it was basically redundant - we have to have at least a redirect at this title and there weren't any arguments in favour of deleting the history, so the choice is between Keep and Merge/Redirect. As noted in the AfD BLP does apply here per WP:BDP (subject died less than a month ago, and did so while committing suicide and committing a crime). Hut 8.5 14:52, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• WP:BOOMERANG. on Michaelh2001/Juneau Mike for that unprovoked and baseless PA-ridden rant ( [16]). My edits and talk discussions stand for themselves where everyone can read them. I have 0 blocks, and you clearly haven't read my talk page before making these absurd judgments. Claiming that I am unable to change my opinion on this is absolutely false, which I made clear in the merge discussion. Don't blame me for your inability to provide any WP:RS supporting the equating of Lubitz to the 9/11 hijackers or the Assassin who killed Archduke Franz Ferdinand and sparked World War 1. It is clear from Juneau Mike's behavior here that he has no respect for the process of deletion review, first using arguments unsupported by policy in his nom, as well as attempting to re-argue the original debate in here, multiple times, not alerting the original discussion to the deletion review as required, and now making personal attacks against editors who have disagreed with him. Now, I'm going to go back to enjoying my Sunday. ―  Padenton| ✉   15:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'm not at all certain DRV is the right place for this discussion. I think WP:AN is a better one. But given that it has started here, let's keep it here. I personally would prefer a merge outcome, as I think it's a better editorial decision (though I don't think BLP or 1E dictate that we must). That said, I think there was no consensus for a merge. weak overturn to no consensus as I view the close outside of admin discretion, but only just barely. Hobit ( talk) 17:21, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Much as I said: it's marginal either way, my view based on the policy-based arguments (rather than the volume of hysteria about how we MUST have an article about this TERRIBLE MAN) were narrowly for merge, this is very different fomr AfD whihc says the subject is not notable enough at all, in fact I think he is notable but not independently so. And that's the point. Guy ( Help!) 18:09, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

JzG, I think there are two key things here.

• I think we agree there is no clear consensus. And I'd argue there isn't anything close to anything I'd call "consensus". The outcome of such discussions should be "no consensus".
• Your opinion on the issue shouldn't play a significant role in how you close it. It sounds like your view of his independent notability played a larger role than it should. It turns out I agree with you on that issue, but if I were faced with that close I'd have instead !voted to merge (or perhaps closed as NC). Hobit ( talk) 19:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Notification posted at WP:AN to help address potential venue issues. Hobit ( talk) 17:28, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Where I feel JzG erred was in closing this as merge, instead of no consensus. In the end, it won't matter much. No matter how this review ends here, the Andreas Lubitz page will be back sometime this year, because he is highly notable. It does appear crystal clear that the closing admin acted, in part, based on his personal opinions of Lubitz, and not just on policy. He still acted in good faith, but for him to call out my "have never felt stronger" comment from my strong keep !vote, which he quoted out of context, speaks to that as well. And my concerns about Padenton should be addressed on his Talk Page, and with admins, not here. Thanks for pointing that out. My otherwise legitimate concerns were out of place here, and I had not intended them to disrupt this discussion. Juneau Mike ( talk) 05:43, 21 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, I believe we are contesting the merge consensus so this is operating as an XfD, it is often irrelevant where the discussion takes place. I am in agreement with Juneau Mike's analysis. WP:BIO1E and WP:CRIME is actually the reason why this article should be kept which state "if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified" and "The motivation for the crime or the execution of the crime is unusual—or has otherwise been considered noteworthy—such that it is a well-documented historic event. Generally, historic significance is indicated by sustained coverage of the event in reliable secondary sources which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage and devotes significant attention to the individual's role", respectively. This highlights a growing trend of incorrect closes, we have no consensus defaulting to keep for this reason, an administrative super vote in light of a lack of consensus is often unwarranted. Many perpetrators of heinous crimes are individually notable this is true with Adam Lanza and Elliot Rodger both of whom have sparked debate in gun control and mental health issues. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:54, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment I have refrained from re-stating my AfD/merge argument in here as this is purely to determine whether the closer interpreted consensus fairly, yet I see several people on a single side of the issue failing to keep to that topic.

1. It says quite clearly here: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review, that "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question. It is an opportunity to correct errors in process (in the absence of significant new information), and thus the action specified should be the editor's feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate."
2. It also lists the allowed criteria for deletion review at WP:DRVPURPOSE. The only one which is possibly applicable here is:"if someone believes the closer of a deletion discussion interpreted the consensus incorrectly;".
3. In fact, WP:DRVPURPOSE explicitly says that Deletion Review should not be used for (all of which have been done in this discussion):
   1. "because of a disagreement with the deletion discussion's outcome that does not involve the closer's judgment;"
   2. "to point out other pages that have or have not been deleted (as each page is different and stands or falls on its own merits);"
   3. "to repeat arguments already made in the deletion discussion;"
   4. "to attack other editors, cast aspersions, or make accusations of bias (such requests may be speedily closed);"

If my understanding of Deletion Review is incorrect, can an admin please say so, so that those in support of the original decision may respond fairly? Thanks. ―  Padenton| ✉   18:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse original decision to merge: As Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Commenting_in_a_deletion_review suggests I provide my feeling of the correct interpretation of the debate, I submit the following, which I wrote near the end of the merge discussion, though I have made some slight changes when I copied it here. My interpretation of consensus (as an involved non-admin) in this matter was: Merge. Consensus is not based on a vote, see WP:NOTAVOTE. The arguments to merge are mostly backed on policy, citing WP:1E, WP:BDP, WP:CRIME. Few of the arguments to keep have even mentioned policy. Many are flawed arguments based on notability fallacies, such as WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, WP:ITSINTHENEWS, WP:LOTSOFSOURCES, WP:15M; There are also inappropriate keep votes based on the falsehoods that both AfDs resulted in keeps (neither did in fact, one was withdrawn by nominator 5 hours after nomination before allowing consensus to form, and one was a procedural close, citing it was too soon after the close of the first AfD). Neither resulted in a 'keep' consensus; also, even if true, it would be an example of the WP:NOTAGAIN notability fallacy, as keep votes should be based on an independent appraisal of the subject's notability). I may have missed one or two, but the only policy-backed arguments in favor of not merging that I saw are by JoeSperrazza and Wintonian, who both made their arguments based on the "If the event is highly significant, and the individual's role within it is a large one, a separate article is generally appropriate." exception in WP:BIO1E. However, the discussion clearly indicates that many editors do not feel the event reaches the subjective requirement of "high significance" in order to have a separate article. ―  Padenton| ✉   18:35, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Those are not the arguments being used here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Not sure what you're referring to, was this meant to be in response to my earlier comment? These are arguments that were used in the merge discussion. Can you elaborate?―  Padenton| ✉   18:40, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry, it seemed that you were responding to me. Some people may use poor arguments, but that does not nullify the strong arguments. When I reviewed the discussion there is a clear lack of consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:04, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment This is DRV, not MRV. Maybe you should open a RFC or comment with the merging admin. -- TL22 ( talk) 23:47, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep both results
  • Keep merge result on talk page. I think Guy could have phrased it better, and avoided fanning some BLP policy flames, by a more nuanced explanation as Guy makes here, that there was a plurality of policy arguments in favor of merging that, on balance, slightly outweighed the desire to keep the separate article. Because merging is not deleting, consensus could change or new facts ands sources could emerge over time that justify a separate article, so it is not earth-shaking either way (and I wonder if this is the right page to review a merge consensus discussion)
  • Keep AfD result but change rationale. The AfD was improperly closed as WP:SNOW, which is inappropriate for an article that survived two AfDs and where there was no clear consensus either way. However, I think it could arguably have been closed as a simple merge / delete, and more aptly, the merge discussion on the article talk page was already closed as merge. Given that the decision was already made, the AfD is moot. It would be pointless to re-open the AfD so it could be re-closed with the same result, so best just to make a little note on the closure page that upon review, the result was endorsed because the decision to merge had already been made.

- Wikidemon ( talk) 00:28, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse decision. The merge debate was properly conducted, and the result properly interpreted. The AfD should not have been started while the merge debate was ongoing, so it was right to close it. Rwxrwxrwx ( talk) 08:06, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination) as correct closure. No comment on talk page merger discussion, which is our of scope. Stifle ( talk) 10:20, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - per BLP1E or 1E or whatever. Perhaps the closure summaries were imperfect, yes; but if the merger discussion was both open and active prior to the AfD nomination, then the AfD shouldn't have been opened, and thus we fall back on the consensus that merger discussion reached. I do agree with Guy, however, that whatever happens, people will be deeply upset - and I also find it just as disappointing that this is the thing some people say they've never been more passionate about. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 11:08, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - Though I voted to keep at the AfD, this decision is well within admin discretion. Tarc ( talk) 13:30, 20 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, not an unreasonable close given the relative strength of the arguments. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 12:06, 23 April 2015 (UTC). reply
• comment I see that he himself as an individual wasthe subject of a first page NY Times story last Sunday. Given that, I cannot see how there can possibly be a claim that there is no specivifc coverage.
• Overturn the premature closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andreas Lubitz (3rd nomination), which has not so obvious an outcome that closing the discussion early was warranted, and relist for the full seven days of discussion. The merger discussion is out of scope for this board to review.  Sandstein  07:53, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• And comment: DRV can only review the AfD, not the merger. Because many of the comments above do not specify which of the two closures they endorse or otherwise comment on, I think they are of little use in assessing consensus in this review discussion.  Sandstein  07:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Holy cow. You're saying we can't assume the discussion is about the discussion linked to as part of this DRV? I realize there were two parallel discussions, but still, I think it quite reasonable to assume this is about the Merge discussion... Hobit ( talk) 05:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Eduardo (rapper) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Due to numerous BLP violations within the history, article should have been deleted followed by creation of the redirect. This seemed to be the consensus. Additionally, WP:A9 of A Fantástica Fábrica de Cadáver album would be in order. ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 13:20, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment, some of the negative material is referenced to a Portuguese-language source. I do not read this language, but does it back up the claims that were made? Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:00, 19 April 2015 (UTC). reply

Passion: Hymns Ancient and Modern ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Passion: One Day Live ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Passion: Better Is One Day ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Passion: The Road to One Day ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Invalid WP:CSD#A9 deletions. Passion Conferences is the corresponding article. When the music credits "Passion Worship Band", it's not a particular group of singers, like, say, the Beatles or Metallica. Rather, it's just a compilation of tracks from whoever was singing at the Passion Conference that year. I don't have a strong opinion on whether each one of these CDs ought to have its own article (from looking at Passion_Conferences#Discography, maybe half of them do). But A9 isn't really a reason to delete them as there is an article - Passion Conferences - on the corresponding "band". I can tell you that this music is extremely popular within the evangelical Christian community and is overwhelmingly notable. [17] I looked, for example, and found a third party professional review of "Hymns Ancient and Modern" at [18]. In any event, whether we need to have articles on every single annual CD they put out every year, I don't think A9 is a reason to delete them. If the original CSD nominator or the deleting admin desires to delete these articles, they should be taken to AFD. -- B ( talk) 18:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Julie Ziglar Norman ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

An administrator flagged it 10 minutes after i first put the article in place, article was not allowed to be completed and I feel he violated the G11 policy for speedy deletion, it should have at the least been set for deletion review, I have attempted to work with the deleting administrator but he is not answering my posts. The Rules for speedy deletion where not met under the Speedy deletion criteria. First The article had no self promoting material on the page, and under the specifics of G11 "Pages that are exclusively promotional, and would need to be fundamentally rewritten to become encyclopedic. If a subject is notable and the content can be replaced with text that complies with neutral point of view, this is preferable to deletion. Note: An article which describes its subject from a neutral point of view does not qualify for this criterion" -- Graphton ( talk) 12:30, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Your contributions don't show any discussions with User:DGG who deleted the article. Please clarify. Stifle ( talk) 13:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

My apologies I was having the discussion with Rasel lio who initially tagged the page in my opinion incorrectly. Since the page was deleted I did not know how to locate who actually deleted the page, my points where clear on the articles talk page as it were, and I received no answer to those points either. -- Graphton ( talk) 13:08, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. On reviewing the deleted article, I find myself agreeing with DGG — I do always seem to agree with him when he has deleted an article — that it is an advert. Sentences like "Her unique experience of being raised by the motivators’ motivator has given her a perspective on life and work that keeps her audiences laughing, crying and taking notes" and "Julie was her father’s editor for almost 20 years and is a winner of the coveted Guideposts Writers Workshop contest" are miles from being a neutral point of view. Additionally, though not counting for deletion, the article was non-compliant with our style guide, which suggests referring to article subjects by the surname and would not normally intersperse the article with quotes from the subject.
  By the way, "where" refers to a location. The plural form of "was" is "were". Stifle ( talk) 13:43, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

As I stated in my initial response to the original admin was that the article was unfinished and this was not a candidate for speedy deletion, The Criteria plainly states "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation." I admit plainly that there are issues with some of the content and I had originally addressed that I was correcting that, but once the page was deleted I could no longer make any changes. Unless i am misunderstanding something, is there a place to build an article before its published to the encyclopedia? -- Graphton ( talk) 14:01, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes there is, see Wikipedia:Drafts. I can undelete the article and make it a draft if you like, and you'll be able to edit it further without fear of speedy deletion and submit it for assessment when you are ready. Stifle ( talk) 14:26, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

That is perfectly acceptable to me! thanks so much! As I am new to this I am still learning! I appreciate the dialog -- Graphton ( talk) 14:36, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I would have no objection to that either, but I feel I must caution the contributor that unless there are much better sources, the career as stated would probably not be notable no matter how objectively the article was written. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, G11 is pretty much on the money. One doesn't normally start with an article that reads like marketing copy, and then slowly nudge it towards objectivity. I have no moral objection to this text being moved to the sandbox for further work, but I agree with User:DGG that it seems unlikely that this person would meet the WP:GNG at any rate. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 02:38, 18 April 2015 (UTC). reply
• Endorse. Article was not only promotionally written, I did not see any real claim to notability made that was supported by sources that would make it matter. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:36, 18 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Clear-cut G11 if I ever saw one. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 06:32, 19 April 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 Los Angeles train crash ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The closing admin stated that the consensus was "merge", but the short discussion that occurred showed a clear lack of consensus. Some editors, myself included, felt strongly that the article should remain stand alone. There did not seem to be any clear argument for merging, other than a lack of death and mayhem Juneau Mike ( talk) 01:40, 16 April 2015 (UTC) Paging Rosiestep, the articles creator, to be a part of this discussion. Juneau Mike ( talk) 01:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Although the closing admin acted in good faith, I don't think there was consensus, nor a compelling argument for the result to be MERGE. Death and/or mayhem are not the litmus test for train accident notability. This accident was caused by a university student in front of a university after a university professor had gone on record to talk about the city trains' safety issues. It's not a small university in a small town... it's the University of Southern California, population 43,000, in the city of Los Angeles, California. IMO, it almost seems wreckless (no pun intended) to NOT have an article on the event. My $0.02. -- Rosiestep ( talk) 02:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus - only two people voted for merger (and neither really made an argument). There's no way to conclude there's a consensus to merge. Then you're left with people making wild guesses about whether this will have lasting significance or not, but about equal in number, and with no facts to support either contention. So - balanced headcount, policy arguments with unclear basis in fact = no consensus. Wily D 08:06, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Leave as is. Deletion debates can ultimately end in either delete or not-delete. Moving from one variation on not-delete to another can be dealt with on the article talk page — and in practice, most AFD merge outcomes get studiously ignored as nobody is willing to take on the merger. Stifle ( talk) 09:56, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no-consensus Regardless of old statements at various places, in practice AfD discussions do discuss more than one option. In practice WP guidelines for deletion are what we consistently do at deletion discussions, and for some years now we have treated a closure of "merge" as binding (the problem usually then becomes how mush to merge, but that's another matter. Many closers give an indication of that also, and I'd regard it as strong advice, because this usually needs more discussion of specifics than can be given at afd.) The same is true of "redirect". the reason for this is that in the past , redirect and merge closings were wrongly used as what has been sometimes called "smerge", meaning to effectively destroy. This problem was particularly acute over certain types of articles, and Stifler and I have been disagreeing about both this and fiction articles for many years now. The practical consensus about fiction remains very variable (in my opinion depending primarily on the popularity of the fiction among WP editors) and I would not say that my view towards great inclusiveness here has consensus. I try to be realistic. But as for the view that a close of merge or redirect are merely opinion and not a binding close, I think consensus has pretty much come to my position. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no-consensus It's simplistic to say that choices in an AfD are a purely polar "delete" or "keep". Whether people actually follow through with the various flavors of keep is beside the point—if it didn't matter how they wanted to keep something, we wouldn't let people vote that way. As for this discussion, DGG is right. !Voters are all over the map; there's no way this could be called consensus. Daniel Case ( talk) 01:42, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:Advocacy and COI ducks ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The new essay was not the same as the essay previously deleted. Some of the stark differences were demonstrated in a comparison table on the TP. The essay was still under discussion with an administrator [19], BDD. The new essay took on an entirely different approach, new title, and the only similarities were mentions of existing WP:PAG, not a cause for a speedy delete. Atsme☯ ^Consult 16:17, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

endorse deleteoriginal deleted essay was here. was put up for MfD and deleted here - see its close, which advises author (atsme) to start over. A parody of that essay was created and then speedy-deleted here. in reaction to that, atsme hastily relaunched the barely-revised essay ( here) yesterday morning, as she stated on the talk page of the relaunched essay. its relaunch was opposed by atame's collaborators, who urged her to userfy. She said "no". Later yesterday it was tagged speedy delete, and still the editor didn't userfy it. it was speedy deleted finally yesterday evening, as it should have been. The relaunched essay was a POINTY reaction to a POINTY parody of the original deleted essay. While the lead was revised, key sections were not different from the original, and overall the whole was not different in spirit, in continuing to advise editors to make bad faith assumptions about others. The G4 speedy delete of the relaunched essay was good. Jytdog ( talk) 17:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse delete I tagged the page for speedy deletion because even with the new text added, the essay was substantially the same as the one that was deleted after the MfD discussion. Although the essay's author Atsme insists that the essay had a different approach and no similarities to the original, and had added some information about civility in the essay along with some pictures and a slightly different structure, the bulk of the essay was actually unchanged as very little of the previously-existing text had been deleted or revised. I did see some individual wording changes but the tone and idea behind the essay remained the same: both the original and revised essays encouraged readers to assume bad faith and to civilly accuse others of COI editing if they thought COI editing had occurred. Ca2james ( talk) 18:16, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oppose delete - see my comment below

• Comment the above claims are unwarranted, and why the tables provided on the TP of the essay are needed. I put a lot of effort into making those tables to show the stark differences between the two essays and want them included for others to review. Atsme☯ ^Consult 18:47, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I think we know by your listing here what your overall sentiment is, you are of course free to reply and add further comment, but no need for the bolded sentiment and could be seen as trying to double vote. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 06:04, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse own deletion. Like it or not, the new page was substantially the same as the one deleted at MFD. Changing around the order of some points and moving sentiments from bullet lists to prose, etc. does not constitute writing a new essay. Stifle ( talk) 09:57, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse delete First essay was poor. Second and third not really any better. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 13:41, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: User:Atsme has stated an intent to run to the other parent in the event this DRV does not go his/her way. Stifle ( talk) 15:49, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I learned about that option from Jytdog except with regards to an RfC outcome he believed was handled improperly. Does the same procedure for review not apply to a speedy delete? Atsme☯ ^Consult 16:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - to make clear my thoughts regarding my essay - [20] Atsme☯ ^Consult 17:26, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Atsme yes decisions have places where they are reviewed. This is the place where deletion decisions are reviewed, per the instructions. I followed the instructions for having the close of an RfC reviewed in what i did, which is to ask for review at AN (not ANI). Please do not misrepresent me, nor what I did. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 05:28, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Deletion decisions are reviewed here. This is the end of the road — if the decision isn't upheld, there is no further appeal except in the most unusual of circumstances. Stifle ( talk) 10:09, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion, correct application of WP:CSD#G4, correct reading of consensus in the deletion debate, and policy-based objections to an essay advocating against policy. Guy ( Help!) 22:16, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The new duck walked, talked and quacked like the old one. Daniel Case ( talk) 03:20, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - if this is all about the "quacking" reference, that can be easily changed. It's an opinion essay, not an article, and it is open to discussion. Atsme☯ ^Consult 14:25, 17 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Death of Chris Currie ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Death of Chris Currie was deleted today, a few hours after I created it. It is an article about the death over a decade ago of a man driving a car in New Zealand, who was killed by a teenager throwing stones at random cars. The explanation given was that "it is substantially the same as the article deleted via Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Currie", but note that that AFD was closed in January 2007. The two articles cannot have been "substantially" the same because the article I created today included discussion of the ongoing conversation around this death in New Zealand, where articles continue to appear discussing the stone-thrower as an unusually young defendant in a murder case, the case itself in the context of the ongoing problem of death and injuries caused by rocks thrown at random motor vehicles, ethnic tensions in New Zealand, and as an example of the general problem of and the problem of youth delinquency. (I happened on the topic precisely because it is still being discussed) It is also discussed on more random occasions, such as the retirement of the prosecuting attorney, but even this sort of mention speak to the fact that this death continues to be familiar to kiwis more than a decade after it occurred. I created the article in good faith, having seen many WP articles about individuals notable only for the memorable conditions in which they died. Not only can the old AFD not have reflected the fact that this case continued to receive notability validated by significant news coverage more than 10 years on. It was, in fact, not a very persuasive AFD. More editors wanted to keep the article than to delete it, there was little discussion of policy, and the objections were on the grounds that Currie himself was not notable - which he clearly was not: his death was. However, no editor proposed a title change to the Death of Chris Currie. I come to argue that an article on the Death of Chris Currie would pass WP:GNG due to extensive and ongoing extensive coverage in major sources. I asked the deleting editor to restore it and allow me to improve it. Then, if he still found it inadequate, to put it up for AFD and see how other editors viewed it, as a preferable alternative to taking it to this board. I edit AFD regularly, and it does not seem to me that the article was an appropriate candidate for SPEEDY deletion. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:36, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The first version of Death of Chris Currie was taken from User:Evil Monkey/murder#Chris Currie, which itself was taken from Chris Currie as of about 7 July 2006. I don't dispute that E.M.Gregory expanded the article and added some more recent references.- gadfium 01:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Permit re-creation. Eight years is a long time and standards may well have changed. The content isn't identical. It might be a good idea to merge the edit histories of Chris Currie and Death of Chris Currie if the latter is restored. Mackensen (talk) 01:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• At first glance, recreating a similar (although not totally similar) article at a different title could be read as trying to make an end-run around process. What do you say to this? Stifle ( talk) 08:09, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

It was not an attempt to make an "end-run" around a policy. I had no idea that a previous article on Currie's death had existed until my article was deleted. What I found, or thought I had found, was a section on a longer page being maintained by User:Evil Monkey/murder#Chris Currie, a page listing many murders in New Zealand. It turned up on a google search. I copied it onto the page I was creating. This was not at all clandestine, I notified UserMonkey that I was making a new article out of his Chris Currie section. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 10:38, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• • The title is compliant with current BLP practices (which didn't exist at the time), and the AfD discussion is transparently not applicable in light of the different article. Applying G4 to an article that's not substantially similar is the end run around process here. Wily D 08:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn G4 - many of the sources where printed after the AfD, meaning G4 is obviously inapplicable (the AfD is a bit hard to weigh arguments in, because it's so old, but it's mostly a NOW#NEWS argument, which must be reconsidered in light of ongoing coverage over the years). If someone wants to make an argument that it should be deleted, AfD is available. Wily D 08:24, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Wily above. But I would hope the article creator gets right back to adding the content that demonstrates its continuing relevance he talks about. As it is I can see why it might have been speedied, since it doesn't really say why this is important today (other than complaints about the perp getting such a light sentence). Daniel Case ( talk) 03:07, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Will do. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The article included references which did not exist at the time of the AFD, and as such it is manifestly unreasonable to apply CSD:G4 on this occasion. Stifle ( talk) 08:33, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Nahir Besara ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hammarby IF back in Swedish Allsvenskan, which is a fully professional league. Nahir Besara played from start in the two opening games [21]. Shmayo ( talk) 15:22, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse and allow recreation. The close was correct at the time, but since this person has since debuted in a fully professional league, the article can be re-created. Reyk _YO! 15:58, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse but allow recreation - exactly as above. The result was the right one at the time (and the nomination here doesn't seek to overturn it anyway) but the situation has changed so recreation should be allowed. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 06:41, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - delete rather than userfy is the right outcome, but only because there's no suggestion of who to userfy to. If someone wants it userfied, DRV should endorse that (or any of the chumps in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can just do it without discussion). Wily D 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC)a reply
  • I think you meant to post this next section down? Reyk _YO! 21:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • So I did. Wily D 08:14, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Centre for Women, Ageing and Media ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Deleted despite consensus to keep it 132.205.236.66 ( talk) 13:27, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- the closer did right to not give much weight to SPA accounts, personal attacks against the nominator, or baseless claims that " there must be sources out there somewhere". Reyk _YO! 13:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Userfy. Unless there's some fundamental reason which requires deletion (i.e. copyvio or WP:BLP issues), there's no harm in letting somebody continue to work on this. It needs to be understood, however, that this isn't a free ticket to recreating the article at some point in the future. The point of the userfication exercise is to address the issues raised in the AfD, and that will only happen by reading and understanding WP:RS. This also requires that somebody stand up here and say I'm willing to take this on -- RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the arguments for keeping the article consisted of personal attacks on the nominator, pointing to the existence of other articles, and appeals to things not found in our notability criteria (such as that two of their members had something to do with an unspecified select committee). The arguments against them were far stronger. There was plenty of support for userfication and I wouldn't object to that if someone wants to work on it, but I can't fault the close. Hut 8.5 17:53, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse There were no policy-based arguments for retention and apparently no sources that helped with WP:N, so endorse was the only option. But I'm fine with a userfy if someone wants to take a shot at fixing it. I'd suggest contacting RoySmith or myself before moving it back into article-space though (either will give you a good sense if sources are enough that it would stand a chance). A Google book search makes me think it's probably a notable topic, but I can't find sources that meet our sourcing requirements. Hobit ( talk) 00:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Per Hobit. Mackensen (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Closure was reasonable based on a reading of the discussion, and it is long-standing tradition that new and unregistered users will have a lower weighting. Stifle ( talk) 08:10, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - delete rather than userfy is the right outcome, but only because there's no suggestion of who to userfy to. If someone wants it userfied, DRV should endorse that (or any of the chumps in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles can just do it without discussion). Wily D 16:14, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, with no prejudice against recreation should reliable sources start taking notice of the center. An XfD participant's behavior should not be used in assessing an administrator's close unless it directly obscured or interfered with the ability to interpret consensus. However, with that out of the way, this was closed correctly. The only facially reliable source that mentions the subject (the Western Daily Press article) does so only in passing. And the keep !voters here did not really attempt to argue why we should have considered any other sources they used to be reliable. Daniel Case ( talk) 20:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Template:Maintained ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I believe there are two procedural reasons why this should not have been closed as a delete:

1. I cannot see much difference between this and the previous three TfDs, especially the other two (from 2007 and 2008) that were closed as no consensus. Pretty much the same arguments were made on both sides, in both previous TFDs, with about the same level of participation and the same spirited debate. What made the 2015 iteration different? If anyone endorses the close, I would be very interested in reading an explanation of just what, exactly, distinguishes this from the last two. And based on the remarks on the closing admin's page, I'm not alone in this confusion.
2. The original nominator this time said in before making his nomination that he'd be open to either deleting the template or rewriting it. I really think this sort of nomination should almost always be speedy closed as no consensus—if the nominator can't make up his or her mind, how should anyone expect the community to? We have enough of a problem with people listing articles at AfD who really want to force improvements to them. A deletion nomination should be an unambiguous statement that whatever is being nominated does not belong on Wikipedia ever again, not in any form.

   And here, as in the previous TfDs, editors on both sides indicated they'd be open to working toward rewriting the template. One, ATinySliver, even put possible rewrites on the page, which led one !voter to suggest that the TfD be immediately relisted with that goal in mind. That's farther than either of the other two went, yet this was closed as delete.

Overturn to no consensus or Overturn and relist Daniel Case ( talk) 05:57, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus - it's a straight Monty-Python argument "This has ownership issues" vs "no it doesn't" with no real evidence either way. Given that delete is a really pro-clique, abandon new editors in the wilderness position, more than a good headcount but no argument is necessary. Wily D 10:05, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - DRV is neither XfD round 2, nor is it for simplistic "I disagree with the result" stances. Unless actual administrator error or transgression is identified, a result should be allowed to stand. ("I have a different opinion about the strength of the delete votes" doesn't cut it) Tarc ( talk) 11:42, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- I think consensus to delete was pretty clearly established at this discussion. DRV is not for "I think people should not have voted delete" arguments. Reyk _YO! 11:55, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I didn't say that. I limited my argument to procedural questions. Obviously I have complaints about the substantive nature of the TFD, but I can't raise them here. I really don't think "endorse because the person who started this DRV is upset that he was on the losing side" is an argument that should be taken seriously by whoever closes this, or any DRV. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus - per WilyD. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:09, 10 April 2015)

• Endorse Admins have to make tough decisions sometimes, but I think he evaluated it well here. The theme of the discussion truly was, that in its current form, the template was an issue and could be misused. As was said in the closing, there is no objection to proposing new versions of the template at a village pump and gaining consensus there. Also agree with Reyk and Tarc's comments. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 14:11, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

So ... this is the logic of how we close XfDs nowadays.

• A lot of people make votes one way or the other based on a primarily emotional misreading of policy or some other specious logic, and refuse to provide factual evidence for the bad feeling they have about this, or, when the failings of their arguments are pointed out to them decide defiantly that no evidence is needed.
• There are some real issues that could be addressed without resorting to deletion.
• The XfD is closed as delete because there were so many of these !votes, with the consolation prize that we're all free to reinvent the wheel that was easily reparable without smashing it all to pieces.

I know this is often how it's done in software development, and the German Wikipedia

By the way, EoRdE6, you just implied again by using "in its current form" (a misnomer now, since the template has been deleted and has no current form) that the issues could have been remedied without recourse to deletion. Can you at least concede the issue that your nomination was half-hearted? It looks like you and I (at least) are going to have drop whatever else we're doing for a while and spend at least next week working night and day to create a new template that will replace this (and all the other similar templates you've been hunting down and nominating for deletion), so we might as well start getting along. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I didn't actually "!vote" in the last one, but I'd like to make a comment. I found the constant badgering of those who supported deletion in the original discussion to be less than desirable. Now to see another editor categorizing people as "pro-clique" who "abandon new editors in the wilderness position", well that just brings a "sigh" to my lips. That these things are done by administrators is very sad IMO. Don't get me wrong - I'm not "anti-admin", in fact some of my best friends are admins. Still, there seems to be a lot of "WP:I don't like it" going on here. (I could blue-link that - but that might be a bit of a dick move.) — Ched :  ?  14:29, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: I also support the views of User:B and Cunard below regarding a discussion of some sort of replacement. — Ched :  ?  22:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• endorse. No valid rationale for overturning given. re (1) It is not the job of the closer to evaluate previous discussions to see how much has changed, but to evaluate each discussion on its merits. Even if the discussion is broadly similar things change: consensus changes, things get older and so more out of date, other things are developed that partly or fully replace the item up for deletion. re (2) It was not speedy closed. That editors continued to discuss it in good faith on both sides of the debate shows people were happy with the parameters of the discussion. You cannot now undo all that, and say the discussion should not have happened, because you don't like the result.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 15:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am not arguing that the previous discussions should have been considered substantively (although, yes, I did allude to that). I am arguing that they were no different from this one save for how consensus was judged.

    If this was closed as delete, why weren't the earlier noms closed as delete, then? Consensus can change, to be sure, but we cannot change consensus, or at least the way we read it. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

    • 'why weren't the earlier noms closed as delete, then?' Is an irrelevant question, editors and closers need not consider the previous discussion. But to answer anyway, of the things I listed the one I think most relevant is the middle one; that things get older/out of date. One major concern raised was that many instances of the template were outdated, listing editors who not edited the article, or edited at all, in a long time, and even blocked/vanished editors. And there was no way to find these. This may not have been as apparent or as much an issue years ago.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 16:53, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
      • In that case, as I said, just delete the template from the pages in question. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
        • And find them how? You would need to check every single instance, look at the editors listed and see which were still active. And then if they were if they were still active on that page. How? Check the page and talk page history, maybe. Or you could just ask the editors and wait for their reply. That’s a lot of work just for one instance of the template, an implausible amount for all instances of it.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 17:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

" You would need to check every single instance, look at the editors listed and see which were still active" Yup. Good old fashioned elbow grease. It's how Wikipedia got built, by people doing exactly that sort of thing, before there were bots or AWB or Twinkle or Huggle or Sparkle or whatever they have now. Once you do it it's done and you don't have to keep an eye on it.

"How? Check the page and talk page history, maybe" Again, yup. If someone's been inactive for months, or years, just go ahead and remove it. And if someone's been [ banned or blocked, you have no excuse for waiting. "Or you could just ask the editors and wait for their reply" Uh, I don't think you'd have to if my suggestions above were to have been followed. If editors are still active, they can go restore it themselves.

Yes, we're lazy bastards, but that should not be an excuse for staying on the couch when we need to roll up our sleeves. It's like selling the backyard instead of cleaning it up. Daniel Case ( talk) 00:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

And some (such as me) considered this when !voting and decided the best solution was just to delete it. You may have disagreed then, you may disagree now, but DRV is not the place to rerun the debates of the original discussion.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 00:32, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I would have been happy to keep the discussion within the scope of my original discussion; for you to turn the discussion that way and then accuse me of trying for a redo here, when I tried to signal that I was very aware this wasn't the place for that, is dismaying. Daniel Case ( talk) 01:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You asked "why weren't the earlier noms closed as delete, then?", and I answered, but noting it was an irrelevant question, and it still is. I am not accusing you of anything, but the TfD was the place to discuss these matters, not here. I only raised them as you asked a direct question.-- JohnBlackburne ^words _deeds 02:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• point of order. The second reason for overturn offered is The original nominator this time said in his nomination that he'd be open to either deleting the template or rewriting it. This doesn't seem to accurately describe the nomination. Kanguole 15:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yeah I was going to mention that. My nomination said nothing about rewrites, this is really just grasping at straws. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 15:31, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    • OK, you didn't say it in your nomination, but you did say as much shortly before. I see no effort on your part to seek out people who might have been willing to collaborate with you on a rewrite before you went running off to make your nomination. Please stop trying to have it both ways. Daniel Case ( talk) 16:35, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
      • So you'll be striking that paragraph from your opening statement? Kanguole 17:01, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
        • I have appropriately amended it, yes. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Are you not embarassed to be arguing that the nomination (which you now concede was unequivocal) should have been speedy closed because of something the nominator had said elsewhere, and that this is somehow a flaw in the final close? Kanguole 08:12, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

EoRdE6 said later in the discussion that he'd be amenable to a reword. He was always of two minds about this; I do not take his nomination statement in isolation. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't see any such comment in the discussion. If you are referring to this remark made elsewhere 7 hours after the TfD was closed, we certainly can't fault the closing admin for failing to take it into account. Kanguole 17:17, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

And as for EoRdE6, would he have said this if he wasn't ambivalent? (Compare Coretheapple's militance, noted by ATinySliver further down in this discussion). Daniel Case ( talk) 00:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Uh ... Daniel ... however much my facial hair may still be singed from that wonderful little experience, I refrained from any namedropping. In addition, that statement reads as if you're saying, "Yes, I'm militant, but I'm not that militant." — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 08:01, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. There was nothing wrong with the close, and the nomination doesn't present anything that would be a reason to overturn it. The fact that previous discussions from seven and eight years ago resulted in no consensus is irrelevant as consenus can change. As to the calls for evidence repeatedly made during the discussion, evidence was provided several times and completely ignored by the two users leading the charge for evidence. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 17:27, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, if you're going to call me out, at least have the decency (or in your case courage?) to do so by name. I cannot and do not speak for Winklevi on this one, but I will say first that this came after several other editors, including myself, had produced evidence that the template had worked as designed in order to facilitate contact with non-editing readers. As for the evidence you introduced that "proves" the template was used to assert ownership, in those cases the users had engaged in other misconduct that unambiguously constituted ownership in conjunction with placing the template.

The argument you were advancing (or, more accurately, taking long running starts, tucking and giving shoulder blows to in an attempt to advance) was that the template inherently constituted ownership. The implicit counterargument, which you never bothered to address or account for as far as I can tell, is abusum non tollit usum. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Cry me a river. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 00:55, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Your biting, rude comments only reflect on you, no one else. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 01:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

LOL. I'm the problem here, not the person who has taken upon himself to reply ad nauseam to everyone he disagrees with both here and the initial request? That's precious. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 01:25, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. If we look at numbers alone, the count was approximately 44 to delete against 24 to keep (and at least three of the keep !votes were conditional). There would have to be some extremely strong arguments on the keep side to sway that strong of a numerical consensus, and we don't have that here. Both sides were basically saying "this is (not) ownership" without much evidence. In the face of that, let the numbers speak. Tavix |  Talk  18:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I said I didn't want to replay the debate here, but I do think we keep !voters offered more evidence. I certainly offered one that even some of the delete !voters admitted made the point. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• No one asked you to replay the debate. I gave my opinion that there would have to be extremely strong keep arguments to sway that strong of a numerical consensus. Sure there were "strong" keep arguments, but not enough to "negate" 20 delete !votes in my opinion. Tavix |  Talk  22:56, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm sorry, I meant that I tried scrupulously to start this discussion purely about the close, as we are instructed to do so, assuming in good faith that everyone who chose to weigh in, even those who were part of the original debate, would stick to arguing pro or con on those grounds and leave the substantive issues of the debate closed. I can see now that I was mistaken to assume that would happen (although I give you credit for at least finally addressing the closing itself in your reply). Daniel Case ( talk) 00:28, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, but with leave to discuss elsewhere - there seems to be a consensus to delete and a policy-based reason to delete, so that's fine and the decision is correct. But there seemed to be some discussion of possible alternate proposals at the end that might make sense to discuss. There are three important concerns: (1) heavily monitored/edited articles don't need anything like this template because questions on the talk page will be answered quickly by a large number of watchers. (2) It's a really good idea for someone who needs help with editing something to be able to find someone to help and leaving a message on a talk page that is not well-monitored isn't going to necessarily get them an answer. So having a list of users that have said "yes, I know about XYZ" is a good thing. (3) We don't want to imply topic ownership and we don't want to list users who are long-gone from the project. So I think it could be a worthwhile endeavor to discuss those three concerns somewhere, but as far as the deletion discussion, the correct close was made. -- B ( talk) 19:13, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation of a modified Template:Maintained after further discussion per the closing admin's closing statement:

  Even some supporting keeping felt the template's language needed editing at the very least. So with that in mind, while the result for this template is Delete, there is no prejudice against starting a discussion somewhere concerning what such language in a new template might be. (At one of the Village Pumps, perhaps?).

  This seems like the best path forward.

  Cunard ( talk) 22:25, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn I see good policy-based arguments in each direction; I do not see consensus. DGG ( talk ) 04:55, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks, Dave. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:51, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, per above. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• I think I'd have closed it as "hold an RfC and see if we can find alternate wording" but honestly it's not clear that such wording exists as many of the delete !voters are really worried about WP:OWN. The problem with deletion is that it make that status-quo "we don't have such a template" making an RfC now have a considerably higher bar. All that said, I think the close is within discretion, so weak endorse. It's not what I'd have done, but it's a reasonable read of the discussion and !vote count. I do agree the delete folks generally had a pretty weak argument ("things could go badly" about an old and well-used template) which is why I'd try to reach a different outcome. But the numbers are very strong and frankly I think they have a reasonable worry (though one I don't much share). Hobit ( talk) 08:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the initial argument here was that there were two procedural errors. The first of these is not a procedural problem as accepted elsewhere in the discussion, there is no procedure which says people have to follow some previous precedent or that the closer has to look it up. The second is that the nominator had previously mused on a different solution, again there is no process or procedure which says that is any sort of bar to listing something for discussion. With these sort of templates which are about the way we manage the encyclopedia building process there is no overriding policy of policies, it is going to very much be down to the opinions of the community currently doing the encyclopedia building, the volume of opinion is significant. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 11:04, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse for no reason other than the existence of this template is so offensive to some that it would only continue to come up for deletion—one editor was so desperate to get my alternate proposal out of his way that it was immediately recommended for hatting. (Which brings up the alternative: perhaps the currently unused {{ volunteer}} could be rewritten for this purpose?) — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 21:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

As correct as you may be (and it is very sad that we have editors who actually are offended by this template), I don't think "keep it deleted so it doesn't come up for deletion again" is a valid argument in DRV. I posed two procedural issues; only a few of the "endorse" !voters here have addressed them, and while I disagree with them I do so with respect since they did, in fact, address my arguments directly.

I do like the way you worded the volunteer template, and maybe we should just go with that as is (although I have some other ideas that I would like to consider should this deletion be sustained). Oh, BTW, surely you mean the one in your userspace rather than the one in template space? (I can't figure out what's going on in the latter) Daniel Case ( talk) 00:03, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Daniel. Valid or otherwise, that's still my argument. And you are correct in re supplanting the one in template space (which seems to serve no purpose) with the one in my user space. — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 00:15, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Note: I have nominated the template space one ( Template:Volunteer) for deletion since it's unused and just a bunch of gibberish. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 00:29, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Perfect; a proposed replacement template—a few of us have suggested alternate phrasing—could now supplant this, should the move be agreeable. Meantime, someone (no, I'm not looking it up [grin]) complained that a new template would have to be rewritten from scratch, which is inaccurate; any admin could easily retrieve the existing code from which the replacement would be built. — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 08:12, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've decided to be bold and create {{ volunteer}} per the discussions. If memory serves, {{maintained}} had additional options that I did not copy over; again, should they be needed, I presume an admin can be asked to retrieve the code. — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 20:30, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ ATinySliver: I have started a discussion at the village pump as you seem to have forgotten that the closing admin specifically stated Considering the contention in this discussion, it would probably be seen as disruptive to create such a new template by merely being bold. EoRdE6^{( Come Talk to Me!)} 20:38, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Saw it and replied, thank you for the reminder. I'll edit my reply there presently. — ATinySliver/ ^ATalkPage 20:43, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, as stated above, DRV is not TFD part two. Reading the discussion, there is definitely consensus to delete the template, and clear direction of the next step for further discussion. Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 22:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  Can we at least ask that people in DRV not use this in their arguments? I would invoke AGF but if you really think about it that's beside the point. By definition people who start deletion reviews are not going to be happy with the outcome of the deletion process in question and want it reversed. As long as they make genuinely procedural arguments and do not try to refight the XfD, participants in DRVs should address those arguments alone and not sneer that the editor who started the DRV is just trying to get a second bite at the apple. Daniel Case ( talk) 00:24, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  You can ask but you might not get acceptance. An essay does not prohibit the use of an argument which is that deletion review is a place to call attention to errors in process, not a place to express disagreement with the XFD outcome. Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I believe I was very clear in my opening statement that I wanted discussion to be limited to possible procedural errors. A few people understood that and wrote endorse !votes which addressed it and which I haven't responded to. Others assumed that I was trying to reopen the entire argument. That's a valid endorse argument if the opening statement was basically a rehash of the non-prevailing arguments; you can scroll through here and find a few of those almost all the time. But when someone has taken pains to follow DRV procedure in making their nomination it's not very good form, I think, to reduce their argument to something they were very clearly trying not to make. Daniel Case ( talk) 18:05, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• The question of whether the consensus was gauged correctly is what's material to DRV; we can comment on that irrespective of Daniel's supposed motive. Having skimmed through the discussion, I do not believe that there is a consensus here in any meaningful sense of the word. Do not regard this as a !vote to overturn the closure. Alakzi ( talk) 00:51, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - there is nothing new here that wasn't argued, repeatedly, to the point of accusations of WP:BLUDGEON, in the TFD. People contributed to a discussion where there was almost a guarantee they'd have their contribution questioned aggressively (and not particularly politely). That so many still went ahead and supported deletion is, I think, an even stronger endorsement of this result. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 11:38, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I read that as "people continued to parrot the same unsupported argument, and instead of providing supprting information when they were asked to, refused to answer or even acknowledge the request, complained about the fact that they were being asked to do so as if they were somehow exempt from the requirement, and in some cases modified their argument to say no evidence was necessary and the fact that they could come up with the argument was enough to justify deletion". But anyway ... as noted above it is insulting and impolite to assume that I started this purely to reopen the substantive issues of the TfD. I realize you're trying to make an argument that the TfD was closed correctly, but you have done so using an invalid criterion (And as anyone reading the TfD can easily discern with their own eyes, this aggressive questioning of opposing !votes was started by none other than Andy Mabbett, a strong delete supporter.) Daniel Case ( talk) 15:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

FWIW, I disagree with Stalwart111 and suspect the opposite is the case. Daniel Case, I don't think you've been an effective advocate here; one person showing up to argue at length about something facing deletion over WP:OWN issues is likely to make the other "side" dig their heels in further. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

In retrospect, I don't think they were interested in undigging their heels, to be honest. I understand that people didn't like that I asked them to elaborate further on what empirically supported their belief that the template was inherently a violation of WP:OWN, independent of any additional editorial actions. But the right to vote on something, especially something that can have a consequence in terms of action taken, carries with it the possibility of being queried about the reasons for that vote.

What other options did I have? I could have posted my own vote, perhaps a few responses here and there, and left it at that, hoping a closing admin would see the flaws in the delete arguments that you and I so clearly did (among others). I am not sure that was going to happen. Or perhaps I could have posted a very lengthy wall o' text not only stating my vote but addressing the failings of individual voters' arguments, with liberal use of {{ ping}} and {{ replyto}} throughout. I think that other people would have been complaining that that, too, was disruptive. And I think they would have been right, because that would have made the TfD even harder to review than this one was.

Responding as I did was not meant to persuade people at first—it was to get people to show their hands to better assist the closing admin in evaluating the soundness of their opinions. Sometimes, people do see how insubstantial their arguments have been, and change their position. I do not think this happened here, but I note your argument for overturning below and you would have had far less evidence to argue that point from if I had not pressed people for it. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Which is exactly what I pointed out at TFD - there were a number of comments there (and not just from me) about Daniel's conduct and his need to press every person who disagreed with him. That continued to the point of becoming the subject of humourous derision. Daniel, it's "insulting and impolite to assume" that people who contribute to the discussions you start do so without reading previous arguments, conducting their own research or analysing what they see as the "facts" of a case before contributing. You comment in response to my contribution (and that of others around that point when you were clearly frustrated that nobody was being convinced by your argument) was particularly rude. That others did the same to the far smaller group of editors who arrived to support your view is irrelevant; they should come in for the same criticism, but only one person has continued that conduct here. Oh, and the conduct of those participating in a discussion is absolutely a "valid" criteria given the closer has to wade through that poor conduct to make a determination. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 23:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Either people read things they comment on or they don't. If what they say contradicts or is contradicted by something in the record, I don't think it's intrinsically impolite to point that out (one can, of course, always do so impolitely, which is a different question).

"the closer has to wade through that poor conduct to make a determination" The same could be said of any spirited discussion here—there is always a lot of text to wade through, much of it in reply and counterreply, rebuttal and surrebutal, among dozens of editors. I think closing admins know this, and they'd tell you it just comes with the territory. Unless misconduct directly interferes with the ability to properly close—such as changing other editors !votes after things have died down but before the close, which has happened in some cases—I do not think it should be considered in DRV as there are other forums for that. It was, after all, relatively easy for myself and the other editors to come up with rough !vote tallies that more or less agreed with each other, even considering my math error. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Then you were impolite both ways. I'm not talking about "spirited discussion", I'm talking about a total lack of respect from particular editors who feel it is their duty to bludgeon the process to produce an outcome they favour. It wasn't there and it isn't here. Your commentary there was not "rebuttal" and in a few cases came close to just plain old personal attacks, as it has here. You've managed to do yourself a great disservice in two discussions now and I'm done. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 09:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn on the grounds of Chesterton's fence. The majority of the delete arguments, including the nomination, demonstrated little understanding of or interest in the way the template was actually used in practice, so considering the number of such arguments as indicating consensus is weak evidence. Opabinia regalis ( talk) 20:30, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you, Opabinia, for that link. A nice little essay. We need a shortcut for it. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:19, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse both the close and Tavix's assessment of why it should be endorsed. And I should say that I don't really see anything wrong with the template and would have !voted keep. (As an irrelevant aside, it is time that, as a community, we gave serious thought to supporting our most valued editors by affording them latitude to rule over their articles.) -- Mkativerata ( talk) 20:54, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Consensus was arrived at adequately, and assessed appropriately. Deletion review only addresses procedural errors and is not a rehearing. I would counsel User:Daniel Case to avoid WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion. Stifle ( talk) 09:38, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  Just to respond to this accusation of bludgeoning as this seems to wind down: My conduct did not reach the level described on that page, which was (it seems) meant for people who respond to each and every opposing !vote, which I didn't do (as I've documented elsewhere on this page). I would counsel in turn that the delete !voters who have chosen to comment here consider how this might have gone if all delete !voters had framed their votes the way Barek did, rather than using phrases like " Delete this OWN bait."

  Further, I reject any suggestion that my vigorous defense of the template constituted ownership. I notice that WP:OWNBEHAVIOR does not include "arguing stridently against deletion" among its examples of ownership behavior. Now, I realize that's not intended to be an exhaustive list. But I think also that it was excluded for a very good reason. To suggest that I was "owning" the template is the sort of self-serving argument I was accused of making.

  I would refer the delete !voters who ganged up on me this way (or tried to, at least) to WP:ALLARGUMENTS for reading next time they feel compelled to accuse someone of ownership or bludgeoning.

  Because to continue to throw those two around so blithely is essentially to chill debate. I know most people realize that. But when we seem to have quite a contingent here that complains about XfDs where participants "had their contributions questioned" (excuse me, it's a deletion discussion, those are !votes, not "contributions", and you better be ready for someone to question them), we may not have to worry about deletion review much anymore someday because we won't have two-sided deletion discussions. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:53, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

  You're doing it again. Stifle ( talk) 08:34, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, more or less per User:86.2.216.5's comment. I just wanted to add that, while I'm sure that Daniel Case didn't mean it as such, the constant badgering could come across as an attempt to intimidate good faith participants in the discussion. Sometimes, it's best to just state your case, and let the closing administrators sort out the good arguments from the bad ones. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 13:28, 14 April 2015 (UTC). reply
• Endorse. Nothing even the slightest bit inappropriate about the way this was decided. But there is more than a little bit inappropriate about the way Daniel Case has turned this into a crusade. First a constant hectoring of "delete" !votes, and now this? Time for him to drop the WP:STICK as the carcass is rotting by now. Coretheapple ( talk) 02:48, 15 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close, in agreement with the arguments above. This time there was a consensus to delete (muddied by the badgering of opposers, primarily by Daniel Case), perhaps due to increased sensitivity to the chilling effects of article ownership. Mini apolis 13:23, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close. Closer's summary of debate was reasoned and proper. Nothing suggested so far gives reason to suspect otherwise. No merit to re-open. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 23:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

By the numbers

I admit that's a clear majority for deletion, about 59%, but I just add that I've seen other XfDs closed as no consensus with what seemed to be wider margins for delete. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

The opening sentence of this seems to be a straw man, as far as I can see no one has said, make it a straight vote count. On your other point regarding wider margins elsewhere, that'll be because it's not a vote, so they can't be directly compared in that way. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 08:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC

See Tavix's !vote above: "If we look at numbers alone, the count was approximately 44 to delete against 24 to keep ... In the face of that, let the numbers speak". Please. I expect this sort of rushed, didn't-bother-to-read-it exegesis from a mouthbreather on some comments section elsewhere on the Internet; I do not expect it from a fellow Wikipedian. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:29, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Your extreme hostility towards anyone disagreeing with you is not doing you any favours. Reyk _YO! 15:42, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Since when is disgreement to be interpreted as hostility? Daniel Case ( talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Accusing people of lacking "decency" and "courage" is hostile. So is misrepresenting people with partial quotations, then accusing them of not reading the argument. So is relentlessly badgering everyone who disagrees with you; you've made 23 edits to this DRV and 55 to the original TfD, mostly repetitious replies disgreeing with people. That is way too much by any objective standard. Reyk _YO! 06:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

While Tavix did claim I was "twisting his words", he nevertheless offered a clarification, which I expressed my appreciation for, suggesting he retrospectively realized that he had not worded his !vote carefully enough afterwards.

So we have a quota now on how many edits a given editor can make to a discussion? Somebody please link me to that policy page. I edited that TfD 55 times, you say and I do not deny, but Coretheapple made even more edits (about 65 by my count), many of them more provocatively phrased than mine, many showing a serious failure to AGF, yet no one here is saying anything about him (Perhaps because he had the good sense not to show up; I get the feeling even the delete !voters here from that TfD do not miss him).

As for repetitious replies to people in that TfD, I have looked it over again. I made the first reply to about 20 of the 42 delete !votes ... less than half of the total of either delete !voters or my total edits to that TfD. As it became apparent to me that there was a genuine opposition to the TfD, I let other editors speak for themselves and backed away from the TfD, just stopping by to keep an eye on it, and returned to what we all like to do best around here: create and improve quality encyclopedic content.

I did not, contrary to what some delete !voters have claimed, respond with a request for evidence to every single delete !voter in the early going, when I was the only one significantly in favor of keep. I only asked those editors who said "promotes ownership" for such evidence. With other editors who raised other issues I directly addressed those issues: Andy Mabbett brought up the presence of the template on so many pages where the editor named was no longer involved in the project, I responded (as I have above) that deletion of the template was not the way to solve that problem. To Kanguole, who said it was sufficient for people to put articles on their watchlist, I pointed out from experience that many editors have allowed their watchlists to grow into the thousands, making it very possible that a query posted to an article talk page will get lost in the shuffle. And I made no response whatsoever to Barek's delete !vote because I found it to be thoughtful and considered.

So I think there's a bit more perception there than reality. Daniel Case ( talk) 07:00, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm well aware of WP:NOTAVOTE. I'm making a point that there were so many more people advocating for delete than keep that you can use that to help support the closer's rationale. This has nothing to do with "just count up the numbers." That shouldn't be the only thing an admin should do. By saying that, you're twisting my words around to make your point. If the numbers were closer, or one side had much stronger arguments than the other, you wouldn't be able to make this point. 63%, (or by my count 65%) is fairly significant, especially when you consider that three of the keeps were conditional. The next step should be finding a solution that works for everyone, not rehashing the TFD. Tavix |  Talk  15:56, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for a needed clarification (as I noted below). Of course an admin shouldn't just count up the numbers. I am not rehashing the TfD, at least not as much as some the !voters here want me to be, and I very much appreciate that you focused your argument on how the TfD was closed rather than the actual TfD. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Well I don't see if it's one person, why you'd want to pull out a whole new section where you could have discussed with the individual where they made the comment (which you did also). As he's already responded here also I won't go much further than to say your selective quoting of what he said distorts the reality of it. Your assertion that I didn't read what was said, is unfounded, so as I can see you aren't interested in honest debate I'll just leave it here -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 16:04, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

You made the assertion that no one was making an argument that we should just resort to the numbers since the policy question was a wash. I quoted Tavix. He was not quoted out of context. As a result, he provided a clarification to his earlier argument, which I appreciate. Daniel Case ( talk) 04:44, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

And you omitted the original part of his comment where he said "...extremely strong arguments ... to sway that strong of a numerical consensus", i.e. where he clearly is stating that strength of argument is a factor which can overcome numbers i.e. it's not a vote, so yes I did read it and yes your omission of that part is taking what he said out of context. When it comes down to it, I read his original comment and understood it, you apparently read it and didn't so needed further clarification. Yet you reckon it was me who failed to read it. Please keep up this rather twisted view of your own infallibility, it's making for amusing reading. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 05:50, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply

42/(42+25) is 63%. Kanguole 10:19, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Alright, I was wrong (I did the math, I realize, as if the minority vote were a percentage of the majority, not the majority as a percentage of the whole). But I still say that I've seen stronger majorities elsewhere get closed as no consensus due to weak policy arguments on their part.

And, as most of the time, the raw numbers do not tell the whole story. More on that later. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:43, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Natter Social Network ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

From the closing admin's talk page:

Sources mentioned in the AfD:

Overturn and relist.

Cunard ( talk) 00:17, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist That's quite a lot of sources to dismiss so blithely, and there was almost no discussion in the AfD of those sources. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:24, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus - I'd almost say keep, given a plethora of sources where presented and not refuted, but given the earlier discussion, a no consensus makes it easier to relist if someone really wants it deleted, but I see no reason to relist it unless we can find an actual person who thinks it should be deleted. Wily D 10:08, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist - refs added late in the game should get some discussion. Random fun fact: Twitter was speedy deleted twice in February 2007. -- B ( talk) 19:19, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist to allow for discussion of refs provided later on in the process. Calidum ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 22:20, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. This is one of those cases in which if the closing admin took the view that the sources presented late appeared "to be lacking in both breadth and depth" — a view that may very well have been correct — a !vote to that effect would have been the safer and more appropriate response. Moreover, there was only around 24 hours between Cunard's input and the close. That's not enough time to infer that the AfDs other participants had reviewed the sources and dismissed them. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 01:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Hey y'all--I don't agree with the supervote comment (I rarely do: I believe I stayed on the right side of "admin weighing argument", which necessarily involves a judgment of sorts on the quality of the sources), but it is clear that this is going toward "relist", so someone ( Daniel Case, you busy? Kelapstick?) please go ahead and close this. I think you should remove my closing comments in the AfD lest the discussion be skewed, but that's up to you.

  Cunard, thanks, as always, for your efforts in preserving encyclopedic content to the best of your judgment and your ability: that's what we're here for. My apologies for having been too quick on the draw. I could make a non-apology apology and say "sorry if you feel like...", but I see now that 24 hours is a bit on the short side. Thanks all, and relist this quickly so Cunard can get a response and Natter can...well, whatever they do. (Note the clever three-word closing phrase.) Drmies ( talk) 13:00, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Given that I !voted above, I can't close this. Daniel Case ( talk) 15:10, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

WP:IAR. Support is unanimous. Alakzi ( talk) 15:23, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Lyle Stevik ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Lyle Stevik is an unidentified body with no coverage in reliable sources other than databases of dead bodies. It was previously AFDed in January. The 2nd AFD which has recently closed as keep, I am looking to either flat out overturn and delete, or relist. If it is to relist, I hope User:BabbaQ, User:Ceradon and User:Davey2010 can better explain how they feel it meets "WP:VICTIM, WP:ONEEVENT and WP:GNG". I have already notified the closing user, User:Spirit of Eagle.

The only !voters in that discussion are the same ones in the original AFD, which User:Gourami Watcher, the article author pinged. The only additional vote was from User:Transylvanian Thunderbolt, who is more interested in having Wikipedia to promote the case than in Wikipedia itself. I believe closing the second nomination with no new voices, a "substantive procedural error", and I argue that any weight given to keep voting without reliable secondary sources to be in error too.

I have significant concerns about Gourami Watcher's dead-persons passion project. I've also AFDed articles of his which (slightly better than Stevik) have only local newspaper sources, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tempe Girl and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pemiscot County Does. I am not appealing those, but believe these articles could do with much more oversight, I certainly don't want to see articles such as Stevik promoted on the main page. - hahnch e n 20:30, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse- there is no way the AfD could have been closed with any other result. This seems to be a case of re-arguing the AfD and attacking the article creator, rather than a genuine attempt to argue that the closer got it wrong. Reyk _YO! 05:58, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• endorse, unfortunately. I think the result was utterly ridiculous, and an illustration of the absurdity of the GNG when used uncritically, but the close was in accord with the expressed opinion at the afd & could not have been different. DGG ( talk ) 04:54, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Lately I've been doing a little work on similar unsolved-mystery articles, primarily disappearances (but also Death of Elisa Lam) I have worked with Gourami Watcher on some of these and admire his dedication. But I do think some of these UIDs are better handled as list items since they have not reached more than local notability (unless we decide that inclusion on the Doe Project's pages clears that hurdle). However, I think within that field Stevik has his own notability as it is rather unusual in these cases for an unidentified decedent to leave a pseudonym behind so we can't just call them John Doe. It may not have been said out loud in the sources used, but it's rather obvious. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:57, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I was unconvinced of the argument at AFD that something is notable because a Wikipedian says so, that we trust them over reliable secondary sources. - hahnch e n 14:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

See here. DRV is not the place to reiterate arguments from an AfD. You have to focus on an argument that the closing admin misassessed the consensus, which you haven't been doing effectively. Hahn-estly (sorry about that ), if you believe it's not long-term notable, you can renominate this in a year or so's time if the level of sourcing remains the same. This is a luxury you have with XfDs closed as keep. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - The case to overturn this is made in the 2nd paragraph. I can't see how AFD works if the only participants are those that the author pings. - hahnch e n 14:32, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think "the author pinged those people, so I don't think those votes count" is a valid argument at DRV, unless those voters can be shown to be socks or newly-created SPAs. If someone is asked to participate in an AfD, as long as they are Wikipedians in good standing we have to take their !votes at face value. Daniel Case ( talk) 17:00, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm with DGG up to a point. The outcome was in accordance with the consensus and that was the only possible close ---- but at the same time, the consensus was preposterous and the conclusion was utterly wrong. Endorse, but permit early renomination so we can have a better discussion and delete this properly.— S Marshall T/ C 10:28, 13 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• There was no other reasonable way anyone could have closed the discussion, so I endorse it per DGG and S Marshall. I would also grant leave to relist at an early stage without shouts of "speedy keep, it's just been on AFD" — to the extent that's something DRV can do. Stifle ( talk) 08:12, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Imeh Usuah ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The above article was deleted on October 8, 2014 by Joe Decker as WP:BIO1E in this AfD. I think WP:BLP1E does not applies in this case. In 2007, 8 years ago there was significant coverages in multiple RS about his returned of a missing $120,000. In 2012, he received the Securities and Exchange Commission maiden integrity award. In 2014, he received a National Award Member of the Order of the Federal Republic a well-known and significant award or honor decorated by the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan making the subject of the article to meet WP:ANYBIO. I think the article is of enduring historical importance. I will be glad if the deletion can be reviewed. Thanks! Wikic¤l¤gy ^{t@lk to M£}

• Endorse. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the close. With the exception of one procedural comment which clearly mis-interpreted policy, there was unanimous consensus, citing core policies, to delete. There are some events which are so significant that a single incident can overcome BP1E concerns ( Tank Man, for example). This is not one of those events. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Given that over 300 people received the Member of the Order of the Federal Republic in September 2014 ( [22], [23]) it is not an award that is going to confer notability. He remains a non-notable person known only for one event. The close was correct and the evidence to overturn it is insufficient. -- Mkativerata ( talk) 19:35, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse sorry, but this is pretty much a textbook example of BLP1E. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 21:42, 16 April 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Neucoin is a new crypto that has the proper backing to be considered a respectable altcoin and have it's own page. Upon a brief message with the admin who speedily deleted it I was told that he believed it to be another ponzi scheme not worth noting. But in truth all currency are ponzi schemes. Trusted currency come about through people giving them out and saying it's worth X and then said people governments minting more. I put up seven links which show that the coin isn't just another ponzi scheme. If need be I can remove the word successful, that was referring to the founders, and a few other words which are quite arguably defended in the articles. Crypto is a new age thing and I think it was deleted by an admin who doesn't realize cryptos potential. Darteous ( talk) 06:05, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's customary to consult with the administrator who deleted a page before listing at DRV. The page was deleted by User:FreeRangeFrog but your contribution history doesn't include any discussions with that user. Please can you explain further? Stifle ( talk) 07:54, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

According to my talk section the admin who deleted it was User:DanielRigal. Whom I got in contact with on his talk section. It's towards the bottom of his talk page. If you want I can contact FreeRangeFrog as well. The two coins that Neu most closely resembles is BLKcoin and NXTcoin, both of which have wikipedia pages. Now I am not a professional coder/developer and am in no way paid for doing this so it isn't the most professional looking. But I do plan to work at it. And I'm sure other members of the Neu community will be interested in working on having a wikipedia page for it as well. But I figured informative information even if it's not beautifully coded is better than nothing for the time being. Darteous ( talk) 09:52, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

No, he was simply the editor who nominated it for deletion, though he has explained on his talk page why he did so. The product's "backing" or "support" is irrelevant, really. What you need to demonstrate is that the subject in question meets our inclusion criteria. That usually means providing instances of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. If you can provide as much then there might be something to consider here. Tone can be fixed, but a lack of notability can not. St★lwart ¹¹¹ 12:40, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Link to that discussion for reference. Cunard ( talk) 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse Obviously. Was the G11 tag added by DanielRigal appropriate? Yes. Was the subsequent deletion appropriate? Yes. Is this thing actually notable? I have no idea. The deletion wasn't due to a lack of asserted importance. It was the tone of the article that got it deleted. The creator makes the argument that we simply don't know how important Neucoin is, but that's not the point of the DRV since that's not the reason it was deleted. I would have had no problem restoring this to draft, sticking an AFC banner on top and letting them work on it if they had asked me in the first place. But here we are. So the question is, is Neucoin actually notable? The sources in the article to me indicate it isn't, because aside from links to its own website and one Techcrunch article, it included coverage by sources that do little more than discuss cryptocurrency. If we're discussing notability and this was at AFD, I'd be looking for wider and deeper coverage than what was originally there, which is a hallmark of the truly notable subjects in this area like Dogecoin or Primecoin. If the creator can provide that and there is consensus that it's enough then I guess restoration can move forward. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:13, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, G11 was right on the money. I very much doubt that this particular altcoin will qualify for an article any time soon, given the paucity of care on the Internet from those unaffiliated with it. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 14:43, 8 April 2015 (UTC). reply

• Endorse but restore and stubify. Google cache for non-admins: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FNeucoin.

  Deletion under {{ db-spam}} was within discretion because of the article's tone:

  The coin has a number of financial and coding advisers to make sure things are done well. Neucoin is quickly gaining acceptance in the PoS community. The coin was worked on for a year before being announced to the public.

  For any wishing to join/learn more about the community they should go to the forum. http://forum.neucoin.org/

  But I would have preferred that the reviewing admin just stubify the article (e.g. the first sentence is not promotional; the first few sentences are fine). For example:

  Neucoin is a new cryptocurrency that was first announced in February 2015. It is a fork from Peercoin and is thus a PoS (Proof of Stake coin) that pays interest as you stake it. Its presale is to start April 2015 and last one month, its initial price will be one cent. The currency is expected to launch in the summer of 2015. The currency has a team of ten founders of backgrounds in various industries, as well as a million dollars in investment from angel investors.

  is fine with some copyedits I did.

  Here are the sources I found about the subject:

  1. Dillet, Romain (2015-02-03). "NeuCoin Is A Bitcoin Alternative Designed For Microtransactions". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2015-04-09. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  2. Reader, Ruth (2015-02-03). "NeuCoin raises $2.25M to be a headache-free take on Bitcoin". VentureBeat. Archived from the original on 2015-04-09. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  3. Rizzo, Pete (2015-02-03). "Uber, Hotwire Execs Back Micropayments Startup NeuCoin". CoinDesk. Archived from the original on 2015-04-09. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  4. Fletcher, Katherine (2015-02-12). "Altcoin Profile: NeuCoin". CoinReport. Archived from the original on 2015-04-09. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  5. Suberg, William (2015-03-26). "NeuCoin Whitepaper Outlines the Math Needed for Proof-of-Stake to go Mainstream". CoinTelegraph. Archived from the original on 2015-04-09. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  6. Suberg, William (2015-04-03). "NeuCoin Whitepaper Reignites Proof-of-Work vs. Proof-of-Stake Debate". CoinTelegraph. Archived from the original on 2015-04-09. Retrieved 2015-04-09.
  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow NeuCoin to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard ( talk) 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• TechCrunch and VentureBeat are sources from outside the cryptocurrency community, indicating that the subject is notable. Cunard ( talk) 00:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse given the googlecache version then yes the article was promotional and would have needed a pretty fundamental rewrite. As always with such deletions that's about the version which was deleted and isn't indicative of if a decent version could be written. It's up to those wanting such and article to write the decent version. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 11:06, 11 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thank you for that information Cunard I will do a rewrite. Is it best to ask FreeRangeFrog to give me what I already wrote up back and do extensive editting/adding or would it be better that I do an entirely new write-up. Sorry that I did not go to you first Freerangefrog, I am new to Wiki and didn't see anywhere saying who the person who deleted it just the post on my page from DanielRigel. Also I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. I was a bit busy and got two blocks put on my IP, for my using a VPN and I didn't have time to read through how to remove them. Darteous ( talk) 09:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• I created a stubified version at Draft:NeuCoin. I ask the closing admin to history merge Neucoin and Draft:NeuCoin and move the article to NeuCoin (capital "C").

  Darteous, feel free to contribute to the draft at Draft:NeuCoin but remember to keep Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability in mind. Cunard ( talk) 00:00, 14 April 2015 (UTC) reply

CardFlex, Inc. ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Would you relist Wikipedia:CardFlex, Inc for further discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee360 ( talk • contribs)

• Note the lister here did request more detail from the deleting admin here I didn't see a particular response to that. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 16:26, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Also suggest speedy close to this review, and salt the title. If it were not for the history of this article being deleted three times, and the fact that the nominator here is a WP:SPA with an obvious WP:COI, I might have been convinced that the AfD didn't see a lot of discussion and a relist might be reasonable. But, that's not the case here. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 6 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Deletion review is a venue to bring forward arguments or indications that the deletion process has not been properly followed. It is not a location to express or ventilate disagreement with a deletion decision, nor a second bite at the cherry when the discussion didn't go your way. Stifle ( talk) 07:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse As AFD nominator. The company isn't notable, and the creator is apparently trying to right a great wrong with this article. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 17:25, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as the nominator hasn't returned to give any more detail as to what the reason for review is. To address some of the points raised on the deleting admins talk page, my summary of the arguments presented and responses (1) "It's notable as it processes a large value of transactions and has patents" - notability on wikipedia isn't defined in those terms, the potentially relevant standards are WP:CORP or WP:GNG, in both cases notability is evidenced by significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources - if the world thinks the value of transactions and the patents are important they would have taken note and written about them, wikipedia follows not leads in that regard. (2) "The industry as a whole doesn't get much coverage but we have mentions in places and here's a 'notable' source http://www.bestprepaiddebitcards.com/cardflexs-student-prepaid-debit-card-are-providing-universities-and-students-with-both-financial-facility-security/" per point (1) if the industry in general doesn't receive much coverage it suggests the world doesn't take much note i.e. not notable. Also per point (1) it is significant coverage required passing mentions aren't an indication of notability and the source given is not useful, it is little more than a press release and indeed it's sole source is stated as such, these aren't independent coverage or secondary sources. (3) "There are these other pages on companies we think are less notable, so why can they have a page but we can't" - This is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, there are multiple problems with this - (i) your judgment of what's notable given doesn't align with wikipedia's so in that light the other entities may indeed be notable (your idea that a defunct company would stop being included is strange, we aren't a business directory but an encyclopedia...) (ii) As you have articles get created by a number of people over time, when they come to the volunteers attention they may get improved, ignored or nominated for deletion, we provide no guarantee as to when that will happen (iii) and a ruck of other reasons listed in the link I pointed to. Finally not one of your arguments but as suggested by previous commenters it appears you have some sort of conflict of interest in this matter, and so we don't suggest you attempt to create/edit about this subject your self, in fact doing so might be against out terms of use. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 21:04, 7 April 2015 (UTC) reply
• ""I wish to seek further clarification regarding the decision to delete the entry on CardFlex and, if necessary, appeal this decision by whatever means are available at Wikipedia.

I would also like to address the reasons cited for its dismissal.

1. “An article…apparently created only to document a lawsuit brought by the FTC against it and other companies. While the incident itself might be notable, the company is not.”

Why would a company want to publicize a lawsuit brought against it on one of the most popular websites online? This is certainly not the reason the company decided to create a Wikipedia entry. As for the company not being ‘notable’; as it states in the ‘keep’ post, it is a company with $4 billion in annual transactions, and one that is an innovator of patented automated equipment used in the merchant processing industry. If these achievements were not detailed as much as they could have been, it is only because we did not want to cross the line from objective information into marketing or promotion.

2. As far as I could find, the only Reliable Source coverage this company has received was about the fraud case - in which they were one of several companies involved and not the principal. This item even suggests that they are no longer allowed to provide card processing services, which appears to have been their main line of business. If the above statements about the company's notability could be documented by Independent Reliable Sources, I would reconsider.

First, the suggestion that CardFlex no longer provides card processing services is incorrect. As to reliable source coverage, you must understand that this is not an industry that, as a whole, garners much in the way of media attention. There are mentions of the company on pages belonging to Visa, to the BBB and to the US Patent office; there was wider media coverage of the FTC suit in a number of publications online and off.

Lastly, the idea to create a CardFlex page for Wikipedia was inspired by the number of companies of all sizes and types already listed on the site.

We cannot understand why CardFlex is being perhaps held to a higher standard than some other companies with entries now on Wikipedia. These include:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberforth_Smaller_Companies_Trust http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myers_Motors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabertooth_Games

In the last example above, the company is now defunct, but its Wikipedia entry remains.

There are many other examples that could be cited of companies that are arguably less notable than CardFlex. Given that reality, it is hard not to view this rejection as a result of the FTC action, and the bias of an editor.

Please advise on how this decision may be appealed. """ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Renee360 ( talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• You're already appealing the decision, and the appeal is looking unlikely to be upheld.
  All articles stand or fall on their own merits and we're unable to draw parallels with other articles which weren't deleted. Stifle ( talk) 14:42, 8 April 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, request to relist does not explain why and only procedural arguments matter here. Daniel Case ( talk) 06:24, 9 April 2015 (UTC) reply