If you came here because you were recruited here( archived URL), please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes. However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end. Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst: spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst: canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst: csm|username}} or {{subst: csp|username}}.

Mass killings in capitalist regimes ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

• Unsalt; allow recreation - The article has been improved since the previous attempts that judging by the deletion discussions, didn't use the best sources, may have violated NPOV, and other criteria. I'm willing to devote time, with others' help, to making an article up-to-par with the Mass killings under communist regimes one. There are flawed arguments from those against the article in the deletion discussion, such as equating free markets with capitalism, which is erronous. I also put a newpage template on the last-deleted attempt, to give it time to develop, and I was quickly making it up-to-par with Wikipedia standards. I'm very willing to have a constructive discussion with community regarding this article that continously gets deleted. We asked the user who deleted it, and he said to post here. Thanks. Socialistguy ( talk) 16:11, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt; allow recreation - I too support the restoration of this article. I am a little surprised that it was deleted and salted. It is obviously NOTABLE, VERIFIABLE, it does not contain OR, it is not presenting subject matter with UNDUE WEIGHT, nor is it presenting a FRINGE theory. It is not a SOAPBOX, nor is it a POVFORK any more than the same similar article concerning socialist regimes. I think that upon fair-minded consideration the community will realize that perhaps the prevailing dominant political culture has injected itself into the debate in an unfair way in this instance. This happens to be a fairly serious matter, since the subject matter concerns war, mass killing and genocide. I hope that people take the Wikipedia Pillars and other community values of integrity seriously in considering this matter. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 17:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - I deleted the latest incarnation, which has actually been under a couple of names, including Mass Killings under capitalist regimes and Mass killings in capitalist regimes, which seemed an attempt to bypass the WP:SALTing of the first. I salted the second. I recommended the users user AFC but that is backlogged. Userfying or putting in draft space might be acceptable if it was trimmed back and actually worked on with policy in mind. I can't see just undeleting over the AFD happening, but if the users had the ability to try to rehabilitate the article first out of mainspace, then come here, I would support that. This came to us thanks to a group at Reddit, and there is a lot of passion, but I would warn the users that passion can be problematic at Wikipedia: we are interested in facts, not social justice. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - Dennis Brown, which of the two namespaces do you recommend we use for this specific case? Socialistguy ( talk) 17:37, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment I did save a version of the article in my sandbox, but the content was not authored by me. I wonder if this issue can be resolved with a few small changes. For instance, retitling it, or adjusting the focus of the lead. Perhaps changing "capitalist" to "liberal" or "classical liberal." Perhaps changing "regime" to "governments" or "administrations" Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 17:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment - AfC is not terribly backlogged (in fact it's working decently if not as expediently as the advocates would like). I also question the disruptive point making that appears to be happening with respect to the parallel "Mass killings in Comunist regimes". Hasteur ( talk) 17:56, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I will leave to the powers that be (the community here) to decide which method, if any at all. As for the cut and paste copy in your sandbox, that is actually violating copyright. You can't copy text that way, you aren't giving credit to the people that actually did the work, and claiming it as your own. You probably want to get rid of that, since it is against policy. I'm not taking sides, I'm just saying that you need to do it right if you are going to do it at all, with right being defined as "within Wikipedia policy" since they own the servers we all use. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 17:59, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you. My main concern is preserving the content. Can I be sure that it exists somewhere before I delete it? Also, I think "...liberal democratic governments" would be the most appropriate title if it is allowed to return. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 18:03, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You can save it on your own computer, but don't copy and paste from it back here (admin can see all deleted data and edits to compare). As far as titles, I have no opinion, but will note that a title that seems to inflame is a prime target for deletion. Again, this is all assuming. The community may dismiss and choose to not allow the article to be restored and moved. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:10, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Dennis Brown, do you have further advice about what the supporters can do about users with clear political bias who don't provide sources for their erronous claims, make logical fallacies, and who continue blocking our legit efforts? They're not following Wikipedia's standards, especially Tarc. Socialistguy ( talk) 17:39, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

One thing I'm not going to do is getting in the middle of a pissing match with Tarc. I've not had any bad experienced with him personally, so can't offer an opinion, but naming "enemies" at this stage makes people want to oppose the undeletion to even begin with. I'm staying neutral on it since I did the deleting, but I recommend embracing those that disagree with you instead of fighting with them. Otherwise, you are headed for trouble. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 20:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I have removed it from my sandbox, and I have it stored on my computer. But I still am not a contributor to its content at this point. Any person wanting to see it can message me. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 19:20, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Article temporarily undeleted for review - latest version here. JohnCD ( talk) 20:21, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for that. The talk page discussion is also accessible. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Can we move the last version to Draft:Mass killings under liberal democratic governments so we can work on it? I made a formal request which is visible on the talk page. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 20:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• That is what this discussion is being asked to decide. JohnCD ( talk) 21:16, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I think there is a nugget within the proposed article which we can work with, and I think Youknowwhatimsayin's proposal to create an article entitled Mass killings under liberal democratic governments is that kind of compromise which, through the right editors, a solid article can come about. Skywalker Kush ( talk) 19:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore to draft for rework; when completed, relist at AfD. The present version is unacceptable and would certainly be deleted at AfD: it fails WP:SYNTH: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources" by attempting to lump together under the umbrella heading "Mass killings in capitalist regimes" events as disparate as Hiroshima, the Boer War, the Khmer Rouge, race riots in the USA, Duvalier's Haiti and various famines from Brazil to China. I get the impression that the authors have simply collected together all and any deaths and disasters in the non-communist world, right down to an individual assassination in Burkina Faso. An acceptable article would have to be more tightly focused, and show that other sources have discussed the subject as a whole, not just the individual components. JohnCD ( talk) 20:24, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I have changed my mind, after reading the discussion and re-reading the article, and will post a revised !vote below. JohnCD ( talk) 09:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Sorry Im a bit confused. I want to see what article history there is that isnt on the current title, if any. Mass Killings under capitalist regimes is perhaprs a typo, as I dont see any deletions there. Also commenting that I have no previous association with this article, but I do remember the notorious Communist genocide and I assume this is related. — Soap — 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• There was a rather less all-embracing article on the same lines in 2010, deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under Capitalist regimes. I think temp-undeleting that would only cause confusion: the present article is the one under discussion. I understand its intention to be a counterpart, or counterblast, to Mass killings under Communist regimes, JohnCD ( talk) 21:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• And there was another deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mass killings under capitalist regimes (2nd nomination). JohnCD ( talk) 22:00, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment My proposal is to rename it Draft:Mass killings under liberal democratic governments or Political violence under liberal democratic governments (this would be consistent with the category "Political violence"). But I think to be fair, the communist account should also be renamed so as to avoid the word "regime" too. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 20:33, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt; allow recreation I feel that if one article on Communism can exist based on the spurious findings in the Black Book of Communism, then there shouldn't necessarily be a problem with the article at hand. What I've seen looked to be well cited. Chomsky is definitely an expert in this field, as are several of the other cited sources. The deletion talks also comes off as incredibly personally biased by some that disfavored even mere discussion of the topic at hand. Sheeeeeeep ( talk) 21:02, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Question: In the last form of the article, it said that capitalist regimes "refers to those countries who declared themselves to be capitalist states". Can anyone name a country that declared itself to be a capitalist state? St Anselm ( talk) 21:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

StAselm, I don't recall that. The copy I saved says "refers to those countries who declared themselves to be capitalist states under the liberal economic, democratic, or imperialistic definition (in other words, "capitalist states") at some point in their history." Socialistguy ( talk) 10:08, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I think your question arising supports my view that we should rename it "Mass killings under liberal democratic governments" and remove the 'self-proclaimed' part of the definition. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 21:29, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

In some countries "Liberal Democratic" has a more specific meaning - certainly in the UK, and probably other European countries, there are parties who describe themselves as "conservative" or "socialist" in contrast to Lib Dem. Perhaps just "Democratic"? Or "Non-communist" which I think is what this is really about? JohnCD ( talk) 21:49, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

If Nazi Germany is going to be included, it would have to be "non-Communist". But that's a very tenuous thing for all those regimes to have in common, and it wasn't their not-being-Communist that led to the killings. St Anselm ( talk) 22:12, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am talking about the meaning of "liberal" that is well known and accepted among scholars and academics, not the popular, or self-proclaimed "Liberal" political parties. In general, we are talking about both classical and social liberals, that is that they agree on things like separation of church and state, free market capitalism, limited government, etcetera. This is Wikipedia, we should be mature enough and scholarly enough not to be dragged down into the popular conceptions of "liberal." Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 23:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. At this point, if there was an AfD, I would !vote delete, not because of WP:POINT (which was the reason for the original deletion) but because of notability and synthesis concerns - it has not been demonstrated that what these different killings have in common is being non-Communist in nature. Moreover, if that cannot be demonstrated here, I see little point in allowing the re-creation of the article just so it can be nominated for deletion. If reliable secondary sources can be found demonstrating the notability of the subject as a whole, I would be very happy to allow the article. St Anselm ( talk) 00:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

StAnselm, it's been shown that the killings were done to maintain the capitalist regimes, like a certain amount of the killings by communist states were done to prevent the return of capitalist production relations. What source has the right to decide whether it's notable-enough to write about? Why's it notable-enough to write about killings in communism, and not in capitalism? Please explain. Socialistguy ( talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Please see WP:WHATABOUTX. The article on communist killings can be judged on its own merits, and stands or falls on its own references. The existence of that article doe not automatically imply the necessity for this one; there is no reason to suppose that things are equally balanced. For example, (if I can refer to something even more controversial), there is a consensus here that anti-abortion violence is a notable topic deserving its own article, but that pro-abortion violence is not. We don't have to be "equally balanced" in that sense - we follow the reliable, independent sources. It may well be that communist killings have more coverage in reliable sources than capitalist killings. In any case, I would like something more concrete than the assertion "it's been shown..." St Anselm ( talk) 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

StAnselm, I looked at the abortion case, and it seems like there's no pro-abortion violence article due to the lack of violence motivated by anger against pro-life people. There may be more sources discussing communist killings because they were written (not to mention the anticommunist bias often based on false facts) by those who grew up in capitalist countries and have been educated to dislike communism (again, often based on misinformation), because implementing a communist government would overthrow the ruling class, and you and I know very well that rulers don't want to be overthrown. The capitalism article, though, discusses violence committed to maintain the economic system facilitating accumulation of capital from property ownership, which has been as plenty as with communism, if not more. This has been shown multiple times. If you look at the archived page, you can see plenty of cases in which regimes maintaining capitalism used violence to maintain the system. I don't know what more evidence you want to see. Socialistguy ( talk) 15:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt; allow recreation. This article certainly has potential to become just as good (or bad?) as the Mass killings under communist regimes article, provided the right editors are on task. There are various sources on the subject matter available. – Zumoarirodoka _(talk) ^(email) 01:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Like "White History Month" or "involuntary celibacy" (too soon?), these are not things in and of themselves but rather concocted, point-making exercises in synthesis and original research. No amount of work or editing will make a fringe pejorative into an actual thing, so, no reason to un-salt. Tarc ( talk) 01:28, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tarc, why is an article about killings in communism not a fringe pejorative, but one on capitalism is? Socialistguy ( talk) 10:19, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Because murder, torture, "disappearances" and so have been the hallmark of totalitarian police states for the last century? What is routine is listworthy, what is the exception is not. Tarc ( talk) 12:25, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tarc, so murder, torture, and disappearances haven't occurred in comparable numbers in capitalist countries, regardless of how democratic their governments claimed to be? Do you have sources proving that these events don't occur in capitalist countries at the degree at which they happened in nominally communist ones? Socialistguy ( talk) 15:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

No, they have not, and I have little desire to engage further with an editor whose very username suggests a degree of bias in the topic area. so consider my previous response the final one. Tarc ( talk) 16:26, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tarc, please don't resort to arguments possibly classying as ad hominem, and you're also showing anticommunist bias. You also didn't respond to my inquiry about sources. You made a claim with no evidence, going against Wikipedia's standards, despite me having asked you to. Socialistguy ( talk) 17:27, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to provide sources for simple incontrovertible facts that police states...from North Korea to the USSR to Cuba...run by dictators have murdered far more of their own civilians than any "capitalist" nation has. It's about as asinine as being asked to "prove" that Islamists commit more acts of terror than Christians. Now kindly do not ping me again, or I will just disable it. Tarc ( talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tarc, do you know that sources publishing death toll numbers for communist states have been debunked as exaggerated? Your argument's invalid due to this fact. Socialistguy ( talk) 17:55, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Ahh, so you're a genocide denialist? Yea, we're definitely done here. Tarc ( talk) 17:58, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Tarc, no, you're the one denying violence of capitalist regimes. Socialistguy ( talk) 19:22, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt; allow recreation -Verifiable and accurate. It could be argued it exists to make a point, but no more than the same page for communist governments. To maintain neutrality, either both or neither can exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zellfire999 ( talk • contribs) 01:54, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt; allow recreation - I think that a lot of the semantic arguments regarding the title or content are being raised by people who are unfamiliar with the subject matter. A lot of the arguments regarding WP:SYNTH are unfounded, especially because there have been notable authors who have in fact lumped these many disparate global events together: see Le Livre noir du capitalisme, culture of capitalism, dependency theory, etc. A cursory search on Google Scholar finds thousands of sources that describe the nature of capitalism (especially its faults) from a global perspective. This article's existence will help fight against Systemic bias. Anti-capitalist literature, research, and views is very prominent in the developing world, and it makes sense that those in the west would be unfamiliar or even hostile towards acknowledging its existence. I didn't get a chance to see the article prior to it being deleted, but to say that it's impossible to write a properly sourced article on the subject seems ridiculous.-- JasonMacker ( talk) 05:06, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Once again, there are very few actual sources being offered. Of the three WP articles you linked to. Only the first - the book Le Livre noir du capitalisme - mentions death tolls. But that book has an obvious POV, so we come back to the issues of neutrality, notability, and synthesis. St Anselm ( talk) 05:17, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

StAnselm, do books discussing the death-toll of communism not have obvious POVs? I can probably find more sources, but judging the POV of a source can be arbitrary. Socialistguy ( talk) 10:23, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, essentially as per User:Tarc. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:09, 1 September 2015 (UTC). reply

Comment - Lankiveil, why do you support Tarc if s/he continues making claims without sources? Socialistguy ( talk) 17:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt; allow recreation Every single argument for the existence of Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes also applies to this page. Delete them both, or keep both. The only reason for just deleting this one is political bias. The existence of states using the capitalist economic system is an accepted fact by all reputable scholars. PcZazcWpz5J77GTIiNNN ( talk) 18:24, 1 September 2015 (UTC) — PcZazcWpz5J77GTIiNNN ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. reply

• Endorse deletion this article has already been deleted twice, in 2010 and again in 2012 because someone kept recreating it, and this version was only created by altering the title to get around salting. The barrier for recreation should therefore be set quite high, as otherwise we're having another AfD on the topic every few years just because someone can't drop the stick. The article in anything like its current form is highly unencyclopedic as it consists of a huge pile of synthesis. Loads of incidents where anyone died in or because of a nominally capitalist country have been shoehorned in, from the Holocaust to the fate of indigenous Americans, including incidents where nobody was intentionally killed and one purported example where nobody appears to have died at all. It has obviously been recreated as a WP:POINTy attempt to protest the existence of Mass killings under Communist regimes, as can be seen from the comments above and from the fact that several sections ("Terminology", "Proposed causes" and "Inclusion of famine as killing") have been lifted wholesale from that article. There isn't anything worthy of consideration. To anyone who does actually want to write an encyclopedic article on this topic I would suggest starting from scratch in a draft and then bringing it here for review. Hut 8.5 21:20, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Much of this content will be back, with a serious re-work. I would like to preserve the edit history. But, we can do a substantial reset. The name will be changed to focus on "liberal democracies" and it will be rebuilt from the ground up. I would like to do so in a way that is acceptable to the community, but I think we have to admit, that there is at least a little systemic bias going on here. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 05:36, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

If the content is going to be rewritten from scratch then you don't need the edit history, if it's not going to be rewritten from scratch then I don't think the next version would be good enough. I don't see any systematic bias here, I see someone writing a lousy article in an attempt to prove that Wikipedia has systematic bias and then protesting loudly when it gets deleted for being a lousy article. Hut 8.5 06:08, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion - It simply doesn't meet any form of WP:COMMONNAME, and is an intentionally WP:POINTy attempt to redress the Mass killings under Communist regimes. Yes, it's understood that the way "Communism" is used can be the equivalent of a sloppy catch-cry, but "Capitalism" isn't even a political ideology: it's an economic system, and currently is the global economic system. Please try to find some real teeth for real articles, otherwise you're going to be WP:SNOWballed over and over again. Wikipedia is not a venue for righting great wrongs. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 04:10, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

This is why my proposal is to move the content to Mass killings under liberal democracies. I would like to do so properly, preserving the edit history. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 05:07, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

"but "Capitalism" isn't even a political ideology: it's an economic system" Economics is politics. The attempt to distinguish the two is an exercise in ideology. -- Quadalpha ( talk) 23:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Nope. It takes a knowledge of political theory and economic theory. This is why this proposal doesn't stand a chance: those making disgruntled noises about unsalting don't even understand the most fundamental difference between academic disciplines and are reliant on POV SYNTH, CHERRY PICKING, OR, and flagrant disregard for the very premise of Wikipedia as an encyclopaedic resource. Of course everything is political! Everything is sexual. Everything depends on the cultural, gender related and economic circumstances any individual inhabits/is victim of or has the privilege of benefiting from in whatever nation-state they live in. Everything exists within the context of any given era in human civilisation. Trying to get a "yeah, but" article off the ground based on such a simplistic platform is the stuff of blogosphere. Isn't anyone even interested in analysing whether the alleged "communist" states/nation states have ever even met with fundamentals of the theory? There's solid scholarly research into such questions, but it seems to have eluded the 'here to right great wrongers'. Approach me with 'yeah, but' challenges and I'll respond with the same. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:18, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The "very premise" of Wikipedia is based on citations of published academic work. That has its problems, sure. But who on earth are you to decide which bits of published, peer-reviewed (etc.) work is worthy of Wikipedia as an "encyclopaedic resource" and which is not? The alleged NPOV of Wikipedia is predicated on the alleged POV of scholarship. You don't get to pick and choose. -- Quadalpha ( talk) 22:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

??? The point is that I'm not "one to decide" (sic). The question being posed is that of the creation of an OR retort to another article. Under those circumstances, the WP:CHALLENGE is on those who want to create such an article (an OR retort) to provide RS for an article that meets WP:COMMONNAME and, most importantly, WP:TITLE. You're presenting an 'I like it' argument that doesn't fulfil any of the basic requisites for inclusion, and contravenes WP:CHERRY and WP:SYNTH. Unless it can be substantiated that such an article is warranted outside of WP:COATRACK issues, I have no more to say on the issue. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:38, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. Even the final versions admits that the best scholarly academic arguments for this are simply by mass-merging all sorts of loosely defined situations of murder and mayhem and calling those countries capitalists and thus being added to this list. Reviewing the "Terminology" section of this version, there is no source for the term "Capitalist regime" (which is pretty important to know what's qualifies and what doesn't) but instead there's a mix of synthesis of sourcing for various types of mass killings (which isn't really the debate) with a single alleged form of mass killing that would be on point: "Capitalist holocaust" which has a unsourced massive BLP violation but otherwise is a neologism sourced to a "Peter Cohen" and sourced to this blog from 2013 and thus not a reliable source. People need to present here some evidence of a reliable secondary source that actually discusses this topic as a whole rather than people just making up what constitutes this topic. Otherwise any recreation may consists of 0.1% useful information and 99.9% junk and the junk is pure ridiculous junk. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:48, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Looking at the arguments for deletion so far, I think it would help debate considerably if users could specify what kind of evidence they w

ould consider good enough to show that the article is relevant. Otherwise we'll just go around in circles. If we don't want this thread to be full of people giving long explanations that don't meet the standard of evidence expected, and people responding with equally long explanations of why they don't think it's good enough, then we need to set the terms of the debate. So, two questions from me. ONE, what level of interest is needed for an article to be notable? (ie how many people need to be interested in it and how strongly?). TWO, what kind of evidence is needed to support either view (ie what would demonstrate that the level of interest is either too low or too high for the article to be notable?). Personally, I found the content of the article useful and will be saving a copy so I can read it after deletion! But I do recognise that wikipedia isn't just for me - it's a community resource and needs a community decision :) 212.250.154.206 ( talk) 10:09, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion The points put forward by StAnselm I find the most convincing. - kosboot ( talk) 12:15, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt; allow recreation. StAnselm's argument is not valid. Not everything that is not communist is capitalist. Capitalism is a very well-defined ideology. bogdan ( talk) 12:32, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Capitalism is not an ideology. The main problem with this article is that its title lies about what it actually is, which is not "killings in capitalist countries" (and the suggestion above to re-target it to "...liberal democracies" is just as problematic, but. What the creator(s) of this thing want it to be is Mass killings in non-Communist countries; that would be the honest title of what the subject matter is, but if it were named that then it'd be more of a slam-dunk deletion than it is now. You don't concoct a subject to simply be the negation of the one that you do not like, this sort of thing was tried years ago by those who hated the Israeli apartheid article. We had a spate of Jordanian apartheid, Saudi Arabian apartheid, Cuban apartheid, and so on. All were deleted or at best redirected/re-targeted, their creators topic-banned or chose to "retire" for their grand point-making disruption. Tarc ( talk) 12:52, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• "Capitalism is not an ideology." This is about as pure an ideological statement as is possible. -- Quadalpha ( talk) 23:28, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• The only people who think that is an "ideological statement" are the ones who think wearing a Che Guevara t-shirt is still edgy. Tarc ( talk) 12:24, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I will not be carrying on this discussion since you have forfeited any claim to good faith in resorting to name-calling. -- Quadalpha ( talk) 22:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

You have yet to interject anything meaningful into this discussion, so your withdrawal will not leave much of a mark. Repeating "no it isn't", no it isn't" several times to several editors like this is some Wikipedia version of The Argument Sketch has thus far been unhelpful. Tarc ( talk) 23:26, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Folks, we're getting bogged down in all the wrong issues here. Yes, the world is not so simple as "communist/capitalist." In fact there are at least eight political cultures that can be used to describe all politically motivated activity (anarchism, oligarchy, tory corporatism, classical liberalism, social liberalism, democratic socialism, communism, and fascism). We could, and probably eventually should, respond to all of them. This account of political cultures is consistent with other organization of articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. Ideally, there should be all the same articles under all eight of these political cultures. My proposal is to preserve the edit history of the original article, move it to "Mass killings under liberal democracies" and pair the content down to what can reasonably be agreed to. Under this proposal, the "unsalt" proposal is irrelevant. My main concern is preserving the edit history out of respect to the people who put in a lot of work. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 13:34, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  Unsalting is exactly at stake if you want to preserve that article history and create a new article, even if under a new name. The key question is whether that article is worth salvaging, and if it is reasonably possible to make an unbiased articled based on it. Those are the only points up for debate. If not, then you would have to start from scratch, in user space, then submit that article here for review. Changing the name doesn't change the fact that is the same article. That is why I salted this article, because the version before it that had a slightly different title was salted. I was just extending the salt to the new title. Nothing grows where the ground is salted, my friend. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 18:21, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unsalt; allow recreation - Now that I can see the article history, I don't really see a good rationale for removing this article. I'm aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, but as long as the Mass killings under Communist regimes article is still out there I think it's very difficult to make a consistent, neutral argument against this one. Realistically I think that both articles are inclined to POV problems and inherently prone to WP:SYNTH, but in such a situation I think the best answer is to provide more information, rather than restrict what articles can be written. I think given the aggressive anti-Communist bent of Western media (outside of certain academic circles) there is a legitimate WP:BIAS issue here that overrides the 'other stuff' argument- anything appearing to be a critique of capitalism has extra hurdles to get over in terms of getting a neutral hearing in the Western media, despite the fact that these critiques have been part of mainstream political discourse in numerous countries for close to 100 years now. -- Spasemunki ( talk) 23:23, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't see how it is possible to say that this article has POV problems, but some how the "Mass killings under communist regimes" does not. The subject matter is worthy of inclusion in WP, it is just a matter of organizing it properly, and accounting for all sides of the issue. 2602:306:8034:C990:881C:C7F2:E827:BE13 ( talk) 06:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

... which is exactly what I said: that both articles have POV issues and unsalting this one provides better balance. -- Spasemunki ( talk) 05:02, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Spasemunki: Try reading Wikipedia policy: WP:WEIGHT and WP:GEVAL. Wikipedia is not tit-for-tat. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 06:14, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm familiar with both those policies. I think in this particular case that the broader issue of systemic bias against critiques of capitalism because of publication bias in the West that restoring this article is a better solution than forbidding further writing on this topic. Maybe my exchange with 2602:306:8034:C990:881C:C7F2:E827:BE13 above is just a case of unintentional violent agreement. -- Spasemunki ( talk) 00:44, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The only way to redress systemic bias is to write good articles based on RS, not by creating trashy SYNTH/COATRACK rebuttals in order to make a POINT. Wikipedia is a long term project, not means for making up quick fixes as you go. Any such attempts are going to blow up in the 'good intentions' editors' faces (rightly). Good intentions do not necessarily end up in good outcomes. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 01:16, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse this appears to be a synthesis to prove a point. See WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. The swarm of zombie accounts and meat puppets is very telling. I hope the closing admin gives them the weight they deserve, none. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 02:48, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: We still have the problem of scope: capitalist, non-communist, liberal-democratic, etc. Several of the entries in the most recent form of the article are about killings by colonial powers, and I can see that that really is/was a thing. It seems to be partially covered in the Genocide of indigenous peoples article. As far as "liberal democracies" go, Youknowwhatimsayin, are you saying Nazi Germany was a liberal democracy, or would you envisage that being deleted from the re-created version of the article? St Anselm ( talk) 03:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Under the title "liberal democracies," Nazi Germany would be an example of one that would not qualify for the article. Nazi Germany was a fascist state, claerly not a liberal democracy. In the interest of NPOV, there should eventually be an account of Mass killings by fascist states too. I don't think the "capitalist" label is usful in this particular context. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 09:23, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

" You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." NPOV does not mean that we provide equal time and space for criticism of the various political systems of the world. It means we follow the high quality sources. -- In actu (Guerillero) | My Talk 15:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I'm trying to take this seriously, and you think posting video memes is a great source here? Quit clowning. The sources include academic journals, United Nations reports, CNN, academic journals, books from credible publishers including the New York Times, etcetera, etcetera. So stop clowning in this particular response, and stop clowning in general. There are plenty of reliable sources for this article. It seems that the reasons that people have for wanting this thing gone keep slipping from one invalid thing to the other. The NPOV policy specifically states that context matters. It is perfectly sustainable to have a NPOV article as it stands on its own, as well as within the greater context of the other articles that are presented to the public on WP. Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 04:46, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Capitalism is an economic system, so please start by rewriting the Capitalism and include a section Mass killings.

What is the meaning of the title Mass killings in capitalist regimes - that all capitalist nations are regimes or that only some nations are regimes and these regimes kill?

Aren't EU countries capitalist? Why do millions of refugees want to live there? Xx236 ( talk) 09:44, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm the deleting party, it having been a simple and clean application of G4, so I can't really endorse or protest my own deletion, but it seems to me that if someone already HAD a version of this article that met criteria, they might actually have an argument for undeletion. Without something to replace the old article, which obviously didn't meet criteria (thus why it was deleted at AFD twice under different names and a couple times plus salt at CSD), the whole debate seems like an exercise in logic versus sockpuppets. I mean, if you count the number of total edits to Wikipedia by the various sides, the 100+/1 ratio itself is telling. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

So since we have some established editors with one view, and newer ones with a different view, that somehow supports some point about this proposal? That really supports that conclusion that there is some systemic bias going on here. My original statement was an appeal to the community to be fair-minded, which is an important part of the prinicples of civility that the community supposedly values. In the interest of putting forward high quality content that is camprehensive in scope, I supported that some form of this content be kept. I think it can be done with some work. I don't think a lot of the reasons being put forward are valid in the least. The sources are solid, the article can be edited to remove the pusihing of aan agenda, and made to objectively report events that occured (is that part even in question?) Youknowwhatimsayin ( talk) 04:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

The sources presented here are not solid in the slightest. In fact, there is only one - Le Livre noir du capitalisme. St Anselm ( talk) 06:25, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• To add: at first, I was open to the idea of userfied a cleaned version and helped them get to this point, but since this sockfest, it seems obvious that the reasoning behind the restoration isn't to improve wikipedia and I would withdraw any support I had of that idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

  Agreed, Dennis Brown. The intent behind unsalting such an article is a COATRACK in order to use Wikipedia as a blog. All of the arguments for unsalting are based on everything that Wikipedia is WP:NOT. While there may be genuinely encyclopaedic articles to be derived from the overall subject-matter, the interest in the creation of such an article do not lie in any form of RS. -- Iryna Harpy ( talk) 23:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. This is too much of rag-bag to serve as a useful starting-point. An acceptable article on these lines may be possible, but it would be so different that the best approach is blow it up and start over. Rather than just assembling a list of everything contributors can think of, any new attempt should start with a clearer definition of the scope, such that discussions of the same subject as a whole can be found in reliable sources, to avoid falling foul of WP:SYNTH, and should be prepared as a draft and brought back to DRV only when completed and edited for scope and consistency. JohnCD ( talk) 20:35, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I support the proposal to have an article solely based on "Mass killings by Liberal Democracies." because of the fact that the academic political science definition of "liberal democracy" includes almost all definitions of 'democracy.'

Skywalker Kush ( talk) 05:52, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. This is a violation of speedy deletion criteria G4, so the deletion was appropriate. Earlier versions were deleted for synthesis in 2010 and 2012. I understand that this forum is to discuss the deletion decision itself, not the article, but I should note that there is also a lot of original research in this version (such as citations that do not actually support what they are being cited for, starting with the very first one). Books like Le Livre noir du capitalisme were written in response to furor raised by the publication of the Black Book of Communism and I think properly belong in a response section of the Mass killings under Communist regimes article. If enough reliable sourcing is found that an entire article could be created for that topic - without OR or SYNTH - then I think it could get its own article. AmateurEditor ( talk) 03:51, 6 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, WP:SYN applies. Stifle ( talk) 10:15, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply

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

The article was provided with a fair number of independent reliable sources, and Toradex has some media coverage's on magazines [1] [2] [3]. There was no proper consensus to delete. Suniltx ( talk) 10:17, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I Endorse the original decision to delete, reached on 26 August 2015. Prior to viewing the archived debate (which I have since done), I preformed my own research on this organization and could not uncover any substantial third-party coverage. In a case such as this, where the only available information can be found at destinations which are (either entirely, or in effect) reproductions of company-issued media releases, I cannot see a clear case for notability under any applicable guideline. It seems that even awards and prizes, issued by the company at various times, have not been independently covered by any reputable outlet within the industry or general media. I believe the closing Administrator's election to end the discussion, although against numerical consensus (as argued above), was founded on solid reasoning and is therefore valid. -- UBI-et-ORBI ( talk) 10:41, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion. I agree with UBI-et-ORBI's concerns, especially noting that this is not a vote but a policy-based discussion. The opposing discussions went through the actual sources and given the concerns with changing the titles of citations, I think the editors who spent that time should be given additional weight in their views. Further, providing lazy mass links to various search engines searches and telling us that "reliable sources which give substantial coverage exist within them" is not encouraging behavior. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 05:56, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, no reason given to overturn. DRV shouldn't be used simply to express disagreement with an AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Greg Laughery ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Recommend that Administrators Allow Recreation; new information (including convincing external sources) have been identified in the deletion discussion. These new sources were debated by a small group of editors, however deletion was executed before further opinion could be gathered. This subject area is unique (as the terms of WP:PROF distinctly recognize), and therefore the expanded time which elapsed between the Article's AfD submission and active editorial discourse is natural & fully to be expected — the tags presented at the Article's heading were sufficient to notify Wikipedia readers of this ongoing review, throughout the discussion process. Recreation is both possible and reasonable in the case of this Article. UBI-et-ORBI ( talk)

• Comment: I wasn't personally convinced about the new sources - which ones do you think demonstrate notability? St Anselm ( talk) 06:07, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Reply: I likewise didn't see much substance at first, but found myself chiefly convinced by (a) his demonstrable role at the L'Abri Fellowship, (b) the the controversy thereof, and (c) his patent collaboration on other published works within his (albeit niche) academic community, as cited on the XfD Page. I believe it's important we judge his impact relative to the scale of the said community, and not on the scale of spiritual scholarship in toto (which would be quite a high bar for one to achieve). -- UBI-et-ORBI ( talk) 06:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation as a draft article The problem feels circular to me. This is not an academic in a common field and while we should consider that, it feels like we're getting close to a walled garden where the sources are all related to being the former staff of L'Abri and/or within that. Nevertheless, the AFD close was a bit odd as all the delete votes (absent DGG) were before the sources were provided but I think it's worth re-creation and perhaps seeing how the sources work (if they tell us a lot about Laughery's research rather than are just relative to L'Abri or whatever). -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 06:24, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse own close. As to Ricky81682's argument, the "sources" were carefully considered by Kraxler and StAnselm, along with DGG. All three found them wanting, and their arguments are well grounded in established policies and guidelines. T. Canens ( talk) 08:29, 2 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, I don't see anything in the "new" sources that changes the situation significantly. We seem to be rather grasping at straws here. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

2600hz ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This article was being debated as valid. The editor who nominated it for deletion did not work to improve the article first, and contributors to the article contested that. Then the original editor who nominated it started working with another contributor to clean up the page after the deletion was contested, so that the page could be brought up to date and additional notable sources could be cited. I believe the page was deleted because it reached the 7-day period for review and the majority answers were Delete, but the Deletes were specified prior to the page receiving a clean-up. Per Wikipedia rules, an article that may be relevant and is just poorly written or cited should first have the opportunity to be updated before being nominated for deletion. You can see an active discussion (still ongoing) about the content of the page here /info/en/?search=User_talk:Neurosys_zero with the editor who originally nominated the page for deletion. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 18:32, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - consensus was assessed correctly by the closing admin. User:Darren Schreiber is the creator of the deleted (and later userfied) article, and declared a COI on his user page. (Disclosure is required per WP:AFDFORMAT which applies also to DRV.) Kraxler ( talk) 04:57, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as once the single-purpose accounts' (and I wonder how many of them are possibly pictured here) votes are discarded, the consensus was to delete. Tarc ( talk) 12:32, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Tarc The assumption that only 2600hz employees are the ones commenting as new users is unfounded. Please review guidelines related to the ones you're enforcing (and feel free to check the IPs via WP:CheckUser ) and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, specifically toward new users Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. You can not assume that commenters are socks or part of a COI without some sort of proof. Being new is not sufficient for making this assumption. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 23:01, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

New accounts...or in a few of the cases, long dormant accounts that had not edited in several years...did not just arrive that the deletion discussion by sheer happenstance. Whether they are employees or users or friends is irrelevant, but they are almost certainly one of the three. If you're looking around for this project's guidelines and essays and whatnot to cite, have a read-through of one of my favorites; AGF is Not a Suicide Pact. Tarc ( talk) 23:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It's an open-source project. They're users of the project. They did not arrive by happenstance, they arrived because we discussed the pending deletion in a chat channel about the project. I would think they'd be considered experts on the subject matter being discussed since they use the project and also absorb general telephony industry material. They don't get paid, don't work for us, and thus there's no COI. They're just genuine users.

I read your "AGF is Not a Suicide Pact" article, it's not relevant to my point. I think you're missing my point. You could still endorse the AfD but I don't think you should be dismissive of the new users. Your link to the picture of the 2600hz team is presumptuous and could be interpreted as inflammatory. I linked several official policies (as opposed to your opinion article) which explicitly state that you should not attack new comers or make assumptions about who they are.

To make my point super clear, had you stated "once the single-purpose accounts' votes are discarded, the consensus was to delete." your response would be much more appropriate and would carry the exact same weight. You didn't need to ad-lib with that little comment there about the 2600hz team. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 23:52, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

So with ...they arrived because we discussed the pending deletion in a chat channel about the project..., what we have is a confessed case of meat-puppetry. I think we're done here. Tarc ( talk) 00:39, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thank you for pointing out the WP:MEAT link. That one I had not seen before and VQuakr did not inform me it was not allowed. I still think you guys are incredibly rude to newbies. Doesn't encourage much participation if you ask me. From Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers "Do not call newcomers disparaging names such as "sockpuppet" or "meatpuppet." You can point them to those policies if there is valid cause to do so." Darren Schreiber ( talk) 01:26, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Excellent close, correctly ignored WP:SPA comments which failed to provide any policy-based arguments. I also looked at all of the references provided in the list at the bottom of the AfD. Not a single one qualified as a WP:RS. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

RoySmith This really is an honest request, and not an attempt to be combative. Can you provide some samples of what would qualify as WP:RS for technical organizations who sponsor open-source projects? (For example, say, FreePBX or Asterisk (PBX) or SIP Express Router) . I'm struggling to understand the way admins interpret the standards. Darren Schreiber ( talk) 23:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Perhaps the WP:SPA was ignored. However I was working directly with the admin who requested the deletion initially. Yes It required cleaning. However, I strongly disagree with the statements that TechCrunch, GigaOm and SDTimes are not reliable, independent or notable sources. From all research, while 2600hz may not be a household name, being invited to present at TechCrunch Disrupt SF should not be taken lightly and that alone, anyone in tech who is objective and neutral can conclude, they'd meet the requirements. neurosys_zero ( talk) 19:55, 30 August 2015 (UTC) — Neurosys zero ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Disclosure: User:Neurosys zero took part in the AfD under scrutiny here, and !voted "keep". reply

Category:Knights of the Order of the Netherlands Lion‎ ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I hadn't realised that this category was being discussed, and I am quite surprised that it was included in the bundle of other categories to be deleted. The Order of the Netherlands Lion article says that it "could therefore be considered the Dutch equivalent of the Order of the Bath," and "since 1980 the Order has been primarily used to recognise merit in the arts, science, sport and literature." I can only assume that this was included by mistake, since the subcats of Category:Order of Orange-Nassau were not nominated. I would also like Category:Grand Masters of the Order of the Netherlands Lion, Category:Commanders of the Order of the Netherlands Lion and Category:Order of the Netherlands Lion restored. There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion. St Anselm ( talk) 01:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Which of the 5 DRV purposes do you think applies here? Re "There was no specific discussion of any of these categories in the deletion discussion": In the 2 months that the deletion discussion was open no-one made an argument that the Netherlands categories should be discussed separately. P.S. For an example of how WP:NON-DEFINING these specific awards are see this [4] ( Akihito is listed at Recipients of the Order of the Netherlands Lion). DexDor ^(talk) 05:34, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

As I mentioned above, the discussion may have been open for two months, but I didn't know it was going on. The first indication I had was when I saw the category had been removed from Ellen van Wolde (for whom the category evidently was defining). St Anselm ( talk) 07:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

This gets back to the content of all previous CfDs about awards. The argument is that it is not defining for her. It is her occupation that is defining - while the award is merely a sign of appreciation for the work that she did in exercising her occupation. This is the typical argument that has been used throughout all these discussions. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:20, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Sorry, but this is simply rubbish. I can't speak for Dutch awards, but for British honours the honour itself is most definitely defining. We often refer to someone as "a CBE", for example (e.g. Benedict Cumberbatch is a CBE). The postnominal is forever after attached to their name and, in the case of knights and dames, they now have a title (Sir or Dame) which they usually use for the rest of their lives (e.g. Sir Michael Caine is now "Sir Michael" and no longer "Mr Caine"). How on earth is that not defining? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:24, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

This may be a very British thing. Marcocapelle ( talk) 21:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. I closed the discussion and just wanted to make a brief comment. I didn't elaborate on the reasons for closing it as I did, but note that this nomination was one of a series of several CFD discussions regarding these types of awards bestowed by countries. In all of the recent discussions, there has been a consensus to delete. By pure vote count, this one looks close, but taking all of the related discussions into account (which I did), and especially in light of the categorization guidelines, I don't think it's that close. (I endorse my own close, for what that is worth.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:55, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment (as the nominator): the recent discussions that User:Good Olfactory is referring to are the ones that pop up in this [ [5]] list. There are quite a few of them. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:04, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Alas, none of us can watch everything. I would have !voted keep on every one of the deletions. Categories are navigational deices and meant to be useful. Looking for other people who have received a notable award is useful. That they include major heads of state of other countries does not detract from it. For articles, we can overcome even a justified clear consensus deletion by writing a better article. There's no such mechanism for categories. DGG ( talk ) 16:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. From my reading, the nomination statement and the bulk of the delete comments on the CfD were about political honors, and inapplicable to categories such as this one devoted to artistic/scientific honors. So as an off-topic afterthought to a long list of other categories, it has not really had a proper discussion. No prejudice against relisting individually. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:59, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist for more discussion on this category. The reasons for deletion were too perfunctory given that there was opposition. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:08, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn I think the CFD showed a divided opinion rather than a consensus for deletion. The keep arguments seem substantial to me. A good question was raised against the suggestion that people should be categorised only by their most defining characteristic. Moreover, the nomination had misconstrued WP:OCAWARD and the previous discussions seem to have done the same. The overcategorization guideline is towards listifying, and not simply deleting, when an award is non-defining. The discussion ought to have considered whether the award is defining for any (group) of its recipients. Instead it was being argued that it is not defining for some (or, indeed, many) of its recipients. Generally, each category needs to be considered separately. Finally, one of the delete rationales was completely irrelevant. Thincat ( talk) 08:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• "Generally, each category neeeds to be considered separately." Do you really think this nomination should be split into 30 nominations? CFDs are often grouped and, if someone says "Hey, that one doesn't fit" it's removed from the nomination ( example). RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:51, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I have not been considering the university nomination at all. I spent a long time considering the current nomination and I thought that, although there might be a few small groups that could be considered together, generally each category has different implications. However, my main argument, as you will have seen, is that the close of the CFD was not done within reasonable discretion. Thincat ( talk) 18:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I misread your comment as advocating a general avoidance of group nominations. Thanks for clarifying. RevelationDirect ( talk) 18:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Procedural question since this is turning into a discussion about the whole series of nominations, rather than about a single nomination, shouldn't we also invite the participants of all these CfD discussions to this Drv discussion? Or would that be considered as canvassing? Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:14, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Maybe a tag on the current day's CFD would be neutral. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:54, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. All the other similar results should be overturned as well. They should never have been determined in this way. There was little discussion, no appropriate projects were notified (you know, to inform people who might have been interested in mass deletion of such categories and actually knowledgeable about the subject - because anyone who thinks honours aren't important enough to categorise clearly isn't!) and there was no real consensus in any case. How on earth is an honour not defining? I would also have voted keep on every one had I been aware the discussions were going on. This is really not an acceptable outcome and I notice another batch is now up for deletion including such "minor" awards as the Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire! We need to reverse this ludicrous POV mass deletion project now before Wikipedia is further damaged by it! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:45, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Necrothesp:WikiProjects: "No appropriate projects were notified" WikiProject Japan 1, WikiProject Spain 2 and WikiProject Norway 3 all were notified of this nomination. If you need help setting up automatic Alerts for another WikProject, just tag my talk page and I'm happy to set that up for you! RevelationDirect ( talk) 17:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I was actually thinking more of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orders, Decorations, and Medals‎ and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography. That would alert a far wider selection of editors interested in such things and not just those who watch specific countries. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per Necrothesp's entry above. Thin to limited consensus and discussion do not warrant such a wholesale removal of categories. A couple of editors does not really constitute a precedent setting deletion discussion. EricSerge ( talk) 23:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Late Contribution:Delete I generally don't bother to participate in these CFD discussions because there is such a clear consensus that these and other similar categories are not defining in multiple nominations. RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Based on the feedback here and in CFD, I'm willing to take a closer look at some of the Dutch and Norwegian categories. In any case, this comment doesn't serve the purpose of this forum. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Procedural Question The main issue here seems to be that, even though the categories were tagged, some editors missed out on defending some specific members of the nomination. Can we re-list those for discussion in a CFD recreation nomination? (That seems like a more appropriate forum than here, which is really about questioning the judgment of the closing administrator.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:45, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I think it's implied in my comments, but endorse the close. There has been a clear consensus with the regular CFD contributors although some editors here look at WP:OCAWARD differently. Rehashing the merits of how that policy is applied with different editors here has the same impact as WP:FORUMSHOP (although that was not the intent of the nominator). RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:39, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• I suppose my endorse vote wouldn't really count as having been the nominator. But I would like to stress that the overall support in these discussions together has not been thin. Many category discussions close with few(er) discussants! Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:18, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Yes, but usually for less important categories and less controversial deletions. Many of the delete arguments on later nominations seem to be based on the principle that many had already been deleted so this creates some sort of precedent to delete all the others. That is ridiculous. A handful of editors shouldn't be able to create a precedent on such an important issue. I also note that there seems to have been a move from nominating categories for pretty obscure awards and awards mainly given by heads of state to other high dignitaries, which were deleted either because nobody knew they were being nominated or because of "category clutter" on the articles for such people, up to better-known awards, in which some contributors obviously thought a precedent had already been established to delete awards categories. Maybe not deliberately underhand (I'll assume good faith here), but it does unfortunately rather seem that way. In addition, there are certainly categories in the lists that should have been deleted (such as those for wound badges and minor military medals, which are indeed not at all defining). In these circumstances mass nomination of different types of award is a very bad idea. Each needs separate discussion. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:02, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Honestly I've never considered this as an important issue, more like a housekeeping thing, since WP:OCAWARD is clear enough about it. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
      • OCAWARD tells us only the same thing the general category criteria do: Keep it if it's defining, or use a list otherwise. It provides no guidance as to whether these particular awards are defining or not. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as no strong arguments were made for keeping the categories. Tim! ( talk) 06:41, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Where were the strong arguments to delete them? Without clear consensus we always err on the side of keeping. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 14:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment (as OP): The Order of St. Olav award (which were also part of this deletion discussion) have also come up for discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 2 - "The Order of St. Olav is the single most important Norwegian order for scientific, cultural and other achievements by Norwegian citizens" ( Bjerrebæk). If I had realised the significance of the Order of St. Olav deletion, I would have included that in this DRV nomination as well. St Anselm ( talk) 00:10, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist. Opinions were roughly divided, but the closer explained their decision above to make it understandable, and it seems to conform to the relevant guideline, WP:OCAWARD, although I find that guideline a bit unclear. Because this discussion, much like the one being reviewed, does not result in a clear consensus - and I myself am undecided both on the merits and more importantly procedurally, or I would have closed this - I think the best thing to do would be to relist the original discussion to give it more attention.  Sandstein  07:53, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Since much of the conversation has been about the underlying categories rather than how the nomination was closed, that's probably the best forum to move forward. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:37, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist. I don't have any experience with CfD, but my take here is that there's been more discussion on the topic here in DRV than there was in the original CfD, and that's typically a bad sign, since the discussion here is a mix of rehashing the original XfD and process review. The original CfD discussion looked pretty close. I think the best thing to do would be to throw it back on the CfD queue and let people discuss it fresh. I offer no opinion on whether the original close was correct or not; I'm just looking for the best solution going forward. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:27, 5 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The nomination process already makes it too difficult to get rid of award categories, although they are very heavily discouraged by our guidelines. The nomination process here was fully within guidelines and no reason to overturn that process is given. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:26, 7 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • No, they're not "very heavily discouraged by our guidelines" at all. You seem to be confusing national honours with minor awards. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:17, 9 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn or Relist. Given that the original rationale for the deletion is in doubt, and that's leaving aside any questions about the way due process was implemented. Ceannlann gorm ( talk) 00:33, 8 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist, separately if desired, as there did not seem to be a full consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:34, 11 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn all previous deletions of award categories due to the new consensus that just turned down the proposal to delete comparable British award categories. The categories for other countries' main national awards have systematically been deleted for months, while British award categories, whether important, obscure or outright silly, are systematically kept. The same standards must apply to all countries' awards; either we allow award categories, or we remove comparable award categories regardless of whether they are British or Norwegian. Bjerrebæk ( talk) 00:54, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So is your comment a confirmation that you started the nomination in question to make a WP:POINT, as some alleged in that discussion? As the closer, I would say that the discussion hardly resulted in a new overarching "consensus", since many users simply wanted the discussion closed on the basis that they thought you were gaming the system or using it to make a point. (Regardless, I disagree with your implication that we're dealing with an "all or none" situation here. It's possible that there might be a consensus to delete some award categories but to keep others (or no consensus on others, which leads to the category remaining).) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • WP:POINT Oh, good grief. I voted against your nomination, not on the merits, but based on the perception that it was a nomination designed to fail and then come back here to make WP:POINT. And here we are! RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:03, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So, which British honours are "outright silly" please? -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:10, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire for one (imagine if Norwegian editors had created separate categories such as Category:British Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav, Category:Irish Knights First Class of the Order of St. Olav etc.). Wikipedia has a serious problem with British bias in all things related to awards and honours. This is demonstrated by the fact that a massive hierarchy of very obscure British award categories such as Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire, even extending into other countries, are kept, while other countries have had the main categories of their main national awards deleted. The personal attacks by two other users above are quite telling. In the last year, the general policy interpretation has been that more or less all award categories should be deleted, but the fact that Category:Ceylonese Members of the Order of the British Empire and the like were kept has fundamentally changed this interpretation and set a new standard, according to which all award categories should be allowed. Bjerrebæk ( talk) 16:24, 26 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment: My own position is that an award category can be deleted if it is used exclusively to honour royalty and foreign dignitaries (e.g. Category:Grand Order of King Tomislav recipients), and never on the basis of merit. But some have been deleted on the basis that they are sometimes given to foreign dignitaries (and therefore still wind up in Category:Orders of knighthood awarded to heads of state, consorts and sovereign family members). This seems the reason the Order of the Netherlands Lion cats were deleted - Akihito, for example, is a Knight Grand Cross. St Anselm ( talk) 04:37, 12 September 2015 (UTC) reply

On the other end of the spectrum, I think widespread awards can be non-defining: 2 million Purple Hearts have been issued. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:09, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

Absolutely, but then the Purple Heart is not awarded for merit or gallantry. It's basically just awarded for being unlucky. It's no more than a service medal. Many countries don't even bother to award medals or even badges for being wounded - it's not something you've done, just something that's happened to you. We most certainly shouldn't categorise people for being awarded wound badges or service medals, only for honours and medals they are awarded for some sort of distinguished action or service. We've tried to have Category:Recipients of the Purple Heart medal deleted before, but unfortunately many Americans seem to treat it as more than it is - an almost sacred award. It is frankly laughable that this pointless category (which could be retitled Category:Americans who have been killed or wounded in action) has survived CfD but genuine decorations for merit have been deleted and shows clear systemic bias in favour of the United States. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 11:59, 13 September 2015 (UTC) reply

I think that you've made some good points throughout this discussion, Necrothesp. I haven't agreed with all of them, but it's good to see that some users can make reasonable, strong arguments to support what they are saying. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:32, 14 September 2015 (UTC) reply

• Question Based on this discussion, would it be possible to rewrite the guideline a bit, in order to make it more concrete than it is currently? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:43, 17 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I was thinking the same thing; Necrothesp creates a working criteria of awards being uncommon and not strictly a formality. We would just need to make sure we consider other problem awards, like those at the bottom of the The Titanic Soundtrack article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:43, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse this isn't CFD 2.0; the arguments were made and there was no misinterpretation in the close. Discussions of what other awards are or aren't similar are not relevant. WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS is instructive. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 03:52, 18 September 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There was no true consensus to delete, there was mass nomination of categories relating to very different awards with little attempt to notify those who might have expertise in the subject (it might have been guessed that this would be controversial), and some opinions in later CfDs seem to have been based on the fact that categories were deleted in previous CfDs which was taken mistakenly to create a precedent to delete all categories relating to honours (I could cite WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST here!). Sorry, but all these decisions were deeply flawed and should all be reversed. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 12:37, 23 September 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC There was no consensus in that discussion. And very little in the way of meaningful discussion wrt the actual categories. I know that cat discussions are often fairly limited, but with something this wide ranging, consensus should be very clear and it wasn't. Relist as desired but notify the awards wiki project. Hobit ( talk) 17:59, 28 September 2015 (UTC) reply

What's 9 + 10 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Has enough sources for inclusion, prematurely speedy-deleted Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 22:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse textbook example of non-notable web content. Had no sources at all at time of deletion, only reference was to knowyourmeme. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 01:42, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• endorse fair close, and fair enough opinions at AFD. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 05:33, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse the only source cited was [6], which is clearly not a reliable source. There were no assertions of significance, the article's only content was a description of the video. Hut 8.5 19:19, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Allow Recreation Because Knowyourmeme is reliable, see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_158#Know_your_Meme, and I've found another mention/source, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2015/08/01/9-10-21/ Jjjjjjdddddd ( talk) 00:58, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Struck the recommendation as this is the nominator and that counts as their vote. It might be helpful to explain how that single source meet the needs of WP:GNG ort is even a WP:RS. Thanks. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Per this (and several similar discussions) Know Your Meme is a user-contributed wiki with some degree of oversight from an editorial staff. This particular entry has not been "confirmed" by the editorial staff, so it's effectively a page on an open wiki. An entry which has been confirmed might not be a terrible source for some information within an article about a meme but it's hardly something to use to demonstrate notability. The discussion you cite does not demonstrate that the site is reliable, only that one person thinks it's reliable. The Volokh Conspiracy is a legal blog, a very brief post there doesn't establish the notability of a meme. Hut 8.5 13:10, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse speedy. Knowyourmeme is a reliable source for explanations of the origins of viral online content; I see no discussion to show that inclusion it in is a reliable source for notability. DGG ( talk ) 16:45, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy Endorse and Salt. There's an extremely low chance of reliable sourcing with this one other than Knowyourmeme. Not notable at all and possibly a vandalism target. -- 201.53.68.9 ( talk) 23:41, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Valid application of WP:CSD#A7, and valid reading of the sentiment expressed in the AfD for a speedy close. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:33, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per above. If someone had a reasonable objection, it should be discussed for a week. I don't see a reasonable objection. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:11, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

4shared ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Notability seems to have increased. Worth noting on Italian Wikipedia that an article creased in 2010 has been undeleted and is still up in 2015. The 2010 nomination problem was that it was not notable, and the 2012 deletions cited this reason as well. Since then, it has received some notable coverage.

Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL Using 'news' I found it:

• 14 April 2011 in Business Insider
• 20 January 2012 on Screen Junkies
• 13 February 2013 on ITworld
• 16 August 2013 in TorrentFreak
• 4 November 2014 in PC World
• 6 January 2015 on Ars Technica
• 2 March 2015 on The Register
• 10 May 2015 on TechRadar

Part of the initial concern was that the article was created as an advertisement, I do not know how it originally looked, but it should be possible to recreate is as a kind of stub to simply mention how it is considered a notable file-sharing website. Ranze ( talk) 05:59, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I had speedy-closed this, but it was pointed out to me that my reason for doing so was flawed, so I've reverted my close -- RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• permit recreation The G4 speedy deletion were mostly invalid as the new article was different to the old. Also A7 speedy delete was invalid as there were claims of importance and the promotion was not so bad as a G11 would apply. However I did not see suitable independent sources. SO I wolud recommend any recreator find references first. Original AFD was valid however. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 06:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt. While not all the linked sources may be reliable it still is enough for a recreator to propose new content for this article. -- 201.53.68.9 ( talk) 15:27, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Clear case for unsalting the page.— S Marshall T/ C 16:27, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Unsalt; allow recreation. The AfD is five years old and not particularly impressive. This http://www.pcworld.com/article/239958/4shared.html is a post-AfD source that looks non-sponsored and supportive of Wikipeida-notability. There appears to be a history of overly lax CSD#G4-ing and salting. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:42, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

IFA Paris ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Hello together, so we are quite a big French fashion school called IFA Paris. Our entry existed at /info/en/?search=IFA_Paris until about a week ago. You can check the talk and history page, but basically we did update some information, but it might have sounded too promotional for some people and we worked hard to reduce the promotions and edit the text as well as incorporate information only with trusted sources. We did have sources for everything we claimed, but they weren't good enough for some of the Wikipedia community. We were working on removing information and updating sources when all of a sudden the page was gone. FYI, the French and Chinese versions of the Wikipedia page still exist. We know there obviously is a conflict of interest, so please can someone write a neutral article on IFA Paris and reinstate this page? Thanks. Nikki38394724 ( talk) 02:54, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I think what you want to do is add your entry to Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Applied_arts_and_sciences#Schools, colleges, and universities. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore or permit rewriting The final version was not promotional. Earlier versions were highly promotional, but the change was not noticed in the afd. I note that it is a degree granting school, but it would very much help to write a replacement article if there were some information about accreditation.--the statement in their FAQ is ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ DGG ( talk • contribs) 20:41, 25 August 2015

Thanks so much, I have put a request where you said. Hope the format is ok there. Any idea on how long it usually takes until someone gets around to writing it? Thanks! Nikki38394724 ( talk) 01:53, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply

It varies widely. Any volunteer can choose to accept any of the requests on that page at any time, or it may be that no one will ever accept a particular request. Frankly I no longer recommend use of that page because of frequent long delays. DES ^(talk) 13:20, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• keep deleted It still had promotional aspects when deleted, but the primary reason for deletion was a lack of independent sources establishing notability. I wouldn't object to a copy being recreated in draft space under the AfC project, and subject to AfC review before being moved back to mainspace. However, I and other editors sought for sources and were unable to find any that established notability. DES ^(talk) 13:12, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

As for "We were working on removing information and updating sources when all of a sudden the page was gone." the nominator was notified in this edit about problems of promotionaolism and lack of sources before the Afd was opened, and in this edit of responses to messages the nominator had posted on the talk page of the AfD. In addition, the nominator posted several times on the talk page of the article during the AfD, asking that the deletion process be stopped in response to various changes in the article. Some of these involved removing promotional content, but none involved adding significant reliable sources. But in any case, the nominator here was very much aware of the AfD and of concerns about sourcing prior to the AfD, and did not provide useful additional sources. DES ^(talk) 13:09, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Searches revealed no notable coverage. I fully agree with the AFD. -- 201.53.68.9 ( talk) 15:31, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Alex Gilbert ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Page achieved notability. Was accepted to the Main Space and then removed. It's now at Draft:Alex Gilbert. Please look at the sources on the page before commenting. It is clear that it is a notable article. It was even approved by a reviewer. DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 04:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted. I can't see any evidence that the subject has ever had notability. It's been through AfD twice and was deleted on both occasions.- gadfium 05:15, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Yes it was deleted twice. For different reasons. Not relating to why it shouldn't be in the Mainspace now. read the sources on the draft. Clear notability. -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 05:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Allow recreation. The last AfD was closed 20 July 2014. There are several sources in the draft published after that AfD close. Here are two:
  1. Hurley, Sam (22 August 2015). "Whangarei boy who traced Russian roots helps fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines". Television New Zealand. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved 22 August 2015.
  2. Newlove, Alexandra (August 7, 2015). "Russian adoptee shares stories". The Northern Advocate. Archived from the original on 26 August 2015. Retrieved August 7, 2015.

     The article notes in the first paragraph: "A former Russian adoptee raised in Whangarei is helping other adopted people share their stories."

  The coverage of Alex Gilbert's efforts to "hel[p] fellow Kiwi adoptees find bloodlines" indicates that there is a good faith argument that WP:BLP1E no longer applies.

  The sustained coverage of the subject one year after the AfD indicates that concerns about the coverage being transitory were wrong. From the AfD "subjects of this kind of coverage have no ongoing notabiity (sic)" and "The amount and duration of coverage were limited, and fall short of establishing Gilbert as an ongoing notable individual."

  Cunard ( talk) 05:49, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse continued deletion. Nominator stated "Page achieved notability" but then brought forward absolutely nothing to back that up. This is pretty clearly a self-promotion attempt, and there's very little reason to imagine yet another AFD will result in anything other than yet another deletion. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:26, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment This page is a self promotion?? It has achieved notability from the sources on the article. As stated before. It's clear. Read and look at the sources. Thanks DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 18:56, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - A kid who got a smidgen of press for finding his parents via social media. Textbook WP:BLP1E, draft has no chance of surviving a deletion discussion. Tarc ( talk) 20:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. This article is not just notable for him finding his Birth Parents. The sources clearly cover his book and page that was covered in the press. Not a smidgen of press. This article was reviewed and was passed as notable. People aren't reading the article clearly or the sources. DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 20:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. NOT TABLOID and NOT NEWS are the governing policies. There is no actual notability here. His film career is not notable, & there is no indication that his book is either. DGG ( talk ) 00:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted - per DGG and also it's borderline BLP1E, the only event being his adoption on which he is trying to capitalize. Kraxler ( talk) 12:44, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. seriously. How is this article not notable? Someone go over the sources. List them and tell me why they are simply not notable? Thanks DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 01:55, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Simply being in sources is not a 100% guarantee of an article; the Wikipedia is not a simple repeater and regurgitator of every thing that happens in every newspaper in the world. Tarc ( talk) 02:25, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I've added another source found Tarc. Please take a look. And these are actually from a TV network and TV Show. Not all newspapers. Thanks DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 03:22, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• "I found more sources" is never a proper rebuttal to WP:BLP1E. When a person is only in the news for a single event, and would be unknown otherwise, they generally do not get an article in the Wikipedia. Your energy would be better serves by improving existing articles rather than wasting time on something that is clearly going to see its deletion endorsed when this discussion closes. Tarc ( talk) 04:08, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

I am here to request the undeletion of the article Checkmarx ( /info/en/?search=Checkmarx). It was previously deleted numerous times and then blocked from recreation. It was deleted in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2013. You can refer to the previous link for the deletion discussions associated with the content.

First, I am not receiving compensation to write this article. I read the guidelines on conflict of interest and want to make sure that is clear. I do have a connection with the company which is another reason I am here. I have created a draft in my sandbox that I would like reviewed and if appropriate, have the article unblocked and restored to the version I created. I believe it is non-promotional in tone and adheres to Wikipedia guidelines.

The reason I feel it warrants undeletion is because the last deletion was in 2013. Prior to that time, the company had little press that showed it to be notable. Unfortunately, it appears that people tried to create and cram the article into Wikipedia anyway. I cannot apologize for that as I was not associated with those creations. However, I would like to show you a few things that have made the company notable since its last deletion in 2013.

Since 2013, the company has received a ton of press coverage in reliable sources, both in Hebrew and in English. They can be found through a quick Google search on Google News - https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=%22checkmarx%22&tbm=nws

The article in my sandbox can be edited to how you feel appropriate. I feel it is non promotional, but ask that you review and edit it if you feel it is not. I am just hoping for two things here. The first is that the draft be reviewed for its content and adjusted as you see fit for Wikipedia standards. The second is that it be undeleted and the draft in my sandbox be used as the article.

I requested user MBisanz consider in deleting the article, but was told to come here because of the numerous previous deletions which I completely understand.

Thank you for your consideration.-- Weirdedsultry ( talk) 22:36, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. This has been deleted 5 times:there were two successive speedy deletions, followed by 4 consecutive afds closing as delete (one under a variant name). The reasons for the deletion were not just lack of notability, but promotionalism. The article in your sandbox at User:Weirdedsultry/sandbox would probably be deleted for lack of notability, but it's hard to predict. I know I would make the argument that being on a fast20 list is an indication that the company is not yet notable. The article in Jewish Business News is essentially PR, and very similar to press releases about the companyin other sources. SalomLife 's article is blatant PR. The Inc.article is an article about multiple companies. ``

Thank you for the comments. I agree that there was probably PR involved in the previous articles. For the current, what would you suggest for the references? There are tons available, but I am not sure the ones Wikipedia would accept. I read the guidelines but obviously don't fully understand based on your comments. I have looked through many references and thought those were good.-- Weirdedsultry ( talk) 23:33, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I think that part of the issue with the sandbox copy sources is that so many of them give off the impression that they're heavily based on press releases. They sort of have the PR buzz feel to them, especially this one. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:00, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I see what you are saying. I guess the way I looked at these is even though they were originally alerted from a press release, the sources that wrote the story did not simply reprint the press release. Since they have editorial standards, they would have fact checked the press release before writing a story with information contained in the press release. Most news from companies starts with a press release. An example would be Google’s recent announcement that it was creating a parent company called Alphabet. Despite it being a press release in the beginning, reliable sources picked up and ran with the story after fact checking with Google and other sources. Not arguing, just trying to show you how I was looking at things and not trying to spam content from press releases.

That aside, there are some additional references that I found. Actually, one was brought to my attention by DGG so I cannot take credit for it. Here they are [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].

I guess what I am looking for here is not perfection, but the opportunity to create an article on a notable company. The article I created can be changed if necessary to meet guidelines, I am just not understanding the exact way to do it in order to satisfy everyone’s concerns with the references. If you check Google, you will see that there are numerous in depth sources such as the ones I provided. Hopefully these will show that the company is notable and that the creation of the article be allowed.

Again, sorry if I misunderstand any of the policies and I in no way want to spam an article in Wikipedia. Thanks for being corrigible with me and providing advice up to this point. Any help that you can afford me would be greatly appreciated.

I want to thank you for taking the time to review the information I have provided and understand your position regardless of the decision made. -- Weirdedsultry ( talk) 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. I took a look at the references in the sandbox draft. All of them strike me as either rehashes of press releases and/or routine coverage of funding or acquisition announcements. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion, article has a long history with several deletions & AFDs over a period of a number of years, with the primary concerns being non-notability and promotion. At this point we'd need to see that the company in question has had a significant leap forward in notability with which to overturn years worth of consensus to delete it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 17:38, 31 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Allen Sinclair ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

There is no clear consensus to delete. While this is not a vote-count, you had 8 editors arguing to keep and 6 arguing for deletion. The main argument given for deletion was WP:BLP1E, followed by not notable. On the keep side, you had editors who pointed at the essay WP:SOLDIER, but also pointed as sound policy reasons under notability that were not addressed nor considered by the closing admin. Sinclair is one of just a few generals who have been court-martialed in the last 60 years. There were reliable sources covering other portions of his life, as a battalion commander in combat, as a brigade commander in combat. These policy based arguments were not considered by the closing admin, even though they directly rebutted statements made by those arguing for deleting the article. Next, it is an improper analysis of BLP1E which requires all three of the criteria be met. Sinclair does not meet any of the criteria listed, he is covered by WP:RS outside of the one event, as a general, he is not a low-profile individual, and the event was both significant and Sinclair's role was significant. This should be overturned on policy grounds. GregJackP  Boomer! 00:06, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

( edit conflict):I have notified all of the participants of the AfD. GregJackP  Boomer! 00:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse different reasons were given. But I accept the closer's conclusion that the marginal notability of this Brigadier General with respect to other matters than the events leading to his demotion and resignation after allegations of misconduct (his plea of guilty to minor violations was accepted) did not overweight the BLP concern regarding our coverage of minor crimes. (There were also accusations of major crimes, but he was not convicted of them--had he been, I would have probably supported keeping the article.) DGG ( talk ) 00:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse' as nominator, without prejudice against covering this event within the wider context and potentially with a redirect. BLP1E is there for ea reason. Guy ( Help!) 00:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Insufficient reason to reverse That a closer might have reached a different conclusion is not, in itself, sufficient to overturn the close. This does mean that the person is specifically "not notable" but that the article had significant problems with the BLP dwelling on material which consisted of contentious claims falling under WP:BLPCRIME, where the value of having the BLP was outweighed by its problems. Collect ( talk) 00:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure - WP:NOTSCANDAL (this is policy, not an essay like WP:SOLDIER) says "Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person." Claiming he was a flag officer with inherent notability was only a pretext to wedge in a BLP about an adulterous affair. If he had been court-martialed for any military short-comings, he would be eminently notable, but that's not the case here. Kraxler ( talk) 00:51, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

'comment', & here is the full text of "wp:notscandal", taken from the source cited above:

Scandal mongering, promoting things "heard through the grapevine" or gossiping. Articles and content about living people are required to meet an especially high standard, as they may otherwise be libellous or infringe the subjects' right to privacy. Articles must not be written purely to attack the reputation of another person.

SO, is the above user contesting the factuality of the story? because, i'm pretty sure the charges & COURT MARTIAL TRIAL were not just "gossip, heard through the grapevine". Lx 121 ( talk) 10:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The factual accuracy is irrelevant. See WP:NOTEVERYTHING "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true..." There is also WP:SENSATION. Adultery is not a crime in most jurisdictions nowadays. "Sex scandals" are run-of-the-mill newsmedia fodder in the US, even respectable papers like the NYT would engage in "tabloid journalism" in such cases. It's misplaced in an encyclopedia, under current policy and several guidelines. Kraxler ( talk) 04:09, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I never watched the deleted page and I did not participate in the AfD, but my watchlist includes the talk pages of some of the editors who were notified of this DRV, so I decided to give an uninvolved view. I think that the closing statement is correct about participants being roughly divided between keeping per WP:SOLDIER and deleting per WP:BLP1E. (I've looked for sources about the subject, and the "one event" appears to have been court-martial for crimes, rather than military distinction, so SOLDIER appears only to apply marginally.) I think that the strong importance that the community places on WP:BLP indicates that the close was correct in weighing BLP1E above SOLDIER or the numbers of !votes cast in the AfD. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure (summoned by bot) - Cwobeel (talk) 00:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse closure was reasonable, based on the relevant policies. Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 01:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse (conditionally) From where I sit, the outcome should have been listed as "deleted without prejudice" to confer that while the BLP issue came down as delete there was no prejudice against recreation of the article in the event that additional information on the general and/or the event came to light. That having been said, at the moment we lack enough information to build a comprehensive article on the general, therefore the article was properly deleted based on policy driven consensus. TomStar81 ( Talk) 01:52, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist I !voted to delete early on in the AfD, and I was considering changing my !vote in light of the work that rescuers did, while the AfD was pending. As I am not an admin I cannot see the article to arrive at a final decision. I would favor relisting the AfD (which cannot hurt) so that I and others have a chance to review the article and our !votes and to get additional voices. This was not an easy decision per Xymmax's wonderfully nuanced comment near the bottom of the AfD. Jytdog ( talk) 02:10, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the closure was based on appropriate weight being given to policy based arguments over those which relied on an essay and in that context seems reasonable to me (although I did of cse !vote delete for that very reason so I am admittedly only really supporting my own previous reasoning here...). If there is significant coverage on this officer beyond the scandal it wasn't clear during the AFD. I do however support recreation of the article if / when such coverage becomes available that allows for a full biography to be written covering all significant aspects of his life and career using RS (and not just focusing on the scandal). Anotherclown ( talk) 05:40, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn when using "essays" it is common practice to ignore the GNG and notability is presumed, ie schools. The community discussed those criteria and set those so this is more of a IAR and personal opinion close then was consensus. We keep loads of shitty schools that will never be notable based on those essays and we have an actual person who is notable and we fucking delete the article. Seriously? What the fuck people. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 01:12, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hell in a Bucket, have you considered that the persuasiveness of your arguments decreases with every swearword you use? Frankly, I could never take seriously any person who expresses themselves the way you do, no matter what the merits of their arguments are.  Sandstein  07:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• User:Sandstein, I briefly considered that but then I considered the average intelligence level of the editors here and assumed that the editors here would have the intelligence to understand that adult words used by an adult isn't something to get their panties in a twist. I'm sure you will learn this concept someday. I am curious how long it will take for you to get chased out of this new fiefdom of yours, hopefully not as long as AE. I wonder if you will blame it on people using the word fuck, there was a reason I didn't care what you said on your page, your history says you will not listen to the other side once you have made a decree so why waste the time? Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 13:49, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

comment - & that speaks badly about your judgement, sandstein. you should be judging the arguements on their merits, NOT on your feelings about the choice of language, OR the user. with all due respect, Lx 121 ( talk) 09:43, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• As closer, I maintain the view expressed in the closure. In requesting this review, GregJackP makes a defensible argument why WP:BLP1E should not be applied to this article – I haven't, myself, formed an opinion about this. However, I did not evaluate that argument as it is made here, but the arguments that were made in the discussion. There, the view that this is a BLP1E article was not seriously contested, but rather countered by arguments to the effect of "but generals are notable". As stated in the closure, these are weak arguments to oppose a policy with, and I accordingly gave them less weight.  Sandstein  07:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

comment - & to me, that suggests a "weak" rationale for closing as delete, which is now weaker, by your own admission; in a debate which WAS contested & no clear consensus was reached. & quite frankly, it suggests that you decide closes on a very narrow basis. you are citing the discussion "as given in the dd", as though you were incapable of considering anything other than the text on the dd page, in reaching your decision. if we are really going to dance around "blp1e", then why not rewrite the article, as covering the scandal & court martial? the event is certainly notable enough to merit inclusion. support undelete & by the way, when did "undeletion" become a parrot's chorus of uncritical support for deleting closes? the last time i bothered with this page, there was some actual DISCUSSION of cases, not just a snowstorm of "yeas". again, with all due respect, Lx 121 ( talk) 09:58, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per DGG and Guy. A very good close by Sandstein, appropriate weight given to policy based comments over an essay. Govindaharihari ( talk) 09:48, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

comment - & here, just for the record, & the merry HELL of it, are some sources, to establish notability (he even has his own tag on the huffington post, AND stars and stripes). BY THE WAY he WAS a general (& yes, brigadier generals do "count"), subsequently demoted, so he DOES qualify for "notability" on that standard.

• http://www.huffingtonpost.com/news/jeffrey-sinclair/
• http://www.stripes.com/search-7.269?q=Brig.+Gen.+Jeffrey+A.+Sinclair&x=0&y=0
• http://abc11.com/archive/9472170/
• http://www.washingtontimes.com/topics/jeffrey-sinclair/
• http://www.fayobserver.com/military/charges-tarnish-high-profile-career-of-brig-gen-jeffrey-allen/article_9d27ffa1-8853-5c78-bd4e-6b41f96a4141.html
• http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sinclair-trial-20140319-story.html
• http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2585007/Army-general-fined-reprimanded-sex-case.html
• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/20/army-jeffrey-sinclair-no-jail-time-trial-sexual-assault
• http://www.thewire.com/politics/2014/03/convicted-brigadier-general-jeffrey-sinclair-could-still-walk-away-with-a-big-pension/359552/

& here is the New York Times! ^__^

• http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/21/us/general-in-sex-case-jeffrey-sinclair-to-retire-with-a-2-rank-demotion.html

i know we dont like op-eds, but here is a good one, @ a reasonably notable discussion-site

• http://thinkprogress.org/alyssa/2012/11/13/1180731/why-we-should-hear-more-about-brig-gen-jeffrey-sinclair-and-less-about-paula-broadwell/

& here is the AP story she cited

• http://bigstory.ap.org/article/hearing-air-sex-crimes-case-against-us-general

& here is a quote from AP "U.S. Army prosecutors offered the first details of a rare criminal case against a general"

had enough yet? there's more: UPI

• http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2012/11/05/Army-general-charged-with-sex-abuse/42421352142792/
• http://archive.armytimes.com/article/20130128/NEWS/301280303/Texts-show-Sinclair-accuser-went-hot-cold
• http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/06/14961775-captain-army-general-in-sex-case-threatened-to-kill-me?lite
• http://www.wired.com/2012/12/sinclair/
• http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2014/03/army_gen_jeffrey_sinclair_expr.html
• http://www. examiner (censored by the almighty wikipedia "blacklist";' all hail the blacklist) .com/article/brig-gen-jeffrey-sinclair-aka-mr-sexy-pants-accused-of-sodomy
• http://www.mintpressnews.com/army-general-defers-plea-at-hearing-on-sex-charges/46608/
• http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/22/army-general-expected-to-enter-plea-on-sex-charges/1854601/
• http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/20/us-usa-courtmartial-sinclair-idUSBREA2J0XV20140320?feedType=RSS&feedName=domesticNews
• http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-sinclair-court-martial-20140304,0,6116821.story?track=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&

&, not that i like them, but the washington times is a major news outlet

• http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/4/trial-set-to-begin-for-general-facing-sex-charges/?amp;
• http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/general-admit-guilt-counts-denies-assault-22795179
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wife-general-accused-misconduct-speaks-military-marriages-article-1.1205146
• http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/wife-general-accused-misconduct-speaks-military-marriages-article-1.1205146
• http://news.yahoo.com/general-admits-guilt-3-counts-denies-assault-162840938.html
• http://nymag.com/thecut/2012/11/four-generals-four-scandals-and-a-rape-case.html
• http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2012/12/worst_cads_of_2012_from_kristen_stewart_to_rush_limbaugh.html

NOW, is anyone seriously contesting the "notability" of the subject? because i can just keep going... Lx 121 ( talk) 10:32, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• comment - they are all one event - and ultimately the one event was not even a court martial - so although there were at the time a lot of newsy reports the final outcome of the sex case makes even that not worthy of an article, attempting to assert his individual noteworthy status using an essay in an attempt to overcome/violate BLP1E is not a good reflection of wp:policy and guidelines Govindaharihari ( talk) 10:41, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• comment - i don't really CARE whether we make an article about the PERSON or the EVENT; that's "chicken & egg" agruement & i dont want to waste my time on it. HOWEVER, the CASE is notable, & it merits an article. the fact that the case was plea-bargained, does NOTHING to reduce its notability. the south-carolina church shooting seems likely to end in a plea-bargain right now; would you argue that makes the case "non-notable", or the accused? Lx 121 ( talk) 11:07, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• So you are asserting a notable issue for the case, then try going down that road then ... that does nothing to affect this deletion review of a wp:bio though... If you create an article about the sex case what would you call it? Govindaharihari ( talk) 11:15, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

(POSTED AFTER 2 EDIT CONFLICTS)

what about something like "j. sinclair vs us army" or whatever the case heading was from the legal procedings? or "the sexual misconduct case of former brigadier general jeffrey allen sinclair, us army" or ANYTHING' like that? the case for deletion is on pretty weak grounds, if we are down to arguing what the name of the article should be. Lx 121 ( talk) 11:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

btw, you are wrong about it being "not even a court martial"; the case was brought forward, hearings were convened, he plea-bargained, & there was a sentencing. i invite you to read the article about court martial trials; a court-martial is (first & foremost) the process, not the outcome. Lx 121 ( talk) 11:21, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

btw your comments support the closure of the AFD - sinclair vs us army - If you think it would comply with wp:policy and guidelines go for it then Govindaharihari ( talk) 11:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment, were the article to be about the case, it would need to be The Trial of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair or The Court-Martial of Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. An appellate case would be titled Sinclair v. United States, it would never be titled as against the U.S. Army. GregJackP  Boomer! 17:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: for BLP, we are extremelycareful about accusations that are not supported by a conviction, and the standards for including them are properly quite restrictive high, especially for non-public figures (& very few generals are that) . (I note that some versions of the article put incredibly high emphasis on the accusations of which he was not convicted, which indicates to me the intent to use the article for the purpose of abusing the subject. DGG ( talk ) 22:53, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

comment -- there was a case', there was a trial, he PLEA-BARGAINED it. what part of this is being factually contested? & he was a united states army general, therefore a high-ranking public official, & that counts as a "public figure". i didnt get to read the article before it was disappeared, so i have no opinion on the "tone" of the piece; my arguement is that we need to have AN ARTICLE about this case. i'm not debating the merits of the article-that-was. Lx 121 ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. The reason for deletion, as clarified by the closing admin, was WP:BLP1E. It states: "We should generally avoid having an article on a person when each of three conditions is met:"

1. "If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event". This is something questionable because there are publications about this person with relations to other events.
2. "If that person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual.". No, a general is not a low-profile individual per our military history guidelines.
3. "If the event is not significant". No, that was a pretty significant event based on the huge press coverage.

None of WP:BLP1E conditions has been actually met. My very best wishes ( talk) 14:47, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse The closing administrator must determine whether arguments are based on policy or guidelines. WP:SOLDIER is not a guideline but an essay and in order to use it editors would have to show how it related to guidelines. They would have to show not only that WP:SOLDIER said generals were inherently notable but that that was a reasonable inference to be drawn from Wikipedia:Notability (people). Furthermore, it is debatable whether a brigadier general is a true general. TFD ( talk) 17:25, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

comment -- no, the closing admin is supposed to judge the case on its merits, & on the consensus reached in the discussion. Lx 121 ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• User:The Four Deuces it is not debatable, the article Flag Officer article subsection for United States has a | government source of what is and is not a Flag Officer and a brigadier General of O-7 is the lowest level Flag Officer in the United States army and as Tomstar noted in the AFD there are other lower ranking flag officer positions in other armies. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 17:30, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• The U.S. considers brigadier generals to be flag officers, while the UK does not. A British brigadier would therefore be considered a flag officer by the U.S., while an American brigadier general would not be considered a flag officer by the UK. Both the U.S. and UK consider brigadiers and brigadiers general to be equivalent ranks. Hence it is debatable whether a brigadier/brigadier general is a true general. TFD ( talk) 18:00, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

with all due repect, BULLSHIT; he was an officer in the UNITED STATE ARMY. when we are considering a UK officer, you can try this arguement out again, then. Lx 121 ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hence why it is stated the rank they can have their own flag. A brigidier General qualifies them for their own flag, the same would be true for the countries that have Colonels that have their flag, they are at that point Flag Officers in that army. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 18:03, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Furthermore, it is debatable whether a brigadier general is a true general. This is truly one of the most ill-informed statements that I have seen on Wikipedia. A brigadier general in the U.S. Army is defined as a general officer by law. See 10 U.S.C. §§ 524-25. He's a general whether another country recognizes it as being a general or not. The fact that the U.K. or another nation chooses to organize their armed forces differently does not mean that they do not recognize an American brigadier general as a general officer. British soldiers in a joint assignment address American BGs as general, not brigadier. Jeez, if you don't know something, ask someone who does. GregJackP  Boomer! 20:31, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

A fatuous argument, in the end, because there is no such thing as inherent notability and the vast majority of people of this rank do not have an article, nor would there be reliable independent sources enough to write them. In this case we have sources related to a single event. WP:BLP1E and WP:TABLOID apply, muddle-headed ideas of the status of essays and subject-specific notability guidelines notwithstanding. Guy ( Help!) 21:26, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

he's a US general who BROKE THE LAW, was court-martialed for it, plea-bargained his guilt, & removed from the army. that's pretty "notable". Lx 121 ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Exactly which of the three BLP1E criteria did the article meet, and how? You have completely misapplied the policy. Not to worry, we'll do an article on the court-martial, there's plenty of sources for that. GregJackP  Boomer! 00:11, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I originally came to close the AfD, and my evaluation of the discussion essentially was the same as Sanstein's. I just thought the discussion had not grappled with the most important issue, which is why I voted instead. I suggest the way forward is to consider an article about the trial. And thanks, Jytdog, you're very kind. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 21:34, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - At first I thought this was about Babylon 5's first commander. Phew! Anyways, consensus of the discussion was that BLP1E applied, and that a wiki-project's essay on notability does not carry the same weight as a project-space WP:SNG. Tarc ( talk) 03:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

::::NO, that was not the "consensus". if you go back & actually READ the DD, you will find blp issues played a very MINOR part in the discussion. that was the closing admin's "rationale" for disregarding the non-consensus outcome. Lx 121 ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I STAND CORRECTED; i was thinking of a different dd. this one did include some discussion of blp; 12 mentions, including 2 mentions by the closer. my mistake. Lx 121 ( talk) 16:47, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow creation of an article about the trial using as a basis the material about the trial in the deleted article Jeffrey Allen Sinclair. The sources provided by Lx 121 ( talk · contribs) above clearly demonstrate that the trial is notable.

  Per Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event, "The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person." The full quote (my bolding):

  When an individual is significant for his or her role in a single event, it may be unclear whether an article should be written about the individual, the event or both. In considering whether or not to create separate articles, the degree of significance of the event itself and the degree of significance of the individual's role within it should be considered. The general rule in many cases is to cover the event, not the person. However, if media coverage of both the event and the individual's role grow larger, separate articles may become justified.

  Cunard ( talk) 03:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The question is simply whether Sinclair is notable. Even if all the material about the scandal is deleted he would still be notable as a general officer. There have been many AfDs concerning general officers from all over the world, many of them holding equal rank to Sinclair. As far as I remember, not one of them has resulted in a deletion. It is a fact that consensus is to keep all articles on general officers because of their seniority. It is ridiculous that that consensus has been ignored on this one article simply because he was involved in a scandal. It is not a BLP1E issue. It is an issue of his rank and status. There has been much blarting about "policy"; WP:IAR is also a policy. It says (since many apparently don't realise it, although they quote other policies with gay abandon): "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." That, in my opinion, applies here and to every other general officer. That is why those who are knowledgeable about such things have formulated WP:SOLDIER. It is unfortunate that it has not been raised from the lowly status of an essay to the vaunted status of a guideline, since many editors seem to like "rules" and get all confused and upset when told there aren't any rules here, but it is still accepted by almost all of us who write and know about such matters, and for very good reason. The fact is that if Sinclair had not been involved in a scandal nobody without an interest in military matters would have got involved in this AfD and the article would have been kept per WP:SOLDIER with quite probably no opposers. In any case, given the number of "votes" to keep, this article should quite clearly have been closed as no consensus even without the existence of the de facto consensus to keep general officers. The closer's statement that "WP:SOLDIER is an essay, and as such does not represent community consensus" is utter rubbish. Consensus is not just laid down in policies and guidelines; it is formed in many places, including at AfD, where it has on this subject already been formed years ago. In my opinion this was an incorrect close and should be overturned immediately. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 08:51, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  Your claim to consensus about WP:SOLDIER by "those who are knowledgeable about such things" isn't supportable. There isn't even consensus within MILHIST for the weight you ascribe to it, not that that matters anyway. Several current and former co-ordinators of that project have stated here and on that AFD and others that it is just an essay and that it does not outweigh policy (including myself). By all means develop the community consensus for WP:SOLDIER to be elevated to policy if you wish but just because it gets incorrectly applied at AFD on occasion by some of the few volunteers that regularly chose to work in that area doesn't mean there is consensus. Regardless, in no place does WP:SOLDIER actually say a general is automatically notable, it only states that they are "presumed to be notable" (for the purposes of that essay) because they "will almost always have sufficient coverage". Yet by that wording if they don't have sufficient coverage then they aren't notable (hence WP:GNG). Anotherclown ( talk) 11:36, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

comment - well, when a us army general breaks the law, is court-martialed, plea bargains, & is forced to leave the army, in a very public SCANDAL, with enourmous press coverage, isn't that "presumed to be notable"? Lx 121 ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• That's a problem though because there is indeed a multitude of sources, I find it ironic that the people here think it is unacceptable to have 3 sentences in a bio stub about the scandal but somehow it's ok to have a whole article on the trial. Dude was a notable soldier. Hell in a Bucket ( talk) 11:48, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Ah yes, a predictable comment by one of the few editors working on military history articles who disagrees with the consensus. You must be overjoyed. However, this one ridiculous AfD outcome does not change the consensus established over dozens of AfDs, even if it isn't overturned as it should be. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:40, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, open and shut WP:BLP1E case, closing administrator absolutely and unquestionably made the correct call here in putting our BLP policy ahead of a contested notability essay. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC). reply

comment -- dear user:lankiveil, re: "contested notability". if you wish to stand by that comment, i shall RE-POST my collection of source links for you here,since you seem to have missed them, above. shall i do that for you? :) Lx 121 ( talk) 15:57, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

& since we are STILL going-all-around-the-mulberry-bush on this point, here are the three, *6, *7 most-relevant articles about 1-star rank in general, in nato, & in the us army.

• Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers

• Brigadier general

• Brigadier general (United States)

• Rear admiral (United States)

• One-star rank

• Flag officer

• General officer

& if you wade through all of that, then @ the end of the day you will find that yes virginia, in the united states army, a brigadier general IS a flag officer.

also, that in british, they just call it a "brigadier", with no -"general".

please can we declare that point to be settled now?

Lx 121 ( talk) 16:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Reasonable close. For the record, I would consider a brigadier general to fall within the scope of WP:SOLDIER, though as a general officer (flag officer will always sound nautical to me). That being said, and as Xymmax said during the AfD, we don't have very many articles on one-star generals, and spot-checking Category:Brigadier generals reveals many articles which probably wouldn't survive AfD. The closer didn't have much choice but to privilege policy-based arguments (BLP1E) above the notability guideline. Mackensen (talk) 19:24, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Even the fact that we are having this very long discussion is an indication of notability. Unfortunately, I can not agree about BLP1E. It provides three conditions, none of which was respected by the closing admin (please see my comment above). After quickly looking at the page, I too initially voted "weak delete", however after checking the sources and listening to arguments it became apparent that he actually satisfied our notability guidelines - precisely per BLP1E: according to WP:BLP1E (which is the policy), he is not a person notable for only one event. My very best wishes ( talk) 19:38, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, no, a lengthy argument doesn't prove anything except that people disagree, which doesn't default to supporting one position over another. The question is simply whether the closer interpreted the discussion reasonably, and I think he did. We're not here to re-argue the AfD. To take your position, the question, put simply, is whether aside from being court-martialed Sinclair is notable. If you think WP:SOLDIER should be policy then the answer is yes, because general officers are notable. That position isn't accepted by the community. If the question is whether Sinclair passes the GNG absent the court martial, I think the answer is probably no. Either way, Sandstein's close is reasonable. Mackensen (talk) 21:12, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am not telling that decision by admin was unreasonable. I am telling that in my opinion his decision was against the policy (this is matter under review). Obviously, he acted in a good faith. But decision-making is a difficult business. According to certain estimates, someone who makes more than 50% correct decisions is already a good administrator. Speaking more informally, I think Sinclair is notable not per WP:SOLDIER and not for his dismissal, but as a symbol of abuse in US army (as described here, for example), just as Budanov became a symbol of abuse in Russian army. Sure, Budanov was worse. My very best wishes ( talk) 12:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse the argument that he is notable because of his rank is based on an essay and must be given little weight, and the sources here are such that it isn't going to be possible to write an article about this person without most of it being about the scandals, so that is the only real source of notability. You can argue about whether the subject meets BLP1E given the rank and nature of the case, and some people did, but most didn't try to contest this point and the argument certainly isn't bad enough that we should overturn based on perceived weaknesses in it. Hut 8.5 22:07, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

hello; in posting your comment, you seem to have ignored the LONG list of sources that i have posted above, to establish the subject's notability. shall i repost them down here for you? :)

ALSO - "You can argue about whether the subject meets BLP1E given the rank and nature of the case, and some people did, but most didn't try to contest this point" -- actually quite a LOT of people have contested this point, both there & HERE.

finally, we are not a bound by the rules of an "appelate court". if the decision was wrong, & the article should be restored, we restore it, we don't just sit here & argue that "the law has been applied correctly"; when did that become the "mission" of deletion review!?

Lx 121 ( talk) 13:16, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

hello User:Lx 121; in posting your commens, you seem to have ignored WP:BLUDGEON. Kraxler ( talk) 14:50, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• comment - if you can fault me on the content of my comments, or the quality of my arguements, then go right ahead. if you can point out where a comment i've posted seems misplaced, then i'm prepared to listen. if your only complaint is that "i'm arguing too forcefully", WHEN i'm right, then i do not apologise for that. experience has shown me QUITE clearly that being right isn't enough, & proving it isn't enough; in our little discussions on here, you often have to hammer the facts in repeatedly, just to get the point across.

otherwise, some idiot 3, or 10 posts down is going to completely ignore what you've posted, & return to arguing THE SAME DAMN THING, you've demolished further up the page.

chances are, they didn't even READ the thing you posted above.

find a way to fix that problem, & i'll think about going more "sotto voce" with my comments

with all due respect, Lx 121 ( talk) 17:10, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Your list of sources isn't relevant. The argument for deletion is that the subject is only known for one event. Posting sources about that event does nothing to undermine this argument. Meeting WP:GNG does not guarantee that an article on a topic can't be deleted, only that it can't be deleted for being non-notable. By the point about contesting the application of WP:BLP1E, most people opposing deletion said that the subject was independently notable aside from the scandal because of WP:SOLDIER, and that argument is very weak because SOLDIER is an essay. One or two (and it really is only one or two) people argued instead that BLP1E is only applicable to low-profile individuals. I think that argument is reasonable but it's hardly knockdown and as I've said few people made it.
You don't appear to understand the purpose of DRV. DRV is not a second round of AFD, it's a separate process designed to review speedy deletions and closures of deletion discussions for procedural flaws and errors by the closing or deleting admin. An appellate court is actually a good analogy. Here our job is to assess whether Sandstein made a mistake when s/he closed the discussion, not to decide whether the article should be deleted or not. Now it is true that admins closing discussions should give positions weight according to strength of arguments, and give weight accordingly. Here the main argument cited for keeping the article ( WP:SOLDIER) is very weak and was properly assigned little weight. However if two positions are both reasonable and one has far more support than the other then the more popular one will win. Here there was little dispute that WP:BLP1E applied, and so that is how it was closed. Hut 8.5 19:44, 25 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Indeed. "But I found X sources!" is never an adequate rebuttal to an article that has been deleted on 1-event grounds, and frankly I find LX 121's Walls o' Text to be tiresome at this point, and his smarmy, sarcastic responses to be increasingly off-putting. Demonstrate that the subject is notable for more than one event, or that the event is so critically important as to justify a John Hinckley-like exception, and then we'll talk. Otherwise, this dead horse needs a ceasing of the beating. Tarc ( talk)

• Overturn There was clearly no consensus to delete. The close claimed that WP:BLP overrode this but, as My very best wishes has pointed out, WP:BLP1E did not apply because its conditions were not met. Andrew D. ( talk) 16:01, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse as reasonable close. I'll also echo the warning that Lx 121 is WP:BLUDGEONing the discussion at this point. We can all post about haw various countries stack their military ranks until our keyboards melt, but the bottom line is there was nothing wrong with the close that bears our overturning it. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply

**comment; as i've said above several time before; I DON'T CARE whether the article is about the PERSON, or the CASE. that is a "chicken & egg" arguement, & i have better things to do with my time.

the event is NOTABLE; that point has been ESTABLISHED. anyone who STILL wants to dispute it, SPEAK UP NOW; 'cause, i've got CRAPLOADS of sources to cut & paste @ you! ^__^.

as regards some user's comments about my "style" of posting:

i argue FACTS, & use logical reasoning to do so.

IF you can counter me on 'that basis, then BRING IT ON; come at me bro. if you can't, don't waste my time complaining about "style". i have better things to do, than to care about whether you like my debating technique, or not. i care about what the right answer is; not "how you feel about it".

IF you "can't be bothered to read my "wall of text; your loss. i have posted my arguements; they are written in clear english, & should be reasonably easy for anyone to understand; given a t least average intelligence & ability in the english language. if you are participating in a DISCUSSION & can't be bothered to read other people's comments, the fault is yours.

i find it necessary to repeat myself OFTEN in these "discussions" precisely because a lot of people either DON'T READ before posting; OR they COMPLETELY IGNORE points raised in the preceding discussion that interfere with their own "opinions".

such commentors deserve & require to have the important points of the discussion that they have MISSED pointed out to them.

personally i find repeating myself to be BORING-AS-F* bowdlerised for your protection*K, but i have not yet found another way to address the problem of people who ignore everything that's been already said just to express an opinion which REPEATS something said above, & which has already been addressed in the discussion.

find a better way of doing that, & i'm all ears

with all due respect,

Lx 121 ( talk) 19:28, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Repeating an action and expecting a different result is a sure sign of insanity, as the paraphrased saying goes. If your Text Walls(tm) aren't convincing other editors to change their mind on the matter, it could be a sign that there is strong disagreement with your point-of-view, rather than we're all unintelligent non-native speakers of English. Tarc ( talk) 19:34, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. A valid policy-based close of a contentious AfD. It would also have been ok to close this one as no consensus, but that's not a good enough reason to overturn the close that was made. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:38, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Despite all the words we've spent on this, we haven't got to the right outcome. The media coverage in this case means this officer's name is a plausible search term. If we can't have an article, then fair enough, but we should clearly have a paragraph in Sexual assault in the United States military about the officer's plea bargain, and a redirect from his name to that paragraph.— S Marshall T/ C 22:59, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Sexual assault in the United States military talks about the general concept, it does not cite any specific case of sexual assault, except one that caused a change in the legislation. Kraxler ( talk) 05:07, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

So we'd need to expand the article. Is that a problem?— S Marshall T/ C 12:00, 30 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Chad White ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

It is an international male model. This article was excluded for rapid elimination, for not being a high-profile person. I know that in 2007 (when the page was deleted), there were so many outside sources about it. But today, after many years, you can do an article to reliable sources, it has profile in known fashion pages. My request is, if you can not restore the page, at least unprotect the item so it can be edited in the future. Thanks. Brenhunk ( talk) 17:50, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse previously deleted article was so over-the-top and silly that it sounded like a dating-site profile (sample quote: "...unswervingly patient, tireless in his work, kind, fun to be with..."). Safe to say it was neither an encyclopedic article nor how a professional would want to present themselves, and restoring it would not be wise. Regarding a potential new article, I'd suggest posting the substantial coverage in idependent reliable sources that you'd use as the basis for a new article. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 19:52, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Reply I agree with your position. I did not know how the article was written before disposal. If so, the elimination was deserved. But the substance in question is to give a new possibility of the article be re-created, which is not possible to be protected. Brenhunk ( talk) 01:37, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Re-creating it is pointless if there isn't substantial coverage in idependent reliable sources though. Sourcing is important for every article but it's absolutely vital for WP:BLP articles. Without that, any work on a potential future article is just wasted. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:35, 28 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The speedy deletion was absolutely justified, and any admin who failed to delete it would have been acting in a quite unusual manner. If he is notable now, a draft can be written for checking & unprotected if it seems that he would pass afd. Given the availability of Draft space, we need not remove protection simply on the assertion that an article could possibly be written. DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per SB & DGG. GregJackP  Boomer! 16:59, 23 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - there was no way to save it from the twin jaws of G11 and A7, except by starting from scratch. As DGG notes, needing to start from scratch is why god created sandboxen. Wily D 07:59, 24 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Template:AZBilliards ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Incorrect speedy deletion on grounds of recreation of previously deleted content. It's a different template that provides more than twice the features of the older template that used to be at that name (i.e. it is substantially different; this is especially salient in that the deletion of the old template was principally on the grounds of lack of utility in providing only two auto-fill features). This is a specific-source citation template, for one of the top-four, professionally edited sports journalism sources in cue sports. The newer template is comparable to the rest of the templates in that category.  —  SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  04:23, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore I have inspected the template as it was when put up for TfD, and again as it was when tagged for G4. The later version does significantly more. As this was a primary issue raised at the TfD discussion, this is not a legit G4 (not being substantially similar to the previous version) and should be overturned and the template restored. Of course anyone can open a new TfD who so chooses. DES ^(talk) 04:47, 21 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Hi. User:Skier Dude deleted File:LifeIsGood.png, but appears not to be an admin (or even an active user) any more. I think that file may have a role to play in a historical context in article Life is Good Company, with a valid fair use rationale template. Please check on it and let me know. Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• It doesn't need a fair use rationale, since it's not copyrightable. Can probably be speedy restored. — Cryptic 04:50, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Cryptic: Thank you, can you facilitate making it available on Wikimedia Commons, then? I'd need a source if I were to do it.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• The file is extremely similar to File:Life is good logo 2.png, the only difference is that the smiley face isn't present in the deleted version. I don't see the need for two files and if deemed copyrightable then hosting both wouldn't be minimal use. Hut 8.5 21:48, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Thank you.   — Jeff G. ツ (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore since it is not copyrightable. It is below the threshold of originality required for copyright protection (see Commons:Threshold of originality). Since File:LifeIsGood.png is like File:Life is good logo 2.png (but without the smiley face) per Hut 8.5, then it is not copyrightable. Cunard ( talk) 05:43, 29 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Benzinga (company) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

The Page deletetion reason is that it was deleted previously, but I created it with new content and added many reliable secondary sources. Please review and recreate the page Slowstars ( talk) 14:51, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

From the closing admin's talk page:

List of sources in the AfD:

1. International Journal of Science and Modern Engineering: http://ijisme.org/attachments/File/v1i5/E0222041513.pdf
2. "PassMap: a map based graphical-password authentication system" from the Association for Computing Machinery: http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513
3. http://arxiv.org/abs/1001.1962
4. more

The lead of the article says:

Passmap /ˈpæsmæp/ is an image based method used for authentication, similar to passwords. The word passmap originates from the word password by substituting word with map. Passmap is a patented technology of Hydrabyte, Inc.

I agree that Hydrabyte's technology is not notable, but I think the concept itself is notable, so perhaps this can be saved by deleting everything except the first sentence of the article, which can be sourced to http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513. Also, I would support a redirect of this topic to the article eventually created from Draft:Graphical password.

I would like passmap to be restored, so I can remove all but the first two sentences and source them to http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513.

There was clearly no consensus in the AfD. Two editors supported "keep and prune" (Cunard and Prhartcom), one editor supported "keep" (Sadads), and three editors supported deletion (Finlay McWalter, Eclipsed, and Rhododendrites). The "delete" editors did not advance arguments far better than the "keep" editors, so a "delete" conclusion is untenable with a split vote count.

Overturn to no consensus.

Cunard ( talk) 19:01, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment (from closing admin) As I explained on my talk page (copied above), I stand by the delete close. -- Randykitty ( talk) 19:19, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• @ Cunard: I'm confused by your argument for keeping the article: 'I agree that Hydrabyte's technology is not notable, but I think the concept itself is notable'. Passmap is Hydrabyte's technology. If the broader topic is notable, let's work on an article for the broader topic (I agree with you about that, hence starting Draft:Graphical password). To get more specific to this DRV, 'The "delete" editors did not advance arguments far better than the "keep" editors' - when the delete arguments in question are about there being insufficient sources, isn't that saying people who !voted delete should be proving a negative? The sources provided were exceptionally weak (again, unless we're talking about the broader topic and not actually about Passmap). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:45, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• The sources provided were exceptionally weak (again, unless we're talking about the broader topic and not actually about Passmap). – yes, I'm talking about the broader topic. I think none of the "keep" editors think that Hydrabyte's Passmap technology is notable. We instead argued that "passmap" as a general concept is notable and that the article could be reframed to discuss that general concept using only the first one or two sentences in the now-deleted article. Cunard ( talk) 00:57, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Shrug I can kind of see it as a no consensus, but when you are arguing to cut it to a one liner then redirect to a draft when it's more complete, then I get a bit lost. If a one liner is good enough then preparing the draft to be good for main space should be trivial. I would suspect more time has been spent on discussing this than it would have been to move things forward there. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 21:55, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I withdraw my suggestion to redirect this article to a draft. I had thought that this would be better covered in an article about the larger subject. But there is sufficient material in the sources Sadads ( talk · contribs) found (and in the sources I listed here) to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for passmaps as a general concept. The deleted article had a good definition of what a "passmap" is:

  Passmap /ˈpæsmæp/ is an image based method used for authentication, similar to passwords.

  Cunard ( talk) 00:49, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Well I get to a similar response. I can't see the original article but it sounds from what's been written here so far that you are proposing a different set of content to that which was there. In which case the AFD is irrelevant and whoever is interested in that new article should just write it. The quotes below (I wish you wouldn't do that, the way these get rendered in mobile as large quotes makes it very difficult to read properly) are all basically the same thing, I'm not seeing much more than a paragraph to be written, which from a usability point of view would probably be better as a section in a bigger article than a standalone article with nav boxes to the other "similar" concepts. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• The article said that "Passmap /ˈpæsmæp/ is an image based method used for authentication, similar to passwords". Hydrabyte's passmap product is not notable but the general concept is. The article can be reframed to discuss the general concept of how passmaps do authentication through images.

  From the abstract of this article in the Association for Computing Machinery:

  Based on the idea of using an extremely large image as the password space, we propose a novel world map based graphical-password authentication system called PassMap in which a password consists of a sequence of 2 click-points that a user selects on an large world map. We also conducted a user study for evaluation. The result shows that the passwords of PassMap are easy to memorize for humans and PassMap is friendly to use in practice. Furthermore, PassMap provides higher entropy than PassPoints and also increases the cost of attacks.

  Here are other sources:

• .... notice how those sources say "PassMap" or "Passmap" and not "passmap"? That's because Passmap is proprietary. You're saying the proprietary "Passmap" is not notable but the "general concept" of "passmap" is notable, but I see no evidence such a thing even exists (and it would be weird if it did, since it's apparently trademarked). Perhaps what you're looking for is "map-based password system", which is (again) a perfectly reasonable addition to an article about graphical passwords, but is not the same as the topic of this article. Also, this wall of text belongs at AfD, not DRV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Also, this wall of text belongs at AfD, not DRV. – I added these sources here after I did further research on the topic to see how widely discussed it was. I thought Sadads' sources were sufficient, so during the AfD I did look for more.

  notice how those sources say "PassMap" or "Passmap" and not "passmap"? ... You're saying the proprietary "Passmap" is not notable but the "general concept" of "passmap" is notable, but I see no evidence such a thing even exists – you are correct that the "m" should be capitalized. My correction: The general concept of "PassMap" as "an image based method used for authentication, similar to passwords" is notable. The "keep" editors believed the article should have been reframed to discuss that instead of the non-notable proprietary concept.

  The "delete" editors did not explicitly dispute this reframing that was proposed by me and endorsed by Prhartcom at the AfD. Therefore, I cannot see a consensus to delete. Cunard ( talk) 05:25, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• The general concept of "PassMap" as "an image based method used for authentication, similar to passwords" is notable - The point of my previous message wasn't to correct your capitalization, but to point out that the fact that it's always capitalized as one indication of what is elsewhere explicitly stated: the "general concept" of "passmap" doesn't exist. If you're searching for a general concept, it's something like "map-based graphical passwords/authentication" of which Passmap is one example -- and that doesn't make the keep arguments any stronger than they were (which, of course, is all that's relevant here -- whether the strength of the arguments presented effect a consensus to delete). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Yes, "map-based" is more precise than "image-based". I'll revise it once the article is restored. Cunard ( talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Why are we here? It sounds like this is a request to do one of two things. Either 1) create a new article under this title with completely different content, or 2) wait for some other article which is currently in draft to be created, then make this a redirect to that. Neither of those actions require DRV to be involved. Thus, I suggest this DRV be speedy closed to save a week of pointless arguing. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• 1) create a new article under this title with completely different content – it would not be completely different content. I would like the article to be restored so as suggested at the AfD, I can prune it to the first one or two sentences, citing it to http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2414513, a source Sadads mentioned at AfD.

  wait for some other article which is currently in draft to be created, then make this a redirect to that – as I have written repeatedly above, I do not think this should be a redirect. I agree with Prhartcom, who wrote in the AfD that Article can coexist with a graphical password article.

  Why are we here? – we are here because there was no consensus in the AfD for deletion, and some of the material in the original article can be salvaged.

  If you'd restore the article so I can do my proposed pruning, then yes, this DRV can be speedy closed. Cunard ( talk) 17:46, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I'm not sure why this DRV was open. There is consensus the 'article does not belong here, but on the other hand there's nothing wrong with either incorporating some of the material into a wider topic and/or creating a redirect. But the close was appropriate. § FreeRangeFrog ^croak 19:50, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Thank you, RoySmith ( talk · contribs), for temporarily undeleting the article. I have pruned and rewritten the article. I have re-blanked the article per my comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion/Archive 55#Improving articles temporarily undeleted for WP:DRV:

  I will do the following if I rewrite an article with a {{ TempUndelete}} template on it in the future. I will either save the rewrite in mainspace and then immediately blank it myself, or I will recreate it in the draft namespace.

  To RoySmith, FreeRangeFrog, or the DRV closing admin: Please unblank the article and move this page to PassMap. I think there is enough material here to warrant a standalone article with a brief mention in Draft:Graphical password. Once this page is restored to mainspace, this DRV can be closed as resolved.

  Cunard ( talk) 20:32, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

My take on this is editing a tempundeleted article in mainspace is inappropriate. If you want to propose a new draft before the DRV is over, that's what userspace is for. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. The general concept of a map-based authentication method is (probably) notable. The general concept of a "passmap" does not exist. The main source presented for passmap is for a specific piece of software. The ACM publishes papers describing software written by the paper's authors all the time. Cunard's rewrite is still spam for a non-notable product. Much more well-meaning spam than the original spam, yes, but still spam. — Cryptic 00:30, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• My rewritten article has five sources, four of which are independent reliable sources while one is a primary source from the ACM. Because of the significant coverage from four independent reliable sources, the subject is notable.

  From Wikipedia:Spam: "There are three main types of spam on Wikipedia. These are: advertisements masquerading as articles; external link spamming; and adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced."

  The latter two types are clearly inapplicable, so are you saying that I wrote an "advertisemen[t] masquerading as [an] articl[e]"? That is a serious accusation to make. Please explain how I wrote an advertisement that is masquerading as an article. I did not use promotional language. I have no affiliation with the subject. I only included facts that were supported by reliable sources.

  Cunard ( talk) 00:41, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Because you've taken an article about a specific product and are proposing to use it as the general case. It's like (first ridiculous example to spring to mind) replacing the content of Web search engine with that of Google Search. — Cryptic 00:58, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Both Web search engine and Google Search are notable. That's why there are articles for both topics.

  Both map-based authentication method and PassMap are notable. The rewritten article PassMap is titled "PassMap", not "map-based authentication method", so it's unclear why you believe I've "taken an article about a specific product and [am] proposing to use it as the general case". Cunard ( talk) 01:07, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• • • Probably because it's what you've said multiple times such as "..to satisfy Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline for passmaps as a general concept." etc. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 06:29, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn (to no consensus). I though Cunard was a little forward with his request, until I read the AfD. There was not a consensus to delete. There was a stronger case for "keep and prune", with deleted arguments being rebutted. However, I don't feel that there was a readable consensus for the "keep" part of "keep and prune", and so a closing of "keep and prune" is probably less justifiable than "no consensus, let's see what happens if pruned and improved, no prejudice to a renomination in a month or two". The close reads to me as maybe a little but WP:Supervoteish, that is, if the closer had !voted, the discussion might have been clearer. That was a might. But, a closers' !vote is not allowable. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment SmokeyJoe, I have no problem with you reading the AfD discussion differently than me. However, I do protest your characterization of my close as a "supervote". I gave my reasons why I gave the "keep" !votes less weight than the "delete" ones. You can agree with that or not, but characterizing it as an improper supervote is something I vehemently disagree with. Indeed "a closers' !vote is not allowable" and that is not what I did. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• @ SmokeyJoe: There was a stronger case for "keep and prune", with deleted arguments being rebutted. - Rebutted? One "Keep and Prune" argument rested on "the article can coexist with a graphical password article" and the other was Cunard's, as presented here, which says verbatim "I agree that Hydrabyte's technology is not notable", arguing for a "general concept" that doesn't exist. (As stated here multiple times already, PassMap is Hydrabyte's technology). The only other keep argument was Sadads, linking to 3 sources also referenced by Cunard. So the "rebuttal" in the AfD relies on a primary source and brief mentions in two other papers. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:42, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Rhododendrites, though !voting delete, indicates that tons of sources exist. Despite what he actually, wrote, he is effectively providing a case for "merge to Graphitical password", this new article in the process of creation. Prhartcom slammed that home. There was no consensus at this point to delete. The closer appears to have not bought this. The closes' "there seems" flags that the closer was on the edge. It was just better read as a "no consensus". The "Supervotish" thing I attempted to put very gently was motivated by the observation that had've Randkitty !voted "delete" with clarity, it may have helped the discussion reach a clear consensus, whether through making the case for deletion, or provoking more input in response to the unexected perception that "delete" was where others could see it heading. Also, Cunard's serious contribution is not reflected in the close. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• No. I indicate nothing of the sort.

I started Draft:Graphical password because while the sources provided by Sadads/Cunard in no way showed PassMap to be notable, they indicated that the concept of a graphical password is likely notable. Maybe PassMap could be mentioned in that graphical password article and thus a redirect would be appropriate, but that article doesn't yet exist in the article namespace. So the only appropriate course of action (since a merge/redirect to a non-existent article or another namespace is inappropriate, and because it's quite clear that PassMap is not notable) is to delete. That's why I !voted delete. When the article is created, we could mention it there and create a redirect. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:02, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

OK, PassMap sources were weak, and the Graphical password sources were related but not PassMap sources. Still, I read the XfD as no consensus with the possibility of a merge or a rescope remaining on the table. I am a huge skeptic of the value of DraftSpace and think Draft:Graphical password should be moved to Graphical password. I recommend undeleting and redirecting Passmap to Graphical password. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:22, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn. With even numbers and reasonable arguments on each side, the accurate outcome of the discussion was no consensus. Stifle ( talk) 08:11, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to No Consensus - decent sources, balanced headcount; there's some evidence the usual adage "AfD ain't Cleanup" was ignored here. I'm also troubled by the closing admin coming here to endorse/stand by their decision; it ruins the appearance of impartiality on their part (whether they are or not, I can't say, but admins need to be able to at least look superficially impartial in closes). Wily D 11:47, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  Comment WilyD, As far as I know, it is absolutely normal and even desirable for the closing admin to comment here. For a DRV to be started, the normal procedure is to contact the closing admin first and ask them to reconsider. If they don't, you go to DRV. I didn't !vote here, I only posted a comment that confirms that Cunard contacted me and that I didn't see reason to change my close. There's many a DRV that I have seen where the closing admin participates and !votes "endorse". How I didn't "look impartial" in the close and in this debate is beyond me. -- Randykitty ( talk) 13:46, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  I would draw a distinction between commenting and endorsing, of which the phrase "stand by" strikes me far more like the latter than the former. If there was some relevant information that (for whatever reason) wasn't in the close, that we should know about, or if there was a remark that a phrase in the close that was ambiguous and needs clarification, then of course the closing admin should provide that information, but that's different from stating or implying that DRV should endorse the close. I mean, obviously when one closes a discussion, they think their close is right. But that's different than being invested in that close "sticking". I realise my standards are higher than mosts' in this regard. Wily D 15:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  I for one would disagree with WilyD's characterization. As DRV is not determining if the result is the "correct" result as such but weather the process was followed correctly and if the closer read the debate correctly, I don't think the is any question about impartiality regarding the topic. If we wanted to make a rule that admin's can't comment here we could and that would seem a more constructive way forward rather than trying to shame individual admins to conform to a view point which seems to be only expressed by one person. I'd fully expect the closing admin to endorse their own close, and in fact I'd go so far as the opposite view and admin not wishing to come here to endorse their own actions tends to suggest they didn't take their responsibility in closing seriously. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 17:56, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  An admin who strongly prefers a particular outcome, and feels it necessary to endorse that outcome, is suspect with respect to their ability to read the debate fairly and impartially. It's poisonous to the community if we can't trust that admins are closing discussions based on the discussion, rather than because they have some strong opinion. I wouldn't say closers shouldn't comment at DRV - often times they should. But they shouldn't close discussions they're so invested in the outcome that they can't abide by other people examining and possibly overturning their close. Wily D 09:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Pray tell me where you get the idea that I was not "closing discussions based on the discussion, rather than because [I] have some strong opinion"? When I closed this AfD, that was the first time I ever heard about anything called PassTime and I couldn't care less personally whether we have an article there or not. I take this as a rather serious accusation, so back it up or strike your comment. I have no problem with somebody reading the AfD discussion differently from me. If the community here decides that I erred in my closure, that's fine with me too. We are all human and mistakes are made and nobody is perfect. But while you are welcome to disagree with my closure and read the debate differently, you are not welcome to accuse me of improper conduct, which is what you are doing here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 09:45, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Of course, I haven't accused you of any improper conduct, so I can hardly strike it. By coming by DRV to endorse/stand by close, you've presented yourself as too invested in the outcome to be able to stand as an impartial closer for the discussion. And hell, letting your biases slip into how you read & close a discussion isn't misconduct, it's just a mistake. But by doubling down on that mistake, there's too much encouraging sides/battleground mentality/however you want to put it. People coming to talk to you about your mistakes shouldn't have to fear you're going to fight them on trying to get them rectified. Wily D 10:07, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Then please tell me where it is stated/recommended that a closing admin should not comment in a DRV? All I thought I was doing was confirming that I was aware of Cunard's intention to open a DRV and confirming that his representation of my position was correct. I empathically did not !vote, but only posted a comment. You are reading way too much into a short comment. And I don't take accusations of bias lightly, not the same thing as a "mistake". -- Randykitty ( talk) 10:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - Well within admin discretion, which has been explained more than adequately. There was one actual keep vote and 2 "keep per X", but since X's vote was refuted, ll of the keeps are thus weakened. The consensus of those who made the better policy-based arguments to delete carried the discussion. Also, it is quite routine for the closing admin of a discussion to come to DRV and endorse their own close. There are some pretty strange lines of attack coming from some DRV regulars, ones who should know better. Tarc ( talk) 19:32, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- delete !votes were correctly judged to be stronger. Reyk _YO! 10:54, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• A very difficult one. I'm with Stifle and WilyD to an extent: when I look at the discussion I don't see a "delete". I definitely see a "no consensus". But was the close within discretion? I'm not seeing the kind of socking, gaming or other disruptive behaviour that would lead to increased sysop discretion ---- and without that I think the range of discretion should be relatively small. If we allow wide discretion then AfD will be a lottery that depends on who closes it. So I'll go with overturn to no consensus.— S Marshall T/ C 18:10, 19 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Template:Non-free_GFDL-invariants ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Not only did the deletion discussion of this template have no resulting consensus, this license is, from what I've seen, relatively uncommon - if it's (rarely) used on an image with no free alternative it may be useable alongside the {{ Non-free with ND}} template. 201.53.49.33 ( talk) 05:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• The template was deleted 3 years and 8 months ago, so I think saying it's "relatively uncommon" would be something of an understatement. What are you asking for here? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 10:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• TFD discussions default to delete if there are no contributions, due to the generally small number of participants. In light of this and the long time since the deletion without anyone needing the template, that is strong evidence that it wasn't used and the deletion should be endorsed. Stifle ( talk) 08:17, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• For this sort of unsupported delete proposal, it is a softdelete, so you can ask at WP:REFUND for a restore. But it could also get a speedy delete for being unused. In anycase what is 201.53.49.33 asking for? Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:32, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

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

I don't believe consensus was reached. Both Delete votes made arguments that were disputed and some were addressed with additional sources and citations. As the AFD had already been relisted twice I believe that the deletion discussion should have been closed and the notice removed under no consensus. Sepharo ( talk) 22:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - As there were no valid votes to keep...opinions of single-purpose account IP users carry little to no weight in AfDs...and user Czar's argument that the coverage was only local was not refuted. Consensus to delete is clear. Tarc ( talk) 00:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

While there were many sources that were local there were also multiple that were not. Said more than once was that the only sources were from college papers which is simply untrue. Also I am not a single purpose account. Sepharo ( talk) 02:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

There were no non-local sources brought up in the AfD. And unless you are admitting to being one of the IP editors, you did not vote in the AfD, only comment. But looking at your sparse edit history, IMO "SPA" applies to you as ewll anyways. Tarc ( talk) 03:26, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am both 12.97.75.145 and 2601:40A:8000:2A:5CB:CF:F113:CF95. I only voted once, I mistakenly thought I needed to vote again after a relist but that was appropriately struck. The discussion and comments of IP editors are valid, their votes are not ( WP:HUMAN WP:IP edits are not anonymous). But AFDs are not decided by majority vote, they're decided by consensus. The claimed consensus here consisted of the nominator, one user making the argument that the sources were only local and college papers, and finally after two relistings and 20 days, a user with a 7 word reiterartion that "the few sources provided are all local" ... I can't see the article right now but from what I recall there were 7ish sources and they were not all local.

As far as me counting as an SPA, that's ridiculous. This account has contributions going back to 2006, but that doesn't really matter. The vast majority of my edits have happened as an WP:IP editor and I'm proud of that. Sepharo ( talk) 04:27, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse IMO the closer evaluated consensus properly. The problem with the "keep" votes is not just that they are IPs; it is that they do not cite Wikipedia policy. One user says that he comes to Wikipedia every year to find out when the event will occur; that is absolutely one of the things Wikipedia is not here for. Others argue that the local coverage is sufficient, but the weight of consensus here is that a once-a-year local event like this needs somewhat broader coverage. (Pesonally, looking at the article myself, I would have !voted "delete" while suggesting that the basic information be incorporated into other articles, perhaps Eastern Michigan University or LAN party.) -- MelanieN ( talk) 22:25, 15 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Two !votes in favor of deletion are not the strongest consensus possible, but I think they suffice. Furthermore, as indicated by MelanieN, the "keep" !votes fail to cite policy. The close was properly reflective of a "delete" consensus. North of Eden ( talk) 00:05, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. It is one of the longest-standing practices I am aware of on Wikipedia that the contributions of non-registered and newly-registered editors are given less weight on DRV – and as policy is merely a collection of common agreed practices, that is effectively policy in everything but name. As mentioned above, the strength of argument on the delete side was also clearly higher. Stifle ( talk) 08:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse two IPs showed up, one tried to vote twice(!), and they both had arguments that at times bordered on the nonsensical: "I love attending this event"... actual quote. The delete arguments correctly pointed out the serious sourcing issues. Any article that relies on college newspapers as a source is pretty much a goner if it hits AFD. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 16:29, 20 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Emil Tîmbur ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Reached verdict for deletion, I have made a decision with other editors in regards to the notablity of the “footballer” Emil Tîmbur, I have found out that the article doesn't meet Wikipedia:NFOOTBALL and fails to meet WP:GNG, Therefore, I'm seeking an attention from administrator to delete the article per as the decision was reached at Article for Deletion. -- Prince Sulaiman ^{Talk to me} 17:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• So to get this straight, you listed it for deletion less than 48 hours ago, you have now decided based on the only comments so far that it should be closed delete and have done so as a WP:NAC which you can't of course implement. See WP:BADNAC. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 17:57, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note lister also tagged for CSD G6 which I have removed since someone closing and AFD very earlier despite the apparent problem with impartiality I can't see as non-controversial housekeeping. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 18:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

2015 Shvut Rachel shooting ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I won't discuss the arguments for either side of the deletion discussion here, simply the closure.

On the AfD page, there were 7 !votes to delete (including the nom) and 7 to keep. 4 of the 7 "keep" !votes came from IPs and SPAs, whose first or second edit was to this AfD, and to an AfD for a similar article (that article was deleted for reasons identical to this one). The SPAs have made no other edits of any significance, and their reasoning is identical (in a couple of places, copy pasted). Anyone who knows anything about this area will recognize the quacking immediately. These should be rejected forthwith.

That makes it 7 !votes to delete and 3 to keep. Of course AfD is not about raw !votes, but the closer has not given any indication as to why they consider the 3 keep !votes to weigh so heavily as to match the delete !votes. In discussion on their talk page, the closer appears to give non-zero weight to these socks (in my opinion, anything non-zero is too high for them). They don't consider the arguments of one group as more convincing than the other, which begs the question as to why the result of this AfD should not be "delete" since 7 is obviously much bigger than 3.

Are we really going to allow these obvious socks/meats to subvert AfDs like this?

An addendum: in discussion with the closer, they mention a representative opposite viewpoint like this: "The case received much int'l coverage and over a month later, there are still articles that mention it". This is verbatim, the argument of one of the IPs, who made the identical (copy pasted) argument over at the other AfD, and this is specifically mentioned by the closer of that AfD as an irrelevant argument (the mention was trivial and in passing). I am plainly baffled. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 07:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Sufficient explanation was given at User_talk:Northamerica1000#Deletion_review_for_2015_Shvut_Rachel_shooting, although as generally I wish more explanation were given in the close. There were quite valid contributions made by "keep" !voters. See Wikipedia:Renominating for deletion for further advice. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I am not sure why you link to that essay. I am following that essay exactly. I discussed with the closer, and then opened a deletion review. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 06:58, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

You got to the third paragraph and considered that the closer was wrong? I think this process will conclude that the closer was not wrong. When that happens, go on to the fourth paragraph. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: You are of course entitled to your opinion that the closer is not wrong, though you have given no arguments, and not addressed any of mine. If and when this DRV closes as "endorse", I will look at that essay again (it's just an essay anyway). Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 07:11, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The contributions of Alansohn, E.M.Gregory and Bearian were not refuted. (Do not confuse refute with rebut). The WP:SPAs only assisted in producing a "no consensus" result. It takes a lot longer than weeks for it to become clear that coverage is only a short burst of news results. Recent news is tolerated somewhat. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 07:46, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: Let me ask you something. Suppose those SPAs (obvious socks) did not make an appearance at the AfD. Would a closer ever have simply seen a 7-3 split, and then closed the AfD as "no consensus" without mentioning a reason? This suggests to me that these obvious socks were given a significant weight in the decision, which is just wrong. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 08:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The nomination was overly brief. The bluelinked allcaps shortcuts look impressive, but were shallow, not discussed in depth by the delete voters. NOTNEWS was explicitly argued against as applicable. "No lasting impact" is not a valid point for something so recent. No lasting impact is measured by a lack of onging sources 6-12 months later. MShabazz did not make a strong argument, and references to his argument were therefore even weaker. Yes, there was no consensus even ignoring SPAs. Also, I have seen the closer around, and know that he is not prone to being a !vote-counter. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks for your response, if you truly believe that without the sock disruption, the result was still "no consensus", I have nothing more to say. I won't discuss the arguments of either side, as I specifically said, only the close. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 08:42, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I copied the AfD to here: Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting, and removed the SPAs and very simple per XXX !votes. My reading is still a no consensus. A calling of a rough consensus for "Delete" would to me be quite a stretch. However, it is a weak article. I think the best thing to do is wait two months, for the event to be ~3 times as old as when nominated, and to renominate. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:03, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: I am sorry, that is wholly improper. Remove the obvious socks if you will, but on what policy grounds did you remove the "per XXX" !votes? It is totally ok, indeed standard, to call give a !vote, and say "per XXX", where XXX made a totally relevant point, and you have nothing else to add. I would remind you that the XXX in question made 2 points ( WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTMEMORIAL), and this is precisely the reasons for which the other article was deleted. Polling is not a substitute for discussion does not mean that polling is irrelevant. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 12:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)' reply

Note that it is just the talk page. You highligh what you think counts if you like. For me, MShabazz !voted very weakly, OK for one !vote, but the "per MShabazz" !votes are very dubious. !voting per someone else's WP:VAGUEWAVE is very very weak. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 12:25, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: I have never seen AfD talk pages to be used like this. I fail to see what purpose it serves. The correct thing would be to remove the obvious socks (on the main page, not the talk page), let the people read the discussion and discount the "per XXX" if they wish. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 12:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I think this article will likely be deleted if renominated in a couple of months. However, the first XfD was too soon to be able to demonstrate no ongoing coverage, and this is why it ended up as no consensus, not because of the SPAs. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 01:49, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: I will not comment on future AfD nominations, but how exactly are we supposed to apply WP:NOTNEWS? By your reasoning, all news article must therefore be kept for a few months, to demonstrate that there is no ongoing coverage. Isn't your reasoning inverting the burden of proof? Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 02:32, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Kingsindian, don't blame me, this is one of Wikipedia's longstanding unsolvable quandaries. Wikipedia wants to both restrict itself to coverage of things already covered reliably by others, and it wants to be the most up-to-date current-affair real-time relevant resource. The first is at odds with the second. For this very reason, many topic areas have topicarea-specific sub-notability guidelines. We don't seem to have one for this subject, the best there is would seem to be Wikipedia:Notability_(events)#Breaking_news. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe: I am not blaming you, I am trying to understand policy in an area where I have little experience. Reading the link you give, I don't see it as applicable here. This is not "breaking news": the event in question happened more than a month ago. At this point, surely, the burden is on people to demonstrate that it has some lasting significance, rather than people trying to prove a negative: "it has no lasting signficance". Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 09:55, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - AfD is not fundamentally a headcount - the discussion revolves around "Meets WP:N" vs "Fails WP:NOTNEWS", where the first is a given and the second is factually ambiguous, but an uphill slog for something still receiving coverage on the day of the AfD. The exact headcount is not a huge deal. Wait until interest dies down, and consider the question when it can actually be evaluated. Wily D 09:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. The closer gave too much weight to the contributions of new/unregistered users, who did not successfully refute the WP:NOTNEWS failure. Stifle ( talk) 10:06, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as within discretion and thanks to SmokeyJoe for dealing so thoroughly with the matter. I would also have endorsed delete. There is often no "right" and "wrong" in AFD closes. Thincat ( talk) 15:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse I am the creator of the article and participated in the AFD. I came here today because I had gone to the page to add an editorial that ran today in the Jerusalem Post citing this incident. (here: [12]]). I felt at the time and continued to feel that the delete votes failed to encounter teh actual policies and the actual extent of the sourcing, as SmokyJoe says. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and delete. It is a sad fact that that region of the world has been a warzone for decades, and that these sorts of articles are created to perpetuate the propaganda war, not out of a legitimate interest in improving the encyclopedia. Unless the event becomes one of international significance and notoriety, the Wikipedia shouldn't be chronicling every stone-throwing or car shooting incident. In particular, this AfD was deluged with single-purpose accounts who should have been discounted entirely. Tarc ( talk) 23:01, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse It is very rare that I will !vote here to overturn an no-consensus close, unless the closure was really perverse. I'm not sure I would have said keep at the afd, , but I could say just the reverse of the comment above: in this area of the world conflicts are very frequent, and they often have extensive press coverage, & frequently turn out to have lasting international significance, so our bias should be to keep them if at all possible. It would be a weird encycopedia that didnt cover common notable things, but only rare ones. DGG ( talk ) 02:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: This is my first DRV, but when I read WP:DRVPURPOSE, it says (point 5) to not repeat arguments already made in the discussion. So I refrain from making such arguments, but everyone in this DRV is talking about how they would have !voted. That is very unfair to me. I am only interested in the close. The way I see it, it was split 7-3 !votes (discounting the socks), and the closer simply closed it as "no consensus", without any justification. On discussion on their talkpage, they pointed to an argument given by a sock as a representative viewpoint of the opposite case. This is very irksome to me. Then I see another AfD, where the sock made an identical copy-pasted argument, and it was rejected explicitly by the closer, who closed it as delete. Something is very wrong here. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 02:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

In general, closing 7-5 as no consensus is in my opinion a very defensible thing to do. Sometimes the best remedy for a sock-ridden debate is to start the debate over after a little while, and no-consenus permits just that. In judging whether a close is reasonable, thinking about how one would have voted can be helpful. I agree with you that one shouldn't !vote here for the purpose of keeping in articles you like and vice versa, but it does affect how one looks at things, and to the extent one does have some bias, it help to indicate it. (My bias is usually to keep articles about public events, and this can fairly be taken into account in evaluating what I say. )

AfD closes are notoriously variable, depending on who shows up to argue, and who shows up to close. Part of the role of Del Rev is to try to get some degree of uniform standards. To work here effectively, especially at deletion processes,, and especially in controversial fields, one has to realize there will be many times when the "wrong" side is going to prevail, and not get too bothered by it. DGG ( talk ) 02:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DGG: I am not sure if that was a typo, but it was 7-3, not 7-5. Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 02:56, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

my error, thanks. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I'm not sure I would have closed this the same way, but DRV is not for second-guessing close judgment calls, which this was. It's also a non-issue. Since it was closed as NC, just come back in another month or two and re-nominate it. The world is not going to end if it's ultimately decided to delete it a couple of months later than you would have liked. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as obviously entirely reasonable taken on its face, without prejudice to renomination, potentially with a semiprotected debate if sockpuppetry is a real concern. Guy ( Help!) 17:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ JzG: I only want to ask you, do you see sockpuppetry here as not a real concern? Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 18:33, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I have no opinion on that. I don't know if they were sockpuppets, newbies or what. That would require detailed background knowledge of the wider context and disputes, and I have no real interest in this subject area. Guy ( Help!) 21:50, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

@ JzG: Unfortunately, my main point was that the discussion was sock-infested. How could you come to a conclusion about the close without considering the validity (or not) of this point? Kingsindian  ♝ ♚ 22:30, 18 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Associated RC10 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Before this deletion, I had plans to expand on this into an overview page with each or some cars splintered into its own article with the assistance of internet articles and old Radio Controlled Car Action scans I recently discovered on the internet, because that article exists and it is one of the best known R/C cars, I left it at that; this was before it got nominated for deletion.

Because I do not keep tabs on what page is going to be deleted, I would not had been aware of this nominations. As for being not notable as mentioned in the nomination, I assume that this person have never touched a radio-controlled car, let alone visited a hobby shop; especially that it is one of the most famous models with multiple world championship wins amongst other championship wins and still counting.

If anybody want to state that they can't find articles, I suggest you find them in the form of old magazine scans of RCCA where there is no shortage of articles about them. You can find there is no shortage of scanned magazine articles from old magazines on this link or does Wikipedia notability rules only applies to online notability?

For starters, there is this, this, this and that. Donnie Park ( talk) 13:19, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• It's customary to discuss deletion decisions with the person who deleted the article before nominating here. As well as being common courtesy, it can also provide more insight into a deletion decision, or indeed lead to the deleting admin reversing his/her decision after realizing it isn't right. I don't see any discussion with MelanieN in this case. Perhaps you could explain why you chose not to follow that part of the deletion review instructions? Stifle ( talk) 10:08, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I didn't think it was something I would have to do, plus I thought just posting it here was the way to do it. Maybe I should. Donnie Park ( talk) 23:54, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Endorse; the discussion, though weakly attended, was unanimous and no other closure would have been possible. Stifle ( talk) 09:44, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn but I strongly agree with Stifle that the closer should have been approached, particularly because I like to think she would have realised her mistake. The AFD nomination seems vacuous. Being "not entirely sure if this is notable" isn't a reason for deletion though perhaps the nominator was trying to avoid being harsh or impolite. I'm not allowed to see which the "linking articles" are but Associated Electrics mentioning the topic sparsely seeems to me to be a reason for merge (I suppose the nominator means merge rather than move). Actually, by my standards, there is a fair amount of information on the RC10 in this target so a redirect or partial merge would be indicated and not a delete. And the AFD nominator may have found the best results Google has on this topic but I would have expected Google to be a quite unsuitable technique for finding coverage in this area. I don't know what investigations the delete !voter made but they do not seem, with hindsight, to have been effective. I'm frankly very disappointed that the closer considered there was consensus for deletion. Now, none of this matters too much because once this DRV is over, whatever its result, there should be no difficulty in hosting a well-referenced article on this topic. Thincat ( talk) 20:10, 13 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• 'temp restore for discussion DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Already sufficiently in the main article, so a reasonable close. I too would have d!voted delete, on the bases that the detail in the article was absurd, more suitable for wikia--detailed specs of even the most minor features, and detailed pricing (which is never appropriate). More important, nominating for an afd discussion because one is unsure of notability is in my opinion a very rational thing to do--it is appropriate when unsure to ask the opinion of the community. I've been doing it from time to time ever from my first year here, and I recommend it to others. One of the people I probably suggested it to was SwisterTwister. It is rarely wrong here to ask for other people's opinion. DGG ( talk ) 02:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted until improved - As the nominator, I would've liked a ping notification and I only knew about because of the ping above. I'd say I stand by my nom because the article needed work so I nominated it to get comments (only other option is to open a RfC and I wish it had gotten more comments and consensus. I was actually going to ping DGG but I didn't he know much about the subject. If the user can improve it, they're welcome to restore it. SwisterTwister talk 02:51, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• If it isn't going to survive as an article itself, may I offer to have it moved to my userspace so I can sort it out when I get the time as I have a horde of articles to work on in this short space of time as writers specializing in these topics are scarce and there are people who are more knowledgeable about these subjects than I am except they don't write on Wikipedia. Donnie Park ( talk) 11:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse treat as a WP:SOFTDELETE, given the limited discussion with no other opinions other than delete after relistings, then the closer could do as they did, or do some research and post an opinion in the discussion - the latter is arguably the better but not something we demand. I'd note to the statement "I assume that this person have never touched a radio-controlled car, let alone visited a hobby shop" really aren't helpful and adds nothing to this debate, we don't expect every editor to be expert on everything and articles should be self contained, if the article fails to lay out it's case that's a deficiency in the article. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 12:34, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment from deleting administrator: If approached I would almost certainly have restored or userfied the article; I was torn between "delete" and "soft delete" as it was. Based on the community's comments here I believe "userfy" rather than "restore" is the appropriate action. Donnie Park's arguments for restoring are not persuasive. He suggests that if we were radio-car hobbyists we would realize the subject is notable, and he proposes a blog called rc10talk as a source. That source and that argument do not meet Wikipedia's criterion that a subject must have received significant coverage from multiple independent reliable sources. If the subject is NOT notable enough for a standalone article, as appears to be the case on current evidence, it might be better to redirect it to the Associated Electrics article and expand the information there (but, as DGG recommends, without so much detail). For now I will userfy the article to see if he can find some independent reliable sources. Thanks for your input, all. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I have moved the article to User:Donnie Park/Associated RC10. -- MelanieN ( talk) 16:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• "he proposes a blog called rc10talk as a source" – MelanieN ( talk · contribs), Donnie Park is not citing rc10talk as a source. He is linking to it because it has several scanned magazine articles about RC10. Do you think those sources establish notability, and would you support restoration on the basis of those sources? Cunard ( talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I will wait and see what the community recommends on that point. -- MelanieN ( talk) 01:35, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore because the subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. There is plenty of significant coverage about RC10 in the scanned magazine articles from old magazines that Donnie Park listed in the nomination statement. Cunard ( talk) 01:22, 16 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restore The topic does look notable based on the coverage linked by the requestor. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 12:40, 17 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia:2015 main page redesign proposal ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

No reason nor need to delete the page. Taku ( talk) 23:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Undelete. Seems like an abuse of WP:G6 as well. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 00:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Undelete Endorse. per deleter's rationale below. 12:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC) Agree – we should keep it for posterity and perhaps tag it as {{ rejected}}. Nobody likes to reinvent a broken wheel. –  Paine  01:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Any reason for not talking to the deleting admin to resolve, rather than drag it here for 7 days? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  I've also informed the deleting admin for you, as the instructions (and common courtesy) suggest you do. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 09:58, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • ( edit conflict) See the discussion at Talk:Main Page#Main page redesign – hth. –  Paine  10:00, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • OK, missed that, it doesn't really appear to be a complete discussion per se, but not totally unreasonable. -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 12:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Deleter's comment There was also no reason to keep the page, as there was no content to speak of that could be considered worth keeping; with just 5 edits, it only had the header and one link copied from the 2014 page to a proposed design that also has no content (the bare "just links" proposal). Meanwhile, there was still a discussion pending on the 2014 page, and all the other venues for discussion are splattered with links to empty discussion pages. Were it sent it to WP:MFD, it would surely have been deleted. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 10:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment without seeing the content, on the one hand G6 is quite clearly uncontroversial deletions, and reasonable objection to deletion would seem to make it "controversial", on the other side of that if the content is as Edokter describes then it's perhaps more difficult to understand objections as reasonable, is it serving a real purpose other than a bureaucratic one? -- 86.2.216.5 ( talk) 12:30, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

There is also the possibility that the nom (or someone else involved) has proper designs on the page title and intends to fill it with valid content. At this point, though, I feel that any further re-creation approval rests with the deleter, and that this deletion review should be endorsed and speedily closed. Apologies to [[ User:Edokter]] for my initial klutzy "Undelete". –  Paine  13:31, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Undelete G6 is meant for Uncontroversial maintenance this thread has proved it is not uncontroversial. 2015 isn't even passed. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 13:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Temporarily undeleted for the purposes of this discussion Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:49, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Thanks, Spartaz; in addition I have boldly restored the version that existed before the deleting admin removed content in preparation for deletion. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 16:46, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

and i have reverted you and locked the template. Please dont do that again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

My bad! It's been a long time since I last participated in DRV. Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Clarification The only reason why I'm asking for undeletion is because this deletion and subsequent events essentially un-indexed a notable main page redesign proposal from Wikipedia:Main page redesign proposals. If there is some other way that a casual reader who is interested in seeing main page redesign proposals would be able to see the 2015 proposals alongside all the others, then I withdraw my objection. Regards, Orange Suede Sofa ( talk) 16:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
  • You could list them (and move the pages) as stand-alone entities instead of listing them under the "2015" moniker. They technically predated 2015 anyway. I just want to simplify navigation and those empty 'per-year' pages aren't helping. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 20:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • If the problem is emptyness, the solution is to populate with the page with more content, not the deletion. If you want, I can put my own proposal so that the page is less empty. Also, what is wrong with the redesign effort page? The page makes sense as there has been continuing efforts (with no success) for redesign. -- Taku ( talk) 23:36, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Populate with what? That is thinking the wrong way. All I want is to have some clear overview instead of having to wade through every year's page that seems to be created automatically. It is navigation nightmare. -- [[ User:Edokter]] {{ talk}} 11:00, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy overturn speedy deletion. {{ db-g6}} applies only to " Uncontroversial maintenance". This speedy deletion became controversial the moment it was contested. No speedy deletion criterion applies.

  The page's emptiness should not be an issue because as Taku wrote above, "If the problem is emptyness, the solution is to populate with the page with more content, not the deletion. If you want, I can put my own proposal so that the page is less empty."

  Edokter ( talk · contribs), would you undo your speedy deletion and list this at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion if you still believe this should be deleted?

  Cunard ( talk) 04:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Send to MFD. G6 requires a deletion to be uncontroversial, and if it has been disputed, it is clearly not uncontroversial. Stifle ( talk) 08:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn - obviously controversial. G6s are often best guesses (and probably the vaguest criterion), so I'd caution against too much heck for the deleting admin. Wily D 10:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn per WilyD. North of Eden ( talk) 02:00, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn, with no prejudice against the deleting admin, who made a reasonable (if incorrect) assumption that it'd be uncontroversial. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC). reply
• Undelete. Any G6 should be undeleted on request without needing to make a case. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:10, 12 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Jim Vejvoda ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

This page was deleted by administrator Peridon with the reasoning of "Article about a real person, which does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject" – despite the fact that two people, me and another editor, contested this speedy deletion on the talk page with arguments that he was a notable film critic for a notable entertainment website, IGN, and that that in itself made him notable for an article. Also, please note the article had two citations to reliable sources, categories, etc. It was a stub, but last time I checked just because something is a stub doesn't mean it's valid for deletion. The fact that he's a noted film critic for a notable website, IGN, and is the Executive Editor of its Movie Division, does "credibly indicate the importance or significance of [him]". Therefore, I'm contesting this speedy deletion as invalid. If anything, it should have gone through the Articles for deletion process first, as it was reliably sourced with two people making arguments about its notability on the talk page, which the administrator apparently didn't consider. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 22:46, 8 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn per reasons above SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 00:02, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Two of the references were in-house links to the website, and the third was a profile. I could see no credible claim to significance - there are thousands of web-based critics in the world with nothing special about them. The website being notable does not mean every person associatedwith it is also notable. I've no objection to a new article that does show significance (and is referenced with reliable independent sources WP:RS, or to this one going to AfD. Peridon ( talk) 00:18, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Regardless, I still believe this doesn't qualify as speedy deletion. He isn't just some average critic, he is the Executive Editor of IGN's Movie Division, which gives him enough notability not to be speedily deleted. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 00:27, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

Do sources have anything to do with A7? A2soup ( talk) 09:38, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

The presence of good sources can help to support notability, and notability trumps significance. The lack of good sources doesn't mean a fail - it means you have to go on what's said in the article. Peridon ( talk) 11:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse speedy deletion, the objections raised by the two users who contested the speedy deletion are without merit. Kraxler ( talk) 14:11, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

How are they "without merit"? This person is the Executive Editor of IGN's Movie Division, which makes him notable, he's not just some ordinary film critic. Please explain your arguments. SuperCarnivore591 ( talk) 14:20, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

I've never heard of the position of Executive Editor of a division of a company being automatically notable. Can you point to anywhere on WP where it says this? Peridon ( talk) 11:21, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• temporarily undeleted to allow non admins to review. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse Given there was only 7 minutes between talk-age query and listing at DRV, we can't really be surprised that Peridon wasn't able to explain to the nominator that their article failed to assert notability so fell to a routine A7 but that this doesn't stop then from recreating the article using reliable sources that meet the GNG as sourcing counts as asserting notability. Unfortunately, because the nominator was so impatient this means they have to wait 7 days for this to close as endorse before trying to come up with a compliant article. Failing that perhaps they might want to withdraw this and try Articles for creation instead? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:38, 9 August 2015 (UTC) reply

What do sourcing and notability have to do with A7? A2soup ( talk) 09:36, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• I posted a comment at Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2015 August 8#Jim Vejvoda asking for editors' opinions on whether

  Jim Vejvoda is a film critic for the entertainment website IGN, and is also the Executive Editor of its Movies channel. ...

  is enough to pass the {{ db-a7}} bar.

  I am unsure.

  I think these probably would all pass {{ db-a7}}:

  1. X is a film critic for the Chicago Tribune.
  2. X is a film critic for the Detroit Free Press.
  3. X is a film critic for the The New York Times.
  4. X is the executive editor for the Chicago Tribune's film division.
  5. X is the executive editor for the Detroit Free Press's film division.
  6. X is the executive editor for the The New York Times's film division.
  These are all major broadsheet newspapers. But would the same apply for the major entertainment website IGN?

  Cunard ( talk) 04:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

  • Something like "X is a film critic for entertainment magazine Entertainment Weekly" is probably a fairer comparison. — Cryptic 04:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I believe "X is a film critic for entertainment magazine Entertainment Weekly" would be enough to pass the {{ db-a7}} bar. Thanks for the better example.

      I was unable to find significant coverage in reliable sources about the subject, so unless other editors can find sources, this likely would get deleted at AfD. But I agree with the comments below that this passes the {{ db-a7}} bar.

      Overturn.

      Cunard ( talk) 05:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn Being a top film critic and executive anything at IGN is a claim of significance. Maybe the page should be deleted - but definitely not speedy deleted. We need more discussion and more information before we can delete this. The fact that two editors contested this and it was cited to reliable sources makes it even worse. Oiyarbepsy ( talk) 04:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and send it to afd; it's at least borderline, and that should be the default for a speedy deletion reasonably contested in good faith anyway. It'll probably be deleted in short order there unless you present some independent sources, though. — Cryptic 04:33, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Being a film critic at a site notable for its film criticism is a sufficient assertion of significance to survive A7. There is no exception for poorly sourced stubs. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 05:06, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. Article appears to contain a credible claim of significance. VQuakr ( talk) 06:43, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - merely being a critic for an important magazine is not an assertion of significance, any more than my saying I'm a scientist at Oxbridge is an assertion of significance. If Cunard can't find sources, I'm guessing they don't exist, so a "perhaps a generous person could see this as a skin of the teeth assertion of significance" doesn't seem very valuable. Find a real source, and I (or any other sucker in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles will send you back the (minimal) content). Wily D 10:04, 10 August 2015 (UTC) reply