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

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

This template is used in delete discussions of most versions of Wikipedia, but it has been deleted in English version. I would like to submit the request to review and I am looking forward to keep this. If this review's result is Keep, I would like to create new templates for speedy keep/delete. Thank you. Shwangtianyuan ( talk) 04:48, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment, noting that these templates are listed at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Perennial requests. What is the thing that has changed to bring this up here again? Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 10:29, 30 December 2015 (UTC). reply
• Comment - maybe a read of Wikipedia_talk:Method_for_consensus_building#Templates_need_wider_discussion and Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/Deleted/June_2005#Template:Support_and_Template:Object_and_Template:Oppose, and the various reviews since might be worth a read. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 16:59, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• These templates are the basic templates of Wikimedia wikis, but they have deleted in English Wikipedia. I think English Wikipedia is not undemocratic, but in other languages is democratic. So I hope these templates are KEPT, NOT DELETED!-- Shwangtianyuan ( talk) 06:36, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'd be quite happy to see them back. Maybe all the editors that wanted them removed are not active now... I've still used the code sometimes - it not rocket science to just add [[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|15px]] '''Keep -'''  instead. I suspect some PS/Tablets could easy be configured to add that at a special keystroke. Ronhjones   ^(Talk) 00:33, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• The presence and usage of these templates - as amply demonstrated by the nominator's comments above - will mislead new users into thinking that {{vk}} ~~~~ will have any influence whatsoever on an admin's close of a deletion debate. The English Wikipedia is intentionally "undemocratic"; the purpose of a comment is to convince the other participants, not to vote, and shouting KEPT, NOT DELETED! or [[File:Symbol keep vote.svg|150px]] or what-have-you never advances that goal. — Cryptic 01:46, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Typical comments in deletion discussions may be '''Delete''' Violates policy or '''Keep''' Doesn't violate policy with a clarification on how policy is or isn't violated. In what way would it be any different to replace '''Keep''' and '''Delete''' with {{vk}} or {{vd}}? Templates do not seem to be more misleading about voting rules than the alternative wikicode. There do not seem to be any problems with the use of {{ vk}} and {{ vd}} on Commons, and both commenting editors and closing admins seem to know c:COM:NOTAVOTE. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:04, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • It's worse because the templates put the most emphasis on the least important part of the edits, and have the effect of drowning out everyone who doesn't use them. But it's immaterial anyway; these aren't drv arguments. No reason has been put forward why the dozens of previous deletion discussions were incorrect, only explicit complaints that the lack of a template prevents voting. If you want to demonstrate that consensus has changed and ten years' worth of tfds on this family of templates are wrong, and to impose them on everybody, the way to do that is to start a well-advertised rfc - not a poorly-attended drv during winter holidays started on terrible premises, that impressively manages to violate fully half of the items in WP:DRVPURPOSE. — Cryptic 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
      • Some users are claiming that templates affect voting rules, but I don't see any connection between use of templates and voting rules. Writing a word in bold puts just as much emphasis on voting in my opinion. Therefore, the question on whether we should have templates like this should not be based on voting rules. That said, I think that there are problems with this DRV nomination. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: You can refer other languages versions. I think this {{vk}} template, can use in deletion discussions, but it is except for close the deletion discussion. So this is my keep reason.-- Shwangtianyuan ( talk) 06:41, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• overturn speedy delete the deletion disucsion linked to above, and from the 2014 deletion is not related to this template, so it appears that deletion was either in error, or has linked the wrong discussion. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 06:38, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • I don't know quite what to say to this. Do you think it's irrelevant because the template was at a different title when it was at tfd? Or that it used a different little checkmark variant? Or that the link is to a curtailed discussion closed via G4, rather than one of the more substantial ones? — Cryptic 09:03, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
    • The G4 deletion looks correct in my opinion. The templates had previously been deleted at TfD, and when someone recreated the templates, speedy re-deletion seems appropriate. I guess that the DRV nominator meant to try to overturn the original TfD instead. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 15:07, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion start a discussion at WP:PUMP if you want to pursue the recreation of these further. (For the record, I'm neutral on keeping or deleting these. We use bold !votes here, I think the graphics would be clearer and no more votes than the bolding. But speedy deletion is certainly within the rules and probably even appropriate. Hobit ( talk) 00:49, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
  • Please MOVE this discussion to WP:PUMP because it remains controversial. Also I would like to talk about WP:FLOW in the pump because we are looking forward for the enable date of Flow.-- Shwangtianyuan ( talk) 03:40, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted – long, long-held consensus that voting templates encourage, well, voting rather than discussion aimed at building a consensus. See WP:DEEPER. Stifle ( talk) 09:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Keep deleted We have sufficiently difficult problems with people thinking afd is a vote. This will only encourage it. Keep/delete, though the most common views at AfD, are not the only ones, and more nuanced ones should be encouraged, not discouraged.-- and I have observed over the last year or so an increasing tendency to qualify the bare words, often, I am glad to say, by relative new people. DGG ( talk ) 06:17, 5 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Manitonquat (Medicine Story) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

As concerning an author of eleven books, with thousands attending his lectures, the deletion of the article is difficult indeed to understand. This page was recently edited to rectify gross inaccuracies apparently due to hostile vandalism (as mentioned on its Talk page.) It seems suspicious that it should then be suddenly deleted without any discussion; and that the administrator who did so immediately thereafter announced themselves unavailable to be contacted ( /info/en/?search=User:Biblioworm). Reference citations had been added to the Talk page, supporting that Manitonquat is indeed a recognized elder of the Wampanoag nation, who has been well-respected among authorities on Native American culture and tribal leaders for decades. It seems remarkable indeed that this sudden deletion without discussion should swiftly follow the presentation of such evidence. This can hardly be considered without reference to allegations of previous vandalism to the page. There is a long history of violent hostility to Native American culture. No one well-informed about Indian concerns could forget that when reviewing these facts of this extraordinary deletion. Further documentation / citations regarding the longevity and notability of Manitonquat's work is available on request. Horse Dancing ( talk) 21:02, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Noting that the article in question appear to have been at Manitonquat following a page move in 2011, and the AFD is: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Manitonquat. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 22:51, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I've never set foot in the US and never will, so I accept that I'm ill-informed about Indian concerns, but apparently I'm violently hostile to Native American culture as well, because I can't see a sudden deletion without discussion. What I can see is a full discussion in which editors reached a reasoned consensus to delete the material. That doesn't mean Wikipedia will never host an article with this title, though. That AfD was a decision to delete a specific version of the article that editors felt was promotional.

  There are several reasons why Wikipedia is very attractive to marketers, and we've adapted to their activities by becoming vigilant, efficient and decisive in removing promotional material. If we stopped doing this then our encyclopaedia would rapidly fill up with spam and hype. I'm afraid you won't get DRV to overturn the original decision.

  However, what you might be able to do is produce a fresh draft with this title which is less promotional, and subject to sight of the language and the sources you use, it's possible that DRV will restore this fresh draft. I would recommend that you begin by posting links or citations to at least two reliable sources about Manitonquat in this discussion.— S Marshall T/ C 08:51, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Thanks very much to all who have promptly responded on this topic.

  Here's a screenshot of the edit done Dec 17. Please consider it as a fresh draft if that suits. Would be most interested to hear any precise objections on its content, accuracy, or notability:

A documentary feature is currently in production about Manitonquat's work. See http://www.circlewayfilm.com/

First to clarify: I can't see how anyone here can claim that they themselves have been personally accused of hostility to Native American culture. All that was said is that such hostility does exist; and that some behavior around this article raises concerns that it cannot be ruled out as a factor. Yet it can be characteristic of people from the dominant racial background, who are not particularly well-informed regarding issues of racism, to feel insulted, and speak unreasonably, if anyone so much as mentions the fact that racism exists; that it negatively impacts people in real ways, or that anyone might be concerned about it.

Second, apologies: for my failure to find the AFD. I'm new to this process. I've read it now. Although very much appreciating the expertise and experience demonstrated in the AFD, regarding Wikipedia's well-developed criteria, other expertise can be called for in particular topics.

I see no input there which indicates any particular expertise on the admittedly easily obscured work of modern Native American elders / spiritual leaders. Some of the sources I've approached on this have pointed out that no one seems to have contacted the Wampanoag tribal leaders to ask them about the topic.

Native Americans can be notoriously non-technical; and behind the times in terms of access to modern technology. Records regarding their Native ancestry have historically been not only poorly-kept, but at times even outlawed. These are issues which anyone in this discussion ought to take the trouble to make themselves acquainted with.

Admittedly, Manitonquat's work is not well-documented in cyber space. Still it is necessary to recognize that we still live in a world in which "notable" and "online" are not entirely synonymous. Independent records I've been able to find so far are not the most Wikipedia-friendly. I'd like to post some news clippings here in pdf, but can't claim (as the prompt requires me to do) that they are at all my own work. (Can one of the administrators here point out how to display articles I'm referring to?)

Further regarding Wikipedia notability criteria, I have personally worked on articles which Wikipedia has expressly fostered for development; although there was no info available on the topic outside of promotional materials from the subjects themselves (in one case, a small community college in Africa.) So, although basing an entry on promotional materials alone seems by no means a barrier to notability, yet there is abundant independent evidence of notability in this case. Nor can a combination of traditional publishers and self-publishing be considered any hallmark of unnotability: that is the paradigm for many of the best-known authors today. So the argument regarding lack of notability seems rather thin.

And being so thin, one must ask oneself again, why the rush to delete? Could prejudice regarding cultural values have played a part here? (To all reading this: please don't take it as a personal insult, that anyone should raise that question.) -- Horse Dancing ( talk) 11:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hello Horse Dancing,

You are correct to understand that generally-speaking, you can't upload clippings of newspaper/magazine stories etc to Wikipedia for copyright reasons. But you don't actually have to be able to show or link to the article itself to use it to demonstrate notability. Is there any chance you could tell us some of the details of the sources you have, such as the publication name, date of publication, page number, the headline of course, and a very brief summary of what they said about Manitonquat?

There are basically two ways that a deletion like this can be overturned. The first would be if there was a significant issue with the way the deletion discussion was carried out (for instance, if the administrator who closed it misinterpreted the actual consensus of the discussion, or if there was a procedural error). Frankly I don't think that applies here - the discussion was very clear in its outcome. The other possibility is that you have some new information which, if it had been known at the time of the deletion discussion, would have feasibly changed the outcome. In this particular discussion, the basic issue which led to the deletion was that the article didn't appear to meet Wikipedia's policies on what is notable and what isn't. The most relevant one is the policy on notability for living people. If you have new information that shows this policy might actually be met after all, that would be a strong argument to persuade people here in this deletion review that the previous deletion should be overturned.

In a sense, editors like you and I don't get to determine what is notable. That would lead to endless bickering and pointless arguments (even more than we already have!). Instead we "outsource" the question "is this notable?" to " reliable sources" - newspapers, books, academic papers, even TV shows - that have a good track record of reliability, that cover the topic in significant depth, and very importantly, that are editorially independent of the subject itself. If those sources have written about a topic in a way that suggests it meets our notability policies - then it meets our notability policies (with some exceptions that don't concern us here).

So in terms of Wikipedia policy, "basing an entry on promotional materials alone" is very much a barrier to notability. Our policy and tradition says, if this thing is truly notable, independent journalists will have written about it, and you wouldn't need to rely on promotional materials alone. And if that leads to us sometimes not having articles about things we really should, we're mostly OK with that, trusting that eventually the independent authors and journalists of the world will catch up and provide us the evidence we need to satisfy our policies - there's no hurry.

For what it's worth, I am someone who quite often ends up arguing "keep" when other people are arguing "delete", but I can assure you that these policies are applied quite consistently. Racial or cultural prejudice is not a factor here, and a great many contributors to these discussions are from countries and cultures where they didn't grow up with any prejudice against (or even much awareness of) Native American society. At the end of the day, what happens next is very much going to depend on those offline sources you have found, and what they say about Manitonquat.

Thparkth ( talk) 12:41, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation - This DRV is about Manitonquat (English translation Medicine Story ) (born Francis Story Talbot July 17, 1929), a storyteller and New Age author. I think there is enough (on the low end) to write a biography on the topic. A search for Manitonquat provided new source material:

• Edith Kirby. Edmonton Journal (Canada). April 15, 1992. Wisdom lightened by humor offered by native storytellers page B4
• John F. Kirch. Worcester Telegram & Gazette. Watershed Fair Promotes Fun, Environment \ Friends Of Wachusett May 9, 1993
• Nicholas A. Basbanes. Worcester Telegram & Gazette. There's Something For Every Kid On The Bookshelf' page 10 June 26, 1994
• Dallas Morning News. Mixed Media. September 11, 1994. page 4
• Norma Livo. Denver Rocky Mountain News. Sparkling Suggestions For Children's Literary Journeys September 25, 1994. Page 73A
• Jessie Salisbury. The Telegraph (Nashua). Foundation in Wilton teaching stewardship July 6, 2005
• [1]; [2]; [3]; [4]

-- Jreferee ( talk) 15:31, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment - OK many thanks Thparkth & Jreferee. All that info is most helpful indeed.

  More independent source material:

  Christian Science Monitor, September 17, 1987 (page 1) "How the Founding Fathers took a page from the Iroquois book" (theme: Native American government practices influence in the formation of American democracy)

  Record of an interview with Slow Turtle and Medicine Story (Manitonquat). Slow Turtle is reported as "Supreme medicine man of the Wampanoag nation and executive director of the Massachusetts Commission on Indian Affairs". He and Medicine Story officiate together at a ceremony honouring Native American ancestors and the Iroquois League's role "as a foundation for the [US] Constitution." The event is attended by "50 American history buffs and international students." Medicine Story is referred to in the next paragraph as "medicine man of the Assonets as well as author and storyteller." He (Manitonquat / Medicine Story) is quoted at length, along with Slow Turtle. It's clear that the two work closely together in their respective tribal briefs.

  Will follow up with a number of other clippings a.s.a.p. I've also managed to contact Medicine Story (whom, incidentally, I've personally heard speak at various events over the past thirty years.) He dislikes to comment on disputes of this kind (now in his 80s.) But, after my explaining the importance of Wikipedia as a general information source for millions of people all over the world, he wrote a letter explaining, for Wikipedia's sake, what he knows about how the controversy arose. It seems fair to include this. If an email address is provided, I'll ask him to send it on to you.

  With thanks for all the fantastic work that goes into making Wikipedia a source people care about. -- Horse Dancing ( talk) 16:19, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Please don't post text from other clippings as there is no need. If you want to post more source material in this discussion (which I don't think you need to do at this point), just post a cite to the material and perhaps a short, less than one sentence, summary of what it says about Manitonquat/Medicine Story. Also, Medicine Story's letter explaining how the controversy arose is not independent of Medicine Story, so it could not be used in the Wikipedia article about his life. In contacting Medicine Story, it would help if he can identify press clippings/books/etc. that have mentioned him and if he can upload into Wikimedia Commons photos of himself and other photos that capture his life to be used in the Wikipedia biography article. -- Jreferee ( talk) 10:25, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment OK apols Jreferee I was responding to Thparkth who suggested I give outlines of articles which are not online. (That one was 1987.) I did ask Manitonquat for scans of clippings. Although way more computer literate than most people in their 80s, scanning clippings is not his forte; and he couldn't be bothered. (so much for his publicity seeking on his part!) Apparently enough material is referenced here now, thanks to everyone. Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:06, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Comment - Here are two more:

  The Townsend Common, June 22, 1989 "Medicine Story Brings Tribal Tales to Spaulding"

  Article on Manitonquat's (Medicine Story) charity tour on benefiting the Multiple Schlerosis Foundation, performing Native American traditional storytelling for children. Refers to him as "keeper of the lore of the Wampanoag Nation of Massachusetts." Describes his telling an audience of second- & third-graders how it was the Wampanoags who spend the first Thanksgiving Day with the Pilgrims. Also reports: his teaching in prisons and performing Native American religious services there; his recent appointment as editor of "Heritage" magazine, a journal of re-evaluation counseling; and his role as "regional reference person for native people of the eastern US and Canada."

  Lewiston (Maine) Daily Sun, Feb 14, 1987 "Humans either loving or looking for love" by Dan Austin

  The article opens, "Medicine Story, an American Indian story teller whose name in the Wampanoag tongue is Manitonquat, appeared at University of Maine,...telling an afternoon counseling class that humans are always doing either of two things - and only two things. 'They are either loving, or looking for love ...' 'When children are not acting in a loving way, they are hurting...' he told the afternoon class of counseling and child education students... Later at an evening presentation in UMF's Nordica Auditorium ... adults sat in seats and children reclined about the stage, all in rapt attention as Medicine Story related the tale of Jumping Mouse,... of Bending Willow ... stories from Germany and Sweden, and closed with another tale from his own ancestry."

  -- Horse Dancing ( talk) 17:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

P.A.W.N. ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Article was re-written on 12/29 and added an additional NEW 15+ references to P.A.W.N. from Mtv.com. The admins Bgwhite that proposed the original AFD on 12/17 failed to address the original 15 direct references out of 30 references as "noteworthy" because they didn't even take the time to review the the references or the articles entirely. When the article included an additional 15+ new references on 12/29 = totaling 30+ direct references out of 50 to P.A.W.N. the admins Bgwhite reviewed it with ignorance and submitted to speedy deletion. The admins Ymblanter then went and vandalized & slandered my accounts, they proposed for deletion 10+ photographs, some of which were on wiki for several years, then they went to pages that linked to P.A.W.N., and deleted the information of off other articles... which has been online for many years. Mfalc1 ( talk) 20:54, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: After I closed the AfD, the user went to Commons and rage-nominated a dozen of my images for deletion, see commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Árbæjarsafn05.jpg as an example. They were speedily kept.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:47, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Note also that Mfalc1 is a COI editor and is the director of the company (or behaves as one).-- Ymblanter ( talk) 21:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comment: Like I said above, Ymblanter after you deleted my article, you went and proposed for deletion 10 to 15 of my photographs, which took me a half a day to correct with TICKET #'s, and copyright reviews... then you went to 5 to 10 other articles and deleted all mentioning of P.A.W.N. which were online for about 5 years now. No offense, but you Ymblanter and Bgwhite aren't even from America, I was born here, and I am a 3rd Generation, born and raised in Philadelphia, PA USA.... so you shouldn't be editing or reviewing articles that you have no relation to, nor understanding of American businesses, cultures, or societies... please stick to grammar editing and spelling mistakes, which you are qualified for, Please and Thank You. I have 3 degree's from Temple University, which is a renown Research University. If you continue this slander & vandalism, I will contact the Police and press criminal charges, and then I will file a Lawsuit in your local Court, and also in my Courts. Mfalc1 ( talk) 22:04, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Mfalc1 How do you know I'm not from America and why does that matter? What does University degrees have to with it? (I have 5). Anybody can edit any page they want, unless they have a conflict of interest or are being paid to edit. If you work for PAWN, then you are violating the rules. Per WP:LEGAL, legal threats will result in being blocked. One is also not to use multiple accounts, including IP accounts. You have been doing this and can result in a block.

You were told at the AfD why all of your "references" do not count. Only independent, reliable reference that go in detail about the subject counts as a reference. "References" published by PAWN don't count. "References" that don't mention PAWN don't count. "References" that have one sentence about PAWN don't count. I only submitted it for AfD and everyone who discussed on policy grounds also agreed. Please argue on policy grounds, not what you want. Please stop flinging mud around, as that will only do you more harm than good. Bgwhite ( talk) 22:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Delete: The original decision to delete seems perfectly allright. Gerard von Hebel ( talk) 23:20, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse deletion. There was obviously no other way this could have been closed, given the state of the AfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and salt. The closing admin correctly chose to weigh the policy-based arguments in the AfD instead of incorrectly counting votes. And given that Mfalc1 has twice re-created the article against consensus, we should also protect against more re-creations. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:03, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was no way of closing that AfD as anything other than Delete and a recreation less than a week after the AfD closed with basically identical content is only going to be speedily deleted. The "additional NEW 15+ references to P.A.W.N. from Mtv.com" appear to consist of music videos associated with the subject which happen to be hosted on MTV.com and don't constitute significant third-party coverage of the subject. What counts for determining notability is whether any of the references meet the bar of WP:GNG, not the number of low-quality links that can be shoveled into the article. It looks like there's only been one recreation but if the creator persists in recreating it like this then salting would be necessary. Hut 8.5 11:26, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, the only "Keep" votes were from SPAs and not grounded in any policy. Good work by the closing administrator in holding fast against the legal threats made by the editor who brought this DRV. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:52, 30 December 2015 (UTC). reply
• Endorse - the AfD was correctly closed as "delete" based on the arguments made and the evidence presented in the discussion. Thparkth ( talk) 14:18, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Delete I have reviewed the article's history and the vindictive author's editorial behaviour, including his SPA socket accounts. It is blatant self-promotion. If there was another non-involved Wikipedian ready to pick up the work from scratch, it may be recreated. Zezen ( talk) 16:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - Mfalc1, the website [8] says "P.A.W.N. LASER is one of the oldest Laser Light Show companies in the USA" and "since 1988." [9] so it likely would have a number of write ups on the company. However, I found only three, one was a PR article which notes "P.A.W.N. Lasers has been operating since the late 80s", the second from 2004 said "A laser show by Pawn Lasers will just be one of the many surprises at the grand opening." http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WBCB&p_theme=wbcb&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_field_label-0=Section&s_dispstring=Pawn%20Lasers%20AND%20section(all)%20AND%20date(all)&p_field_advanced-0=&p_text_advanced-0=(Pawn%20Lasers)&xcal_numdocs=20&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&xcal_useweights=no], and the third was a 2012 article with 2-3 usable facts. I searched "P.A.W.N. Recordings" and found no information, not even any press releases. Matt Falcone owns P.A.W.N. Matt, can you explain how P.A.W.N. has been around since 1988 and yet has received little to no coverage in main stream press? If the Philadelphia Daily News, for example, were to publish a detailed history of your company (e.g., not a PR piece) and there were additional coverage for your company that together meets the WP:GNG "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject," then there may be a basis to have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia on P.A.W.N. As it stands now, there is no basis to have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia on P.A.W.N. -- Jreferee ( talk) 18:00, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion per AFD outcome, and if it's re-created in anything like its present form or without sufficient reliable, independent sources to clearly show that the company meets WP:N/ WP:CORP, then WP:SALT it. I went to every reference of the most recent revision excluding those used in the music table and searched for "PAWN" and either "P.", "A.", "W.", or "N." Some of the references were audio- or video so I can't comment on them, but of the rest the only ones that came close to offering significant coverage were from either non-independent sources (including press releases or similar) or non-reliable sources. The cumulative total of text-base sources that were independent and reliable didn't rise to the level of "significant coverage" either. So, unless I missed something important in the audio- or video- references and those references are independent and reliable, then this needs to go per the AFD outcome. It's a shame, because someone (or "someones") went to a lot of work to put this together. If the original editor isn't around now and wants a copy emailed to him so he can print it out and hang it on his wall, I have no objections. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs) 22:25, 2 January 2016 (UTC) reply

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

See this message from Joshua Issac; the issue is not with my closure itself, but it alleges that the AfD's consensus is flawed because it reviewed the November 2015 version, and not the much larger version before the heavy trimmings by Woodroar (I suppose this might be undeleted to review during the DRV, if it is, please update my linked diffs). This sounds like it could be a valid point, so at the very least I am submitting it for discussion here. Logical outcomes would be either to restore and relist with a specific note to look at larger version, or to leave deleted with the opinion that the larger version would not have had more chance of surviving at AfD. I consider myself neutral on the topic and this listing to be procedural (I don't feel strongly enough about either option to make the call myself). ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 17:27, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• edit history restored for discussion here. DGG ( talk ) 18:37, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• It's been pointed out to me that I made a mistake and closed the AfD after a day of it being open (I must've opened a bunch of AfDs from WP:VG/AA, some to read and some to close, and misprocessed this one mistakenly believing it had been open on October 5th, not November 5th); there was also no justification for a snow close. I thus strongly lean in favor of relisting and not simply endorsing the tainted AfD. ☺ ·  Salvidrim! ·  ✉ 21:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relisting sounds appropriate. I personally wasn't able to locate significant, independent coverage, which is why I !voted as I did. And I felt that the sources in the previous version were a mix of trivial, unreliable, and primary, many of which didn't even support their claim, which is why I removed them in the first place. But I've been wrong before, so relisting can't hurt. Woodroar ( talk) 00:06, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist. The accidental early closure (without invocation of WP:SNOW) seems enough reason to me, even without the fact that the discussion had not yet taken into account the earler pruning. — David Eppstein ( talk) 08:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist to review earlier revision of article. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 12:28, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy relist (is that a thing?!). Under the circumstances this seems like the only possible outcome of the discussion, so maybe we shouldn't bother having one. Thparkth ( talk) 14:20, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Speedy relist Nothing can justify the speedy closure. As has been noted here, article was discussed for just one day during which there were just two votes. 103.6.159.71 ( talk) 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:2015 Climate Conference.svg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion was closed as "speedy closure". I discussed this file with the administrator, David Levy. Apparently, he refused to undo the closure and reopen the discussion. David also suggested another central discussion. I tried doing so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). SVG files in general have been discussed, but there was no consensus to replace SVG files with less superior formats. The comments there seemed to favor shrinking the size of SVG files, but I'm unsure whether they favored PNG version. Is the speedy closure correct, although the recent central discussion led to implicitly "no consensus"? -- George Ho ( talk) 09:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Note: Despite multiple attempts by multiple editors, George Ho continues to lack a basic understanding of the SVG format's fundamental nature and the files' use in MediaWiki (hence his above mention of "shrinking the size of SVG files"). He undoubtedly is acting in good faith, but his persistence has not been helpful. — David Levy 10:25, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• In my opinion, the FFD discussion is full of errors and misunderstandings:
  1. WP:NFCC#3b states that a non-free file shouldn't be larger than necessary. When it comes to bitmap images, it is often useful to look at the pixel count, as reducing the number of pixels typically makes the file smaller. Vector images are constructed in a completely different way and are not based on pixels but on vectors. When a vector image is displayed on a computer screen, the vector image needs to be converted into a bitmap image as computer screens only can display bitmap images, but the pixel count is an arbitrary number which can be changed into any other arbitrary number without actually changing the size of the vector image. In the FFD discussion and related discussions on the closing admin's talk page and at WP:VPP, some users, including User:George Ho, seemed to think that the pixel count has something to do with the size of the vector image. In his closure, User:David Levy correctly rejected the idea that the pixel count has something to do with the size of the image. Therefore, I think that we should endorse his closure with respect to this aspect.
  2. The discussion also circles around the reduction of detail in the vector elements, but the closure doesn't mention this issue at all. I considered listing the file for deletion review for this reason, but I found out that the closing admin reduced the detail in the vector elements after users had questioned the FFD closure on the admin's talk page and therefore considered the issue to be moot. The question is then whether the file was sufficiently reduced or if it was reduced too much. It is currently not clearly established how big a non-free vector file may be. There was a similar discussion about a different file at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content/Archive 65#Regarding this. and at the file's talk page ( File talk:Green Party logo.svg) where the outcome was inconclusive. In the end, the {{ non-free reduce}} tag was removed by Cedric tsan cantonais ( talk · contribs) in what looks like a violation of WP:INVOLVED, considering that the removing user participated in the discussions about the tag. It may be a good idea to list a couple of SVG files of different size at WP:FFD or somewhere else for the purpose of creating a method for determining when an SVG file becomes too big for WP:NFCC#3b.
  3. The discussion was speedily closed, but this doesn't seem an appropriate situation for speedy closure as we are still having discussions about the file. I don't know if relising the file would lead to something useful, though. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 17:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Regarding #2, I didn't intend to imply that the concern regarding the SVG's level of detail was invalid. It simply wasn't directly related to the nomination, which was based on the premise that the SVG should be deleted and replaced with a PNG (with a rationale that would apply to every non-free SVG at Wikipedia, for reasons that George Ho seems unable to understand). No discussion is needed before performing a detail reduction and tagging the file to request the previous revision's deletion.

  Regarding #3, I explicitly indicated that further discussion was welcome and recommended that it occur at the village pump. As reflected in your comments, the issue extends far beyond a single image in particular or even a small number of images, so an arbitrary file's FfD listing isn't an appropriate venue. The closure's purpose was not to stifle discussion, but to invite greater and more constructive participation by shifting it to a suitable forum. — David Levy 20:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Regarding #2, you have to consider all concerns in the discussion, not only the nominator's concerns. In some cases, the nominator may give one reason for deletion or modification of a page, whereas other users may have other concerns or interpretations of policy. This was the case here. Also, adding {{ non-free reduce}} to a file is only useful if it is obvious to both the tagging user and reducing users how to determine whether a file is sufficiently reduced or not. As this is not currently clear with respect to SVG files, discussion is needed somewhere, although it is unclear where the discussion should take place. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  I was referring to {{ orphaned non-free revisions}}, with which a file can be tagged after the reduction is performed (and which requires confirmation only that the modification is reasonable, not that no further reduction is called for).
  As I noted in a reply to you at the village pump, I didn't dismiss your concern, which is quite valid. Discussion regarding how to properly apply the non-free content criteria to SVG files is needed, but an arbitrary image's FfD listing wasn't the right forum. — David Levy 21:57, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse closure - There is a discussion to be had about interpretation of the "low resolution" requirement for fair use in the context of vector graphics, but it's too big for a single file's FFD. This was a reasonable close on procedural grounds. And if there was no consensus at the more general discussion? So be it. Sometimes "no consensus" is the consensus. Until there is a consensus there is very little point in nominating individual SVG files for deletion on that basis. Thparkth ( talk) 20:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Consensus is clear that WP:NFCC#3b requires files to be as small as possible and that WP:NFCCE requires us to delete files which are not compliant with the non-free content criteria. The fact that it is not fully clear how to determine if an SVG file satisfies WP:NFCC#3b or not is secondary. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 21:31, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

"The fact that it is not fully clear how to determine if an SVG file satisfies WP::NFCC#3b or not" is not secondary, it is entirely the point. Thparkth ( talk) 21:59, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• It seems to me that this logo should be stored in .png format because:-

  1) It seems very clear to me that WP:NFCC#3b is about storing low-resolution versions of images to mitigate potential damage to the copyright holder, but a .svg file enables the end-user to produce arbitrarily high-resolution images;

  2) There is no benefit to the encyclopaedia end-user in producing high-resolution images of a copyrighted logo, so there is no encyclopaedic purpose to using .svg in this case;

  3) A .png would be a considerably smaller file size, with the consequent resource-saving for the end-user; and

  4) Respect for copyright enjoins us to take a conservative and parsimonious view of copyrighted images.

  With all due respect for all the ingenious arguments to the contrary, the idea that we should use a .svg file in this case appears to me to be completely untenable.— S Marshall T/ C 22:41, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Note that I reduced the level of detail, resulting in significant degradation at higher resolutions. (As discussed above, whether the modification is sufficient is debatable.)
  I think that there are good arguments against Wikipedia's use of non-free SVGs (though I don't understand #3), but they've been argued on multiple occasions without leading to consensus (yet). Perhaps we'd be better off requesting advice from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department. — David Levy 23:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Given that you agree there are good arguments against the use of non-free .svgs, I'm struggling to understand how a speedy close of the FfD could be appropriate. But in view of your response and Jo-Jo Eumerus' response below, I'm starting to think the correct response here may actually be list at RfC.— S Marshall T/ C 11:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Given that you agree there are good arguments against the use of non-free .svgs, I'm struggling to understand how a speedy close of the FfD could be appropriate.
  No rationale applies to this file in particular, which was nominated for deletion because of a misunderstanding. As I've noted, the aforementioned arguments should be presented to the Wikipedia community in an effort to solicit constructive feedback and establish consensus on the matter. An arbitrary file's FfD listing is not a suitable forum.
  But in view of your response and Jo-Jo Eumerus' response below, I'm starting to think the correct response here may actually be list at RfC.
  I closed the listing "without prejudice" and with an explicit recommendation that the underlying concerns be discussed elsewhere, so no such DR determination is needed (because there's nothing to overturn). George Ho initiated an RfC (which makes this DR more difficult to understand), but please feel free to conduct another (hopefully with a clearer focus than George's, as you've outlined below). My closure wasn't intended to discourage such an approach, let alone proscribe it. — David Levy 21:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  P.S. It also seems to me that the decision about when to use .svg and when to use .png is highly fact-specific. The views I've expressed above would apply to corporate logos which are non-free content, but not necessarily to (for example) line art or map files. I would think the wording of the RfC, if that is the outcome, should be quite focused on the facts of this decision and not a general discussion of the relative merits of .svg and .png files ---- there are plenty of good reasons to prefer .svg in many cases.— S Marshall T/ C 11:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  @ S Marshall: I tried RfC at VPP; see my response with Jo-Jo below. -- George Ho ( talk) 19:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Agreed. — David Levy 21:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I see reasonable arguments regarding the usefulness (or lack of such) of resolution as a gauge for NFCC compatibility and whether the current text of NFCC#3 can properly handle vector files. The point of view that PNG is more suitable than SVG laid out by S Marshall here is fair, but something that needs to be applied far more widely than just one FFD - and thus needs to be handled by a Village Pump discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 09:28, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  I tried VPP, Jo-Jo. The thread got archived without closing rationale. George Ho ( talk) 18:27, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  That means that there is no interest in discussing this issue (am impression reinforced by this), but I am not sure it makes a FFD an OK place to make a far reaching decision. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Not Endorse the idea that we must have a broader consensus before taking any action on a specific issue in a discussion (or indeed letting that discussion proceed) seems nonsense to me. Broader consensuses are often formed over a period of time based on a number of different discussions which examine a number of similar (but ultimately different) situations. Per WP:NOTBURO and WP:CREEP, we are not trying to boil wikipedia down to a rigid set of rules "voted" on at RFC to enable every decision to be made by some robotic actions. Realistically the lower detail SVG could have been updated and formed part of the discussion, the administrative action here seems to have preempted that. That said unless someone perceives the current images a a problem relative to the criteria there seems little point in relisting at this stage. -- 86.30.174.23 ( talk) 16:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  Repeatedly investing time and effort to apply unestablished principles to individual files (selected arbitrarily by editors who happened to encounter them) and reaching inconsistent outcomes purely by chance is a perfect example of bureaucracy.
  No one advocates that we take a "robotic", one-size-fits-all approach, but the opposite – addressing concerns in a manner exceeding any distinctions that exist or are even believed to exist – is every bit as impractical. — David Levy 21:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  So basically you have a slippery slope argument, that this one is going to open the flood gates and lead to all sorts of problems. What garbage. Given that it seems that there is little appetite elsewhere for such an RFC what do you now propose? We ignore the issue? since getting a reasonable RFC going seems unlikely and David Levy (in a capacity I can't see a policy or otherwise basis for) has decreed individual discussions to be a problem? -- 86.30.174.23 ( talk) 04:35, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  So basically you have a slippery slope argument, that this one is going to open the flood gates and lead to all sorts of problems.
  No. I don't believe that such listings are likely to become common. I mean that they simply accomplish nothing constructive. Unless and until a set of basic criteria is established, attempts to apply such standards (to images singled out arbitrarily, no less) have no basis in consensus. In fact, multiple discussions have demonstrated the absence of widespread agreement that we should disallow the use of non-free SVGs. The nominator, having participated in at least one such discussion, was aware of this. (Nonetheless, I don't mean to suggest that we should abandon the effort.)
  Given that it seems that there is little appetite elsewhere for such an RFC what do you now propose?
  As noted above, George's wording addressed an excessively narrow aspect of the issue (and reflected a fundamental misunderstanding thereof), thereby failing to focus on the big picture. I believe that an appropriately structured RfC could be far more successful.
  We ignore the issue?
  That's highly inconsistent with what I've said from the beginning.
  since getting a reasonable RFC going seems unlikely
  See above.
  and David Levy (in a capacity I can't see a policy or otherwise basis for) has decreed individual discussions to be a problem?
  That's an oversimplification, but the policy relevant to my closure is WP:IAR. This DR will determine whether my application was advisable. If the community feels that it wasn't, so be it; my intent is not (and has never been) to circumvent consensus. — David Levy 05:14, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse correct close based on the discussion. There has never been consensus for the proposed deletion rationale DGG ( talk ) 18:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse close - If there is no general guidelines on using a PNG image version vs. SVG image version, and it is an issue in a particular case, then it should be discussed. FfD would have been an OK place to discuss the particular case in my view. However, FfD technically was not an appropriate forum for an article talk page discussion, so the speedy close at FfD technically is correct. Also, the SVG image version does not have to be deleted to use the PNG image version. I do not endorse the portion of the close requiring that a proposal to replace fair-use SVGs with non-scalable images be made first since the broader issue of using a PNG image version vs. SVG image version does not have to be resolved in order to come to a consensus on this particular issue. In sum, Talk:2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference talk page discussion with an eventual Request for closure should be enough to resolve the matter for use of an image version in the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference article. -- Jreferee ( talk) 16:10, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  It looks as if you have misread the discussion. The only one who proposed replacing the SVG file with a PNG file was the original nominator. Other editors discussed reducing the file, which does not necessarily involve changing the file format. The closing admin needs to consider all arguments in the discussion, not only those presented by the original nominator. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 18:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  As discussed previously, I didn't disregard the reduction suggestion (which I probably should have addressed in my closing statement). That solution simply doesn't require an FfD nomination; any user in good standing is welcome to implement it at any time, after which previous image revisions will undergo speedy deletion as a matter of course (provided that the change was reasonable). Disagreement regarding the extent of reduction necessary is possible, but no such dispute had arisen. (A closure "without prejudice" in no way precludes or discourages raising an issue again, if needed.) — David Levy 01:13, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  An FfD nomination is needed if it is necessary to discuss how much a file needs to be reduced. Since it has not been entirely established how much an SVG file needs to be reduced, or how to determine if an SVG file is small enough, it is necessary to have a few FfD discussions about SVG files and WP:NFCC#3b in order to determine this. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 12:08, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  An FfD nomination is not needed for such a discussion to occur, just as an AfD nomination isn't needed to discuss editing an article to address a copyright-related concern (e.g., prose too similar to that of a source).
  The XfD processes arose out of a need to centralize discussions involving potential deletions, which non-administrators cannot carry out. Their scope has expanded (rightly so), reflecting the fact that other possible solutions can (and often should) be discussed simultaneously. So while image reduction can be discussed at FfD (and article edits can be discussed at AfD), no external process is required (particularly as a first-line measure) when non-speedy deletion isn't proposed. Images have talk pages for a reason, and the talk page of an article containing an image is another possible venue (and otherwise should receive a pointer to the discussion).
  And even if the matter of "how much a file needs to be reduced" should be addressed at FfD, the listing in question contained no such discussion, so that scenario is irrelevant to the closure. — David Levy 23:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  The FFD discussion did contain such discussion, but the closing admin paid no attention to that discussion and only considered the statements by the original nominator. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 23:39, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  The FFD discussion did contain such discussion,

  As I've acknowledged and addressed repeatedly, the FfD listing contained statements that the image required reduction (which, as noted above, any user in good standing can perform at any time). Please direct my attention to the discussion of how much reduction was needed.
  but the closing admin paid no attention to that discussion and only considered the statements by the original nominator.
  Are you paying attention to my replies? If so, am I correct in understanding that you're accusing me of lying? — David Levy 22:03, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This has been discussed many times before in the generic situation, and a specific file discussion would not have had any useful additional outcome. Logos are also a special case for non-free, but these characteristics were not introduced in the discussion. Additional permissions for use would be available for logos, and it is important not to tarnish the original appearance. So deliberate degrading of logos is exactly what the copyright holders do not want. I also feel that George Ho should avoid the issue of non free svg files. This will help make his Wiki work more enjoyable as there will be less opposition. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 06:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I was surprised to see the original AfD discussion result in a merge, given the 'flawed' nomination and an equal number of votes to keep the article. Regardless, the article has been expanded and restructured. It is now about the "Tobacco" segment in its entirety and not just the mascot. After expanding the article, I re-nominated the article for deletion, noting that I actually wanted the article to be kept but wanted to have another discussion about the topic's notability. That conversation was quickly closed and I was directed here, where I ask you to please re-evalute the article, which I believe clearly meets WP's notability criteria. You can find other sources to incorporate into the article on its talk page. I am sure there are other sources, too, but I stopped expanding the article further after it was reverted to redirect status. Thanks for your time and consideration. -- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 16:45, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Should be speedy closed and the redirects protected. The previous DRV has not even been archived yet, and the nominator's fatuous afd nomination makes it abundantly clear he merely disagrees with the outcome. — Cryptic 17:18, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I am sorry, I meant well when I re-nominated the article for deletion. I am not familiar with DRV. Please don't hold my procedural mistakes against the content itself. All I am asking is for editors to please re-review the article and discuss whether or not it meets WP's notability threshold. Thanks, --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 17:26, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment The previous and very recent DRV rapidly devolved into AfD round two and was correctly closed as "no consensus". The original AfD is the only one that reached a conclusion and so it currently still stands as the authoritative discussion of this article. Since the previous DRV was closed with no consensus, it is completely legitimate to discuss this again now.

If we are discussing this again, I would like to suggest that participants consider the purpose of WP:DRV and consider limiting themselves to constructively addressing the two major DRV grounds which are relevant here.

• Firstly, did the closer of the AfD interpret the consensus correctly?
• Secondly (as an alternative), has some significant new information come to light since the AfD which obsoletes the original discussion?

Arguments about the article itself really belong at AfD, not here. WP:DRV says "Remember that Deletion Review is not an opportunity to (re-)express your opinion on the content in question". If we hold AfD round three here now, it will result in another no-consensus DRV close which will most likely lead to us doing round four early in the new year. Thparkth ( talk) 17:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• You don't get afd round three for disagreeing with round one. — Cryptic 17:35, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I tried to make the discussion about the article's content by nominating it for deletion, but my efforts were quickly shut down. If AfD is not appropriate, and this avenue is inappropriate, what am I supposed to do? I'm getting a lot of resistance for attempting to keep an article that has been significantly changed and expanded since the original AfD. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:09, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The resistance might have to do with your continually demonstrated lack of understanding of Wikipedia guidelines, of its decision-making processes, of consensus, of standards, of simple instructions, of NPOV, and even of the meaning of the word "no". -- Calton | Talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion the article is now a standard episode article and not a character article. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 18:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Just as a comment Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), this is not an article about an episode, but an article about one segment within an episode. AtHomeIn神戸 ( talk) 22:48, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Just an additional 8 minutes of monologue. His other opinion pieces can have articles too, his "net neutrality" and "sentencing" have all received extensive reviews and they led to changes in national policy. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 01:37, 25 December 2015 (UTC). reply

Agreed. There could easily be WP articles about other segments, though I figured I should battle to save this one before starting others. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 19:36, 25 December 2015 (UTC) reply

You might have had something resembling a point -- even an WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS point -- if there were articles specifically about Oliver's segments on net neutrality and sentencing. There are none I can find, so that pretty much argues for the opposite of what you claim. -- Calton | Talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore original title as protected redirect, delete new title completely. I blame myself for advising Another Believer to come here, since I completely forgot that he'd tried this stunt before. I know that you don't want to hear this, but no means no. -- Calton | Talk 05:19, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure what you are referring to. I am not trying to pull any stunt. I created an article. It was redirected. I moved and expanded the article, one that was more inclusive and (in my opinion) more clearly illustrates notability. I nominated the article for deletion to start another discussion about notability. You closed that discussion and told me to come here, which I did. What am I doing that is so wrong? All I want is a fair, uninterrupted discussion about whether or not the new version of the article belongs at Wikipedia. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 18:11, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am not sure what you are referring to Wikilawyering, ignoring consensus and group decisions, trying to do end runs around consensus and group decisions, ignoring set procedures, etc. Yeah, so "stunt" is good short descriptor.
• All I want is a fair, uninterrupted discussion... Aaand we can add disingenuousness to the list, since your self-serving narrative left off the fact you've had at least two bites at this apple already; your not liking the result is irrelevant.
• What part of "no" is giving you problems? -- Calton | Talk 01:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Relax and assume good faith. The out of process deletion was for a fictional character, the article is now a standard episode article and has been expanded. This is the reason we have DRV. The same reason why we have appeals courts IRL. Consensus can change, and articles can be expanded in scope and level of detail. "Two bites at this apple already". Are people suppose to take a single bite of an apple and then discard it, or pass it to someone else? Get a new trite expression. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It's "assume good faith lacking evidence to the contrary, and until his latest bit of disgenuous garbage, it was a question of whether he was demonstrating a " lack of basic competence or was trying to game the system deliberately: it's clear now that it's the latter.

As for appeals, he's already done so -- twice -- and the only reason we're doing this a third time is that his attempts to make a couple of end-runs around the original decision were caught. I realize that pushing boundaries so one can escape restrictions or guidelines is a speciality of yours, but that doesn't make it right. -- Calton | Talk 06:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and Relist. The original AfD closer erred in finding that a minority opinion in the discussion was the consensus position (there was actually no consensus, and substantial policy-based arguments were made on both sides). It should be set aside. The first DRV closed with no consensus, but with plenty of strong feelings on every side. Meanwhile the article has been significantly altered in a way that might have affected the outcome of the original AfD. There are some outstanding issues relating to the interpretation of notability policy in this case, and the community should have the opportunity to discuss them at a new AfD. Thparkth ( talk) 19:46, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Your argument boils down to the AFD not reaching the decision you wanted, and since the DRV did not void that result, the result should be voided? Tricky.-- Calton | Talk 02:30, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I understand you feel passionate about the issue, but, you really do not have to make counter comments to everyone else's comments. Your arguments are not going to change their minds, and your comments do not negate their !vote. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 02:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I have not expressed an opinion on whether or not the article should exist, and in fact I'm undecided on that matter. I have expressed an opinion on the validity of the AfD close. That is what DRV is for. Why don't you calmly explain why you feel the original AfD close was correct (assuming that is how you feel) rather than going on the attack? We can have different opinions about things and still be respectful and pleasant to each other. Thparkth ( talk) 02:53, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Wrong. It's your job to explain to why the AFD decision -- process-wise, not AFD, Part 2 -- was incorrect, and all you have is WP:IDONTLIKEIT. -- Calton | Talk 06:04, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I have already explained why I believe the AFD decision - process-wise - was incorrect, five bullet points above this one. This is nothing to do with what I just don't like. I have no involvement with the article and did not participate in the AfD. Thparkth ( talk) 18:48, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• And, again, your argument boils down to the AFD not reaching the decision you wanted a different decision, and since the DRV did not void that result, the result should be voided. And again, it's not my role to argue if a decision was incorrect, it's yours to argue it was incorrect. -- Calton | Talk 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I suspect you have a bad case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU, but I have prepared a detailed analysis of the AfD and how I would have closed it here. Thparkth ( talk) 15:41, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. There was no genuine consensus in the initial AFD, and the central reason advanced for deletion -- "no notability independent of the show" -- is not based in policy or guideline, and is inconsistent with established practice. If this actually represented consensus, we'd be emptying categories like "Saturday Night Live" sketches, to say noting of deleting things like President Obama on Death of Osama bin Laden (SPOOF). The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 23:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Well, you're going to have provide some evidence of that assertion to counter the interpretation of a group decision. -- Calton | Talk 06:43, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Close with no action and trouts all around. Someone tell me how this isn't an end-run around the consensus of the previous DRV. Stifle ( talk) 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Point of information - the previous DRV did not reach a consensus. Thparkth ( talk) 13:52, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn The original afd showed no consensus to delete or to merge, and the close was therefore unjustified. (I !voted delete at the afd, but I do not think my view had consensus). DGG ( talk ) 18:44, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. I am the person who opened the original AfD, and I will state that I did not care on how the original AfD went. I will also state that I am very unsatisfied with the merge done with Tobacco to LWT. I would rather have the episode (not just Jeff, but the segment as a whole) on its own page than what is currently on the LWT page. Either that or fix the merge, though I would prefer the Tobacco segment having its own page. I wouldn't be opposed to articles on other notable segments as well, to be honest. Prhdbt [talk] 20:48, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I could not agree more. --- Another Believer _{( Talk)} 23:40, 31 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I implore everybody who takes part in these kinds of discussions to be more explicit about what they want. I've made a couple of attempts to close this, and I'm still not sure what the original request is asking. I see people arguing to overturn deletion, when there doesn't appear to be a deleted article. And, then I'm reading !votes like, Restore original title as protected redirect, delete new title completely. I haven't yet figured out what the original title and new title are supposed to be. Between the various renames, redirects, and an AfD asking to not delete an article, I'm lost. Please have pity on us poor admins. We're janitors, not mind readers. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Here is the approximate timeline as I understand it. I think this is uncontroversial....

• 23 November, Article created as Jeff the Diseased Lung
• 25 November, taken to AfD
• 03 December, AfD close as "merge to Last Week Tonight"
• 10 December, AfD result challenged at DRV
• 17 December, DRV close as "no consensus"
• 23 December, Creator of original article has partially-recreated it as Tobacco (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) and takes it to AfD pro-actively seeking consensus to keep it. AfD is immediately closed by a non-admin who instructs him to open a DRV instead.
• 24 December, This DRV is started.

So, as I understand it, no one has reqeusted the restoration of any specific article. Instead, the issue is whether it is permissible to create a stand-alone article, under any name, covering this topic. The only reason why it wouldn't be permissible is the original AfD (no other discussion of this topic has ever reached consensus) so this review has been primarily about the reliablity of that AfD closure.

If the result of this review is to endorse the original AfD, then a stand-alone article on this topic will remain unacceptable. If the result is to overturn that AfD result, then a standalone article can be created.

Thparkth ( talk) 15:50, 1 January 2016 (UTC) reply

Chos3n (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Reason, Systemic bias . other artists of the same achievement are listed . No counter argument was give to Systemic Bias accusation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.67.187 ( talk) 12:16, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Now this page was on here a few months back. Since then 7 new sources have appeared on this page. I have them all in detail here. This article should be able to go onto the main space now. The old XFD has nothing related to this issue. I would like anyone to ping some Russian editors who can help with this. I have all the sources in detail below. This Subject is just going to keep on growing and growing, the snowball effect. As more sources are appearing for this subject. It is no longer down as a single event issue. This needs to be resolved.

I will also ping some of the other users who were involved in the previous DRV or who can assist. - User:Cunard , User:Hobit, User talk:Ymblanter, User:Arthistorian1977 -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 03:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I still think we should have this article. That said, could you identify the best 2 or 3 sources that have come into existence (in any language) since the last DRV? If there's nothing really solid, I don't think this is going to go far. Hobit ( talk) 06:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hi Hobit all the new sources since the last DRV are highlighted above. Here are the strongest ones. [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49] and [50] - Thank You! I have these also in detail above! -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 20:38, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Keep deleted This is getting absurd. There's nothing new here. I can't speak for what Hobit intended, but when I ask for 2 or 3 of the best sources, what I'm really saying is, If you're willing to put in the time to pick 2 sources which best advance your argument, I'm willing to put in the time to evaluate them. Responding with 8 sources just says, I'm too lazy to pick the best 2, so I'm asking you to do my work for me. Sorry, that doesn't fly. Regardless, I spent a little time looking at all 8 sources. I don't read Russian, so I depended on machine translations. Based on that, I'd say none of them meet our standards for WP:RS. Please just accept that this isn't going to happen and don't bring this back to DRV again. At some point, annoying will cross over the line to disruptive, and you'll end up getting blocked from editing. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • While I agree with much of this, I disagree with the reliability thing. TVNZ is pretty clearly a reliable source. The Northern Advocate is a very local source, but also reliable. 1tv clearly is reliable also (unless we are throwing out all state-owned enterprises, which is tempting). Hobit ( talk) 02:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Getting absurd? RoySmith I have detailed the new sources above. I have pinged some Russian editors. I will just leave the draft in this case then and keep working on it, and will not bother anyone. People are not trying to see what I am trying to do with growing the article. I have managed to find new sources, and I am not doing anything wrong. For Hobit ok here is 2 or 3 of the best new sources. [51], this played on Channel One Russia. This show is all about Alex Gilbert and what he does etc, yes it does have a segment about his I'm Adopted project too. This show is the most watched Russian TV Show in Russia. See here [52]. Here is another new source [53] and also [54]. Look if nobody can help me, which people are not looking at the new sources I keep adding I will just leave the draft and keep working on it. Thanks for your time. -- DmitryPopovRU ( talk) 18:54, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Is there a WP:COI here? Do you have some sort of business or professional relationship with the subject? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse original deletion. The original AfD appears to have been focused on WP:BLP1E. Indeed this appears to be a textbook case where BLP1E applies. I do not see anything in DmitryPopovRU's "strongest new sources" that would undermine that argument or make the original close obsolete. Thparkth ( talk) 20:18, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Erb? I'm seeing sources from all over the world covering this person and the "event" for years. Per WP:BLP1E "The significance of an event or individual is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources." Don't we have that in spades? Hobit ( talk) 02:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• At an AfD I would (and did) !vote to keep. I think we should clearly have an article on this topic. And I think these new sources are enough by themselves for an article. So endorse and restore with the understanding that I felt the original deletion was sub-optimal. Hobit ( talk) 02:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Involuntary celibacy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

• User:Valoem/Involuntary celibacy article stored here.

My general DRV reasons are for allow recreation, however here we have an issue which highlights a fundamental problem with how AfD operates. What we have here is a comprehensive encyclopedic topic which meets all GNG. Juliancolton ( talk · contribs) gave the deletion rationale as lacks a cohesive topic, owing to a field of largely discordant sources. Indeed, the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times. This is incorrect, and I rarely contest administrative closure, there is a clear lack of consensus with policy based reasoning for inclusion vastly stronger than deletion rationale. I would like Juliancolton explain what arguments deletion presented that were particularly compelling. The there is a cohesive topic here I have provided sources such as Celibacies: American Modernism and Sexual Life, Masculinities in Chinese History and The American Journal of Urology and Sexology, Volume 12 all of which immediately define the subject in an academic nature. The latter is a source from 1916 suggesting this topic has been covered for nearly a century. The second reason largely discordant sources is not only false based on the sources I provided, but also not a valid reason for deletion. Editors generally stated the reason was the term being an oxymoron, again not a reason for deletion, and WP:MEDRS. Per @ Jimbo Wales::

"This case is very, very confusing to the unfamiliar eye and involves deletes, restores, moves, sockpuppetry, unusual AfD proceedings, etc" If I were voting, I would likely vote to keep, but that's not really relevant. There's a confusion I sense here when people discuss WP:MEDRS in this context - it's not a medical term, and not notable for being a medical term, it's a popular term. If the term is notable at all (I don't know for sure but there are some strong initial indicators that it likely is) then it doesn't matter if it is covered in medical journals or academic articles at all. It's something people will want to know about (including, likely, that it is not a term from professional medicine). I see a huge number of uses of the term in perfectly normal mainstream media. It is therefore a term that people are likely to Google. It's our job to answer whatever questions they may have about the term."

--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2015 (UTC) this is not a medical term and is no way masquerading to be therefore MEDRS does not apply.

We should look at the discussion itself. Two editors Chillum and Borock changed there vote to keep based on the sources I provided. There was also off Wikicanvassing for deletion here, possibly by now banned editor Tarc ( talk · contribs). Editors such as DGG ( talk · contribs) have supported inclusion based on Wikipedia policy as well. Regardless of all this the vote count by established editors is:

• Keep 12 in favor

  Delete 10 in favor

  Merge 4 in favor

There was a clear lack of consensus and the close should be reflected; so overturn to no consensus. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:24, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• My position is as I said in the last three deletion reviews on this subject here, here and here, and I'm afraid I'm now tired of repeating myself. List at WP:DEEPER.— S Marshall T/ C 17:37, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I'll try that if is somehow fails here. It is getting difficult for me to edit the encyclopedia because of repeated harassment due to this article. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• "Overturn" doesn't quite capture what I'm saying, so I've removed that.— S Marshall T/ C 17:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Those numbers are incorrect, and you are counting SPA !votes for "Keep" and disregarding the one SPA !vote for "Delete". The numbers should state:

• Keep 7 in favor
• Delete 10 in favor
• Merge 5 in favor

• With Borock's !vote in neither Keep or Delete, even though the actual text of what they stated favors Deletion. That's removing Technomad, Andrey Rublyov, 2602:F8DB and TTTommy111 from the Keep !votes and One true Incel from the Delete !votes. Since you've made the claim on this DRV that SPAs should not be counted, but incorrectly stated they have !voted delete. Dave Dial ( talk) 17:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Dave Dial You are showing bad faith here, I just reviewed Technomad, he has done other work and is not an SPA, nor is User:Andrey Rublyov, nor User:TTTommy111. If you are to include them why did you not strike User:Libercht who has done less work than other editors? I did not include the IPs. SPA stand for single purpose thus they would not qualify. I did not include User:The One True Incel, but I did include Libercht. Also Borock did change his vote to keep, very clearly. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:43, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

This seems like more deception on your part. Why did you remove your claim that you did not include Technomad, after your post was responded to? With no edit summary indicating what you did? Also, Technomad's only edit in over 2 years was to the AfD(3rd nomination). Audrey Runlyov focused almost exclusively on Celibacy related articles, with many of their edits revdeled. I'll give you TTTommy111, my mistake there. Your numbers are still misleading and you removed one Delete vote from a SPA and kept the Keeps from ones that were on your side. Dave Dial ( talk) 23:31, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• overturn There was no consensus to delete. The possibility of an article on the overall topic has been consistently biased by concentration upon one particular controversial section. DGG ( talk ) 19:28, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to NC I (again) don't see consensus to delete, though I'll grant you with random (possible) socks and other things, it's pretty hard to reach any conclusion from that debate. Hobit ( talk) 02:34, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and send to WP:DEEPER. "If at first you don't succeed..." is typically good advice, but trying again and again until you get the result you want is a pretty clear demonstration of bad faith. It's particularly abominable that this review seems to have been scheduled around the holiday season, perhaps to try and catch those editors who want to keep this quackery napping? Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 11:16, 22 December 2015 (UTC). reply

How have I been disruptive? No consensus is the clear close, but my main issue is you failed to explain what part of the close was valid. You are an administrator, you know that everything I have done is in good faith therefore your attack violates WP:HERE and you are acting in bad faith, I would recommend you take me to ANI if you feel this way, your actions are offensive and unbecoming for an administrator. "Scheduled around the holiday season, perhaps to try and catch those editors who want to keep this quackery napping"? Pure bad faith attack here. I recommend you apologize immediately. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 14:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• • Any comments about the AfD? As was noted above, a delete outcome when the majority favored keeping it in one form or another isn't an unreasonable thing to run by DRV. Reading the AfD, *I* don't see any consensus to delete. Do you? Hobit ( talk) 13:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• FFS This has been run past us how many times now? There has to be a point where we have to accept that we are not going to host this content. Agree this should not be permitted to be brought forward again until there are significant improvements in sourcing. Endorse the fact we don't have an article. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:22, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Does a Washington Post article largely on this topic count? [55]. It is mostly on the subculture associated with this topic, but it's a fairly solid source--certainly more than we have for most of our articles. Hobit ( talk) 06:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The WP article is about incels not involuntary celibacy and I'd be happier with this area being covered in an article about the online culture of Incels rather than being masqueraded as a form of Celibacy. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:01, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse per Spartax and Lankiveil and support WP:DEEPER listing. Stifle ( talk) 09:25, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Stifle, Spartaz no editor here has yet discussed why the close was valid. The vote count favored inclusion, so were the arguments. Please point out where I have made an error, these are all supervotes for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Unless someone can point out why I am wrong based on policy I will not rest until this is restored or someone gives me a valid reason why every time there was a supervote in favor of deletion. It is a very foundation of this encyclopedia that we do not suppress information. I was able to change the opinions of two editors and there was massive off wikicanvassing for deletion, are you saying based on this there was a clear consensus to delete? @ DGG: do you have any idea why this is happening? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:24, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment - I haven't fully read the most recent AFD and don't have an opinion yet on whether the outcome was correct. However, I disagree with the opinions expressed by several people above that this should be closed based on previous DRV discussions that happened before that AFD. The purpose of this DRV is to determine if the most recent AFD was closed correctly. Allowing a new deletion review when there was a new AFD seems obviously appropriate. How many times the article was discussed at DRV previously has no bearing on whether the closer of this most recent AFD interpreted the opinion expressed in that AFD correctly. Calathan ( talk) 20:42, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment No consensus would have been far preferable (but I'm still thinking about "within discretion") but does it make much difference in this case? Usually overturning a delete AFD close to no consensus results in restoring the article. Here, however, we had a userspace draft temporarily moved to main space for the AFD discussion. [56] [57] So, overturning to no consensus possibly means leaving it in user space and that might well lead to a further argument. I suspect a consensual keep would probably have been been required for restoration and, although that should have been the consensus, it wasn't. BTW I agree with Calathan's comments immediately above. Thincat ( talk) 13:55, 24 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn to no consensus - closer erred in finding a consensus to delete where there was no consensus of any kind. Thparkth ( talk) 20:24, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and Comment on the misinformation being claimed here -- The decision to Delete this article was made here, and was endorsed here, among other times. Per my comment on the RfD, this is another disturbing attempt to make extreme psycological disorders into something they are not. Editors should be ashamed they are disregarding WP:MEDRS and falling for a ruse. A dangerous ruse at that. There was ample discussion of this topic during the deletion process, and there has never been any consensus to allow recreation, to claim that is completely false. Once the page has been deleted, it is incumbent upon the editors that want to recreate the article to gain consensus to recreate, not to pass off no consensus as a runaround to create the article. That is completely against policy. And long time editors and admins should know better. Dave Dial ( talk) 21:44, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

This is a review of the most recent AfD, which was closed as "delete". It is legitimate for any editor to request a review of that closure, and no one is "falling for a ruse" by commenting here. I do agree that it would require an "overturn to keep" outcome (which seems unlikely) to allow the article to be restored at this point - "no consensus" effectively endorses the previous AfD's "delete" outcome. Thparkth ( talk) 21:53, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Dave Dial You are not reviewing the most recent close, is Jimbo Wales wrong here? This is not a medical condition it is a social condition which is more common than celibacy syndrome, please reconsider. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 22:55, 26 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Yes, Jimbo is 100% wrong here. And he is giving an AfD argument in a DRV. Not applicable. Dave Dial ( talk) 15:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus (I commented above). The closer identified the biggest objection at the AFD as "lacks a cohesive topic" and otherwise remarked on the lack of consensus. The objection seems to me a sufficiently subjective matter that I don't think it should override what was otherwise a general lack of consensus. Thincat ( talk) 13:29, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore article, working to improve it to high quality as quickly as possible - a quick google of the expression reveals this Salon article and this feature on WebMD. Here's a more recent one in the Washington Post. The expression is not a neologism being forced on Wikipedia - it's a concept that is actively discussed. It would be natural for reader of such media to turn to Wikipedia for a well-researched, neutral, encyclopedic entry on the topic. I have seen no policy-based reasons for continuing to delete it at this point. If people come across the expression "incel" or "involuntary celibacy" and want to know more about what it means - well, that's what an encyclopedia is for.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 14:58, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  I wonder why Valoem solicited the participation of Jimbo Wales, whose thoughts on this matter were apparently clear, but no-one else. This strikes me as something very close to canvassing. For whatever it's worth, I'm beginning to regret having closed the AfD in question, but I still see no reason to believe my close misrepresented consensus. – Juliancolton |  ^Talk 19:10, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse I see the consensus as being most close to what the closer said, ie., it is probably possible to find, in the future, a consensus to merge to a one of the already existing articles (except for the Celibacy article, which has been rejected) but consensus has been and was currently against having a stand alone article. Under policy, just because a phrase exists does not mean it has to be covered at a page with that name (see WP:ONUS). Before doing this appeal, try to merge the phrase and discussion of it to either Sexual abstinence (which appears to cover voluntary and involuntary) or sexual frustration, which appears to cover the recent notable manifestation before reopening this, with cross ref between those articles. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:08, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse per ASW, above. This isn't AfD 2.0 and AfD isn't a vote count. If you are into memes, this is my reaction to this article coming up again. It is the GNAA all over again. -- Guerillero | Parlez Moi 22:11, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Guerillero GNAA was kept though. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 23:16, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and restore article, working to improve it to high quality as quickly as possible -- pretty much the same argument was used to delete the Cultural marxism article, which was redirected to a few paragraphs as a "conspiracy theory" related to the Frankfurt School. As Jimbo said, above, this (and Cultural Marxism) is not a neologism and should have it's own article. No one wanted a redirect to the Celibacy article so "Involuntary celibacy" was deleted. Raquel Baranow ( talk) 22:21, 27 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation as there is evidence that this topic meets WP:GNG. sst✈ ^discuss 03:49, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse a difficult but well reasoned close of an AfD muddied by poor arguments and SPAs. My own opinion on the subject hasn't changed. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 04:05, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and restore article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that aims to provide complete knowledge about all topics that meet our notability guidelines. The AfD close misrepresented the consensus shown in the AfD itself and ignored our notability guidelines, which enjoy broad consensus among editors. The close was wrong in August, and still wrong today. HiDrNick! 14:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Comments

Rhododendrites, you are aware that the SPAs were in favor of deletion correct? Can you anyone give me any insight with the sources I provided? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 05:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC)moved from above by Dave Dial ( talk) 23:38, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

As with the rest of the sources, that there are more examples of reliable sources which put the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" together does not mean there is a distinct concept that we do not already cover elsewhere. The term is used one time in each of the new sources -- hardly significant coverage -- and the sources use it differently. "the involuntary celibacy of eunuchs" = castration (or clerical celibacy), not a social construct, and something we already cover. the "involuntary celibacy" of bandits who cannot find wives is sexual frustration. In this context is frames bandits who can't find a wife using the word "celibacy" to frame it as something of virtue. It's not a distinct concept. We already have sexual frustration and celibacy. the Urology journal is about involuntary abstinence, a very different term altogether, and includes in its definition not just the conventional meaning of abstinence but people who engage in sexual activity but who are not sexually gratified. That's sexual gratification or, again, sexual frustration. Three different examples of stringing the words "involuntary" and "celibacy" (or "abstinence") together, and three different concepts that we already cover elsewhere. No matter which way you slice it, there's no distinct subject that merits a stand-alone article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:59, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ Valoem:, that is 100% incorrect. There were 3 SPA or anon ip votes, all were in favor of Keep, not delete. There was absolutely no consensus to restore this deleted article. Dave Dial ( talk) 15:56, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you look at the vote count I made? I did not include any of the IPs and for delete I did not include One True Incel with that we arrive at 12 - keep 10 - delete. Cunard ( talk · contribs), has a way of posting sources effectively which I am trying to do, but some of the sources are so old a copy and paste does not work. Are you kidding me "'the involuntary celibacy of eunuchs' = castration"? that's pure OR the sources define it as involuntary celibacy not castration. There is a huge modern association with the term as well ignoring the sources that are in overabundance is simply WP:IDONTLIKEIT, I can't argue against that. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 16:16, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Are you purposely exchanging the deletion review with the AFD? What deletion process are you supposedly reviewing here? The AfD in August of 2015? Or are you referring to the DRV? I see Cunard in the DRV making a comment there, but not in the AfD. You can't DRV a DRV. There is no link at the top to any other deletion discussion. Dave Dial ( talk) 16:44, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DD2K: I just posted sources provided in the August 2015 AFD below. These sources show significant coverage to the subject and was essentially keep arguments, any thing wrong with the sources? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Is this a DRV or an AfD? Dave Dial ( talk) 18:23, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

This was provided in the AfD and within the article do you still feel the close was correct? Valoem ^{talk contrib} 18:27, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Do you understand the difference between Celibacy and Sexual abstinence? One is not 'involuntary celibate', there are reasons that go into such a claim. You are mixing up two different terms and trying to include Erectile dysfunction, medications and other forms of diseases and roll them into an article about nothing. That is not only OR, Synthethis and Fringe, but not at all appropriate for a deletion REVIEW. That, along with your Canvassing, have totally corrupted this deletion review. Sheesh. Dave Dial ( talk) 18:47, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The only person I asked was Jimbo Wales ( talk · contribs), and per canvassing and he had prior involvement with the article. This was done with transparency which is allowed, you see anyone else I "canvassed"? Also the sources I provided show this is clearly not OR, SYNTH nor FRINGE. It is hard to argue with the sources provided. You are the first person to mention erectile dysfunction. I have not mentioned this here yet, but I was harassed off wiki after the RfC request, regarding this subject to "not pursue it any further" leading me to believe there may be some bias here. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 19:12, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The answer is on your talk page and has nothing to do with this discussion. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 01:09, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Here is the significant coverage in reliable sources.
  1. Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally (2005). Readings in Family Theory. SAGE. pp. 14–. ISBN  978-1-4129-0570-1.

     Page 14 has a section about involuntary celibacy. This is a citation of the study listed below ( Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis)

     For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology and consequences of this phenomenon ... we define as one who desires sex but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least six months [...] but after a certain length of time begin to worry.

  2. Sex and Society. Marshall Cavendish. 2010. pp. 113–. ISBN  978-0-7614-7906-2.

     The book notes:

     Involuntary celibacy:

     In addition involuntary celibacy is used to describe individuals who have not chosen to be celibate but who find themselves for various reasons in the position of wanting to engage in sexual activity but not having a partner.

  3. Anrenee Reasor (2013-10-29). "Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students". The University Daily Kansan. Retrieved 2015-12-28.

     The website notes:

     Reasor: Involuntary celibacy negatively affects college students This may not be news to college students, but some people remain sexually inactive through no choice of their own. A desire for sex exists, but no prospects do. There's a term for people who can't get laid: involuntary celibacy, or 'incel.' A longer definition explains: “Involuntary celibacy is chronic near-total or total absence in a person's intimate relationships or sexual intercourse that is occurring for reasons other than voluntary celibacy, asexuality, antisexualism or sexual abstinence.” I think we can all remember that person on our floor freshman year that was involuntarily celibate, no matter how hard he or she tried. But incel is not something to be taken lightly. Newscaster Christine Chubbock committed suicide live on air in 1974, and it was believed that incel was a root reason. As a 30-year-old virgin, she'd suffered unrequited crushes and severe depression.

  4. Denise Donnelly; Elisabeth Burgessb; Sally Andersonb; Regina Davisb; Joy Dillard. "Involuntary celibacy: A life course analysis". The Journal of Sex Research Volume 38, Issue 2, 2001. Retrieved 2015-12-28.

     The study notes:

     Using a life course perspective, we explored the development and maintenance of involuntary celibacy for 82 respondents recruited over the I'nternet. Data were collected using an open‐ended electronic questionnaire. Modified grounded theory analysis yielded three groups of involuntary celibates, persons desiring to have sex but unable to find partners. Virgins were those who had never had sex, singles had sex in the past but were unable to establish current sexual relationships, and part‐nereds were currently in sexless relationships. These groups differed on dating experiences, the circumstances surrounding their celibacy, barriers to sexual activity, and the perceived likelihood of becoming sexually active. They were similar, however, in their negative reactions to celibacy. Pervasive in our respondents’ accounts was the theme of becoming and remaining off time in making normative sexual transitions, which in turn perpetuated a celibate life course or trajectory. (This study is peer review and cited over 40 times)

  5. Elizabeth Abbott (2001). A History of Celibacy. Da Capo Press. ISBN  0-306-81041-7.

     The gives a two page description:

     Involuntary celibacy - Often celibacy is an unbidden state, imposed by circumstances, for instance in modern China with its skewed sex ratio or in apartheid bound South Africa where rigid work and travel permits could confine one's marriage partner to a white city, the other to a black township. The American Civil War, which killed of a generation of young men, also doomed their sisters to spinsterhood as maiden aunts, burdensome family charges, and underpaid schoolmarms.

  6. Henry G. Spooner (1916). The American Journal of Urology and Sexology. Grafton Press. pp. 249–.

     This source is from 1916 and uses the term involuntary abstinence to describe the same thing, if naming is an issue that can be corrected:

     Considering the imperious nature of the sexual instinct and the consequences resulting from the failure to gratify it, we must consider the causes that lead to sexual abstinence. For our purposes we may divide sexual abstinence into two class: voluntary abstinence and involuntary abstinence. Involuntary abstinence to take the latter first results from causes beyond the individuals control and often without his knowledge.

  These were just a few of the sources provided in the AfD, any one of which nullifies the closer's rationale for delete. This subject is encyclopedia and distinct from sexual frustration. One can be sexually active and frustrated, one can not be involuntary celibate and sexually active. Valoem ^{talk contrib} 17:52, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. I'm going to pass on any analysis of the history of this, or the !vote counting, or the SPA counting, or the AfD close. Just looking at the sources presented, I think it's clear that we've got sufficient reliable sources to show this is not a neologism by our standards and meets WP:GNG. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Allow recreation. Like RoySmith, I am not going to analyze "the history of this, or the !vote counting, or the SPA counting, or the AfD close".

  I agree with RoySmith that the sources Valoem ( talk · contribs) presented above about "involuntary celibacy" demonstrate that it passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

  If "involuntary celibacy" is a fringe topic, it passes Wikipedia:Fringe theories#Notability, which says:

  For a fringe theory to be considered notable it is not sufficient that it has been discussed, positively or negatively, by groups or individuals – even if those groups are notable enough for a Wikipedia article themselves. To be notable, a topic must receive significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject. Otherwise it is not notable enough for a dedicated article in Wikipedia.

  Here is a deeper review of three sources:
  1. Donnelly, Denise; Burgess, Elisabeth; Anderson, Sally; Davis, Regina; Dillard, Joy (May 2001). "Involuntary Celibacy: A Life Course Analysis". Journal of Sex Research. 38 (2). Routledge: 159–169. doi: 10.1080/00224490109552083. JSTOR  3813706.

     The article is also reprinted in a book available on Google Books.

     The journal notes in its introduction:

     Certainly, some people are celibate because they have chosen this lifestyle for religious or personal reasons. Others, however, would like to have sex but lack a willing sexual partner. For them, celibacy is not a choice. Since involuntary celibacy is a relatively new area of inquiry within the field of sex research, few studies have dealt with the dimensions, etiology, and consequences of this phenomenon.

     In this research, we define the involuntary celibate as one who desires to have sex, but has been unable to find a willing partner for at least 6 months prior to being surveyed. The 6-month mark reflects the reality that people often go without sex for weeks of months (Laumann et al., 1994), but after a certain length of time, begin to worry. We realize, however, the arbitrariness of choosing a specific length of time, and suggest that what is really important is whether or not persons define themselves as involuntarily celibate. As Thomas (1966) pointed out, "situations we defined as real become real in their consequences" (p. 301). Thus, for our purposes, length of time without sex is less important than self-defining as involuntarily celibate. Involuntary celibates may be married or partnered persons whose partners no longer desire to have sex with them, unpartnered singles who have never had sex, or unpartnered singles who have had sexual relationships in the past, but are unable to currently find partners. Involuntary celibates include heterosexuals, bisexuals, homosexuals, and transsexuals.

     We used a life course perspective to understand the process by which persons become and remain involuntarily celibate. In doing so, we compared and contrasted three groups of involuntarily celibates, exploring the transitions and trajectories by which involuntary celibacy developed and was maintained.

     The journal article also has a "Literature Review" section. Here is an excerpt:

     Not only is research on involuntary celibacy scarce, it is fraught with conceptual and methodological problems. For example, Kiernan (1988) equated singlehood with celibacy, and used the terms interchangeably in both defining and measuring celibacy. Other researchers (Donnelly, 1993; Marsiglio & Donnelly, 1991) failed to distinguish between the voluntarily and involuntarily celibate in their analyses. Even when focused specifically on involuntary celibacy, samples have been restricted to a few small groups, such as the institutionalized elderly (White, 1982) or gay men in large metropolitan areas (Siegel & Raveis, 1993). Finally, in many studies, little explanation was given for why respondents became celibate, how long they had been this way, or their feelings on celibacy (Donnelly, 1993; Laumann et al., 1994; Marsiglio & Donnelly, 1991). Therefore, given the lack of knowledge about noninstitutionalized involuntary celibates, coupled with the limitations of extant research, we focus here on describing the transitions and trajectories by which one becomes involuntarily celibate and maintains this status over time.

  2. Blalock, Kay J. (2001). "Celibacy". In Hawes, Joseph M.; Shores, Elizabeth F. (eds.). The Family in America: An Encyclopedia, Volume 2. The Family in America. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO. pp. 131–132. ISBN  1576072320. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

     The encyclopedia entry for "Celibate" notes:

     Involuntary celibacy also has attracted the attention of the media and scholars recently. Using the term incel for lack of a better word to refer to themselves, involuntary celibates find themselves both inside and outside of marriage. Involuntary celibacy within marriage, or a sexually inactive marriage, occurs when one partner but not both makes the decision to end sexual relations and, at the same time, decides not to end the marriage. This could occur for a number of reasons: health issues, emotional turmoil, or lack of interest, for example. Unfortunately, according to Prof. Denise A. Donnelly, attempts to understand the magnitude of involuntary celibacy within marriage remain difficult because people tend to underreport such nonactivity and the stigma attached to a sexually inactive marriage remains strong (Donnelly 1993). Professor Donnelly and her colleague, Elisabeth O. Burgess, both at Georgia States University have been funded to conduct further studies on involuntary celibacy during the 2001–2002 academic year.

     Involuntary celibacy outside marriage also occurs for various reasons. Divorce or death of one's partner may force an individual into involuntary celibacy. In our youth-oriented culture, women, more so than men, often find themselves in this position in the later years of their lives. Anyone who has not dated in a long time, or has never dated, could classify himself or herself an involuntary celibate if attempts to form sexual relationships have failed. Health or emotional issues could lead someone into a condition of involuntary celibacy if such conditions are beyond the individual's control. Involuntary celibacy for the layperson in many ways parallels mandatory celibacy for the clergy; both affect the future of American families.

  3. Dewey, Caitlin (2014-10-17). "Incels, 4chan and the Beta Uprising: making sense of one of the Internet's most-reviled subcultures". The Washington Post. Archived from the original on 2015-12-29. Retrieved 2015-12-29.

     The article notes:

     We still know very little about the 26-year-old man who killed nine people and injured seven more in an Oregon community college classroom last week. Even before the fatalities had officially been totaled, there were whispers that Chris Harper-Mercer might have belonged to a fringe group that is much-reviled on the Internet: men calling themselves “incels,” for “involuntary celibates.”

     But it has certainly drawn attention to the Internet cult of the “involuntary celibate”: people — almost always straight men — who have either never had sex or haven’t found a willing partner for an extended period.

     On forums like 4chan’s /r9k/, Reddit’s r/ForeverAlone, and the old-timer Love-Shy.com, incels gather to swap stories and debate the causes of their situations. Some have physical handicaps or psychological disorders that have prevented them from meeting women; some just have bad luck; some are cripplingly introverted — hence “love shy” — or anxious.

     ...

     Both Gilmartin and the Georgia State researchers suggest that involuntary celibacy is part of a self-sustaining package of psychological issues: depression, neuroticism, anxiety, autistic disorders. Those problems prevent incels from forming relationships — which in turn makes their depression and anxiety more extreme.

     The Washington Post links the term "incels" with "involuntary celibacy":

     In 2001, two researchers at Georgia State University surveyed 82 self-identified incels they found through an online forum. Some were, as the stereotypes suggest, adult virgins who suffered from autism or another mental or physical illness. Some were just singles who couldn’t meet people because of how often they worked or where they lived. Others were actually married, but not sexually active — either their partner was no longer interested, or something prevented them from being intimate. Frequently, they felt they had missed key sexual milestones in their adolescence and couldn’t catch up from there.

     The external link for "surveyed 82 self-identified incels" is to a university release for the 2001 Journal of Sex Research article about involuntary celibacy. This linkage is consistent with The Family in America: An Encyclopedia entry (source #2), which says that "involuntary celibates" use "the term incel for lack of a better word to refer to themselves".
  The concept "involuntary celibacy" has received substantial coverage in:
  1. the peer-reviewed journal Journal of Sex Research (published by Routledge)
  2. the encyclopedia The Family in America: An Encyclopedia (published by ABC-CLIO)
  3. the national newspaper The Washington Post
  I do not see sources #1 or #3 in the article.

  If the closing admin cannot find a consensus to restore the article to mainspace (either through overturning to no consensus or allowing recreation), then I recommend that the closing admin relist this at AfD so the three sources I quoted here can be discussed in detail.

  The closing admin of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Involuntary celibacy (3rd nomination) wrote, "the true depth of the provided source material has come into question numerous times" and "it lacks a cohesive topic". Is the material I quoted here in depth enough to establish notability? Is it enough to demonstrate a "cohesive topic". I recommend relisting at AfD to answer these questions in light of these sources.

  Cunard ( talk) 07:10, 29 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Tantiv4 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Request to userfy the deleted page --Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 14:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

We have a slight impasse, and I am probably not being clear here. I am not asking the admin to undelete the page, I am asking for the page to be moved to my User space, so that I can work on it. However, there seem to be conditions to be met to achieve that. I would like to work on the page (I agree it had issues before it was deleted), but I do not see the advantage in recreating it from scratch, losing edit history, etc. Thanks -- Sanjeev "ghane" Gupta 14:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

• No, the request was perfectly clear. I'm the deleting admin, and there's a discussion on my talk page here. I think the chances of this 9-employee startup company being anywhere near notable enough for an article are slim at best, but I said that if the author could provide any reliable sources that might give it a chance then I'd be happy to userfy. They have chosen not to do that and instead wish to try to improve the article first. If any admin thinks that's a reasonable approach, then I'll be happy for them to userfy the article without needing to consult me further. Boing! said Zebedee ( talk) 17:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I nominated it for speedy. There are no references and no real likelihood of any. If there ever are, it can be restarted in draft space. DGG ( talk ) 19:34, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Let's see the sources you propose to use in the article. Stifle ( talk) 09:26, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Also, will User:Ghane please use a proper signature that links to his/her userpage. This can be obtained by writing four tildes: ~~~~ Stifle ( talk) 09:27, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply

User:Airlinesguy/AIRES Flight 413 ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

He was active less than a month ago. No way to argue that these are stale. How does deleting over 100 of a user's drafts help retain editors here? 166.170.44.16 ( talk) 00:30, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Couldnt the creator request the articles be recreated if they were interested in working on them. Why is a unrelated third party asking for this in the first place?-- 174.91.187.180 ( talk) 04:51, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Also, from the MFD the drafts were not touched since March 2012. I can't imagine that the crator of the drafts would decide to leave because the drafts they did not bother with for about 3 and 3/4 years have been deleted. Editor retention is simply not relevant here.-- 174.91.187.180 ( talk) 05:04, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Speedy close. I'm sure any admin would restore this on request from the creator, but a random third party asking for a random draft deletion is disruptive. Stifle ( talk) 09:16, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  @ Stifle: I'm puzzled by your remark. Are you criticising the IP who sent these drafts to WP:MFD/User:Airlinesguy/AIRES Flight 413 (as your words suggest) or the IP who has raised this DRV (as your bold text rather implies)? Either way, I think this DRV is referring, potentially, to the whole batch, not just to the first draft nominated in the batch. Thincat ( talk) 10:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

  I understood this request to relate to one single drive. If it is about the whole batch, then I am less critical (but would still endorse). Stifle ( talk) 16:00, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• This is mysterious. At first glance it does look like a strange decision at MFD: I can't understand how it benefits the encyclopaedia to delete these drafts and I'm not seeing any strong justification for a deletion, which is something we shouldn't be doing lightly. Does MFD default to delete nowadays? I've got old pages in my userspace that I haven't touched for years, but I'd still be unhappy if someone took it into their head to get rid of them. But I don't know why a third party is interested in restoring them either.— S Marshall T/ C 09:56, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It's a weak delete to me, very half-heartedly. They were barely drafts, just the basic Article Wizard text with the title changed. This is probably more in line with Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Blank userspace drafts than anything but I agree, if the editor is active (and even if limitedly active), I think it's worth keeping but given the age of these pages, the bare content and the lack of involvement, deletion makes some sense if not just to clear out the backlog as places like Category:Stale userspace drafts. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hm. Okay. I don't like that discussion very much and I'm not keen on what I see as a cavalier attitude to a good faith user's userspace, and I'm tempted to CfD Category:Stale userspace drafts because apparently administrators feel it should be emptied, which seems to be encouraging them to make decisions well outside Wikipedian norms.— S Marshall T/ C 08:47, 23 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse (but very half-heartedly) because that was the consensus of the discussion and it was operating within our very questionable norms. The benefit of deletion seems very slight to me, if there is any benefit at all. Thincat ( talk) 10:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It reduced Category:Stale userspace drafts and Category:Userspace drafts created via the Article Wizard from March 2012 by quite a bit. Baby steps I guess. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 23:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Category:Climate change deniers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

The discussion was a right wing attempt to rename the category. A clearly biased admin shouldn't just go in and deleted the whole category because of fear mongering that people are no better than Holocaust deniers about climate change. If they don't want to be compared to deniers, then they shouldn't deny the billions of deaths that will be created. Completely unexplained close. 166.170.44.153 ( talk) 19:28, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Category:Climate_change_deniers ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Admin provided no explanation for close. See User talk:Ricky81682. Admin refuses to even open the corresponding BLP/N when asked to do so. Total failure of admin accountability. Climate denialists should be identified and tagged. 166.170.44.16 ( talk) 00:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - DRV nominator said "Admin provided no explanation for close." Well, somebody has an agenda, but it does not appear to be the closing administrator, Ricky 81682, who provided a rather long and thoughtful closing rationale -- about 20 times the normal explanation for a deleted category, reflecting his consideration of the overlapping CFD and BLP concerns. This category presented obvious BLP issues, and while the food fight at CFD was split, the discussion at BLP/N was strongly against keeping this category based on WP:BLP. This close was well within the closer's discretion, and there is no obvious error in applying policy or in interpreting the consensus of the discussions. DRV is not supposed to be a second bite at the apple for re-fighting the XfD, which this apparently is. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 03:19, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Debate on the Hadith ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

This page should be undeleted for the following reasons;

1) This page does not qualify for Wikipedia prime criteria for speedy deletion, because it is not one of the most obvious cases and it does not contain any copyright violations.

2) This newly created page has been subjected to “speedy deletion” through a tag placed by an editor citing Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria No. A10 (Wikipedia criteria No.A10 applies to any recently created article with no relevant page history that duplicates an existing English Wikipedia topic, and that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect.). Wikipedia speedy deletion criteria itself states A10 rationale should only be used rarely even for duplicate articles. The A10 criteria for speedy deletion does not apply to this newly created page; because another editor confirmed the newly created page contain new material without duplicative content. The newly created page demonstrably provides expanded, detailed and improved information on the subject not found within any existing article(s).

3) Another violation is that the editor who initiated the speedy deletion redirected the newly created page title “Debate on the Hadith” to an existing page titled “Criticism of Hadith” which contains no “Debate” in its contents. Debate is part of the subject title of the newly created page which reflects its format for its encyclopaedic contents.

4) This newly created page is speedily deleted with no consensus for a speedy deletion as per Wikipedia criteria requirement for speedy deletion. The author of the newly created page “Debate on the Hadith” provided response in writing to the speedy deletion tag on the talk pages of the author and the editor who initiated the speedy deletion, but same is ignored by the editor. YdhaW ( talk) 01:13, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment the page was nominated for WP:CSD#A10 deletion but this was declined. [58] The nominator then declared they were performing a merge [59] but merely created a redirect while merging nothing. The page has not been deleted [60] but instead it has been "disappeared". I suggest it would be best to revert the creation of the redirect and discuss on the talk page. Thincat ( talk) 11:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Banana (video gamer) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Meets WP:GNG Prisencolin ( talk) 00:41, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Could you give us what you think are the three best reliable sources for purposes of the GNG? Hobit ( talk) 01:50, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • These links, as well as the WP:BIO criterion "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor", specifically for winning The International 2014-- Prisencolin ( talk) 05:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Bailey, Matthew 'Cyborgmatt'; Lee, Josh 'AutumnWindz' (March 9, 2014). "Jiao 'Banana' Wang joins the Newbee team". OnGamers. CBS Interactive. Retrieved April 28, 2015.
    • "香蕉Banana以转会形式正式加入Newbee战队". 17173.com. March 10, 2014. Retrieved December 18, 2015.
    • "韬光养晦只为TI 追忆王蛟Banana不平凡的职业路". 178.com. July 23, 2015. Retrieved December 18, 2015.

Anna Prosser ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Article meets WP:GNG, properly sources but people voted for redirection Prisencolin ( talk) 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I am closing this early as it seems non-controversial, and was requested by Valoem. ANyone is free to use A7, or AFD Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 03:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Denial eSports ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Incorrectly tagged for speedy deletion Prisencolin ( talk) 20:04, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• This was deleted under WP:G12 (Unambiguous copyright infringement). The source appears to be Esportspedia, which, like wikipedia, is licensed under CC-SA-3.0. I'm not an expert on copyright issues, but as far as I can tell, all we need to do to honor the original license is provide attribution, which is trivial to do. There may well be other policy reasons for deleting this article, but my take on this is WP:G12 probably doesn't apply here. So, assuming my understanding on the copyright / licensing issues is correct, I'd suggest restoring the article and listing it on AfD for a proper discussion. Normally, I would temp-undelete this for the discussion, but I'll leave that to somebody else who is better versed in copyright rules. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I asked the editor who deleted the article and they said it was also for WP:G7 (non-notable organization).-- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:51, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and list at AfD. I was the ed. who nominated for deletion, and I made the error of not noticing the site was copyright compatible. The deleting admin could have addedA7 to the closing rationale, or substituted it, but did not do so, and therefore is justifying an incorrect close after the fact, having made the same mistake I did. I do not consider it falls under A7, because it asserted the first place finish in a tournament. I am not familiar with our specific practices for e-sports, and do not know what tournaments are considered significant for notability; therefore I have no idea what the conclusion would be at AfD. I consider the article wildly excessive for WP in terms of over-detail, perhaps even to the extent it could be considered promotional for the team. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • There are currently no specific guidelines for esports/competitive gaming and WP:SPORTS voted, albeit in 2011, to exclude gaming from their guidelines. Thus the article was created undr the assumption it met WP:NORG-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:58, 19 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• If the person who nominated the material for deletion is now recommending an overturn, then it doesn't seem necessary to make everyone wait 168 hours before we reach the utterly obvious conclusion and send this to AfD. Hilarious though it is to use the term "eSports" for people who're playing video games from their armchairs, I would recommend "competitive video gaming" as the term more likely to gain acceptance on Wikipedia. (Yes, I know, chess is a sport nowadays. I think that's bizarre and humorous too.)— S Marshall T/ C 12:23, 21 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Kay Purcell ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

I came across this via speedy deletion as a re-creation of an article deleted at AfD. However a look at the actress's page shows that she played substantial roles in multiple notable series, most specifically Cynthia Dagger in Emmerdale (28 episodes), Ms. Savage in Bernard's Watch (21 episodes), Candice Smilie in Waterloo Road (21 episodes), and Gina Conway in Tracy Beaker Returns (39 episodes) and The Dumping Ground (13 episodes). From what I can see, this is enough for her to pass WP:NACTOR despite there being no sources on the article. She was also in several theatrical performances, as evidenced by the following sources ( [61], [62]) To be honest, I think that the article should have been kept, since she played a very major role in Tracy Beaker Returns and its spinoff, as well as substantial roles in other notable British series. The sources that mention her as performing the stage plays just sort of hammer this home. I'm pinging Davey2010 on this since he was the one who tagged the article for speedy deletion. On the talk page he does say that she looks to pass NACTOR but fails GNG. However I argue that NACTOR was created because GNG cannot really cover every potential case of notability, so all Purcell really needs is to pass notability guidelines for actors, which I believe she does. I'm going to restore the deleted article history so that the prior versions of the article are available, if no one minds. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:38, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Also pinging Sandstein since he was the closing admin. This is a bit out of the normal order of things, since this had already been re-created without anyone seeking his consent, but I want to make sure that he's aware of this DRV. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. I don't have an opinion on the notability or other merits of the article in its recreated version. The versions deleted as the result of the AfD, however, should only be restored if the result of this review (or of a new AfD, which I believe would be the proper forum for a discussion on the merits) is to keep the recreated version. Because this request has not, as far as I can tell, made to review a prior deletion decision, I recommend that this review request is closed and that you, Tokyogirl79, re-submit the article to AfD for a (re-)evaluation of the subject's notability based on the new article.  Sandstein  10:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• It actually is a bit of a review of the prior deletion, a little bit anyway, since I don't think that the prior AfD should have closed as a delete. Her roles should have been enough for her to pass NACTOR at the prior AfD and there were sources out there - the majority of the stuff I've put in the article existed at the time of the last AfD. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• In that case, I endorse my own closure, because deletion was the clear consensus outcome. Merely disagreeing with the outcome isn't sufficient grounds for deletion review. The article - or at least the versions of it deleted pursuant to the AfD - should therefore be re-deleted.  Sandstein  10:26, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• However I feel that the closure was faulty. The argument was that the sources were local and that they weren't enough to show notability, however Purcell had substantial roles in several TV shows and there were sources out there that focused on her. That some of them were local doesn't really mean that they should all be discarded. I'm aware that local sources do tend to be greatly depreciated and if she were only known for local theater performances I'd see that argument, but Purcell had also starred in several notable television shows. I feel that she did pass notability guidelines and the article should have been kept. The sources weren't easy to find, but they weren't exactly difficult either. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:34, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Basically, my argument here was that Purcell played in multiple notable productions in some highly visible roles. There were also sources in the article and others available via a Google search. Some of them were found, some weren't. I don't think that a source being local should automatically disqualify them as a usable source and I feel that theater production reviews do count towards notability if the actor held a major role in the play being reviewed. Many theater reviews will only mention their actors - even leading actors - in passing in favor of summing up the performance as a whole. Sometimes reviews might not even mention the actors at all, as in the case with the Edinburgh Evening News review I just added to the article. (Purcell's performance in the play is backed up with a second source that quotes the EEN.) I feel that there was substantial evidence to show that she passed NACTOR. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• That may or may not all be true, but it doesn't matter here at DRV. The question here is, was consensus based on the opinions expressed in the discussion correctly assessed? As AfD closer, I try to not form an opinion of my own about whether a subject is notable, or else I might be unconsciously inclined to "supervote". What I do is look at the arguments that are expressed in terms of applicable policies and guidelines, and check whether they amount to a consensus to delete, which was the case here. If you want the notability of this person re-examined, you need to go to AfD again.  Sandstein  10:52, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• (sighs) OK, I'll take it to AfD then. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 10:58, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

Interpreted the consensus incorrectly. The Film project MOS specifically states that Actor navboxes are not welcome in film articles and a prior RfC to further narrow this scope to Directors failed. RfC This TfD was a non-admin close with a vote count of 6 Keep v 4 Delete, including the nominator and creating editor. In addition to the desire of a certain group to limit navboxes to one occupation (directors), which is WP:UNDUE IMHO, there appears to be a misunderstanding as to the definition of a Soundtrack and a Filmscore. The minority position is that filmscore composer navboxes can only be placed on soundtrack articles. These two types of creative works are not necessarily synonymous, as soundtracks are often other artist's compositions that are DJ'd into the filmscore. Additionally, the MOS states that filmscores should be discussed in the Soundtrack section of the film article.

The sticking point here is not the deleted template, it is the fact that there is no public facing indication of the contrived "directors only" consensus. The "consensus," is based upon a few undefended deletions and contrary to the RfC, it was presented to me via TfD, with no talk page discussion, after the work had been done and the template placed on the relevant articles. This errant close will undoubtedly be used to muddy the water on an already decided RfC. I'm not asking that the template be restored, I am looking for an evaluation of the TfD (in relation to the prior RfC) and a clarification in the MOS if necessary. --Paid Editor-- 009o9 ( talk) 02:02, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Vacate non-admin closure; WP:DPR#NAC states that close calls and controversial decisions are for an administrator to make. Stifle ( talk) 09:43, 18 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Gilbert Levy ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Sources were added, article was accpeted on french WP, italian WP, and appears on the website of French Ministry of Education. ETOUI2 ( talk) 14:04, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Did you read the article from the French Ministery of Education ? ETOUI2 ( talk) 14:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. ETOUI2 has been blocked as a sockpuppet (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/AlexLevyOne), and the article that is the subject of this DRV has been reverted to being a redirect to Gilbert Lévy by the blocking admin. I'll leave it to someone else to decide whether these events make this discussion moot. Deor ( talk) 22:35, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Since the linked page has not been deleted or nominated for deletion (merely tagged for speedy deletion, which was declined), I don't think there's anything for us to do here anyway. Hut 8.5 23:02, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Maryam Hashemi ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Speedy deleted per G11. The tone of the article was somewhat promotional, but I'm not sure it was irretrievably so. Deletion is not appropriate where normal editing can be used to improve an article, and the person appears to be notable per WP:GNG. Requesting consensus to restore, and/or to use AFD to discuss the notability of the subject, since the article is not unambiguously inappropriate for Wikipedia, even if the text could use some minor cleanup. Jayron 32 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The article was deleted at AfD then re-created by the article subject, who knew full well that it had been deleted and had already edited the old article. The new article was an autobiography with ownership by the subject. It included blatantly promotional language, and read more like a gallery PR bio than a Wikipedia article. If someone wants to write a properly neutral new article without the advertorial then fill your boots. Maybe a half decent article could be written, but this wasn't it. Guy ( Help!) 19:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• List at AfD. The G11 is contested. AfD is the place to discuss it. The AfD was very long ago. No criticism of the speedy, but it should be taken to AfD on any reasonable request. Or userfy if the nominator would prefer to improve it before testing at AfD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 13:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• List at AFD per OP, remove protection. There really was no justification for salting the article: the prior AFD was eight-and-one-half years ago, and subsequent BBC coverage means the principal argument in that AFD was no longer valid, and there's also an academic of the same name who's potentially notable. Salting is supposed to be reserved for "bad articles that have been deleted but repeatedly recreated", and a single recreation is not "repeated". The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 19:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Other than the obvious spamming,of course. Guy ( Help!) 23:50, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Jeff the Diseased Lung ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Given the article's length and the 11 references in the article, it appears to be pretty self evident that the article for the character should not be merged into the article for the show. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 20:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The AfD presented no good keep arguments, and that it is long(ish) is in itself no reason to keep it. The article, as DGG said, "might warrant a line or two in the article on the show". Drmies ( talk) 21:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that even the nominator, in his nomination statement, acknowledged the notability of the character. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 22:55, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • The nominator noted no such thing. Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • I guess you missed the first sentence of the nomination "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources". Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 19:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • Since "has lotsa sources" =/= "is actually notable", no, you guessed incorrectly. -- Calton | Talk 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
          • Could you explain what you mean here. Per WP:N it is exactly sources that create "actually notable" here. Are you claiming something else, or merely commenting on the nature of the sources or something else? Hobit ( talk) 16:15, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Ah, the old "not notable outside of this context" game. I view such arguments as exceptionally weak. Very few athletes, for example, are notable outside of their sport. Very few academics are notable outside of their field of study. I can't see the article, but there was pretty strong consensus that there were sources that meet the GNG. Certainly local consensus can override the GNG (either way) but no such local consensus existed. Overturn It's a rather silly topic and one I don't imagine a ton of people are going to be looking to read about. But that is true of 95% of our articles and isn't a reason for deletion. Hobit ( talk) 23:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Hobit, there was no such consensus. Please read the AfD carefully. In fact, the only who argued it was the article creator. Other keep arguments are exceptionally weak: "Once notable, always notable" is not an argument; "Flawed nomination. The nominator acknowledges notability by stating that 'the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources'" is not a reason for speedy keep and this voter did not argue anything about the sources or the subject, only something about the nomination; " It makes no sense to merge" coupled with an unfounded accusation of bad faith is also not an argument. So there was no consensus that the sources were reliable, and there were no arguments (except for the one by the creator) that the topic warranted its own article.

  As for merge--the nominator doesn't propose it, but it's proposed and supported by Wildthing61476 (now RickKJr), DGG, and Athomeinkobe, arguments and all. Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Once notable, always notable is a fine argument if it was originally notable. Given that the nom acknowledged that it was (""the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources") that topic of if there are a lot of reliable sources didn't need to be addressed by those arguing keep. If I start an argument with "this light is red, but I still think I should drive through it" it's unreasonable to expect those arguing against the position to claim "but the light is red". I feel that because the nom conceded the point of there being plenty of reliable sources, no one felt the need to argue that those sources existed. Does that make sense? Hobit ( talk) 01:11, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Sure, but I have the feeling the nominator said that to head the old "it has sources" off at the pass. If they had been more skillful at the AfD game they should have said something like "but this does not guarantee notability as a standalone topic for this and that reason". By the same token, the counterargument is not "yes there are reliable sources" but "yes there are, and they all point to notability as a topic". That the nominator and (only) one other editor agree on the reliable sources doesn't mean there's consensus, but even if it did, it doesn't mean notability. At any rate, I don't rightly understand this hullabaloo over a merge, but the hullabaloo is not of your making, I know that. Drmies ( talk) 23:15, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I think the problem is that we are both reading arguments into that discussion that were not there. I'll point out that 2 people said there were plenty of sources and no one disputed the point. I'll grant you the keep side didn't explicitly argue that there were sources enough for GNG, but *I* think that they didn't need to as the point had been conceded. You are arguing that people had a deeper reason for deletion involving the fact that the GNG doesn't promise an article. And that's fine, but there certainly wasn't consensus on the issue (which I'd say would need to be strong to remove an article that does meet the GNG). I think part of the reason for the hullabaloo is that you merged an article where only one person proposed a merge and one had to "read into" the !votes something that wasn't clearly there (IMO) to get any result other than no consensus. That begins to look like an admin making their own call on what to do rather than following the outcome of the discussion. I know that wasn't your intent. But upon reading the discussion, I just don't see how merge is a reasonable outcome from the discussion. Clearly others do. (To ramble even more, I've had arguments with friends over what color a book was--some of us saw it as green, others as brown. It didn't matter what color it was, but people just argued about it for hours because they couldn't believe the other side didn't see it there way. See also the internet gold/blue dress... ) Hobit ( talk) 23:54, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Oh, I'd be fine with a discussion at the article concluding that editorially it makes more sense to merge. But *that* isn't AfD's traditional job. And in any case there wasn't consensus for the merge. Hobit ( talk) 23:07, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• There are ultimately two possible outcomes for a deletion discussion, which are delete and not-delete. There is no need for a DRV to vary between the different types of not-delete outcome; such changes can be done via WP:BB or talk page discussion. Stifle ( talk) 10:00, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• In practice it's common to see reverts of such an undo due to an AfD result. People feel it has some magical quality compared to a local discussion. I'd prefer we not have closes at AfD that don't reflect the actual discussion even if they are some variation of not-delete. Hobit ( talk) 14:59, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Overturn to no consensus. Hard to understand from the closer's statement how they read a consensus to merge from the discussion. Thparkth ( talk) 14:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Not so hard. Three editors supported delete/merge: DGG, Athomeinkobe, Wildthing 61476. I find it hard to believe that "Once notable always notable" is taken as a serious argument to keep, or that some unfounded accusation of "special interests" is accepted. Drmies ( talk) 15:51, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't agree that !voters who argued for "delete" and "merge" should be grouped together as if the two outcomes were identical. Only one participant argued for "delete, or perhaps merge." My concern is that there were seven participants in this AfD, and only one actually argued for merging (with one delete !voter giving merge as their second preference), so it is a surprise to me to see that you considered that to be the consensus outcome. There were more "keep" than "delete" !votes, with strong arguments on both sides. I don't see any consensus emerging from the discussion, but if anything, the strength of argument and also of numbers was on the "keep" !side. Thparkth ( talk) 19:19, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Endorse closure. None of these Keep arguments are even slightly convincing. -- John ( talk) 16:52, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Could you explain why meeting the GNG isn't a convincing argument for keeping? Hobit ( talk) 17:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Hobit, only the article creator argued it met the GNG. Drmies ( talk) 17:49, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The nominator wrote in the nomination that "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources". Notability was never challenged. The nominator then made the flawed conclusion that "the article could fail notability in the long run", which is not in line with WP:NTEMP. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 19:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

A lot of sources does not equal notability. I agree that they formed an awkward sentence, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there were no arguments presented by anyone other than the article creator. You can fault the nomination all you want (you've been riding that pony for quite some time now), but the fact remains there was a consensus to delete/merge. If y'all had presented real arguments, instead of either simply stating "it's notable" or quibbling over the nomination, things might have gone differently. Drmies ( talk) 22:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

A lot of sources does indicate notability. WP:GNG specifically says that notability is defined as having coverage in multiple independent secondary sources. Therefore, when the nominator specifically says "the subject of the article has a lot of reliable sources" that's not just bad phrasing, that shows that the nomination is completely flawed. Sometimes the sky is blue ( talk) 00:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

It actually says "significant coverage", hence the role of editorial discretion and the existence of discussions like this one. -- John ( talk) 11:34, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

A fine argument and one not made at the AfD. The argument for deletion was solely "not yet notable enough" and "not notable outside of the context". If the argument you mmake had be made there then there would have been a chance for people to discuss that. But there wasn't. Not by any editor. Hobit ( talk) 23:45, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse close, correct reading of the debate. I am a massive fan of John Oliver, but it takes more than obsessive interest by a few fans to turn a comedy show meme into a valid Wikipedia subject (e.g. truthiness). Guy ( Help!) 19:55, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Why? If there are plenty of reliable sources (as stated by the nom) and thus meets WP:N why should a comedy show meme be held to a higher standard (WP:N) than, say, a book or an athlete? Hobit ( talk) 01:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn to no consensus. another supervote. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Your favorite argument. PLEASE next time do something more than just slap down "Once notable, always notable" in a deletion discussion. If you had argued your point, rather than suffice with a boilerplate comment, we might not have been here. Drmies ( talk) 23:16, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse there was widespread support for merging during the discussion and apart from Another Believer the arguments for keeping were rather weak. The length of the article is not a barrier for merging, the argument for merging/deletion was that the subject was not sufficiently significant outside of the show to justify a standalone article of this length, which means the material will likely have to be trimmed. This argument does have a basis in the notability guidelines (e.g. WP:NOPAGE). Hut 8.5 16:44, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- the argument that the article is too long to merge only makes sense if you think that merging means to go Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V, and then walk away. A proper merge means to be selective about what to keep (a few sentences) and what not to retain (reams and reams of cruft), and that's entirely consistent with the close. Reyk _YO! 17:07, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. The central argument for deletion was "no notability independent of the show". This argument acknowledges a level of notability sufficient to support coverage is some form, so this is really a dispute over the extent and form of the relevant content, not a deletion discussion. Practice strongly establishes that similar fictional characters/sketches from comedy programs are regularly treated as suitable for stand-alone articles; there are roughly fifty similar articles for Saturday Night Live-related properties alone. In this context, when the views of the majority of editors in the discussion are based in an established practice which enjoys broader consensus, there is no justification for the closer to disregard the expressed consensus and disregard consensus practice. Whether this is a "supervote" or simply a bad close is not a useful distinction. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 20:13, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. If a policy-based consensus finds that a topic is not independently notable, it's alright to merge it. There is value in a concise argument, but simple assertions typically won't be weighed highly by the closer. Sometimes there isn't much to say, like if it's a dictionary definition or a hoax, but arguing that an article is too long to merge isn't really persuasive. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 13:55, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Sources or no sources, no real evidence of independent notability, so merging with the subject it's dependent on is the right choice. -- Calton | Talk 01:18, 17 December 2015 (UTC) reply

File:2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Turkey claim.jpg ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( article| XfD| restore)

The file was speedy deleted with the comment: " F7: Violates non-free content criteria #1"
From my point of view, the deletion of this map, which depicts the aircrafts' courses (as claimed by Turkey) is erroneous. Unless full position data is available under a free license, it is not possible to create a free equivalent per WP:NFCC#1.
As the file is vital for the article 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown, I would ask you to restore the file ahead, using a {{ delrev}} tag, to avoid further disruption during the lengthy DRV. Thanks, PanchoS ( talk) 13:56, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse This is a map. Maps are automatically replaceable per WP:NFC#UUI §4. The position data is ineligible for copyright protection in the United States and can be used in a different map. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 14:57, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• @ Stefan2: Copyright protection or not – please show us where the data of the Turkish flight radar is available. Also, please read the paragraph you referred to – it says:

  Unacceptable use: Images (4.) A map, scanned or traced from an atlas, to illustrate the region depicted. Use may be appropriate if the map itself is a proper subject for commentary in the article: for example, a controversial map of a disputed territory, if the controversy is discussed in the article.

  The map we're reviewng is neither scanned nor traced, and more importantly, it is a proper subject for commentary in the article, and the controversy is discussed in the article. Clearly, any replacement map wouldn't serve the same goal. PanchoS ( talk) 15:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Overturn deletion - I agree with PanchoS. The map's nuances have been discussed at length at the relevant article's talk page, and the map itself - every pixel in it - is subject to precise international and scientific scrutiny. It cannot be replaced by a map that roughly shows the same positions. LjL ( talk) 15:32, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Turkish flight radar data are available on the map itself, and possibly at other places. A freely licensed map could cite the Turkish map as reference for the flight radar data. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:06, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

That's not my point at all. "The map's nuances" aren not simply "flight radar data", as I do believe my comment above should have clarified. LjL ( talk) 20:26, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• There are four limbs to WP:CSD#F7. They are: (1) Non-free images or media with a clearly invalid fair-use tag; (2) Non-free images or media from a commercial source; (3) Non-free images or media that have been identified as being replaceable by a free image and tagged with {{ subst:Rfu}} may be deleted after two days; and (4) Invalid fair-use claims tagged with {{ subst:Dfu}} may be deleted seven days after they are tagged. Stefan2, do you want this speedy to stand on limb (1) or limb (3), and if on limb (3) then for how long was it tagged with {{ subst:Rfu}}?— S Marshall T/ C 19:01, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Per S Marshall's valid question, I request the template to be at least {{ TempUndelete}}ed, so we can scrutinize the circumstances of the deletion. Regards, PanchoS ( talk) 20:14, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ S Marshall: He argued limb (3), and the file was tagged for three days. — ξ ^xplicit 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse: well-reasoned decision, procedures correctly followed.— S Marshall T/ C 08:43, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn deletion; I agree with PanchoS and LjL. WP:NFC#UUI §4 is very explicit that the use of this file is not disallowed. The file is not used as a map in its capacity to illustrate a region; it is used in the article as the piece of evidence that the Turkish side submitted, namely their radar output. Russia claims that some details of this evidence (or maybe all of it) is falsified or fabricated; and the controversy is discussed in the article, in fact, it is very much the subject of the article.-- Orwellianist ( talk) 20:02, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn feel free to start an XfD on it, but this isn't a clear cut case IMO and should be discussed rather than speedied even if it technically meets a CSD criteria (which I'm not sure of either way yet, the response to S Marshall seems likely to help though). I understand why it was deleted, but feel this is perhaps as strong as a case that could exist for keeping a copyrighted map (exact map itself is relevant to the article and the subject is relevant to the world). And since it's something that our guidelines allow for, it seems that we should at least have a discussion. Hobit ( talk) 22:59, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse. Maps are replaceable and the map images should be replaced with a free one that sums up the various claims. For fair use, I think we would need third-party discussion of the map in the article itself, which we do not have. -- John ( talk) 00:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Note: I have restored the image for the sole purpose of review for this DRV. — ξ ^xplicit 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse as deleting administrator. As Stefan2 correctly tagged and elaborated, this is an image of a non-free map that can be replaced by a user-generated map under a free license. The main argument to keep the image is not necessarily the map itself (which is a big indicator that it violates WP:NFCC#1), but of the line drawn on the map to depict the path of the Su-24 which led to it being shot down. This is what the nominator means by "full position data". This is not even remotely similar to the example outlined at WP:NFC#UUI because the matter is with the line, not the map in its entirety. — ξ ^xplicit 01:08, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Good luck deriving the unarguably correct position data from the map, as well as other details presented on it, without making WP:OR and creating disagreements. A user-generated map was already created and then discarded for 2015 Russian Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown. Argument by argument, we're ending up with no maps at all: one says the user-generated map is POV and inaccurate, so it gets removed; then the other says the Turkish map is non-free, so it gets removed; then only the Russian maps are remaining, but presenting them without the Turkish map is POV, so they are about to get removed too. Convenient for whoever doesn't want information to be available, but I thought it was an encyclopedia. LjL ( talk) 14:11, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

You thought correctly, this is an encyclopedia. No good luck will be needed to generate a decent free map, if the data is unambiguously available about what the various claims were. If this is not possible, we should not even consider republishing these maps. -- John ( talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Erb? You are saying if those creating the maps didn't also provide exact coordinates (which would be needed for what you are proposing given the pixel to actual distance ratio isn't all that good) we can't use them? Could you provide a relevant policy/guideline or even commonsense argument please? That seems odd. Hobit ( talk) 19:56, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. Maps are absolutely replaceable with a free equivalent that could be created, and as such there is no possible reasonable argument that this is an invalid deletion. Stifle ( talk) 10:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse - the position data, which is not copyrightable, can be extracted from the map with sufficient accuracy and plotted on a free map image. Not even a difficult exercise. Thparkth ( talk) 14:17, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I'm curious what people are thinking here. This map, not any other map, is what Turkey submitted as evidence. An equivalent map isn't the artifact that was actually used. If this were a murder case and there were a lunchbox with Micky Mouse on it covered in blood that was part of the article, would we not have the lunchbox because it's covered by copyright? Would people be suggesting that we create a new, nearly identical lunchbox with blood on it and use it? We shouldn't be creating "reproductions" of actual evidence because of copyright. Further, this clearly falls under fair use and the basic reason for having no copyright images (so that others can reuse our material) is in no way damaged by this image. It's cutting off our nose to spite our face. Hobit ( talk) 14:38, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Per WP:PRIMARY we don't usually use this type of material, preferring to report what reliable secondary sources say about a subject. To qualify for fair use we would need to to have significant third-party discussion of the image itself. We don't have that at present. Does it exist? (Incidentally I raised much of this already 16 hours ago, but ok.) -- John ( talk) 16:46, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn Agree very much with User:Hobit. The image itself is evidence and subject of the article, and a replacement will not have the same authority. The people here arguing for deletion seem to not at all be aware of, or argue against, this line of reasoning. Note also that a replacement has been rejected on the article talk page as being inferior to the original image. [I am the original uploader] Thue ( talk) 15:16, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. This would have needed a deletion discussion. The argument that this is not replaceable because the exact pixel image of the flight path is what this image is meant to illustrate is a valid one, and ought to be discussed on the merits.  Sandstein  21:12, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • @ Sandstein:, please enlarge upon how you think this is not replaceable because the exact pixel image of the flight path is what this image is meant to illustrate intersects with our mission as a free resource and statements of it such as WP:NFCC. -- John ( talk) 21:33, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Should I use a bigger font? :-) The topic being illustrated is the exact position of the pixels denoting the flight path in relation to the state boundaries as depicted on this map. If somebody were to redraw this, even a deviation of a few pixels would not communicate the same content.  Sandstein  22:09, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • Interesting interpretation. If we accepted that, we would accept every nonfree image, every album cover, every promotional shot, where the fans of the band think that particular picture is vital to display. We don't. As a free encyclopedia, we value free images over nonfree. In this case, the subject is an air-to-air incident, and we can describe and depict the two sides' differing versions of what happened without reproducing pixel for pixel the maps they released. As we can, we should. -- John ( talk) 11:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • If the album cover art has significant coverage we can keep it even if non-free. Here the specific maps have significant coverage. The issue as to if we would be better off with or without the maps in the article is an editorial one and not a subject that should be addressed by speedy deletion. Hobit ( talk) 00:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist at FFD: I do see at least one source that discussed the "map conflict" (including this specific map) specifically, so a claim that the exemption in WP:NFC#UUI point 4 applies has some merit. Likewise, if a free usermade map is considered inferior by discussion this can put WP:NFCC#1 complaints into question. I think a free replacement should be create-able (with the original map being linked rather than hosted here) but the CSD process is not appropriate in these circumstances; it needs to be run through FFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:46, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Which source? Hobit ( talk) 03:51, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • This one; don't know why it was removed. Some of the current sources also show the Turkish map but they don't explicitly talk about map conflict. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 08:58, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • It's not removed, it's in the text. There are other similar references in the text as well, such as this and this.-- Orwellianist ( talk) 19:20, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment Could those who are endorsing this speedy please comment on /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Non-free_content#UUI #4? This appears to be almost exactly the case spelled out as a reason to keep a map. Hobit ( talk) 18:37, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • WP:NFCC, a policy, trumps WP:NFC, a guideline. A non-free image can receive all the coverage in the world and pass WP:NFCC#8, where UUI#4 stems from, but if it doesn't meet WP:NFCC#1, it still violates the policy and must be deleted as a result. This is likely the view shared by the users who endorse the deletion.

In fact, looking at the discussion linked above by User:Thue, the freely licensed alternative was "rejected" on the basis that this non-free file was "covered by [...] a very strong fair use claim", which, again, goes against NFCC in the first place. — ξ ^xplicit 03:25, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

That there is an equivalent free option is actively in debate. Which is why this should not be a speedy delete--it should be discussed. Hobit ( talk) 03:56, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I think this is also a function of what you are using the image for. A dispute about who's map is correct can raise questions if it's illustrated by a different image. If merely showing the flightpath is the purpose, then it can't meet NFCC#1. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 06:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Hobit ( talk) 02:01, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• File:Sukhoi Su-24 shootdown Syrian-Turkey border.svg looks perfectly adequate to me. It gives the reader all the necessary information in context. I mean, I generally feel our encyclopaedia benefits from fair use material and I think we're here to write an encyclopaedia, not to provide free content to reusers (that's Wikimedia Commons' job). I have a history of defending fair use images from free content extremism, but this doesn't look like free content extremism to me. It looks like a rational and moderate decision.— S Marshall T/ C 12:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

In fact, that file is significantly more readable than the original. It is the graphical equivalent of simplifying and summarizing external sources, which we do all the time in text. Thparkth ( talk) 14:05, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Yes, it is so much better that it says the Turkish-claimed crash site is a "Turkish claimed crash site", while the Russian-claimed crash site is the "area where [it] crashes". That's not very WP:NPOV, but IIRC there were other issues such as the Russian-claimed flight path not seemingly corresponding to their original map (which can be hard to tell for sure, and that's the entire problem). In any case, for these and/or various other reasons, that map was removed from the article, so it cannot have been that good. LjL ( talk) 14:15, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

You're right of course, but those issues are trivially fixable. Thparkth ( talk) 14:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't think making sure the flight path matches the maps provided as evidence accurately is something that is so trivial. LjL ( talk) 15:03, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• List at FFD A reasonable dispute, which should not be decided here. DGG ( talk ) 19:19, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Send to FFD the argument that this image is not replaceable is at least plausible, and speedy deletion is intended for obvious cases only. Hut 8.5 22:23, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Kathleen Snavely ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

Consensus in this AfD (closed by a non-admin) did not appear to be leaning towards redirecting or deleting. In this particular AfD, 5 voted in favour of keeping and 6 voted in favour of deleting and/or redirecting. However, this same article was nominated for deletion only a month previously and the outcome was "keep". The article had not changed much since, so I don't see how consensus can change that quickly. I think the closer of the second AfD should have at least considered the result of the first one. Overall, opinions appear to be mixed (slightly in favour of keeping). So, I think this should be overturned to "keep" or "no consensus". Ollie231213 ( talk) 22:20, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. However, it did not belong at AfD as there was no nomination or rationale to delete anything. I read a consensus that coverage is appropriate, but that coverage belongs in a list. Centenarians collectively are notable, so there should be articles on centenarians collectively. There were no valid rationales to delete, noting a couple of pointy hyperreactions "delete" and "delete and redirect" which I am sure is more motivated by frustration with the prevalence of non-notable standalone unexpandable centenarian biostubs and the need to do something about them in the face steady resistance. It is appropriate for referenced biostub information to be contained in lists somewhere under Category:Supercentenarians; the unexpandable biostubs should be merged to lists, there is no reason for deletion in normal cases, these discussions should be unwelcome at AfD. If there continues to be disagreement with this, I recommend an RfC on the merging of supercentenarians stubs. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Unclear where the supervote allegation comes from. The closing decision was strongly represented in the discussion. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 09:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• If you analyze RAN's contributions to DRV, he basically calls any close he disagrees with a supervote. Hopefully the closing admin will give it the weight it deserves. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn NAC there were a lot of ways this could be closed, the !vote wasn't clear and as such it just wasn't a good candidate for a non-admin close. And as deletion wasn't actually an option, it didn't belong at AfD. Hobit ( talk) 22:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I'm interested to know what the closer was thinking. Did he take into account the previous discussion during the close, and if so, what weight did he give it? This close could be wrong, but it's not obviously wrong. The closer has sufficient experience at AfD to close —discussions there.— S Marshall T/ C 14:37, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Vacate NAC as not an obvious result. Stifle ( talk) 10:02, 11 December 2015 (UTC)` reply

• Endorse - close was a reasonable reflection of the consensus, even considering both AfDs. NAC not a factor here. Thparkth ( talk) 14:25, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• This wasn't a good candidate for a NAC, not because the outcome obviously looks wrong, it doesn't I might well have closed the same way myself, but because the supercentarian area is rife with disagreement about what should be kept and what should not. As such, any outcome is open to disagreement and an NAC close, even done right, creates a reason for someone to feel more aggrieved than usual. I don't feel strongly enough to vote overturn or endorse but I did feel the tension in the area needed injecting into this discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 12:38, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn NAC Another closer !supervote. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 22:12, 12 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse, realising that these centenarian articles are a bit of a hot topic at the moment, it's not surprising that consensus has changed here. Seems to be a reasonable reading of the discussion, given the relative strengths of the arguments made. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:52, 15 December 2015 (UTC). reply

I can't believe that consensus can change that quickly in just a few weeks. It's more down to the fact that AfD's only involve a relatively small number of editors. If you look across the two AfD's, about 60% of participants voted to keep. It's rather bold, especially for an NAC, to close this as a redirect. -- Ollie231213 ( talk) 16:42, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn out-of-process NAC per arguments of Stifle and Spartaz. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 17:39, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn NAC / Close as No Consensus The whole AfD 1 / AfD 2 process was questionable and there is no room for a non-administrative closure by an inexperienced editor in circumstances where there is no clear consensus whatsoever. It's bad enough when an admin puts his thumb on the scale and casts a supervote, but when inexperienced editors who haven't passed community scrutiny arrogate the right to make their own rules and judgements, the consequences are far more severe. The lack of any explanation whatsoever by the non-admin closer only provides evidence that the close is wrong. Alansohn ( talk) 21:27, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn NAC and relist - This was clearly an inappropriate non-administrator close (NAC) under the circumstances per WP:NAC, and probably should have been re-listed instead of closed given the clear voting trend. Dirtlawyer1 ( talk) 21:41, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

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

< Speedy deletion due to SHOUTED title and suspicion of promotional content. The page's title and the article will be fixed so the name of the company is no longer spelled with only capital letters - it will be spelled CaterWings instead. Since it is a new topic, there is not much published about it, but all reputable sources found are listed and quoted in the text. The decision to ask for a deletion review was made after a discussion with the administrator who deleted the first article published, RHaworth.

As the article's goal is to be informative and it is in no way promotional content, I would like to request the editors to allow recreation of the page and I can make all the necessary changes to improve the article according to Wikipedia's guidelines.

My discussion with the administrator RHaworth can be found here: /info/en/?search=User_talk:RHaworth#Page_deletion_help and here is the link to the deleted article: /info/en/?search=CATERWINGS >

Please let me know any further instructions on how I can improve my article. Sue.Molly — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sue.Molly ( talk • contribs) 2015-12-07T14:42:41

• I would suggest that this be restored to Draft:CaterWings so it can be improved to the satisfaction of other editors before going back to mainspace. If this had been requested at WP:REFUND it would have happened already. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 21:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So moved, although it will need a lot of touching up and some better references before it's ready. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC). reply

David Christopher ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Please restore the article. David Christopher is a member of the AVN Hall of Fame as of 2009. He thus meets pornographic actors guidelines.|}} ^[1] Holanthony ( talk) 11:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• (Non-administrator comment) This was an expired WP:PROD. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:40, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Restoration declined. This was a PROD, but a recreation would be speedily deleted for lack of sources: this was a one-sentence BLP with no sources. If you have access to sources, recreate it yourself and cite them.  Sandstein  20:12, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Decline restoration, but with no prejudice to the creation of a new, sourced article. Per above, it's an unsourced BLP with little content, and shouldn't really be put back on display. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 09:13, 8 December 2015 (UTC). reply
• Userfy, declining is unpalatable per the WP:PROD rules, but note the above opinions indicating that the article was doomed to deletion and advising attempts at revival to attempt to recreate from scratch, with attention to WP:BLP. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Leave deleted due to unsourced BLP-violating material in the history. No prejudice to recreation if based on reliable sources. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 04:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I agree with Userfication. Can't really undelete what is (apparently) an unsourced BLP. Can't really decline to restore a PROD. Userfication is the best way forward in the hopes it can be made to meet the GNG. Hobit ( talk) 06:07, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Userfication is inappropriate for WP:BLP violations. See WP:BLPTALK (that link doesn't seem to get you to the right section; you're looking for the Non-article space heading). -- RoySmith (talk) 01:58, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

But it's not inappropirate for articles that are just unsourced, right? Are you saying the article has a BLP violation other than being unsourced? I can't see it, so I was assuming all it said was that he was a pornographic actor, which doesn't seem to be in dispute (as we appear to have a source that supports that). Hobit ( talk) 03:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Who says there are BLP violations? "Unsourced BLP" is not usually a reason to deny userfication requested to add sources. I am more concerned that WP:PROD is being inched into speedy deletion, something that was very sensitive when debated prior to its implementation. If anything needs fixing, it is the lack of reference to BLP violations anywhere at WP:CSD. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:08, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • *raises hand* I'll say it. The source above only shows that someone named "David Christopher" won a porn-industry award. The deleted article, however, gives a birth year and place of residence tying this relatively-common name to a specific person, and prior revisions of it contain a link to imdb giving a purportedly-real name. Should not be restored. — Cryptic 03:44, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Thanks. That would make this a WP:BLPDELETE then? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • So far as I'm concerned, yes. Every revision of the April-May 2009 article contained either the biographical data or imdb link, and either are enough for me to consider the article unacceptable without a reliable source showing they're the same person. (The February 2008 substub existed for less than two hours, and was deleted in relation to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pussyman.) — Cryptic 04:04, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Restore though I would suggest the contributor move it to user space or draft sspace. Unless a prod is also copyvio, etc., the fact that it will probably or even almost certainly at afd , is not a reason for refusing to restore it. I have on occasion restored prods & immediately sent to AfD. DGG ( talk ) 20:33, 14 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • This is a six-and-a-half-year-old, two-sentence substub consisting entirely of unsourced contentious material about an identifiable living person. Previous revisions, for all that they were longer and linked to imdb, are considerably worse. No source has been put forward that contains anything more than the article name. How is restoring this and letting it sit as-is for three weeks at AFD better than just saying, "What was there isn't helpful. Go ahead and write it from sources like any other redlink"? — Cryptic 05:17, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• allow recreation with appropriate sources and content. I declined to restore the article at WP:REFUND. But that was because I would have immediately deleted it with A7 due to no claim of importance. Restoration is not worthwhile. Graeme Bartlett ( talk) 07:28, 15 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Billy Glide ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( restore)

Please restore the article. Billy Glide is now a full-fledged (albeit posthumous) member of the the AVN Hall of Fame and thus meets the requirement of pornographic actors guidelines.|}} ^[1] Holanthony ( talk) 11:14, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• This was an expired WP:PROD. -- Stefan2 ( talk) 16:41, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

So does that mean one can restore the article without hassle? If so, how? Holanthony ( talk) 17:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• At WP:REFUND.— S Marshall T/ C 19:04, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Just made the request on your behalf. 103.6.159.78 ( talk) 19:08, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer) ( talk| | history| logs| links| watch) ( XfD| restore)

3 distinct and separate issues here. The only one that I believe is relevant here, is that the closing admin, User:Sandstein, completely ignored the long–established and project–accepted notability guideline, that all players who've played at the first-class cricket level are notable. During the AfD, this guideline was mentioned, but the detailed WP:CRIN page was linked, which is on a WP:CRICKET page, and not the WP:NCRIC section on the WP:NSPORTS summary of all sports notability guidelines page (the basic content and intent of the 2 pages are identical, especially when applied to this player). When I queried this with the closing admin, he claimed not to know about the subject specific guidelines for athletes, which I find astounding for an 9-year admin who closes biographical AfDs.

The 2nd and 3rd issues are whether CRIN should be revised, and whether this player is himself notable. These should be, IMO, discussed at WT:CRICKET and at a relisted AFD, respectively. Personally, if this is the place to debate all 3 points, I am in favour of retaining CRIN as it stands, because until someone can review all relevant local newspapers and other references from the time contemporary to each player's playing era, the CRIN assumption that everyone who plays major cricket is notable, makes sense to me. Hence I am also in favour of all first class cricketers, even a single game player from Sri Lanka 25 years ago who we don't yet know his first name or date of birth, are notable enough for an article. I didn't notice the AfD so didn't vote in it, but if I did, I would've mainly focused on the CRIN/NCRIC guideline, which was disregarded anyway. The-Pope ( talk) 12:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Undelete Overturn and relist I supported the deletion of this article at the AfD based upon it failing to meet the requirements of the WP:GNG. However, on reading WP:N, it states that an article must meet GNG or a linked guideline, in this case the WP:NCRIC section of WP:NSPORTS. Given that S. Perera does meet NCRIC, GNG is irrelevant, and this article should have been retained. Harrias ^talk 12:37, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

And this is a big problem at Wikipedia that has remained unaddressed for years: do subject-specific notability guidelines "trump" GNG? According to WP:N they do, but according to WP:NSPORT, for example, they don't: question 1 of the FAQ on the top of that page says, "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them." St Anselm ( talk) 13:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I don't disagree. But that is a discussion way beyond the purview of this forum. The guidelines need to internally consistent. In this case, the FAQ on WP:NSPORTS also says "Wikipedia editors have been very liberal in allowing for adequate time, particularly for cases where English language sources are difficult to find." And, in the lead of that guideline, "Failing to meet the criteria in this guideline means that notability will need to be established in other ways (e.g. the general notability guideline." I'm not necessarily using these to try and support my position, but to demonstrate how inconsistent the guidelines are. On that basis, at the moment, I think we would benefit from erring on the side of caution and remain inclusionist. After a suitable discussion about the consistency of the guidelines, probably as an RfC, further action could then be taken. Harrias ^talk 16:20, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Undelete as they pass WP:NCRIC, and therefore should never have been deleted, per what User:Harrias said above. Joseph2302 ( talk) 12:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Closing admin's comment: I stand by my closure. The notability guideline mentioned above wasn't referenced in the discussion, only an essay with a similar name, which is why I gave opinions based on the essay less weight. I am not familiar with all topic-specific notability guidelines for niche topics such as cricket, and assume that if any exist, they will be referenced in the discussion.

  Even though an actual guideline has now been identified, I think that the "delete" outcome remains correct: The problem identified by the majority "delete" opinions was essentially a WP:V issue: there is apparently so little information about this person that editors could not tell whether he was the same person as the subject of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), which was uncontestedly deleted based on a similar discussion.

  The article read, in its entirety:

"S. Perera was a Sri Lankan cricketer who played for Old Cambrians. Perera made a single first-class appearance, during the 1991/92 season, against Antonians Sports Club. Batting in the tailend, he scored 7 runs in the first innings and 4 not out in the second. He took figures of 1-61 in the only innings in which he bowled."

The only cited source was cricketarchive.com, an apparently user-contributed website, which raises WP:BLP questions also. The minority "keep" side did not address the verifiability problems identified by the "delete" side, but instead argued on the basis of a guideline that can only indicate a presumption of notability. I agree with Spartaz who closed the other AfD (about perhaps the same person) that in such cases opinions based on core policies outweigh those based on notability guidelines, and therefore give the "keep" opinions less weight.  Sandstein  12:59, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Undelete following WP:NCRIC and note the poor response of Sandstein to the question being raised on his user talk page. The method of approach was unwise and I get why Sandstein was irked, but the reasoning he used re notability was clearly flawed based on the extra information presented to him, and the who-cares attitude in his response (my interpretation) reflects poorly on him. DRV should not have been needed here, Sandstein should have reversed his close as inconsistent with policy. I see he has posted here (I got an edit conflict) to argue for deletion based on WP:V, but the relevant references are probably in printed Sri Lankan newspapers. References are not required to be online. Keeping articles on cricketers with a single first-class appearance in Australia or New Zealand or England with an online newspaper reference in English but deleting articles for similar cricketers whose sole appearance was in the West Indies or Zimbabwe or Sri Lanka for lack of a convenient online reference (however it is dressed up) looks poor, in my view, even if the WP:V arguments never actually get to why convenient references are absent. EdChem ( talk) 13:09, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion: The closing rationale was misguided. However, the old tradition had already been broken at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer). There it was rightly determined that the subject failed WP:GNG. According to WP:NSPORT, WP:NCRIC does not take precedence over WP:GNG, which is still a requirement for an article to be kept. But the wider community needs to sort out this confusion between GNG and subject-specific guidelines. St Anselm ( talk) 13:35, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse and relist Congratulations to Sandstein for not knowing all the notability guidelines – they are only there for guidance and he was there to assess the discussion, not the guidelines. However, the article needs to be discussed again to see whether there is satisfactory material for any sort of article ( WP:V) even if this cricketer is inherently notable, and to reassess notability. Thincat ( talk) 13:50, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Please undelete. There is a single, simple rule which can be made applicable for *every* situation. Setting arbitrary guidelines is not the way to go. I'm not trying to defend "my own" article, nor the hundreds of other articles I have created which fall under exactly the same criteria as S. Perera, but I feel consistency is important. If you wish to redraw the lines as regards subject specific notability (yes, I know WP:BIO trumps them all, but please stick with me), that could threaten hundreds, if not thousands, of articles on Wikipedia, not just in cricket, but in all four major North American sports as well as football.

If another argument is regarding the authenticity of Cricket Archive, once again, this will affect tens of thousands of articles on Wikipedia, which would take more than a single AfD debate to fix. And surely in that case the burden of debate as to authenticity automatically relies on the questioner. As for "minority" keep, the original deletion discussion is completely without any form of rationale, one !vote is from an unregistered user, "User account "Rainbow unicorn" is not registered. If you wish to use "Rainbow unicorn" as your username, please make a request at Wikipedia:Changing username.", one is "as per" the unregistered user... remove these two delete votes, there are only two actual delete votes, one of which is from an IP address. I've never known these to be accepted. Bobo . 15:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Note, "Rainbow unicorn" did exist at the time, but the account has since been renamed. Even if that were not the case, if the rationale is sound and there is no suspicion of sock puppetry, then it can be considered when determining consensus. StAnselm, who also supported deletion as a "per" is perfectly entitled to that position, even if the other user was a suspicious vote; they were simply stating their reasons for deletion. In any case, those actually took place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer), not Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/S. Perera (Old Cambrians cricketer), to which this review concerns. Harrias ^talk 16:11, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Literally can't read. Sorry Harrias. You are right. The fact that there have been two articles in a short space of time for cricketers with the same name... that confused me! :D Sorry. Should we bring the other article up for deletion review too? I could just copy and paste what I wrote above! ;) Bobo . 16:15, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Valid close but Relist - I believe that an AfD closer must determine the consensus outcome based on the strength of the arguments that were actually made in the discussion - not based on the arguments that should have been made. WP:NCRIC was not mentioned in the discussion, and for Sandstein to have relied upon it in closing would have amounted to a supervote. That said, it remains unclear whether the deletion of the article represents the wider consensus. How WP:NCRIC, WP:V and WP:GNG should interact in this specific case needs to be argued on the AfD page, not here. Thparkth ( talk) 16:54, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I guess Relist Endorse - my mind has been changed by recent comments. My original comments and date stamp below. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 15:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

to my mind WP:SPORTCRIT is asking for rather more than WP:CRIN - and as the parent guideline it seems odd to me that that should be so. But that should probably be tested, hence the suggestion of relisting. Whether it will be is another issue. At the same time I would completely endorse the position taken by the closing admin on the AfD. The arguments made for delete, especially the final one, are strong imo. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 20:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse. I read a consensus to delete. Although I can't see the article, it sounds very much like a dearth of reliable secondary sources, and with a question on whether there are *any* reliable sources. Throws to a WikiProject guideline are not good enough. Even the proper sub-notability guidelines are presumptions that attempt to predict what will happen at AfD, once at AfD ou have to produce the sourcing evidence of notability. None was presented. Future attempts to recreate need to be based on better sources. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:26, 6 December 2015 (UTC) cricketarchive.com, as a user-contributed website, is not a reliable source for Wikipedia. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• CricketArchive is completely moderated and controlled by highly respected editors, its reliability is not at doubt, whatsoever. And, S. Perera is also listed at ESPNCricinfo ( http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka/content/player/50029.html) too. The-Pope ( talk) 23:32, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Indeed. CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo are no more "user-contributed" than the New York Times is. If CricketArchive isn't a reliable source then the majority of WikiProject Cricket's articles would have to be deleted. IgnorantArmies (talk) 12:10, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Even if moderated and controlled (are they criteria for reliability?), the information contained is insufficient to verify, insufficient to exclude other "S Perera"s, and the combination of both sources (NB they appear to not be independent of each other) is insufficient material to start an article. The best that could be done is to add the name to a list of players on the cricket team. Fill out Old Cambrians Sports Club before creating biographies stubs of putative players. An article cannot be based on a single NYTimes article either. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:38, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

@ SmokeyJoe and SmokeyJoe:, where have you got the idea from that CricketArchive is "user-contributed". That is nonsense. It has nothing to do with WP. It is independent and has nothing to do with ESPNcricinfo except in terms of rivalry, perhaps. In fact, they sometimes disagree and so the fact that they are in accord re Perera strengthens his verification because not one but two reliable sources agree that he played in a major match and so meets the SSC of NCRIC within WP:ATHLETE. For what it's worth, by the way, Perera is a common name and I would guess there are two people here, not one. Jack | ^{talk page} 08:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

The sources don't even give the subject's name. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:54, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

What do you mean, they don't even give his name? His name is Perera and his first name initial is S. His full first name and his date of birth are presently unknown and can be added later if found in another source. What the two independent and reliable sources give is verification that a man called S. Perera played in major cricket for the Old Cambrians and is therefore presumed to be notable per the SSC of WP:ATHLETE. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:11, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

I mean it doesn't uniquely identify the subject, it doesn't even give the subject's name with enough detail to exclude a large number of other subjects. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The topic clearly fails WP:N. There is no encyclopaedic material to justify a standalone article. There is no secondary source information, just a bit of WP:PRIMARY source material. What information there is is appropriate for no more than a list. The arguments that the topic meets WP:NCRIC support the old arguments against the proliferation of notability subguidlines, and the tight control the community has maintained on admitting new subnotability guidelines. In recent years, the trend to merge subnotability guidelines into omnibus pages means an end-run around the community control of the detail of the guidelines. WP:NCRIC is obviously inadequate. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 23:04, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Relist not considering the relevant subject-specific notability guideline is a significant flaw in the discussion and enough to justify revisiting the issue, although if we don't get better sourcing I imagine the article will have to be deleted under WP:V. This certainly doesn't look like the closing admin's fault though. Hut 8.5 23:18, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. The closer states that he gave no weight to WP:CRIN, but the applicable guideline, WP:NCRIC, cites WP:CRIN as a reliable explanation of the guideline, so it should not have been wholly discounted. However, before a keep decision can be reached, the basic BLP issues must be resolved. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo) ( talk) 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse- There was clearly a consensus to delete. Claiming the close should be overturned because Sandstein did not rely on a subject-specific guideline that nobody mentioned in the debate is wrong. As is the assumption that SNGs trump the GNG. In any case, NCRIC sets the bar rather too low. Also, several participants in the AfD mentioned that there is not really anything to say about this cricketer. It was not even possible to distinguish him from possibly another cricketer with the same name. That's a strong argument for deletion and the closer did right to give it a lot of weight. Reyk _YO! 06:57, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Relist. Wikipedia:Notability (sports) states in bold: "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below". The "sport specific criteria" for cricket is in WP:NCRIC which references WP:CRIN "for further information" and states in bold that a cricket figure is presumed notable if he or she "has appeared in at least one major cricket match since 1697 as a player or umpire" (plus other criteria not at issue here). Major cricket matches include those which are officially first-class: i.e., a double innings game scheduled to take place over a period of three to five days between two teams of a recognised high standard. Any player who takes part in such a game is therefore a major player who meets the sport specific criteria for notability. Evidently, those involved in the AfD process for Perera only made reference to WP:CRIN and the closing admin saw this is a project-based guideline only because it is not the sport specific criteria (WP:NCRIC) stated in WP:Notability. Strictly speaking, he is correct but it is all very pedantic as, in fact, the content of WP:NCRIC has been copied verbatim from the opening paragraph of WP:CRIN. There is a clear lesson to be learned by WP:CRIC members which is to always cite WP:NCRIC at the outset and then to use WP:CRIN for further information. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:26, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn and relist. Admins can't be expected to know everyone notability guideline and the issue wasn't helped here by people using the old shorthand (CRIN) instead the newer 'official' one (NCRIC). But when it's pointed out that the closure was based on a flawed assumption, you'd think the least that could be done would be to undo the closure. I am unconvinced by Sandstein's justification here, which strikes me as a good AfD vote but a poor closure, and to me it seems at least slightly hypocritical to say that you can't give NCRIC any weight because it wasn't mentioned while at the same time justifying your close by citing V and BLP when neither were mentioned by any of the participants. Additionally, CricketArchive is a completely reliable source as anyone who has even a vague understanding of the topic area would be able to tell you. Jenks24 ( talk) 10:30, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • I don't see where Sandstein has cited V or BLP in the close, or in the discussion on their user talk page. Can you provide a diff? Reyk _YO! 11:50, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • Above, where he wrote this EdChem ( talk) 12:24, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • V and BLP are well known and it's safe to presume they inform all debates without need for explicit citation. NCRIC on the other hand is far less well known. SageGreenRider ( talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
        • It would also be safe to assume that NCRIC is relevant to all debates about the notability of a cricketer, whether its explicitly cited or not. Anyway, I don't disagree with admins knowing policy and applying it in their closures, what I disagree with here is an admin who was made a closure based on an incorrect assumption and is unwilling to undo it when that's pointed out, saying that the exact guideline was not mentioned in the discussion. Instead, they have hypocritically justified their decision with policies that were not mentioned in the discussion. Jenks24 ( talk) 11:16, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Undelete per NCRIC. -- Dweller ( talk) 15:55, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Overturn. I see no point in relisting this one, as any discussion about NCRIC/CRIN should take place at the Cricket Project, not in the marginalia of an individual article. I think we should be discussing the restoration of S. Perera (Kurunegala Youth Cricket Club cricketer) as well, as it was deleted under very similar circumstances. And maybe, if we have any Sri Lankan editors, we could ask them to investigate locally whether these are one and the same, or two different people. Johnlp ( talk) 18:02, 7 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse deletion I proposed the deletion because I believe NCRIC is only a guideline to be viewed in the larger GNG context. I'll allow a "Local boy makes good" article in the local rag. But GNG is more stringent than only one source. It insists on multiple, intellectually independent, reliable sources. It is not plausible that such sources exist in this case. SageGreenRider ( talk) 00:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

SageGreenRider we have two impeccable reliable sources for him already, Cricinfo and CricketArchive. -- Dweller ( talk) 09:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. Read WP:ATHLETE and you will see in bold at the top that a person must meet either its SSC OR GNG in order to be presumed notable, not both. If he meets NCRIC, which he does, then GNG is superfluous and is irrelevant to discussions like this one or the AfD. As for multiple reliable sources, there are at least two with CricketArchive and ESPNcricinfo in accord about the existence of this player and the fact he played in major cricket match. There are certainly others including Wisden and relevant Sri Lankan annuals, plus newspaper archives in a country where cricket receives extensive media coverage. Obviously, if anyone is able to find something in Wisden or in a local source, we will use it. In practice, however, where book sources are not to hand, we have to rely on the two online sources for WP:V and, in this case, they agree Perera was a major player. Jack | ^{talk page} 09:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

No - GNG is the primary criterion - SSC is a short-cut to determining that the article probably meets GNG. What we call presumption of notability. The first section on that page after the lead says, "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline." St Anselm ( talk) 13:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Precisely. What people seem to be missing is that meeting some SNG is a rebuttable presumption of notability. Meeting one wikiproject's guideline does not ever guarantee an article. It can always be overruled if a consensus of editors decides blind adherence to some SNG would be a bad idea. That is what happened here. In fact, if some wikiproject's SNG tends to allow lots of essentially empty, unexpandable microstubs containing only statistical information (like this case) then that's an argument for tightening up the SNG, not for the production of more microstubs. Reyk _YO! 14:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse - I'm the IP user who voted "delete" on both S. Perera AfDs. The two main concerns with articles like these are WP:SINGLEEVENT and most importantly WP:PSEUDO. WP:PSEUDO says, "If the person is notable only in connection with a single event, and little or no other information is available to use in the writing of a balanced biography, that person should be covered in an article regarding the event, with the person's name as a redirect to the event article placing the information in context". WP:SINGLEEVENT says, "When the role played by an individual in the event is less significant, an independent article may not be needed, and a redirect is appropriate." In this case, as there is no article on the event (the first-class match), we may consider creating "List of cricketers who have played for Old Cambrians" and redirect S. Perera to that page. 117.192.162.174 ( talk) 06:15, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment. PSEUDO is an essay. SINGLEEVENT isn't relevant here: we're talking about someone taking part in sport at the top level in their country, not a news event. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:50, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Yes, he is in the wrong area of NOTABILITY: it is ATHLETE that is relevant here, not SINGLEEVENT. PSEUDO is an opinion only, not even a guideline. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:22, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Although PSEUDO is an essay, it pretty much says the same thing SINGLEEVENT does. I don't know why SINGLEEVENT can not be applied here. He is notable only because of that one match and no other details are available for the person to warrant a separate article. WikiProject Cricket members are setting a bad example here trying to justify the creation of a substandard article which has no basic information about the subject. There are thousands of cricketers who have played several major cricket matches and are covered in various reliable sources, but we don't yet have articles about them. WikiProject Cricket seems to think that players with a single match appearance (especially the obscure ones with unknown first name and DOB) are more important than those with multiple appearances. 117.192.178.154 ( talk) 12:48, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• I don't mind if my opinion is given "lesser weight" or even "zero weight" just because I'm an IP user. I've been contributing to Wikipedia regularly for almost seven years now as an IP user. I'm here to improve already existing articles, not to attribute contributions to my name or anything else. Thank you, I'm out of this discussion. 117.192.178.154 ( talk) 13:05, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Please don't go! Most of us believe in WP:IPHUMAN and you can safely ignore those that don't SageGreenRider ( talk) 13:32, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Sources. Click here for the ESPNcricinfo record of S. Perera and click here for his CricketArchive record. Both of these are independent, reliable and reputable sources which are widely recognised throughout the world of cricket which is, incidentally, the world's second most popular spectator sport (after football). As for the match he played in, the scorecard is here. The match was in the Saravanamuttu Trophy which is a major domestic tournament in Sri Lanka and played at the Tyronne Fernando Stadium which has been used for Test cricket. The two available sources cannot be faulted and there are certainly many more book, magazine and newspaper sources which are not currently to hand. This man is a major cricket player who meets the SSC of WP:NCRIC within WP:ATHLETE. Jack | ^{talk page} 11:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Comment- the WP:NOT policy states that "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". The only thing it is possible to say about this cricketer is statistics from the one second-tier game he played. There is no possibility of any sort of explanatory text. Therefore, this article should not be restored. Reyk _YO! 12:24, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• The article was a stub which had not been enlarged but that could easily be done. For example, in my above entry I have commented on the Saravanamuttu Trophy and the Tyronne Fernando Stadium. It would be no problem to provide useful background information for the benefit of a reader who knows little about Sri Lankan cricket. There is, therefore, ample scope for explanatory text. In any case, assuming the article was written in a similar way to other stubs presently under discussion, the statistics are very briefly mentioned and so in their proper context already. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Endorse, I'm a cricket lover, but cases like this pretty much point to why the "one first class game and you're notable" notability guideline is a terrible idea. There's nothing here to build an article on, and a bare Cricinfo page with some statistics and nothing else doesn't even remotely qualify for meeting the GNG. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 13:03, 8 December 2015 (UTC). reply

• GNG is irrelevant here. He meets the SSC of WP:NCRIC in WP:ATHLETE and that is sufficient. A biographical article must satisfy either the SSC or the GNG, not both. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• I am afraid you are misinformed - SSC are a guide to the sorts of articles that probably meet the GNG, not a replacement for the GNG. And to be frank, as the SSC allows biographies of living persons without much in the way of reliable sources to actually document them, it should be withdrawn and completely overhauled. Lankiveil ^{( speak to me)} 03:15, 10 December 2015 (UTC). reply

• Endorse. The close reasonably reflects the consensus of the participants. Note: I !voted to delete. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Consensus is not the issue. The nominator is concerned about the failure to observe notability guidelines which is why so much of the discussion is focused on NCRIC. Jack | ^{talk page} 13:36, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse When two guidelines conflict the closer has to look at wider community expectations as well has how the two guidelines interract in making the decision. In the case of Notability the GNG tends be a trump card. If an article fails an SNG but passes the GNG then it is generally kept as that is the overarching guide. For bios, the SNG is a guide to content that is likely to pass the GNG but cannot trump if the GNG is clearly shown to not be met. There is a list of precedents on this as long as my arm and endorsing the close on that basis is well within DRV normal outcomes and consistent with wider community expectations on sourcing bios. Spartaz ^Humbug! 14:59, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Comment Spartaz, Blue Square Thing and others... Those presenting this or considering this as an argument between GNG and project notability criteria, that's a false dichotomy. We have two reliable sources that consider this subject in detail, ie they dedicate at least one page to this person - in the case of Cricket Archive, several pages. Why is that not a sufficient claim to GNG - at least to be properly reassessed as such? -- Dweller ( talk) 15:42, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • The GNG requires non-trivial coverage. That doesn't seem to exist. There simply isn't enough to hang a bio on based on the content of the article at the time of deletion. Do the sources actually have anything of consequence beyond this? Do we know where he coached? What education he had? How he got interested in cricket? Family? Influences on his game? I believe all of that is absent so my personal view is that GNG is not met here. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:52, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • (ec) Because these "pages" consist of a single column of statistics in the case of cricinfo, and a single row of hyperlinks in the case of cricketarchive. By no objective standard is it possible to consider this detailed or significant coverage. The "several pages" on cricketarchive seems to be about two different people with the same surname and first initial. I'm honestly starting to wonder if this whole article and DRV is not just an experiment to see how much one can get away with around here. Reyk _YO! 15:57, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
    • I take offence at that comment User:Reyk: "experiment to see how much bullshit one can get away with". I'm here to improve the encyclopedia, not insult others or question their motives (and Mr IP, please don't question the order in which editors create articles - just thank them that they do create articles). As for your previous comment of "The only thing it is possible to say about this cricketer is statistics from the one second-tier game he played. There is no possibility of any sort of explanatory text." How can you say "no possibility"? GOOGLE DIDN'T EXIST BACK THEN. Of course we all know that there is a lack of information available now. Yes, it will be hard to find any more info - but I thought we were meant to try to start to address systemic bias, I'd always be more generous with articles like this than a similar player from Sussex or NSW. But despite all the mud chucking at the quality of CricketArchive, it is absolutely certain that a man named S. Perara played first class cricket (so WP:MUSTBESOURCES doesn't really apply). And yes, that's about all we know at the moment. As I wrote on WT:CRICKET this morning, the key question is does the NCRIC/CRIN SNG allow for that to be enough for now, or does GNG need to be met now. Half of us think one way, half the other. And I don't think we'll change many minds. But Sandstein's closing comment about CRIN "carries no particular weight" was improper and blatantly wrong. If he said "CRIN was considered but was outweighed by the lack of GNG, and I think that there is only a low chance that GNG will be met in the near future", I wouldn't have even listed it here. The-Pope ( talk) 17:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
      • I don't recall badmouthing CricketArchives. I described its pages about S. Perera as some statistical entries and links to match scorecards, which is exactly what they are. Why would you interpret that as "mud chucking"? Let's face the facts here. If it's not even possible to determine a person's given name from all the available sources, or to distinguish him from people with similar names, then there is not enough for an article. And if after a week of AfD and several days of DRV there's still only the two statistical entries at two websites whose business it is to collect all such statistics, then it's a fair bet that nothing more will ever turn up. Database entries of this kind are about the most trivial coverage imaginable. I struggle to imagine a source containing less actual content. So to hear them described as "consider[ing] this subject in detail" is astonishing. It's so completely out of touch with reality that I can genuinely only wonder what games are being played here. Reyk _YO! 18:26, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
  • My reasoning is that I have significant concerns about the ways in which the guidelines for specific sports are being used and that the sourcing in this specific case is actually not really strong enough. When I look at WP:GNG I see a reasonable suggestion that notability needs to be shown with reference to multiple, non-trivial independent sources. When I look at WP:SPORTCRIT I see the same sort of thing - the idea of looking for multiple, independent, non-trivial sources to support an article. I accept that there can be difficulties with that, particularly outside the Anglophone areas of the globe and when delving further back in time. But SPORTCRIT, which is the basic notability standard for sports people, certainly seems to match quite well the way in which the GNG asks for support for an article. It then goes on to say that The guidelines on this page are intended to reflect the fact that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level (such as the Olympics). (my emphasis). I read "likely to" as suggesting just that - certainly not that there is a necessity for them to meet the basic standards of notability. The reference to the Olympics is also quite interesting and may merit some discussion wrt whether first-class cricket (let alone List A etc...) necessarily is actually at the level which is suggested by it's direct parent notability criteria.

I then see a whole host of specific sport related criteria, including WP:NCRIC, which state that someone is "presumed notable" if they have taken part in an event at a set level. OK - but it strikes me as strange that suddenly we're losing any requirement for non-trivial, independent sourcing at this level of things. SPORTCRIT - the direct parent of NCRIC - wants it; the GNG wants it; but at the level of independent sports suddenly we don't seem to require it - simply a name on a scorecard, a football programme, on the back page of the EDP or whatever. That seems really odd and I'm not entirely sure what is intended when we do that - it feels like we're suddenly removing the key principles of non-trivial referencing (not to mention, in this specific case, the issue of verifiability).

I tend to think we need to get back to the GNG and SPORTCRIT (and, by the way, WP:BLP might come into play in this specific case - but we actually don't know because the sourcing is so sketchy...) and look for non-trivial sourcing rather more with this sort of article. I wonder, incidentally, how many people have been involved in the development and use of the GNG? I would suggest that it has had a much more significant involvement than the development of individual sports notability criteria - I wonder, for example, whether it is possible for a very small number of editors to develop a sports notability criteria in such a way as to allow massive inclusion when the direct parent (SPORTCRIT) and the overarching GNG are essentially subject to much wider scrutiny. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 19:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• Overturn and relist The relation of the gng to the subject specific guidelines in sports is disputed, but in some cases it is clear that meeting the subject specific guideline is enough, as for Olympic athletes. The arguments here belong in the AfD, and if we need a RfC on sports guideline, then we should have one. An admin unfamiliar with the relevant guidelines should not close an afd discussion. DGG ( talk ) 17:00, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• endorse and relist. Weakish sources have been now provided and meets a SNG which really didn't get discussed. Let's see where this goes now that we are more likely to have a fully informed discussion. Basically agree with the reasoning of Hut 8.5. Hobit ( talk) 17:19, 8 December 2015 (UTC) reply
• Endorse The close was a reasonable summary of the discussion. What's puzzling is why the cricket project considers such an ephemeral club to be first class. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• It isn't up to us, it's an official designation. It simply is first-class. Consideration doesn't come into it. Harrias ^talk 18:09, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

This is silly. What harm does this article do? Wikipedia is not paper; if you don't want to read about an obscure Sri Lankan cricketer from the 1990s, please read something else. This is not an indiscriminate collection of statistical data: it is a very short biography containing the sourced and verifiable information known about one particular notable person.

We clearly have a person who played in the highest level of domestic cricket in Sri Lanka (that is, a first-class cricket match). They even scored some runs, and took a wicket! That is clearly enough to make someone notable. (There are a few "one-match wonders" who played in first-class matches without batting, bowling or taking a catch, and I would say they are notable too; a fortiori the many One-Test wonders.) We just don't have the sources to say much about this particular person, or even to confirm if they might be the same person as one of the other people called "S. Perera" who played another first-class cricket match (that is not a problem: as happens when we find we have two article about the same subject in other circumstances, we can just merge them together later if necessary). Obscurity and difficulty of finding sources does not mean non-notable. We suspect that there will be some coverage about him in the contemporary sources in Sri Lanka. But as this was in 1991-2, those sources are likely offline in a library somewhere in Sri Lanka. (In the UK, you could go to one of the online databases of historic newspapers, such as the British Newspaper Archive. But in this case that option does not help - unless a helpful Sri Lankan editor can point us at their online archive? No? Shame: so cricketers from the global south or from the pre-internet age are less notable than cricketers with equivalent achievements from the global north or previous decades, eh?)

Compare A. Haslam, a person who captained a team that won an Olympic gold medal in 1900, and yet some sources doubt that he was even called "A. Haslam". Perhaps he was "HA Harlan" or "HN Haslow". [63] Perhaps something else. Can anyone say for sure? When was he born, when did he die? What other matches did he play in? What education did he have? Who were his family, etc, etc. We just don't know. The paucity of information in the available contemporary sources is striking: very little attention was given to the second Olympiad, and the football was billed as just a minor international match played between an existing team from each of the three participating countries, not even proper national sides. So is this a "one event" situation where there is insufficient coverage about this person in reliable secondary sources, so this Olympic medal winner is non-notable? (That would be ridiculous.) Or should we assume notability, on the basis that the person is clearly notable and better sources may be discovered one day? And if that is the case here, why not for this first-class cricketer?

Look, we have a whole category tree of unidentified people. Who was the person from Porlock? Did they even exist? Who was the Falling Man? The fact that we cannot say very much about them does not mean they are not notable. This is just the sort of entry that a comprehensive enyclopedia should contain. Ferma ( talk) 20:01, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

We don't delete articles because we're running out of paper or server bandwidth. We delete them as service to our readers. "What," you say, "a service?" Yes, a service. The most basic piece of information about a topic that our readers want to know is "Is it important?" "Is this person notable?" If there's an article here, the answer is yes. If you want an indiscriminate collection of information, use Google. The test we use is substantial coverage in reliable sources. There is substantial coverage in reliable sources of the falling man, the man from Porlock, and Olympic gold medallist and team captain A. Haslam. In those cases the sources are to hand and cited in the article and verifiable. The problem with S. Perera is that is implausible that his cricket appearance ever produced substantial coverage in reliable sources and even less plausible that such source will ever surface for verification. The lack of identification is not a problem in itself. The problem is it presents an insurmountable barrier to ever overturning the consensus of this community that the subject is not notable by our definition. SageGreenRider ^talk 21:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Are you saying that an English cricketer who played in one first-class match (and happens to appear in a couple of contemporary newspaper reports that we can find) is more notable than a Sri Lankan player (who probably did appear in similar Sri Lankan newspapers, but we can't locate the reports). If so, way to go in countering systemic bias in our coverage! If playing first-class cricket in England is a clear indication of notability, the same must apply in Sri Lanka (or Bangladesh, or Zimbabwe, or anywhere else).

This article is not an indiscriminate collection of information. It is a discriminating collection of information that is contextualised and categorised. The existing guideline very clearly selects only cricketers who have played first-class cricket (that is, the highest form of domestic cricket) or the more significant forms of international cricket, or those who otherwise qualify under a more general heading. We know that a player called "S. Perera" played first class cricket. That creates a presumption that they are notable.

As to the "substantial coverage in reliable sources" of A. Haslam, what "substantial coverage in reliable sources"? The sole reference in our article as it stands, sports-reference.com? That just repeats the same sort of bare bones facts derived fom primary sources that Cricinfo and CricketArchive have for S. Perera (but note that the biographical pages for S. Perera on Cricinfo and CricketArchive are secondary sources, just like sports-reference.com: the primary source is the scorecard). If that is the basis for saying S. Perera is not notable, then clearly A. Haslam (or whatever his name is - see above) is not notable either. Ferma ( talk) 18:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC) reply

Its a collection of information that does not even have the name and date of birth of the player. That's not systemic bias - its a simple lack of data on which to hang an article. If an English cricketer was in the same boat we shouldn't host that article either. 62.25.109.196 ( talk) 10:04, 11 December 2015 (UTC) reply

• "What harm does this article do?" It is not about harm, but about organisation. The material belongs in a list, not in a standalone article. There is no encyclopedic prose content, and there is no sign that there ever will be. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 22:28, 9 December 2015 (UTC) reply